We’ve all had the experience of talking to a right-winger who deflects to some bullshit like “We don’t live in capitalism, this is corporatism.”
And this is why theory is important. Even just reading the first chapter of Lenin's Imperialism gives you a "in a nutshell" education of how free-market capitalism inevitably becomes monopolistic cartels that dominate western economic systems.
Having that knowledge under your belt helps you explain to others that the no matter what reform is done to capitalism, it inevitably returns to it's end-stage: imperialism.
But thats like the worst book to read on that issue.
Where Marx comes from an abstract view of capitalism and is therefore able to describe it's laws of motions as they develop from it's inner logic, Lenins views are clearly byproducts of the first world war and the German war economy as he is heavily inspired by Hilferding. They are basically an affront towards Marx since in their view it's not economic laws that determine the capitalist reality but the personal rule of the capitalist class.
"Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the “latest phase of capitalist development”; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies." (Lenin)
I would give anything for Marx himself to respond to this.
"Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system."(Lenin)
This is the key to understand the Hilferding/Lenin misconception . They view the protocapitalist atributes of the Kaiserreich (really an infancy of capitalism in what is still a Junkers Germany) as the highest and latest stage. All that is left to do is to make the monopoly universal in the hands of the state and replace the personal violent rule of the capitalists with the personal violent rule of the communist party. I guess until your country explodes into oligarchies.
Theory is important, but theory should mean Marx first, second and third. Lenin was a fairly good politician, but his theory sucks.
And this is why theory is important. Even just reading the first chapter of Lenin's Imperialism gives you a "in a nutshell" education of how free-market capitalism inevitably becomes monopolistic cartels that dominate western economic systems.
Having that knowledge under your belt helps you explain to others that the no matter what reform is done to capitalism, it inevitably returns to it's end-stage: imperialism.
But thats like the worst book to read on that issue. Where Marx comes from an abstract view of capitalism and is therefore able to describe it's laws of motions as they develop from it's inner logic, Lenins views are clearly byproducts of the first world war and the German war economy as he is heavily inspired by Hilferding. They are basically an affront towards Marx since in their view it's not economic laws that determine the capitalist reality but the personal rule of the capitalist class.
"Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the “latest phase of capitalist development”; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies." (Lenin)
I would give anything for Marx himself to respond to this.
"Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system."(Lenin) This is the key to understand the Hilferding/Lenin misconception . They view the protocapitalist atributes of the Kaiserreich (really an infancy of capitalism in what is still a Junkers Germany) as the highest and latest stage. All that is left to do is to make the monopoly universal in the hands of the state and replace the personal violent rule of the capitalists with the personal violent rule of the communist party. I guess until your country explodes into oligarchies. Theory is important, but theory should mean Marx first, second and third. Lenin was a fairly good politician, but his theory sucks.