Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:27:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com) writes: What you haven't done is make any coherent argument that would convince me that the substance has changed that much during the past 130 years. Of course there are those who have made the quantitative argument but you didn't do that either here. CJ Reply Substance of what? Finance capital remains fianance capital but it is not the financial industrial capital of the time of Lenin. Here's something from 2002. WL. The dangers of derivatives By Henry C K Liu Recession in advanced economies, induced by the oil shock of 1973, pushed transnational banks to find borrowers in developing economies to accommodate petro-dollar recycling. That marked the beginning of finance globalization which, among other trends, replaced foreign aid with foreign loans to developing countries. In the beginning, the petro-dollar recycling was merely to compensate the developing nations for the sudden rise in oil prices. Later, the surplus oil money not absorbed by Western markets was pushed on beguiled Third World governments as petro-dollar loans for development, leading the developing world into a bottomless abyss of foreign debt. Not only was the anticipated growth in the developing world not realized by foreign-debt-driven exports, debt repayment became increasingly punitive on the domestic economies as lender nations adopted anti-inflationary measures by the end of the 1970s. Negotiations between borrowing countries and major international bank creditors were intermediated by International Monetary Fund (IMF) endorsement of structural adjustment (austerity) programs in borrowing countries that spelled reduced government social spending, currency devaluation and export promotion policies that distorted and reversed domestic development. Domestic austerity became the ticket to new foreign loans for servicing old foreign loans, and the servicing of the new loans in turn required more domestic austerity, driving Third World economies toward a downward spiral of accelerating contraction and deeper foreign indebtedness. But the oppressive pressure from the IMF in the 1980s was not anywhere near as severe as that after the financial crises of the 1990s. The financial crises faced by newly industrialized economies (NIEs) in the 1990s were significantly different from the foreign debt crises in the developing countries in the previous decade. Different forms of foreign funds flowed to different recipients in developing countries during the two periods. More importantly, derivatives emerged as an integral part of funds flow in the 1990s. Derivatives played an unprecedented key role in the Asian financial crisis of 1997, alongside the growth of fund flows to Asian NIEs, as part of financial globalization in unregulated global foreign exchange, capital and debt markets. Derivatives facilitate the growth in private fund flows by unbundling the risks associated with financial vehicles, such as bank loans, stocks, bonds and direct physical investment, and reallocating the risks more efficiently by expanding the distribution and the level of aggregate risk. They also facilitate efforts by many financial entities to raise their risk-to-capital ratios to dodge regulatory safeguards, manipulate accounting rules and evade taxation. Foreign exchange forwards and swaps are used to hedge against floating exchange rates as well as to speculate on fixed exchange rate vulnerability, while total return swaps (TRS) are used to capture carry trade profit from interest rate differential between pegged currencies. Structured notes, also known as hybrid instruments, which are the combination of a credit market instrument, such as a bond or note, with a derivative such as an option or futures-like contract, are used to circumvent accounting rules and prudential regulations in order to offer investors higher, though riskier, returns. Viewed at the macroeconomic level, derivatives first make the economy more susceptible to financial crisis and then quicken and deepen the downturn once the crisis begins. Since investors can only be seduced to higher risk by raising the return on higher risk, the quest for high return raises the aggregate risk in the financial system. But investors always demand a profit above their risk exposure which will leave some residual risk unfunded in the financial system. It is in fact a socialization of unfunded risk with a privatization of the incremental commensurate returns. (_http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DE23Dj01.html_ (http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DE23Dj01.html) ) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008
Substance of what? Finance capital remains fianance capital but it is not the financial industrial capital of the time of Lenin. Here's something from 2002. WL. Do you even read your own posts? You are the one who used the word 'substance'. I merely echoed it in my reply. Again what you haven't done is shown how capital has pushed into a new ontological category. Warren Buffett warned about the dangers of the newer derivatives, and then bet billions on them because he didn't want to get left out of the drive for 20% plus profits. The whole notion of derivative is not new at all. 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
