The article is very interesting in that it points out the weaknesses in the empirical evidence behind Lenin's analysis.
But it does not provide empirical evidence one way or the other for: > > Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over > and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of > their “own” country) it is possible to bribe the labour leaders and the > upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is just what the > capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing: they are bribing them > in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert. which has assumed near gospel significance for many Leninists. Exactly where are the "superprofits"? How much "over and above" the "regular" profits are they? Bribing them (the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy "in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert." Give us some examples, and identify the mechanisms for such "bribery." Then there's this: > > Lenin quotes Rudolf Hilferding: > “Combination”, writes Hilferding, “levels out the fluctuations of trade > and therefore assures to the combined enterprises a more stable rate of > profit. Secondly, combination has the effect of eliminating trade. > Thirdly, it has the effect of rendering possible technical improvements, > and, consequently, the acquisition of superprofits over and above those > obtained by the “pure” (i.e., non-combined) enterprises. Fourthly, it > strengthens the position of the combined enterprises relative to the > “pure” enterprises, strengthens them in the competitive struggle in > periods of serious depression, when the fall in prices of raw materials > does not keep pace with the fall in prices of manufactured goods. (2016, > pp. 643-4; citing Hilferding 1912, pp. 286-7) > Was the rate of profit more stable after 1900? Was trade eliminated? And if so exactly how were the superprofits embodied in exchange value realized. Trade can't be eliminated with the growth of capital as it is the purpose of capital to transform the value embodied in the means of production into an expanded value embodied in the commodities. Where, absent the collapse of capital expansion has trade been eliminated? And this: > > The change from the old type of capitalism, in which free competition > predominated, to the new capitalism, in which monopoly reigns, is > expressed, among other things, by a decline in the importance of the Stock > Exchange. The review, Die Bank [1914], writes: “The Stock Exchange has > long ceased to be the indispensable medium of circulation that it formerly > was when the banks were not yet able to place the bulk of new issues with > their clients.” > “Every bank is a Stock Exchange”, and the bigger the bank, and the more > successful the concentration of banking, the truer does this modern > aphorism ring. (1916, p. 660; citing Die Bank 1914 > > is a misreading of the relationship of investment banks (merchant banking) to the stock exchange and the capital markets, making a totally specious distinction between the stock exchanges and those banks. > > It goes without saying that if capitalism could develop agriculture, which > today is everywhere lagging terribly behind industry, if it could raise > the living standards of the masses, > > Clearly, capitalism could, did, can, and has developed agriculture and improved both labor productivity and land "productivity" since 1900, in the "advanced" capitalist countries, and it has raised living standards, although it has done all this "capitalistically" that is subject to attack and reversal and reproducing inequalities, and periodically exacting a terrible cost--in generalized warfare-- in the attempt to overcome the obstructions to capital accumulation which increased productivity and better living standards become. Finally the author's article includes this really odd request: > > Leave aside the questions concerning whether Lenin’s analysis is accurate > or coherent. The point here is to understand his exposition, to understand > what he says. In that respect, we must try to understand him in faith with > his method. > > What? Marx never leaves aside the questions of accuracy and coherence. "Faith in his [Lenin's] method" is a religious obligation, not a Marxist one. Are we supposed to believe that presentation of the "Hegelian totality" somehow compensates or corrects for inaccuracy and self-contradiction? Yes, the truth is the whole and the truth is concrete. In Marx's work, the "whole" requires coherence, the concrete requires accuracy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#34797): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/34797 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/110769444/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
