>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/01 10:27AM >>>
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: From reading the book and talking to Doug , I think that he does not get all the
way down and dirty with how modern American finance works, because he doesn't have a
correct or full theory, or speak from a working class struggle perspective.
>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.
(((((((((
CB: Perhaps, he feels that way, but that would be a failure to notice that Lenin
definition of monopoly is that it is a contradiction of monopoly and competition, so
that a mechanism of competition driving things today would fit, not break Lenin's
concept of monopoly. He doesn't seem to get Lenin's concepts fully, so he ends up
saying things that affirm Lenin, but declares that they contradict him. One of the
most succinct statements of this principle is quoted in Nitkin's _Fundamentals of
Political Economy_:
"Imperialism cannot eliminate competition. 'In fact it is this combination of
antagonistic principles, viz, competition and monopoly, that is the essence of
imperialism, ...' quoting Lenin "Comments on the Remarks Made by the Committee of the
April All-Russian Conference, Collected Works, Bol. 24, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1974, p465).
Lenin clearly discusses monopoly competition as _fiercer_ than the competition in the
pre-imperialist phase of capitalism. So, you see, the evidence you present is just
more evidence supporting the freshness of Lenin's thesis, contra Doug statements to
the contrary.,
))))))))
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).
(((((((((((
CB: This is a coverup straight out of the mouths of that very conscious financial
oligarchy ruling class. Doug's whole argumentation that the U.S. ruling class is not
conscious and not dominantly powerful is none other than bourgeois propaganda. This is
not a new form of anti-Leninism. An extreme example of this was the claims for
"People's capitalism" in the Nixon era.
One quick way to see that Doug and the bourgeoisie are wrong is the bailouts, the too
big to fails. Clearly, that big hedgefund, Continental Bank of Illinois, Chrysler, the
S & L's are in a category that the vast majority of businesses are not. They are
monopolies.
As far as state-monopoly, who do you think engineered all these bailouts ? Doug told
me that the Fed is not really a "bank" . Oh really ? Is he saying that the bourgeoisie
just named it a "bank" but didn't understand the concept as well as Doug, and not only
that, they accidently used a word that fits Lenin's thesis , but ironically it really
doesn't ? I don't think so. I think the Fed is a central bank, having enormous ,
monopoly, financial power with its ability to impact interest rates, and that that is
a sure fire STATE-MONOPOLY mechanism very central to U.S. capitalism 2001, making
Lenin's thesis extremely fresh today. And that the policy of the Fed is dominated by a
small elite of Wallstreet banks, investment banks, and financial-industrial tycoons
who form a financial oligarchy, just like Lenin pictured it.
((((((((((
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.
((((((((((
CB: Well, it may be Marxian, but it is not Marxist or Leninist. Empiricism is
epistemologically inadequate. The role of theory is just as important as the role of
facts or evidence. A scientific approach must be a unity and struggle of theory and
facts. Doug's theory is weak, so his fact collecting is going to be inadequate. This
cannot be overcome by collecting a lot of "facts", or using statistical techniques
extensively.
It is like above, because he ( or your presentation of him) doesn't understand Lenin's
theory, or willfully understates it, doesn't try to fully understand it, he shoots
down a straw Lenin, a non-dialectical concept of monopoly, fails to see that Lenin
specifically said that monopoly competition is part of the engine of imperialism.
Thus, facts he turns up pile up supporting Lenin, not contradicting him., etc., etc,
on and on.
(((((((((
>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?
((((((((
CB: See above. He thinks, simply, that competition contradicts monopoly so that Lenin
, he thinks Lenin is predicting less competition. But Lenin is a dialectician, so,
contradictorily monopoly means more competition, competition of a different quality.
There is especially rougher competition for the smaller companies vis-a-vis the
monopolies.
((((((
> 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 ...
((((((((((
CB: Sorry to hear you are a menshevik. That workers are a product of capitalism is
not an idea that the mensheviks originated. That is from Marx and Engels. And surely
anybody who reads _Imperialism_ will not be misled into thinking that the scale of
socialist transformation will be small. How is this supposed to contradict Lenin's
theory of imperialism ? Doug is claiming that Lenin's theory of imperialism has no
use today, and all I keep hearing is you and he bringing up examples that demonstrate
how up to date the imperialism theory is.