In a message dated 11/26/2010 8:20:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _pegdobb...@gmail.com_ (mailto:pegdobb...@gmail.com) writes: So am I to hope my children are less bamboozled by SW than we by SV? My son tells me Netflix is useful to him and has higher earnings(that's SV, right?) than USS Comrade My intent was not to ignore your question. I am a regular user of Netflix, with specific grips about which movies are regulated to mail and not available for instant play. Their mix of models seems to run behind our technology capacity and the needs of consumers. My comments were meant to be on the level of changes - qualitative, in the meaning of system - finance capital today, rather than during the time of Lenin. Posing this thread as Did Lenin predict implies no fundamental changes in the actual functioning of finance capital. Finance capital once referred to banking capital and earlier merchant capital, in my opinion. I offer as proof of qualitative changes in the functioning of finance capital the rise of a new post 1973 rise - to be exact, of NON BANKING financial architecture. The quality that has changed is the substance of modern finance capital that is outside of and evolves based on detachment from production of surplus value. In my opinion a form of wealth can change qualitatively before the production relations of a society leap forward. The form of wealth of bourgeois society has changed. Wealth as a property of the ruling class has not changed. This happened as the leap - transition, from feudalism to capitalism. The primary form of private property as the feudal relation was land as opposed to ownership of tools or means of production. What began the breakdown of feudalism was the transition in the form of wealth from land - as primary, to gold or movable property. Wealth today is a very super symbolic abstract thing not riveted to gold or any tangible. This is the change. WL. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
WL: The quality that has changed is the substance of modern finance capital that is outside of and evolves based on detachment from production of surplus value. ... Wealth today is a very super symbolic abstract thing not riveted to gold or any tangible. This is the change. --- Hence the recent oil futures and gold bubbles because parasitic investors were scared shitless about anything linked to actual production that might require THEIR capitalization. What you haven't done is make any coherent argument that would convince me that the substance has changed that much during the past 130 years. Of course there are those who have made the quantitative argument but you didn't do that either here. 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
About the only thing Time is good for now--reading online articles I can remember reading in my father's copy of Time back in the 70s. Looks a lot like QE2 to me. Now instead of pegging the dollar to some sort of imaginary value of gold, we have pegged the value of gold to the dollar (and the price of oil is also pegged to the dollar). CJ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943884,00.html BY ripping the dollar loose from gold and slapping a 10% surtax on imports, Richard Nixon inaugurated a global power play designed to boost U.S. exports and cut the country's worsening balance of payments deficit. Though his moves came as a shock, it appears that he acted none too soon; last week the Commerce Department reported that in July U.S. imports had exceeded exports for the fourth straight month. Still, now that some of the excitement surrounding the Nixon initiative is subsiding, a hard truth is hitting bankers, businessmen and government leaders the world over: a return to any sort of lasting stability in trade and currency dealings will be tedious, time-consuming and laden with difficulties. Closed Window. Nixon's dollar moves constituted an invitation to foreign governments to float the dollar against their own currencies by allowing the factors of supply and demand to dictate its value overseas. His aim was to force the U.S.'s major trading partners, especially Japan and the Common Market countries, to increase the value of their currencies—and thus the cost of their exports. Once Nixon shut the gold window, the dollar was expected to drop, and the value of foreign currencies to go up. The money exchanges of the world had been effectively closed since the Nixon announcement; until they reopened last week, no one knew for sure how much the dollar would fall or other currencies rise. The only decisive development came at week's end from Tokyo. After two weeks of agonizing over the Nixon pressure and several times denying flatly that the yen would be revalued, the government of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato finally announced that it would allow the Japanese yen to float against the dollar. This was probably an unavoidable decision for Sato, but it was especially painful and will produce wide-ranging economic woes for Japan. By in effect increasing the price of the yen, Sato dulled the cutting edge of Japan's export drive, not only in the U.S.—which buys 30% of all Japanese exports—but throughout the world. Beyond that, a floating yen proportionately decreases the value of Japanese dollar holdings, which now total $11.3 billion. Japanese shipyards, which currently hold more than $5 billion in construction contracts written in dollars, will be especially hard hit. A 10% floating revaluation would cost Japanese shipbuilders $500 million. Just how widely the yen will be allowed to fluctuate is not yet clear; the Bank of Japan said it would intervene to prevent too drastic a swing, at least for now. On the first day of the limited float, the yen was traded at an increase of 5% to 7% over the old rate, but just where it will settle is still uncertain. Japanese officials noted that the flotation was only a temporary measure, but U.S. importers were already predicting that the higher yen rate on top of the 10% surtax could effectively close the American market to Japanese steel and most consumer goods. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943884,00.html#ixzz16YokTgS7 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
