finance capitalism: Re: Marx's use of "stock exchange", "sp

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sat Mar 24 08:16:07 MST 2001



Patrick,  thanks for your comments. I have printed the article and I am
reading now. I am aware of the bank control (financial hegemony) theory in
the United States (Kotz, Fitch and Oppenheimer, Mintz). To my knowledge,
their analyses have already been refuted on empirical gounds (See _The
Large Corporation and Contemporary Classes_, Maurice Zetlin). Encountering
bank control as well as manegerial theorists (Berle, Ducker, Dahrendorf
etc..), Zetlin draws upon Maxists like Sweezy and argues that bank capital
is ony one fraction of the whole capitalist class and it does not dictate
the industrial corporations. In other words, bankers belong to the same
ruling class that the industrialist capitalists occupy _despite the
fraction_ betwen the two.  In fact, Pij's study shows that there is no
clear cut seperation between financial and industrial capital. There is
rather a connection (_circulation_ as you put), and the charecter of the
relation between the two depends on 1)historical/international
circumstances and 2)the class charecter of the capitalist ideology in power
of the Atlantic circuit of capital. It is a fascinating case study because
it really historicizes the ruling class formation at the Atlantic level (in
relation to domestic class formation)


In my view, the whole problem with the "bank control" theory is that (like
Hilferding's) it _reifies_ _financial_ capital as opposed to _productive_
capital.  This is at odds with Marx's own thinking . Marx rejected the idea
that capital as such , whatever its use, could be productive as long as
_productive labor_ is  subordinated to the purpose of making profit. Thus,
investing in banks is _equally productive_ from the standpoint of
capitalist economy, because it _too_ subordinates the labor. Financial
accumulation is already part of the capital accumulation as described by
Marx's own formula M-C-M'.


This being the case, I was *not* talking about Hilferding so i don't
understand what the problem is. I was more comcerned with Lenin's notion of
monopoly capitalism as the highest stage of imperialism (fusion of
bank+industrial+state capital). This is what Lenin observed at the time of
his writing.  It is more productive to put Lenin in his own context, me
thinks.

I don't know about the Zim case specifically.. To me, Zim is a different
_level of analysis_. My dissertation is related to financial capital
restructuring/accumulation in a _core_ capitalist country like the US
(during and after international financial downturns)  Zim represents a case
for _peripheral_ capital accumulation (with a different class,
institutional and historical background)..


Can you also provide the reference of this article?


bye, Xxxx





---
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D student
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
Department of Political Science
135 Western Avenue, Milne 102
Albany, NY, 12222






More information about the Marxism mailing list