One of the reason I like this thread is that you and Doug keep giving me more
empirical evidence of how fresh Lenin's thesis is. It's even fresher than I had known.
))))))))))))
> 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?
((((((((((
CB: Well, I suppose you could call on the unity and struggle of opposites, but I take
"the market " to be capitalism, and Marx pretty clearly advocated the revolutionary
overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism.
I think his idea was that there would remain an enormous division of labor , or
socialiization of production , and therefore continuing exchange between enterprises.
But I think the term "market" would go into the dustbin of history as a moniker for
private ownership and commodity exchange as the dominante form of distribution. The
key thing would be to obliterate the market as it is now conceived, so the conceptions
of mensheviks hanging on to the market does not seem promising as a way to establish
the exchange networks of socialism.
(((((((((
I musta missed that
bit.
((((((((((
CB: Yea , you musta.
((((((((
And why was Lenin's 'war communism' in such dramatic need of reappraisal
(as, er, predicted by the mensheviks) in 1921?
((((((((
CB: Leninism is the original "continuous improvement" , dynamic trial and error,
theory - practice -theory, development of truth through correction of error. This is
not to say that "war communism" was all error. Just that everything has some error.
((((((((
Was the NEP not a necessary
and overdue return to sanctioned small-holder-based markets?
((((((((
CB: Russia was not a very developed capitalism. The U.S. or Australia in 2001 or later
will not need to develop the forces or means of production rapidly to keep up with
hostile , surrounding , superior , imperialist countries, when it makes its transition
, hopefully. I mean what other capitalist country would attack a U.S. of this time ?
But this is speculation, the exact rate at which the market is skewered in the U.S. or
Australian revolution will be more concretely determined. As always and as in Russia,
it will not be a straight line process
((((((
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"?
(((((((((
CB: As I say, socialism does not mean the abolition of exchange, but rather the
abolition of the market. As they say, you are conflating "exchange" and " market " .
The market is commidity exchange, a specific historical form of 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"?
((((((((((
CB: You seem to be celebrating the concessions that had or might have to be made to
imperialism, necessary evils. It is sort of like China right now. As long as the most
powerful countries remain capitalist , the lesser developed nations that have
socialist revolutions will have to make concessions to capitalism,with markets mixed
with socialism. Be we shouldn't aim for it for the U.S. or Japan or EU, the big
capitalist countries if they were to have socialist revolution.
))))))))))
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: See above. I think Henwood's is more in the nature of vacillating on the
fundamental question of the need to get rid of capitalism. Don't you think Doug would
say that he is not as definite on getting rid of capitalism , or as convinced of the
completeness of capitalism's rottenness as Lenin was ?
))))))))))
> 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: Yes, so was war communism, declaring peace unilaterally in WWI, establishing an
economic exchange with Armand Hammer. Lots of stuff.
(((((
> 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 ...
((((((((((
CB: Uhuh
(((((((((
>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?
((((((((((((
CB: No, I have said a little bit more than Wallstreet ain't like Lenin. Are you
reading these posts ? Yes, I have read _Wallstreet_, but this discussion comes even
more directly from the horses mouth as to what Doug's opinion is on these issues ,as
it comes out of the recent talk he gave on Lenin, and other email exchanges. You don't
doubt that Doug says Lenin is not applicable do you ? He just said it on
Marxism-Thaxis. Don't you read _Wallstreet_ as consistent with this proposition ? So,
once again, to the extent that the facts in _Wallstreet_ are collected under a thesis
that the current capitalist regime is not finance capital, a financial oligarchy and
state-monopoly , and a few other things ( that competition means there is not monopoly
, and the like) they tend to be off. Now the facts speak for themselves ( and against
Doug's claim that Lenin is not relevant today) to a certain extent. So, the book is
sort of some correct and some off, as I said above. No , big deal. Lots of books are
like that.
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