So am I to hope my children are less bamboozled by SW than we by SV? My son tells me Netflix is useful to him and has higher earnings(that's SV, right?) than USS financial products detached from value production. Valueless production of symbolic wealth. That is the changed quality in the new world of finance capital. WL. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to what human relations create such crises. JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis, although he went down in history as one of those guys who helped overcome it. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the smithsonianmag's analysis of what 'caused' the current meltdown. However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes people only acting out of self-interest, that what they did was out of control, that because of technological innovation in finance and banking, too much was being done in very little time and it was out of control. ^ Yeah out of control is really deja vu all over again of Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. They just can't help themselves. Interesting that you mention Morgan. I'm still fascinated by that chapter, titled Bailout is the name of the game in that book by that rightwing Tea Party type G. Edward Griffin , _The Creature from Jekyll Island_. It _can_ be fairly said to predict the bailouts. Anyway, I believe Morgan dominated the founding of the Fed. It's really no big surprise. The Fed was founded to enrich the biggest banks in the first place ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:29:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _jann...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jann...@gmail.com) writes: However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes people only acting out of self-interest, that what they did was out of control, that because of technological innovation in finance and banking, too much was being done in very little time and it was out of control. Reply Well, what we face as financial crisis is not a banking crisis but a crisis of the new non-banking financial system. These are not the banks of the era of Lenin. If, how and why the financial crisis of today - breaking out in 2007, is qualitatively different from the banking crisis of 1929 or crisis during the era of Lenin's Imperialism seems to be a question. Since we are speaking of finance capital, the issue to my mind is what within finance capital (a quality within and unto itself) has changed? The answer for me is capital as a notional value or capital wealth detached from value; more specifically the production of surplus value. Or, what is the same, world wide capital wealth dominated by institutional architecture outside of and existing in antagonism with the world wide production of value. The new non-banking financial architecture is a new emergent quality within finance capital. In Mr. Liu's writing this new phenomenon- quality, is called notional value meaning an imaginary value relation. Global Post-Crisis Economic Outlook by Henry C.K. Liu, appeared in Asian Times April 14, 2010. Part 2 is Two Different Banking Crises - 1929 and 2007. The series is located here: _http://www.henryckliu.com/page221.html_ (http://www.henryckliu.com/page221.html) Liu's Pathology of Debt, part one and two outlines what is specific and different in our era of finance capital from that of the era of Lenin. _http://www.henryckliu.com/page145.html_ (http://www.henryckliu.com/page145.html) II. The 1929 banking crisis that launched the Great Depression was caused by stressed banks whose highly leveraged retail borrowers were unable to meet margin calls on their stock market losses, resulting in bank runs from panicky depositors who were not protected by government insurance on their deposits. In the 1920s, there were very few traders beside professional technical types. The typical retail investors were long-term investors, trading only infrequently, albeit buying on high margin. They bought mostly to hold based on expectations that prices would rise endlessly. . . . . . By contrast, the two decades of the 1990s and 2000s were decades of the day trader and big time institutional traders. New powerful traders in major investment banking houses overwhelmed old-fashion investment bankers and gained control of these institutions with their high profit performance. They turned the financial industry from a funding service to the economy into a frenzy independent trading machine. (End quote) Global Post-Crisis Economic Outlook. III. The issue of quality can be confusing - in my mind, unless one describe their meaning. Finance capital is part of a totality - quality. The totality is the social relations of bourgeois mode of commodity production or bourgeois private property. Finance capital is a symbolic expression of the wealth created by human labor based on bourgeois property or wage labor. Lenin's Imperialism the last stage of capitalism, was referenced as the benchmark. Marx historical tendency of capital accumulation became supporting actor. Marx outlined cyclical crisis of capital and financial crisis, but something has changed qualitatively . . . in my opinion, within the quality isolated by Lenin as finance-industrial capital. By finance capital Lenin referred to financial-industrial capital indicating the domination of banks as institutions over industrial capital. This is the specific make-up of finance capital for Lenin. In short speak this process is referred to as banks transitioning from being middle men for industrial production (investors), to owners and dominator-investors of industry. The new quality of finance capital - not bourgeois social relations of production, is its detachment from production of surplus value. The banking system of the era of Lenin is qualitatively different from the new financial architecture of today. The new quality is called the system of non-banking financial institutions. These institutions are not banks. That is the different quality within finance capital. Banks of the era of Lenin embody the value relation monetarized. The new non-banking financial institutions are valueless. These financial products do not embody value, only a notion or value as wealth. IV. Later in the same article Mr. Liu writes: The 2007
