Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:59 PM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
Rentier capitalism is a term used in Marxism and sociology which refers to a type of capitalism where a large amount of profit-income generated takes the form of property income, received as interest, intellectual property rights, rents, dividends, fees, or capital gains.
The beneficiaries of rentier capitalism are a property-owning social class that, according to Marx, play no productive role in the economy per se, but who monopolize the access to physical or financial assets and technologies. They can make money not from producing goods or services themselves, but purely from their ownership of property or investments (which provide a claim to a revenue stream) and dealing in that property.
Often the term rentier capitalism is used with the connotation that it is a form of parasitism or a decadent form of capitalism.
A rentier state is a term in political science and international relations theory used to classify those states which derive all or a substantial portion of their national revenues from the rent of indigenous resources to external clients.
The term rentier state has only been used since the 20th century. It is thought to have originated from Karl Marx's rentier capitalism concepts.
The term is most frequently applied to states rich in highly valued natural resources such as petroleum; however, it can also be applied to those nations which trade on their strategic resources (such as permitting the development of an important military base in their territory)...
8 replies, 5134 views
Rentier capitalism (Original post)
|BOG PERSON||Aug 2012||#3|
Response to HiPointDem (Original post)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:02 PM
MadHound (34,179 posts)
2. Face the fact, both capitalists and socialists have read Marx's analysis,
The only differentiation between them is how they implement that information.
Response to HiPointDem (Original post)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:11 PM
BOG PERSON (2,916 posts)
3. straight from the source
Before we go any further, there is still the following economically important fact to be noted: Since profit here assumes the pure form of interest, undertakings of this sort are still possible if they yield bare interest, and this is one of the causes, stemming the fall of the general rate of profit, since such undertakings, in which the ratio of constant capital to the variable is so enormous, do not necessarily enter into the equalisation of the general rate of profit.
This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction, which prima facie represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production. It manifests itself as such a contradiction in its effects. It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference. It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock speculation. It is private production without the control of private property.
The credit system appears as the main lever of over-production and over-speculation in commerce solely because the reproduction process, which is elastic by nature, is here forced to its extreme limits, and is so forced because a large part of the social capital is employed by people who do not own it and who consequently tackle things quite differently than the owner, who anxiously weighs the limitations of his private capital in so far as he handles it himself. This simply demonstrates the fact that the self-expansion of capital based on the contradictory nature of capitalist production permits an actual free development only up to a certain point, so that in fact it constitutes an immanent fetter and barrier to production, which are continually broken through by the credit system. Hence, the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market. It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise these material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection. At the same time credit accelerates the violent eruptions of this contradiction — crises — and thereby the elements of disintegration of the old mode of production.
The two characteristics immanent in the credit system are, on the one hand, to develop the incentive of capitalist production, enrichment through exploitation of the labour of others, to the purest and most colossal form of gambling and swindling, and to reduce more and more the number of the few who exploit the social wealth; on the other hand, to constitute the form of transition to a new mode of production. It is this ambiguous nature, which endows the principal spokesmen of credit from Law to Isaac Péreire with the pleasant character mixture of swindler and prophet.
Response to BOG PERSON (Reply #3)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:14 PM
HiPointDem (20,729 posts)
4. "the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself"
interesting times we live in
What is lacking in the recent debates about “The Future of Capitalism” is confusion about just what kind of capitalism we are talking about. Most people have in mind tangible investment in plant and equipment, employing labor to produce output at a markup (profit). But the Western world is now on a path of economic austerity, shrinking employment and downsizing. The main kinds of investment being financed are debt-leveraged buyouts of public assets (“privatization”) and corporate takeovers of assets already in place – along with foreign exchange and interest rate arbitrage.
This is not what was envisioned in the 19th century and early 20th century as the Industrial Revolution was peaking...When Joseph Schumpeter spoke about creative destruction, he was referring to innovations that raised productivity, enabling new companies to unseat the old by lowering costs below those of competitors. The main change that he envisioned was new industrial companies emerging on the wave of innovations. Lower costs were supposed to be passed onto consumers in the form of falling prices. The resulting expansion of production would raise wage levels in keeping with productivity, as production required a parallel growth in consumer demand...
Instead, despite the vast rise in productivity, prices have not fallen and real wages have not increased for the past generation (since the late 1970s in the United States). The economic gains have been taken by the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector, dominated mainly by high finance. Industrial capitalism has evolved into finance capitalism, in ways not dreamed of a century ago....