12
The third book in Michael Hudson’s history series is out: Temples of Enterprise
(michael-hudson.com)
He has good insights; his articles on his blog, his takes on Geopolitical Economy Report (podcast/youtube) and his books (especially Superimperialism) are all important during these times. However, he does appear to draw a false distinction between industrial and finance capital, and as MLs we need to be aware of producerism (about 30 min, the whole thing is an excellent read):
https://socialistmag.us/2024/01/07/producerism-socialism-and-anti-imperialism-for-fools/
A critic of Hudson, J.W. Mason argues that while there is merit and insight to Hudson’s work on finance capitalism, Hudson appears to overstate his view that finance capital and industrial capital are in an antagonistic relationship with one another. Mason gives an example of August Belmont (no relation to Trevor Belmont, the vampire slayer), a land speculator who owned a company that was developing the first subway system in New York City. The company, under the control of Belmond, would extend transit service to a land already owned by Belmon and Belmont would later sell the land at a higher price than original price since its value has been augmented by having a transit service. Mason uses this example to argue that Belmont occupies two positions: a finance capitalist and an industrial capitalist. As someone who uses a corporation to build the first subway system in New York City, Belmont appears as an industrial capitalist. In contrast, as someone who purchases a land only to sell it off at an inflated price, thanks to extending a transit system to a land he happens to own, Belmont appears as a finance capitalist. But these two positions that Belmont occupies aren’t antagonistic to one another, but rather they are two sides of the same coin. Mason uses this example to make the point that finance capital and industrial capital aren’t necessarily antagonistic to one another, but they are two sides of the same coin: capital.
We should read MH with a critical eye; the same we read anything else.
We should also not fall into the pitfall as some liberals and dismiss everything somebody says if they not appear to have the same ideological framework as us (which will sharpen as we learn) - whether it is art or non-fiction - as that would be a non-dialectic and unscientific approach.
I am amazed how some people can produce the volume of work they do; may it be a source of inspiration for the rest of us of what can be acheived by the human condition.