In a message dated 1/6/2009 2:21:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jann...@gmail.com writes:
>>An industrial capital formation as a historically distinct sector of capital no longer exist. I am not aware of one single economist of note that speaks of an industrial sector of capital. Not one. The existence of Chrysler, Ford or GM does not mean a sector of capital called industrial capital exists. Industrial capital without industrial capitalists cannot exists. << Whoah, wait a minute. Are you trying to argue against Lenin or Marx here? I think Lenin does contribute to Marxism in many ways (pay me and I'll write a book about it), and I think much of what Lenin wrote about has relevance to understanding the historic formations that reach into this post-modern episteme. I'm not sure what a serious economist is nowadays and think for the most part I couldn't give a shit. CJ Comment The issue was never Lenin's contribution to the treasure house of Marx. Economic forms and their corresponding political form was being discussed. Marx describes the details of the genesis of the industrial capitalist. The industrial capitalist is called "industrial" because he personifies a stage of development of the productive forces. Manufacturing capital correspond with a period of "man" - hand, production as a primary mode. Usury capital conjures a vision of non-connection with production, money lending. Merchant capital conjures a vision of capital from the purchase and sell of things. Merchant. Marx tended to wed a historically specific form of capital to a stage or phase of development of the productive forces, but this is not unique to Marx. People once named themselves after instruments of production like "Smith." Is not the governor of California last name translated as Arnold Blacksmith? Speculative as in "speculative capital" conjures a vision. For a solid decade economist and non-economist alike have discussed the new financial products and all of them without exception, agree that these products are intangibles and complex math formulas. Today these math formulas are tied to debt one way or another. Capital as an imaginary - notional, value is impossible but there it is. Capital without value. Capital without value means no labor component because capital is a social relations of production. Production of commodities. We have finally hit the historical wall. The thing fundamental to understanding real world finance capital today is to identify what sector is writing the political agenda as an expression of their domination over the total capital. In respects of President elect Obama, he will gyrate in his policies between productive capital and speculative capital and not an "industrial capital" and finance capital. Today, financing infrastructure development or auto production for that matter - putting people to work, is not an act and expression of industrial capital, but the productive capital of the financier. The industrial as a class died for Christ sake. Produced the data to confirm the existence of an industrial sector of capital in 2009. (Not you!) Where are the industrialists in America today? Out of a population of 300 million, surely one must still exists, having survived in the cracks - giant cracks, of finance. One cannot be said to be inconsistent with Marx by identifying and naming a sector of capital by its connection or non-connection to a state of development of the productive forces and how it strives to realize an expanded value. Hence, speculative capital and its domination over the total capital. Finance capital has a non-productive sector. The industrial capital formation was eaten up Pac-man style by finance capital. Dude, its all finance capital. Lenin most certainly contributed to the treasure house of Marxism and his contribution won the honor of an "ism," Leninism. Leninism is a political doctrine of combat. On the other hand Marx name is associated with an economic doctrine as well as a political doctrine. Leninism is not an economic doctrine because Lenin did not pioneer a new way of looking at economy. Nor did Lenin pioneer a new method of approach to the study of society. Lenin was a Marxist. The ideas that nothing has changed since Lenin is just intellectual laziness and a refusal to admit that things change at best and dogmatism at worse. GMAC not GM is the master of GM. GMAC is GM. . Dude, its all finance capital. Waistline **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
