Arrighi's The Long Twentieth Century which is also the name of his research, is the last circle of the chain of phases in the world capitalist economy. As yet to this circle, he specifies the combination of the European world capitalist economy within both the world system with the long centuries and partly growing with getting up on the phases. These centuries and the phases get up on each other because for his thesis, institutions and structures of each accumulation cycles predominate the world capitalist economy at the time of the former financial expansion (CM') period. In general, he identifies four such cycles, each containing a long century:
- a Genoese-Iberian cycle (15th and early 17th century)
- a Dutch cycle ( late 16th to late 18th century)
- a British cycle ( mid-18th century to early 20th century)
- a United States cycle (late 19th to current century)
Each accumulation cycle is defined by the particular complex of governmental and business agencies that led the world capitalist system towards first the material expansion (MC: money capital (M) evokes an increasing extent of commodities such as labor power and natural resources) then the financial expansion (CM': an expanded extent of money capital (M') sets itself free from its commodity form and accumulation proceeds through financial deals (MM')) (Arrighi, 2005: 86).He concludes that these two epochs constitute a systematic cycle of accumulation (MCM'). Consecutive systematic cycles of accumulation overlap with one another at their beginnings and ends because epochs of financial expansion have not only been the ''autumn'' of major developments of world capitalism but also have been the epochs of new leading governmental-business complex emerged (Arrighi, 2005: 87). For him, material expansion occurs because of the emergence of a particular bloc of governmetal and business agencies capable of leading system towards a new spatial fix that creates the conditions for wider and deeper divisions of labor. In addition, he continues that the reason to transition from material to financial period causes from the ever-growing mass of profits in trade and production and then results with the reducing profit margins. In other words, he points out the increasing competition for trade and production. The prospects of recouping the capital invested in trade and production decrease, and capital agencies tend to keep in liquid form a larger proportion of their incoming cash flows so the period is thus set for the change of phase from material to financial expansion (Arrighi, 2005: 87). Moreover, particularly that point indicates the starting place of crisis and change hands of the hegemony of world capitalist system and also the new starting period of material expansion for another country. This financial expansion also tends to deepen rather than to solve the underlying accumulation crisis. They thereby exacerbate economic competition, social conflicts and interstate rivalries to levels that it beyond the incumbent centres powers to control (Arrighi, 2005: 88). In this brief part, the main characteristic of time profil of historial capitalism (Wallerstein) is being the same structure for both long centuries. More detailed, both expansions, material and financial, embrace three different periods:
(1) the first financial expansion period that consists the new accumulation regime within the former accumulation regime with their expansions and contradictions.
(2) the development period of the new accumulation regime with its institutions in the world system and expansions within their material concepts.
(3) The second financial expansion period that its contradictions within the current accumulation regime and formation of the other rival and alternative regime which is going to be taken place of its regime.
For example, in an American systematic cycle of accumulation, these three phases are:
1870-1930: an ongoing process from the indicator crisis to decisive crisis of an England accumulation period
1930-1970: an ongoing process from England decisive crisis to the American indicator crisis
1970-now: an ongoing process from the indicator crisis to decisive crisis of an American accumulation period
On the other hand, Arrighi points out the other important factor: Diminishing time period of hegemonic power. For Genoese, it is appproximately 220 years; for Dutch, it is 180; for England, it is 130 and for America, it is 100 years. Even the periods have diminished, the scale of the institutions and the organizational complexity has ceaseless increased.
(1) Republic of Genoese: It had a city state that small as scale and simple as institutional and a spot of military power. It also had a profound social division. It was a slight relations with the major territories. However its power was coming from the importance of being a nation and apprehending the link of trade and finance to cope with the major territories. Finally, it controlled the situtation of the liquid capital successfully.
(2) Dutch: It was a type of hybrid organization as an increasing characteristics of nation state compounding with the properties of the city state. Furthermore, it was an organization which gave its independence from Spain and converted the sea power and the territorial empire to a profitable trade position.
(3) England: It was not only a developed nation state and a more complex structure but also a state which established a power on trade as world hegemon with its managerial groups. Thanks to this, it was a state that kept under control of the liquid capital universal.
(4) United States: It conveys more than the developed nation state. Furthermore, it is a powerful military-industrial synthesis on the scale of continent and also of world-wide. It provides to internalize the cost of transaction all but the internalizing of cost of protection and production with its territorial hegemony, isolated position and power of their natural resources.
