Divided Capitalism and Marx's Concept of Politics
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1995.tb01701.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1995 |
| Date | 01 March 1995 |
| Author | Avner Cohen |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Studies
(1995),
XLIII,
92-104
Divided Capitalism and Marx’s
Concept
of
Politics
AVNER
COHEN
Unicersity
of
Haifa-Oranim
Scholars argue that Marx explicitly states that financial and industrial capitalists do
form distinct classes. Relations between industrial and financial capital were broadly
discussed
Dot
only by Marx but also by Marxists after Marx. However, the question
of the practical significance of Marx’s distinction between industrial and financial
capitalists does not seem to be properly answered. This paper tries to show that this
distinction always had a political significance. It discusses the changes made by Marx
during his lifetime, and attempts to explain those changes by connecting them to
historical events on the one hand and to Marx’s concept of politics on the other.
Marx’s concept of class struggle is generally interpreted as pointing to the
conflict between capital and labour. There are scholars who argue, however,
that the same concept might have a different significance. According to Elster
‘Marx explicitly states that financial and industrial capitalists do form distinct
classes’. He maintains that since ‘the two groups engage in a different economic
behaviour, the lending of capital and the hiring of capital respectively’ and since
they are fighting each other over the division of the surplus value, Marx
considers them to be in a state of pure conflict.’ The same opinion is also to
be found in Wagner and Strauss: ‘the conflict between the industrial bourgeoisie
and the financial bourgeoisie was not seen merely as potential .
. .
it was based
on a political difference or conflict which its authors were convinced, existed
in fact’.2 The relations between industrial and financial capital were indeed
widely discussed not only by Marx but also by Marxists after Marx. They
formed the controversy between Hilferding, Kautsky and Lenh3 They are also
discussed by Ingham, Nairn, Longstreth, Rubinstein, Krauss, Brewer, Oakley,
Lallier and Smith.4 However, the practical significance of Marx’s distinction
’
J. Elster.
Making Sense
of
Marx
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 374-6.
’
I.
Wagner and M. Strauss, ‘The programme
of
the Communist Manifesto and its theoretical
foundations,
Political Studies,
XVII (1969). 479.
’
R. Hilferding,
Das
Finan:kapital; eine
Studie
iiber die jungste Enrnicklung des Kapitalismus
(Frankfurt, Europaische Verlanganstalt, 1968). K. Kautsky,
Nationalstaat, Imperialisrischer
Staat
und Staatbund
(Berlin, H.
S.
Herman, 1918).
V.
I.
Lenin,
Imperialism the Highest Stage
of
Capiralisni
(Moscow, Foreign Language Press, 1969).
G.
Ingham,
Capitalism Diaided? The City and
Industry
in
British Social Development
(London,
Macrnillan. 1984).
T.
Nairn, ‘The decline
of
the British state’.
New
Left
Review
February-April
(l977), 3-62; ‘Britain’s perennial crisis’,
New
Lefi
Review,
January-April (1979), 43-69.
F.
Longstreth. ‘The City, industry and the state’, in
C.
Crouch (ed.),
State and Economy in
Confemporary Capitalism
(London, Croom Helm 1979), pp. 159-86. W.
D.
Rubinstein, ‘Wealth,
d
Political Studies
Association
1995 Published
by
Blackwell Publishers.
108
Cowley
Rodd.
Oxford
OX4
IJF.
UK
and
238
Main
Street.
Carnbndge.
MA
02142.
USA.
To continue reading
Request your trial