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:29 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to what human relations create such crises. JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis, although he went down in history as one of those guys who helped overcome it. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the smithsonianmag's analysis of what 'caused' the current meltdown. However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes people only acting out of self-interest, that what they did was out of control, that because of technological innovation in finance and banking, too much was being done in very little time and it was out of control. ^ Yeah out of control is really deja vu all over again of Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. They just can't help themselves. Interesting that you mention Morgan. I'm still fascinated by that chapter, titled Bailout is the name of the game in that book by that rightwing Tea Party type G. Edward Griffin , _The Creature from Jekyll Island_. It _can_ be fairly said to predict the bailouts. Anyway, I believe Morgan dominated the founding of the Fed. It's really no big surprise. The Fed was founded to keep enriched the biggest banks in the first place- dog bites man. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h952.html Social Issues In the summer of 1907, the American economy was showing signs of weakness as a number of business and Wall Street brokerages went bankrupt. In October, the respected Knickerbocker Trust in New York City and the ¹Westinghouse Electric Company both failed, touching off a series of events known as the Panic of 1907. In the wake of the initial business collapses, stock market prices plummeted and depositors made a massive run on the nation’s banks. The U.S. Treasury pumped millions of dollars into weak banks in the hope of saving them, but the string of collapsed institutions lengthened. In a reprise of his role during the second Cleveland administration when the gold standard was under assault, J.P. Morgan acted to restore order. He summoned the leading bankers and financial experts to his home where they set up shop in his library. Over the course of the next three weeks, Morgan and his associates labored to channel money from the strong institutions to the weaker ones in an effort to keep them afloat. The joint effort of the government and the business leaders improved conditions markedly over the course of several weeks. While the crisis passed, the finger-pointing began. Reform elements of both political parties believed that the American banking system was fundamentally flawed and needed wholesale change. Business leaders, however, held that Roosevelt's progressive legislation had upset the natural order of the economy and the government should stop its meddling. Following the Panic of 1907, the reform elements gradually gained the upper hand. An emerging consensus affirmed that thorough bank reform was necessary to provide badly needed currency elasticity (a major issue in the Panic) and the general soundness of the banking system. Congress responded by passing stop-gap legislation, the Aldrich-Vreeland Act (1908), until more thorough actions could be prepared. With the passing of the Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created. The Fed was designed to be flexible and responsive to the economy and independent of politics. The Fed has evolved through the years by implementing many strict checks and balances. New departments, the General Accounting Office, GAO, and the Office of Management Budget, OMB, were created to audit the Fed and most other government departments. As a result, the American economy, and American society are more stable. See other Theodore Roosevelt domestic activity. 1: Westinghouse Electric was the victim of foul business practices by J.P. Morgan. Morgan controlled General Electric and Thomas Edison’s Direct Current, (DC) electrical patents. He contended with Westinghouse Electric, who controlled Nicola Tesla’s Alternating Current, (AC) electrical patents. Morgan and Edison strove for control of all electrical power in America. Edison used deceptive demonstrations of the supposed increased dangers of AC and Morgan had spread rumors in Wall Street that Westinghouse was insolvent, causing Westinghouse stock to collapse, along with the stock of the Westinghouse backers. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/1907_Panic.html What was the Panic of 1907, and what caused it? The Panic of 1907 was a six-week stretch
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
