94
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think your analysis of the role of finance capital in imperialism is correct.

State led doesn’t care about the profitability much, they want stuff done in accordance with the goals of the state.

This part i don't fully agree with. We cannot speak of "the state" in the abstract as the state is an instrument of class rule. And if we are talking about a bourgeois state then the "goals of the state" are the goals of the bourgeoisie, and more specifically the section of that class whose interests it represents. Which means that they do care about profitability, but whose profitability? To answer this question we again have to analyze the precise class character of the state in question...national bourgeois, comprador, finance imperialist, etc.

The problem is that the logic of capitalism eventually dictates that even if you do have a bourgeois state that for the time being serves first and foremost the interests of industrial capital, the natural progression of capitalism toward a falling rate of profit compels the system toward financialization and imperialism in order to maintain profitability. And that is if it actually manages to retain its independence and not become subjugated by a foreign imperialist power thereby turning comprador.

[-] QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 9 months ago

I agree with this assessment. My point was that with a rational nationalist country like Russia their ultimate goal may be to defend the bourgeoisie, but they aren’t trying to make the war machine more profitable. The defense industry for a pre-imperialist country matters more if it is able to defend them than if it is going to be a staple of the economy. Meanwhile in China they dgaf about companies’ profits, they just want to improve people’s lives and so on. As long as they are involved in the world market this means making “win win” deals that do increase people’s profits. However, since that is not their goal, they’re willing to attack industrial capital if it’s not doing its job, like the real estate thing.

[-] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think i generally agree with that take. One small correction though:

to attack industrial capital [...] like the real estate thing

I don't think real estate counts as industrial capital, from my understanding it falls under the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) category of parasitic capital.

[-] QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 9 months ago

No, i mean the people building houses stupidly by taking out loans and paying them off with construction that would be delayed.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
94 points (91.2% liked)

World News

2315 readers
137 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS