In yesterday’s seminar at the Jungmann National Academy, Professor Budil presented a new way of understanding history. Namely, as the alternation of two socio-economic formations: latent capitalism and transparent capitalism. By latent capitalism, Budil means a condition in which large owners are subordinated to state power, and by transparent capitalism a condition in which large owners take over state power as an oligarchic group.
When the big owners take power, the market is liquidated, investment is redirected from real production to speculation, production declines, and the state becomes a predatory state because capital needs dependent territories. But this predatory state eventually exhausts itself, decline sets in, and over time latent capitalism is established.
According to Professor Budil, these two formations have alternated in most civilizations throughout history. The last few centuries are interesting in that a third model has emerged in the West – industrial capitalism, which represents a very special phenomenon and a way out of the constant alternation between the two formations. However, industrial capitalism has not been able to survive in the West, so we have moved into the phase of transparent capitalism.
Hampl’s comment. It was fascinating to listen to, because Professor Budil was demonstrating the importance of good theory. You notice things that you couldn’t otherwise notice and you can piece them together in a way that makes sense. And make no mistake, in the current dispute, the local tycoons represent the side of latent capitalism, while the liberal oligarchy of non-profits and banks represent the interests of global finance capital (i.e. transparent capitalism).