Sorry WL but I have to disagree. For a start, I'm not sure what your concept of Lenin's concept of banks actually is. This time around people started to notice the crisis when there was a run on a building society type bank in the UK. I predicted something tumultuous would happen when I saw that the price of oil futures had peaked just under 150 dollars to the barrel (and I still think this had something to do with 'capital drying up' at the investment banks). Then the turmoil began with the mortgage brokers. However, if we look at the 1907 crisis we actually see a lot of continuity and analogues. We see the panic actually starts and is expressed in institutions that are outside the 'traditional bank' of the era but have taken on functions in areas of business and the country that the banks didn't. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/moen.panic.1907 excerpt: Why Were There Runs on Trust Companies? There were three main types of financial intermediaries during the National Banking Era: national banks, state banks, and later in the period trust companies. It is not surprising that trust companies were the focal point of the panic. In New York, assets at the trust companies had grown phenomenally between 1890 and 1910, increasing 244 percent during the 10 years ending in 1907, from $396.7 million to $1,394.0 million. In contrast, national bank assets had grown 97 percent, from $915.2 million to $1,800.0 million, while state-chartered bank assets had grown 82 percent, from $297 million to $541.0 million (Barnett 1911, 234-35). Thus the manner in which trust companies used their assets greatly affected the New York money market (Moen and Tallman 1992). Trust companies were much less regulated than national or state banks in New York. In 1906 New York State instituted a requirement that trusts maintain reserves at 15 percent of deposits, but only 5 percent of deposits needed to be kept as currency in the vault. Before that time trusts simply kept whatever reserves they felt necessary to conduct business. National bank notes were adequate as cash reserves for trusts while national banks in central reserve cities like New York were required to keep a 25 percent reserve in the form of specie or legal tender (greenbacks or treasury notes but not national bank notes). Trusts were originally rather conservative institutions, managing estates, holding securities, and taking deposits, but by 1907 trusts were performing most of the functions of banks except issuing bank notes. Many of the larger trusts specialized in underwriting security issues. Others wrote mortgages or invested directly in real estate activities barred or limited for national banks. New York City trusts had a higher proportion of collateralized loans than did New York City national banks. Conventional banking wisdom associated collateralized loans with riskier investments and riskier borrowers. The trusts, therefore, had an asset portfolio that may have been riskier than those of other intermediaries. National and private banks found the investment banking functions of trusts so useful that many of them gained direct or indirect control of a trust through holding companies or by placing their associates on a trust's board of directors. In many instances a bank and its affiliated trust operated in the same building. Trusts appear to have provided intermediary functions different from those of banks. Although the volume of deposits subject to check at trusts was similar to that at banks, trusts had many fewer checks (in number and value) written against their demand deposits than did banks. The check clearings of trusts were only about 7 percent of the volume of those at banks. Trusts were not then like commercial banks, whose assets are used as transactions balances by individual depositors or firms. National banks were part of a network of regional banks that had correspondent relationships to expedite interregional transactions (James 1978, 40). Trusts were not part of the correspondent banking system, so their deposits were more local and less directly subject to the recurring seasonal strains on funds. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
Yes, the word predict is a bit crude, but the direction of capitalism as imperialism = finance capitalism and more and more concentration of wealth (monopoly) fulfills the trends that Lenin made famous. ( Lenin made Hilferding's ideas famous). And the concentration of wealth is in the finance capital sector. On the other hand , Lenin's observation that wealth is increasingly concentrated or monopolization is in a sense a deduction or echo of Marx's observation here; centralization is monopolization: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm s well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:24 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
In a message dated 11/22/2010 9:10:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cb31...@gmail.com writes: Yes, the word predict is a bit crude, but the direction of capitalism as imperialism = finance capitalism and more and more concentration of wealth (monopoly) fulfills the trends that Lenin made famous. ( Lenin made Hilferding's ideas famous). And the concentration of wealth is in the finance capital sector. On the other hand , Lenin's observation that wealth is increasingly concentrated or monopolization is in a sense a deduction or echo of Marx's observation here; centralization is monopolization: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm s well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:24 PM, CeJ jann...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
