Reading through Lenin's chapter on Imperialism I cannot help but note the uncanny similarities between the economic situation he describes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the economic situation of 2010. Today, nations at different levels of development with respect to the means of production aspire to export capital. The location of production seems to override the demands of local labor and location is in fact determined by large corporations that justify particular locations in the name of increased efficiency. The pattern of economic boom periods followed by crises can be found in the early 1900s and the 2000s. The establishment of monopolies across different fields of enterprise in the name of vertical integration and improved management of the supply chains mirrors Lenin's description of the consolidation of power in the hands of cartels. From lysine to oil and petroleum products to pharmaceuticals - price fixing and manipulation of production rates and levels is endemic to capitalistic society. Most striking though is Lenin's chilling description of the expansion of the role and powers of banks to intervene in production. From mere intermediaries to owners of vast amounts of financial capital employed by capitalists in the procurement of industrial and human capital, banks have witnessed a massive consolidation in the industry that has been hastened by the financial crisis of 2007. ( see this for a quick understanding of the extent of consolidation in the banking industry the post-war era). The apparent democratization of stock ownership has led to a situation where a small amount of financial capital can be leveraged to exercise control over large amounts of industrial capital and production. Without doubt the direction of export of capital leans heavily from the "haves" to the "have-nots". What is interesting is the observation by scholars that labor generally flows in the direction opposite to the direction of flow of capital (for e.g. Bauder and Sassen). How can one then explain immigration using Lenin's definition of imperialism?
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
Comments