From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Subject: Re: M-I: Wall Street. Using Villains for Capitalist Apologetics. Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 20:39:49 -0500 (CDT) Yesterday in one of a series of panels at ISU under the general heading of "Bodies of Evidence," I listened to one paper that was a fairly detailed history of Tobacco Industry public relations, and as I listened to it a number of things crystalized for me. (Often these "crystallizations" are simply rediscoveries of something I've known for a long time.) Almost *all* attempts to single out particular "villains," whether as specific as "Nike" or as broad as "polluters" or "finance capital" tend (1) to deflect attention from capitalism to "the market" and away from production and the source of exploitation and (2) to focus attention on the supposed villain(s) and, in effect, dissolve capitalism and its systematic exploitation into the random acts of such villains. This perhaps (no, certainly) explains the concentration in *The Nation* on such individual villains. And while such organizations/publicatins as *FAIR* are of tremendous use, they also in very important ways (not, I think, intentionally in most instances) maintain at a deep level the assumption that capitalism is simply nature, the given. Carrol Doug's post below was the immediate trigger for this. (Doug, incidentally, does a very fine job of not letting his LBO operate in this way.) > > I'm quoting Rakesh below, and responding above, just because it seems > easier to read that way. > > Yes, that does sound like a lot of leftist common sense. The line I take in > my book is that while "finance" does impose certain priorities on the > "real" - in the U.S., for example, very high "hurdle rates" before an > investment can be undertaken - the two forms of capital are impossible to > separate, and that the financial markets are institutions central to > capitalist class formation, and money is a fundamentally political > institution. Or, in an economic system designed around the M-C-M' circuit, > it should be no surprise when "finance" makes demands on the "real." (I'm > using the quotes because the concepts are really two sides of the same > coin, to use an entirely appropriate metaphor.) After all, under > capitalism, the satisfaction of needs is a positive externality of the > pursuit of profit. > > Keynes, having explicitly recognized the centrality of the M-C-M' formula > in developing a "monetary theory of production," quickly forgot this > insight and proposed the (impossible) euthanasia of the rentier. > Keynesianism, bastard or post- or whatever form you want, is an impossible > and unstable compromise with capital. It may do in a crisis in an advanced > economy, or in a younger one, state planning apparatuses may take > precedence over strictly monetary interests, but as an economy recovers > from its crisis or develops into maturity, the quantity of M' swells, and > the power of "finance" grows. You can't take on the power of "finance" > without taking on the very nature of capitalist class power, which is why > most reformist schemes are doomed fantasies. > > Doug > > Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > >Except for the last half of the last sentence, doesn't his sound painfully > >familiar? Ask a sophisticated progressive today what's the problem and > >you are bound to get an answer such as: because of the pressures of the > >stock exchanges, industrial capitalists are forced to save too much and > >post bigger quarterly earnings through downsizing and the like, rather than > >invest in the long term improvement of physical and human capital. > > > >Moreover, since there has been an exhaustation of investment outlets, these > >savings can't any longer be used to finance an investment boom, > >Tugan-Baranowsky style, and so are now only wasted on the lifestyles of the > >rich and famous; so (the argument goes) if only these savings were > >redistributed to workers who have a higher marginal propensity for > >consumption, the economy could then reach a full employment, > >welfare-maximizing equilibrium. Strikes, along with progressive taxation, > >higher minimum wages, social welfare and public works, are thus supported > >to effect a redistribution of income, as if this will stabilize the economy > >or push it to a better equilibrium position; there is little analysis then > >of how strikes and the unions that lead them are preparing or not preparing > >workers for revolutionary actions at the point of production > > > >Common sense seems to focus nowadays on predatory capital--Wall Street and > >finance capital: first they have forced the posting of short term > >superprofits and thus the upward redistribution of income and second, this > >predatory, rentier capital induces stagnation through the use of higher > >interest rates to fight off inflation. > > > >Leftist common sense then seems to remain founded on the distinction > >between predatory and productive capital, as well as an underconsumptionist > >theory of stagnation. > > > >My questions are the following: > >1)is this an accurate description of common sense progressive or leftist > >economic thinking? > >2)Is there anything to the distinction between predatory and productive > >capital? Does it have resonance today both in ideology or even in real > >relations? How have they been or not been integrated (Grossmann, drawing > >on Alfred Weber, and Mattick considered it a false opposition)? What leads > >to the fetishization of productive capital and the demonology of money? > >3)How does Doug's Marxist critique of Wall Street and the most fetishistic > >forms of capital teach us to counter reactionary populist or petty > >bourgeois ideas about the power of money? > > > >Rakesh > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005