Re: Information requested: US finance capital? which fractionof thebourg

Hi Mine,

According to Giovanni Arrighi "finance capital" as the final and unheroic 
stage of capitalism does not make much sense. Arrighi identifies "financial 
withdrawal" at the end of each accumulation cycle, such as, the Dutch (ca. 
1650), the British (ca. 1880), etc. Such withdrawals coincide with 
over-crowding in comercial and industrial spheres and are an attempt by 
capitalist to exercise flexibility. 

Second, it is not at all clear that there are different "class factions" 
associated with heroic productive capitalists and just speculators and 
gamblers. That kind of a moral economy is good for Leninist theories of 
class allies but analytically impossible to sustain. 'Good" productive 
capitalist can quickly turn into speculators when the situation demands it.

Take a look at the very good work of Arrighi, for instance, in  Arrighi and 
Silver, ed., Order and Chaos in the Modern World-System which also has a 
refrerence to his previous work, I think called "hegemonic cycles." 

Regards
Krishnendu

>>> <md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu> 06/16/00 06:14PM >>>

Apologies for cross-posting...

List(s),

I am thinking at the moment about the possible ways of operationalizing
"finance capitalism". The literature I have read up to now develops
a sociological formulation of the concept from the vantage points of  
international political economy and world systems theory. Evidently, there
are diverse theoretical approaches within each group (Marxist, historical,
institutional, Keynesian, etc..). Here are some of the debates I have in
mind that I would like you to comment on, if possible..

1. Van der Pijl (1984), in his study of the formation of the Atlantic
ruling class in the modern practice of US liberalism (between Wilson's
launch for "offensive democratic universalism" and the world economic
crisis of the 1970s) traces the fractional interests within the capitalist
class to two major conflicts of interests: _money capital_ (commercial
capital) and _productive capital_ (industrial capital). He argues that,
traditionally, money-capital interests (financiers, bankers, foreign
investors) adhere to the principles of classical liberal doctrine
(free trade liberalism) whereas industrialists do show a tendecy towards
"state monopoly" capitalism. Following Marx (Vol 3, where Marx opposes
"fictitios capital" to productive capital) Hilferding (financial oligarchy
merged with industry), Lenin and Gramsci, Pijl illustrates how these two
interests of capital dialectically move in such a way to allow "the basic
social conditions of production to be preserved, and if possible,
reinforced". He later continues: " The money capital concept underlay the
liberal internationalism of the early 20th century. It rose to prominence
with the internationalization of the circuit of money capital, which 
generalized a rentier ideology among the bourgeosie, both in Europe and
United States. The productive capital on the other hand, provided the
frame of reference for ruling class hegemony when the Atlantic hegemony
subsequently became compartmentalized into spheres of influence due to the
pressures generated by the introduction of mass production (or large scale
industrial production generally) in a context of acute imperialist rivalry
and nationalism" (p.9). The central tenet of Pijl's argument is that the
US capitalism has been able to forge a synthesis between these two
fractions of capital by introducing what is called "corporate liberalism--
allience between organized labor and big business. Although the French
popular front had a smilar sort of class allience, partly of fordist
inspiration, it failed to realize a program comperable to New Deal
liberalism.

In Pijl's formulation, _finance capital_ (bank capital) serves as a frame
of reference to_ money capital_ concept, and, in functional terms, money
capital concept represents _finance capital_, so to speak. Pijl then
introduces critiques and proponents of money-capital from various vantage
points and class interests (This is the part where I am a little bit
confused) 

1. Agrarian capitalist critique from the standpoint of rural economy
("farmers' resentment of deflationary policies" ; American populism and
others populist movements in continental Europe)

2. Anti-Semite capitalist critique of _money lenders_ (anti-chrematism of
the Nazi movement in the practice of German capitalism) and nationalist
bourgeois critiques of economic liberalism (List, Hamilton, etc..)

3. Critique of money capital from the standpoint of capitalist productive
capital ,as articulated in the writings of Hobson (his critique of
speculative financiers, rentier class,orienting the British foreign
policies), Keynes (his  proponence of the state as the key agency for
capitalist reform", and redistribution of wealth via "inflationary
financing by the state") and Ford (his anticipation of Keynesian
demand-side economic policy as a means to promote mass production and mass
consumption)

4. Gramsci's critique of American fordism.. 

Question 1:  I am confused with the third category. How does Keynes's
notion of state interventionism differs from, let's say, Hamilton's
defense of national economy, especially with respect to the role of
finance capitalism? We know that Keynes was still a liberal, however,
differently from classical liberals, he believed in the need to
intervene in the self-regulating market, allowing the state to protect the
market from the "petty money interests represented by the rentier class".
So he essentially beleived that capitalism could be reformed by an
activist state, but I don't see how this differs from the need to build a
national economy and industrial state as proposed by Hamilton? Does
Hamilton's ideas represent the internationalist or the protectionist
faction of the US bourgeoisie (Similar to Hamilton, List, for example,
promoted the idea of continental customs union)? Does the difference
between Keynes and Hamilton lie in the distinction between free trade
capitalism and anti-free trade capitalism? If so? how so?

for example, Pijl says something in the book, which makes to think a
dramatic similarity between Keynes' critique of the gold standsrt and the
German nationalist critique of the gold standart: "Concepts of regional
European unity were discussses widely throughout the war, and Keynes even
adopted some of the central concepts of the German right to devise a plan
of his own for international economic relations in the post-war period.
Indeed, when asked by a relation in the British Ministry of Information to
launch a counter-attack against a german propoganda about a post-war new
order, Keynes replied that he shared a great deal of the german critique
of the gold standart and international financial pratices. "About three
quarters of the german broadcasts would be quite excellent if the name of
Great Britain were substituted for Germany, or the Axis".

Question 2:

Although I terribly like the man's work, I am not fully satisfied by
Pijl's distinction between _money-capital_ and _productive-capital_
concepts. Of course, Pijl does not look at the 80s and 90s, and he
finishes his dissertation in the 70s, which is uderstandable.. Since
finance capital has also an industrial dimension to it (ie investment
banking), how can this money-productive capital distinction be made
in the cicumstances of 90s, if such a distinciton applies to the
circumstances of global economy? Is finance capital necessaily pro-market
and internationalist as opposed to the protectionist faction of the
industrial capital ,as argued by Pijl? I am thinking about the histroical
development of banking industry in the US, and It does not look to me
terribly non-protectionist and non-monopolistic. For example, the idea
behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve was to stage a more stable
national economy with the increasing role of the state, although it was
opposed initially by some bankers who were not happy with state's
regulation of banking.

Question 3: 

Does money-capital concept necessarily refer to bank capital? Isn't there
a non-bank finance capital?

Ouestion 4:

Is anybody aware of any literature on business behavior, firm theory 
(especiallly under cris circumstances), which summarizes different
approaches (Marxist, institutuonal, rational, ec..).I would also
appereciate some ideas on this..


thanks very much,


Mine Doyran
Phd student
Political Science
SUNY/Albany