I agree that concentration and centralization of productive forces grow out of the inherent logic of industrial - electro-mechanical, reproduction. In the Soviet Union concentration and centralization of productive forces created expanding public wealth without centralization and monopolization of a financial regime - oligarchy. When this same internal dynamic of industrial reproduction is based on bourgeois property its shape is centralization and concentration of capital - banking, industrial and finally emergence of a financial oligarchy dominating industry. What is also being reproduced, concentrated and centralized is at all times social relations of production; bourgeois property casting increasing masses proletariat on an expanding scale, as was the case during the time of Marx and Lenin. This historic process, which was not completed during the time of Marx and Lenin is complete, with all areas of the world firmly within the new financial architecture with few exceptions. Much literature is available on why and how the new financial regime is different from the financial regime of the era of Lenin. This of course does not imply the social relations casting the laborers as wage laborers have changed qualitatively. It has not. WL. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
Comment The property aspect of production relations (social relations of production with the property relations within) have NOT changed or what is the same, the wage labor form remains the wage labor form. Bourgeois private property remains bourgeois although this form of wealth is increasingly detached from commodity production and distribution. Lenin's Imperialism is not a story about qualitatively changed property relations within the mode of production, in my opinion. As I understand the book, what is written about is the domination of banking capital over industrial capital and the rise of a financial oligarchy. Lenin did not and could not predict or foresee our state of development of productive forces. His vision was limited to industrial machinery and configuration and a form of capital characteristic of his era. Qualitative changes in the means of production exist, as compared with the era of Marx and Lenin. A mode of production does not change all at one time. First comes a qualitatively different technology and its application to production and then society is compelled to reorganize itself around a new social organization of labor. This happens as change waves, deepening its social consequences in society. As these change waves deepen, society is thrown into greater crisis and strains to leap to a new social organization of labor and sublate the old social relations, including the old property signature. There is a wealth of material available on line outlining the technology advance of the last 60 years. Different opinion exists concerning the significance, degree and depth of our rising new technology regime, as it reproduces itself on an expanding scale. WL ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:22 AM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: I agree that concentration and centralization of productive forces grow out of the inherent logic of industrial - electro-mechanical, reproduction. CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the capitalist mode of production, wage-labor/capital property relations, regardless of the technological regime. The computerization of production doesn't change this tendency to concentration of wealth. It accelerates it, with all the computer trading. ^ In the Soviet Union concentration and centralization of productive forces created expanding public wealth without centralization and monopolization of a financial regime - oligarchy. When this same internal dynamic of industrial reproduction is based on bourgeois property its shape is centralization and concentration of capital - banking, industrial and finally emergence of a financial oligarchy dominating industry. What is also being reproduced, concentrated and centralized is at all times social relations of production; bourgeois property casting increasing masses proletariat on an expanding scale, as was the case during the time of Marx and Lenin. This historic process, which was not completed during the time of Marx and Lenin is complete, with all areas of the world firmly within the new financial architecture with few exceptions. Much literature is available on why and how the new financial regime is different from the financial regime of the era of Lenin. ^ CB: It's different , but fundamentally it is the same. The elaborate and complex financial speculation is essentially the same as that referred to by Lenin in _Imperialism_ ( even if Hilferding had the original ideas). ^^^ This of course does not imply the social relations casting the laborers as wage laborers have changed qualitatively. It has not. WL. CB: Agree . Wage-labor /capital property relation defines the capitalist relations of production, from the beginning through the present. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
.the tendency of imperialism to split the workers, to strengthen opportunism among them and to cause temporary decay in the working-class movement, revealed itself much earlier than the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries; for two important distinguishing features of imperialism were already observed in Great Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century?vast colonial possessions and a monopolist position in the world market. Marx and Engels traced this connection between opportunism in the working-class movement and the imperialist features of British capitalism systematically, during the course of several decades. For example, on October 7, 1858, Engels wrote to Marx: ?The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.?[15] Almost a quarter of a century later, in a letter dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks of the ?worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the middle class?. In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: ?You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers? party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England?s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.? [13] (Engels expressed similar ideas in the press in his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, which appeared in 1892.)