My last blurt on this:
> CB: Hey Rob, yes and subsequent to his book, in a talk to the recent conference in
>Essen _on_ Lenin, he said Lenin's theory of imperialism has nothing to teach us about
>finance today. If that was his attitude in writing _Wallstreet_ it has to cast heavy
>suspicions as to whether he could really get down and dirty with how modern American
>finance works and how it's conected to the real world".<
Well if you've read the book, you'll have made up your mind on the only
evidence that counts, Chas.
>CB: That's great. He also, in response to me on email thoroughly says
"monopoly" or "state-monopoly" are not apt ways of describing capitalism
today, so it is difficult to see how he could thoroughly understand capitalism today.<
Well, maybe he's getting at the fact that the *competition* for share prices
and, among fund managers, for the accounts of pension funds etc, is a major
driver of what's happening around us. Perhaps he feels 'monopoly' isn't the
right word to describe a system to which this dynamic is so important. Doug
writes that one Marxist whose theory of financial control who changes the
thrust of his theory to fit the empirical evidence of the day was Sweezy, and
he gives examples of the industry'finance nexus on page 262 0f the first
edition, and he talks about finance's capacity to control indebted entities,
and he concludes "the opinion of the markets (as opposed to banks - ed) -
essentially the richest 1-2% of Americans ... - is now the final word on
economic and social policy" - so we have class rule, but we do not have a
ruling class as conscious monolith, because these markets ain't quite directly
controllable by anyone (as seems sadly evident these days). Now, Doug might
be more the empiricist than the likes of us (although I disagree with you at
least as often as I disagree with Doug, so that doesn't add up to a lot, I
suggest), but Doug's take sounds tenable and it hardly contradicts a Marxian
take, I'd've thought.
>It may be a simple point , but it's very fundamental to not apprehend
monopoly and state-monopoly if you are going to espouse expertise on American
finance capital 2001. It is also thoroughly misleading to those who might
admire his good work in other areas.<
Why? Where in my attempt to summarise Doug on this do you take such crucial
exception, Charles?
> Also, on email, he very much vacillates on whether he is definite about the idea
>that capitalism has to go. I guess that is sort of implied in his call for market
>socialism.
Well, I admit to finding it hard to put all Doug's thinking together these
days, but I agree entirely with him that those who do the socialist revolting
(should there ever be such people) will be the products of capitalism, in a
world of capitalist structures, and with many and varied mouths to feed as
from day one. Seems to me the market socialist position (which, I agree with
Mark, is of course heir to much of what Marx takes capitalism to task for) is
an admission of how large scale socialist transformation is gonna have to be.
Yeah, I know - I'm a menshevik ...
> Marx did not call for market socialism. In that regard, Lenin is closer to Marx
>than Henwood is.<
Did Marx expressly forbid market socialism, or something? I musta missed that
bit. And why was Lenin's 'war communism' in such dramatic need of reappraisal
(as, er, predicted by the mensheviks) in 1921? Was the NEP not a necessary
and overdue return to sanctioned small-holder-based markets? Did Lenin not
tell the 10th Congress " ... unrestricted trade ... will be inevitable ...
because it conforms to the economic conditions ... we must satisfy the middle
peasantry economically and go over to free exchange"? Did he not insist on
concessions to foreign capital, aid for co-operatives, and the leasing of
state factories to private persons? Did he not say of 'war communism'
"experience has proved that we were wrong" - that "transitional stages were necessary"?
Now, I know this is 2001 and that wasn't, but ain't there just a vague
possibility Lenin and Henwood are closer than either might like to admit on this?
> CB: Yea, it's Marxian , but not Marxist. The aggravating aspect is the implication
>that _Wallstreet_ is closer to Marx than _Imperialism_. This is a gross
>misrepresentation, the pretense that the eclectic use of bits and pieces of Marx is
>closer than Leninism.<
Wasn't the NEP an instance of Leninism, then?
> CB: As I say, Doug's analysis and book are as good as far as they go. He should be
>praised for what is good, and criticized for what is bad in it, don't you think ?
>Why because he made a contribution should he be exempted from criticism for his
>shortcomings ?<
I criticise Doug's arguments without hesitation when I disagree with him. But
on Doug's list (I think he's gawn waaay too far in the Hardt/Negri direction
on 'globalisation' for instance - too abstract and too forgiving of too much
shit, as I've told him). I'm only piping up here because you accidentally
posted Mark's critical note here, and Doug's not here to respond to those
criticisms. I think *Wall St* is the best book on the institutions of capital
today that I've yet read. Good on him. Sure, I'd've liked a chapter from
afar - on the deep dynamics of it all. But I'd've like Anna Karenina to have
found lasting love, too ...
>His book and speeches help to radicalize some, but it is necessary also to
criticize him for the shortcomings, and specifically not let him get away with.<
Well, I don't think you've done this, Charles. All you've said is that *Wall
St* ain't like Lenin said. Which precise bits of the book does that make
wrong? Or haven't you actually read it?
C'mon, let's try to be fair, eh?
Cheers,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
