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

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at
Sat Mar 24 11:06:37 MST 2001

Hi Pat. thanks. few remarks..

> >But what is "fusion" if it all falls apart, as in 1929-33, when
> >overaccumulation and financial bubbling inexorably create
> >panics and depressions? The danger is that the "finance capital"
> >idea institutionalises what is really an accumulation *process,* and
> >at least in H's case (though not Lenin's), gives rise to utopian
> >reformist schemes ("If you take over the six largest Berlin banks,
> >you control all of German industry").

True, but I don't think that there is a real difference between my and your
assesment of the problems with Hilferding's analysis of finance capital. As
I said, Hilferding *reifies* financial hegemony to the point that his
social democratic solution (nationalization of credit & banking so that
bank capital, from his reified standpoint, could be channelled into
productive investment opportunities). Thus, his solution
_institutionalized_ the accumulation process. It was simply a reformist
tactic of _postponing_ the crisis in a _capitalist economy_. However, I
would not equate Hilferding's reformism with Lenin's concept of finance
capital. From Lenin's standpoint, monopoly stage of capital- the rise of
the state monopoly tendency-- (as Pij puts) is just a prelude to socialism.
Also take into consideraton the context of Lenin's time (1917). In the
_Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it_ , Lenin criticizes the
Kerensky government  "for tolerating economic chaos instead of introducing
state control of the war economy (which he judged necessary for
consolidating the bourgeois republic), Lenin went on to attack the
_Mensheviks_ and Social revolutionaries for their falure to see that such
state control represented " the complete material preperation for
socialism-- the threshold of socialism" (Pijl, p. 76). So state monopoly
tendecy implied a revolutionary step forward at the time in Russia. It did
not mean institutionalization of capitalism. It meant its abolishment, at
least from the standpoint of Lenin: 1) :forced centralization of bank
capital into a single bank under state auspicies 2) nationalization of the
major syndicates 3) abolition of commecial secrecy 4) compulsary
syndication of industry and commerce 5) compulsary organization of the
population into consumers societies"

> > Can you also provide the reference of this article?
> >The stuff I sent this morning was from a PhD (Johns Hopkins
> >University, 1992); some of it got into the book: Uneven Zimbabwe: A
> >Study of Finance, Development and Underdevelopment (Trenton, Africa
> >World Press, 1998)...
> >Cheers, comrade.


cheers, 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