>>Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branches of industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gains the upper hand.... imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by ?clipping coupons?, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. T<<
And if you read Dickens' last completed novel, Our Mutual Friend, you get a narrative that depicts very much the same things. I know people are going to disagree with you and me on this one, but I have to say, you are right to re-iterate Lenin's points here, here and now. It's a tautological argument to say that this time it's different somehow deep down simply because things have changed, or the structures have changed, or the relations have changed. We of all people know history doesn't simply repeat itself. But what some wiseacres need to do is show how in essence, in substance the banking and financial disasters of the 19th and 20th centuries are categorically different not simply because it is "this time around" and "things have changed". CJ _______________________________________________ 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