... On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:54 PM, c b cb31...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20946.htm Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008? Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism By V. I. Lenin LCW vol.22, Lenin enumerated the following five features characteristic of the epoch of imperialism: The epoch of imperialism opens when the expansion of colonialism has covered the globe and no new colonies can be acquired by the great powers except by taking them from each other, and the concentration of capital has grown to a point where finance capital becomes dominant over industrial capital. Lenin enumerated the following five features characteristic of the epoch of imperialism: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. [Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.] [Imperialism] is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits)... [throughout] the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations [now called multi-national conglomerates]. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations divide them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured – railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization. Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the capitalist mode of production, wage-labor/capital property relations, regardless of the technological regime. The computerization of production doesn't change this tendency to concentration of wealth. It accelerates it, with all the computer trading. Comment I agree. I apparently missed an input. Whoever wrote that technology changes the tendency and fact of concentration of production, monopolization; concentration and monopolization of wealth has it all wrong. If anything technology advance accelerate concentration and monopoly within the capitalist mode of commodity production due to bourgeois competition. This competition is also expressed as competition between workers for wages. WL. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:30 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: CB: I think Marx's position is that it is inherent to the logic of the capitalist mode of production, wage-labor/capital property relations, regardless of the technological regime. The computerization of production doesn't change this tendency to concentration of wealth. It accelerates it, with all the computer trading. Comment I agree. I apparently missed an input. Whoever wrote that technology changes the tendency and fact of concentration of production, monopolization; concentration and monopolization of wealth has it all wrong. If anything technology advance accelerate concentration and monopoly within the capitalist mode of commodity production due to bourgeois competition. This competition is also expressed as competition between workers for wages. WL. ^ CB: Agree ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to what human relations create such crises. JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis, although he went down in history as one of those guys who helped overcome it. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the smithsonianmag's analysis of what 'caused' the current meltdown. However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes people only acting out of self-interest, that what they did was out of control, that because of technological innovation in finance and banking, too much was being done in very little time and it was out of control. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h952.html Social Issues In the summer of 1907, the American economy was showing signs of weakness as a number of business and Wall Street brokerages went bankrupt. In October, the respected Knickerbocker Trust in New York City and the ¹Westinghouse Electric Company both failed, touching off a series of events known as the Panic of 1907. In the wake of the initial business collapses, stock market prices plummeted and depositors made a massive run on the nation’s banks. The U.S. Treasury pumped millions of dollars into weak banks in the hope of saving them, but the string of collapsed institutions lengthened. In a reprise of his role during the second Cleveland administration when the gold standard was under assault, J.P. Morgan acted to restore order. He summoned the leading bankers and financial experts to his home where they set up shop in his library. Over the course of the next three weeks, Morgan and his associates labored to channel money from the strong institutions to the weaker ones in an effort to keep them afloat. The joint effort of the government and the business leaders improved conditions markedly over the course of several weeks. While the crisis passed, the finger-pointing began. Reform elements of both political parties believed that the American banking system was fundamentally flawed and needed wholesale change. Business leaders, however, held that Roosevelt's progressive legislation had upset the natural order of the economy and the government should stop its meddling. Following the Panic of 1907, the reform elements gradually gained the upper hand. An emerging consensus affirmed that thorough bank reform was necessary to provide badly needed currency elasticity (a major issue in the Panic) and the general soundness of the banking system. Congress responded by passing stop-gap legislation, the Aldrich-Vreeland Act (1908), until more thorough actions could be prepared. With the passing of the Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created. The Fed was designed to be flexible and responsive to the economy and independent of politics. The Fed has evolved through the years by implementing many strict checks and balances. New departments, the General Accounting Office, GAO, and the Office of Management Budget, OMB, were created to audit the Fed and most other government departments. As a result, the American economy, and American society are more stable. See other Theodore Roosevelt domestic activity. 