In the Arrighi's concept, Marx's general formula of capital is not commented as a mere example for an individual investment logic but also commented as a characterization of repeated historical capitalism for the world system. However, in that point, there is a visible abstraction which obscures an inner alternation dynamics of the capital and conceals the interaction with other types of capital and the production cycle in the creation phase of the surplus value. In other words, it postpones the value of labor power fact. As a part of the competition to understand the concept of the profit, it makes difficult to analyze the relationship among the profit and surplus value and its historical alternation at the same time. Whereas Hilferding's point of view for the creation of capital process at the time of late 19th century when the concentration of the capital is more complex, is much more different from Arrighi's thesis. The process of a monopolization in the midst of capital circulation domination is considerably different from the frame of capital in the historical capitalism, however, it has also comprehensive quality to all capital creation extents. It can be also understood by his examples of the differentiations on the C/V and an increasing rate of the organic composition of capital. It is also a net indicator to analyze the alteration of the creation techniques of the surplus value and the logic of the labor power in an ever-differing form of the world capitalist development process.
The second difference between them consists of the Arrighi's expression in a point of controlling the hegemonic power to the world capitalist relations solely by the financial aspect which is also enclosed the change of hands of the accumulation regimes in a financial expansion part. The theoric base of the MM' phase presents this to us clearly. However, the different concept which gets out in Hilferding's presentation, is much contrast and inclusive according to Arrighi. First of all, the fact that Hilferding does not conduct his theories upon the hegemonic power in the development process of the world capitalism, is much more important to ascertain the alternation of the composition and the structure of the entire capital. Of course, I should add that Hilferding takes some countries as a base however, in that situation the actual consideration is getting the whole capital to analyze its layers. Secondly, the other point is that in the phase of the developing financial expansion with its growing institutions such as large banks and financial intermediaries has a close integration within the production sector. As a description of finance capital is, in a strict sense, the transformation of competitive and pluralistic liberal capitalism into monopolistic finance capital. But in a more deeper sense, it refers to the domination and close integration of financial capital as a bank capital on the industrial capital. It can be in a three different ways which are increasing rate of joint-stock company, personal connections in an establishment of corporate management and by financial transactions. Namely, he differs from Arrighi with these two points but mainly with the second one, in the definition of the finance capital. Arrighi is pointed this more in his work, ''The Long Twentieth Century'': withdrawal of the European banker of Dutch from the trade and industry in the financial expansion cycle; its continuity by the England as a money capital surplus at the end of the industrial revolution attack and equally the continuity of this situation in the U.S. systematic cycle of financial expansion starting at the end of 1970s as isolated of industry by the finance sector. As such, Hilferding contrast to Arrighi with its comprehensive quality of monopolization and cartelization both to two different sector (but by the hegemony of finance) and with its evaluation of liquid capital world-wide. Finally, Hilferding stresses on the diminishing effect on competition of monopolization and cartelization but on the other hand, Arrighi points that the increasing rate of competition at the time of transition from the material expansion to financial expansion cycle. He also contrasts with the Hilferding by his argument which is the severe competition on the liquid capital in the financial expansion cycle.
Thirdly, the other different point is that the starting point of the ''finance capital'' concept, namely, Arrighi assumes that the finance capital shows itself in the previous financial expansion cycles following Braudel in a sense in opposition to the starting point of late 19th century which is espoused by Hilferding. At this juncture, the difference starts. According to me, Arrighi's assertion can be predicated reclamation as not the finance capital but as financial capital (acquisition money from money). Because the concept of finance capital indicates the elaboration period of the capitalist mode of production according to Hilferding. The period of finance capital becomes important by the extension of capitalist production to the whole world scale and by the dominance on the industrial capital. These points enclose just a small-scale companies and low-frequency liquid capital for both expansion cycles in the Genoese and Dutch accumulation regimes. In summary, the feudal relations of production did not allow to the formation term of finance capital for both regimes. However, the financial capital, in other words the process of acquisition money from money, is always existed for capitalist class.
In conclusion, Arrighi assumes that the concept of nation-state is disappeared with the development of the accumulation regimes. However, even though Hilferding does not add the concept of the nation-state to his theories, he highlights the importance and continuity of this upon the capital. Of course, the nation-state concept implies a different meaning from the period of the England accumulation cycle however, at the same time, in a general sense, the nation-state concept is still continued the impact on the capital. We briefly order it with these four factors:
(1) National currency: Every nations have a national currency intrinsically and from this beings there is also a balance of payments mechanism. The being of the national currency, it gives specifics to the connection of the world economy of the nation state. These specifics finds its expression in the exchange rate as a price.
(2) Fiscal system: Every nations has a public budget as an expression with incomes and expenditures, depending on this they have also taxation system and central bank.
(3) The class relations regime
(4) General economic structure
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder