Today’s financial capitalists, unlike capitalists in Marx’s day, now claim their share of the surplus by passively extracting interest or economic rents broadly, rather than through control of the production process. Like landlords and other non-capitalist elites, their pursuit of private wealth does not develop the forces of production, broaden the social division of labor, or prepare the ground for socialism. Pursuit of rents, unlike market competition, generates pressure neither for improvements in the production process, nor for cost-reducing public investment. So the transition from industry to finance as the dominant form of surplus appropriation has been associated with economic stagnation and a withdrawal of the state from social provision.

Not against this article by itself, but I did have some questions based on Engels’ “Anti-Duhring” or “Socialism: Scientific and Utopian.”

Wasn’t the point brought up that as this process develops, the former functions of the capitalists instead turn to the functions of proletarians? and, even though the state should really have more control and power through this process, isn’t the financialization the exact reason we have this broadly connected and globalized society through which workers in the imperial core will have greater access and insight into the inner workings of the bourgeois class?

Of course you can call them a separate class, maybe the PMC, but isn’t this extremely advantageous once class contradictions sharpen once again at home (to the imperial core), which is happening as we speak?

I agree with the author’s point precisely when he chimes in to say,

Companies like Walmart and Google and Amazon are clearly examples of industrial capitalism, relentlessly seeking to push down costs of production. Cheap consumer goods at Walmart lower the costs of subsistence for workers today just as cheap imported food did for British workers in the nineteenth century.

This is in no way to defend Amazon and Walmart, though we shouldn’t deny that their logistical systems are genuine technological accomplishments that a socialist society could build on. The point is just that the greatest concentrations of wealth today still arise from the competition to sell commodities at lower prices.

from which it follows that this is just the natural process of capitalism and we just need to seize the opportunity to manage these widescale operations for the sake of international trade and socialist development.

Anyways, I lately started to see that I can’t find any justification for separating industry capitalism from financial when the dominating capitalist powers have already been at a stage of imperialism for the last 120+ years.

and, going back to Marx and Engels, this isn’t really going to be a meaningful discussion without a socialist revolution, a recent one, getting to the question. Otherwise, capitalism is capitalism is capitalism, sans the nuance of capitalism’s tendency towards monopolization (imperialism) and the conditions between the dominant imperialists against the rising imperialists against the ordinary capitalist regimes. Replacing capitalism with the words “finance capitalism” or replacing “anti-capitalism” with “anti-imperialism” is just going to obstruct the main issue and will, in the long run, turn capitalist regimes into a broader assortment of methods to organizing bourgeois states with a multitude of strategies to further obstruct class struggle.