1: Westinghouse Electric was the victim of foul business practices by J.P. Morgan. Morgan controlled General Electric and Thomas Edison’s Direct Current, (DC) electrical patents. He contended with Westinghouse Electric, who controlled Nicola Tesla’s Alternating Current, (AC) electrical patents. Morgan and Edison strove for control of all electrical power in America. Edison used deceptive demonstrations of the supposed increased dangers of AC and Morgan had spread rumors in Wall Street that Westinghouse was insolvent, causing Westinghouse stock to collapse, along with the stock of the Westinghouse backers. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/1907_Panic.html What was the Panic of 1907, and what caused it? The Panic of 1907 was a six-week stretch of runs on banks in New York City and other American cities in October and early November of 1907. It was triggered by a failed speculation that caused the bankruptcy of two brokerage firms. But the shock that set in motion the events to create the Panic was the earthquake in San Francisco in 1906. The devastation of that city drew gold out of the world's major money centers. This created a liquidity crunch that created a recession starting in June of 1907. In 2008 , is the housing market the culprit this time? Today's panic was triggered by the surprising discovery of higher defaults on subprime mortgages than anybody expected. This discovery occurred in late 2006 and early 2007. A panic always follows a real economic shock; panics are not random occurrences of market emotions. They are responses to unambiguous, surprising, costly events that spook investors. But the first cause of a panic is the boom that precedes the panic. Every panic has been
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
Marx and Engels predicted cyclical crisis of capital, but never predicted when its outbreak would take place after their death. Neither did Lenin. Lenin's been dead for a while and did not predict the financial crisis - of 2008, as it jumped from big financial houses and accelerated crisis in the economy. Nor did Lenin predict the scale and scope of the 2008 credit crisis. Nor did Lenin predict the emergence of a new world wide non-banking financial architecture. Nor did he predict the political domination of financial speculation over the world total social capital or for that matter could see the financial-industrial capital of his era, giving way to a new form of financial domination, in a world no longer characterized as the direct colonial relationship. Feudalism, the direct colonial relation and the ascendency of Fordism characterized the world Lenin lived in. This is not the world we live in today. The financial crisis of today plays itself out in a new environment. The financial houses of today are not the banks of the era of Lenin. On this issue I trend to generally side with Michael Hudson and Henry C.K. Liu description of the new non-banking financial regime. What I specifically agree with is their description of the new post 1970's world wide financial architecture. The post industrial revolution in the means of production, is what is different today from the era of Lenin. What is qualitatively different is a new revolution in means of production compelling society to leap to a new social organization of human labor, based on post industrial means of production. Computers and advanced robotics are to electro-mechanics means of production what the steam engine was to horse power and the water wheel or manufacture. Computerized automation of industrial production has fundamentally challenged capitalism. The process of development has been uneven; cause and effect not immediately revealed; and even now when the transformation of society is evident everywhere, many serious observers of society dismiss the seminal importance of computerized production and advanced robotics. The form of the working class changes with qualitative changes in the tools, instruments and energy source deployed in the process of production. What is NOT new is the property form of the workers called proletariat. The working class, employed and unemployed retains its wage labor form of existence as proletariat, with products retaining their commodity form, even as these commodities are pushed towards zero labor. Zero labor implies below what is required for the workers to reproduce themselves as a class and a world of permanent intractable overcapacity, rather than just cyclical crisis. I agree with Mr. Liu's unraveling of the impact of revolution in the means of production and the emergence of permanent overcapacity as a new environment of crisis of overproduction. What has changed is the underlying technology regime in society, as these mew means of production evolve in antagonism with the old technology regime and the classes corresponding to it. . WL. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
I don't think either CB or myself is arguing for Nostradamus status here. What you haven't done is shown anything that would convince me there has been some categorical change in relations of production and capital that says this time is different different, other than history doesn't repeat itself, each time is always different. 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
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
