What sectors of the capitalist class do the American political parties represent?

[Tzadikim]

The most obvious relationship, to me, is that between the Republican Party and finance capital: the entire 1980s, in terms of its politics, saw the ascension of banking and other nonproductive capitalist forces over the more traditional industrial capitalists, since those industrial capitalists were rather too fond of Keynesian economics. The Republicans are the Party of the banks first and foremost, with other interests such as oil and defense in a secondary position.

Whom, then, do the Democrats represent? Until the rise of the DLC and the New Democrats, a strong case can be made that they stood for the productive capitalists, the manufacturing magnates and their ilk, and the New Deal era was probably the height of their power and influence. Since then, beginning under Carter and accelerating dramatically with Clinton's Presidency, the Democrats have fallen under the sway of the IT sector, and have recently bolstered their ranks with emerging 'green' sectors.

There's something in this division that we're missing, but I can't quite place it. There's something here that ought to be of use to us. Of course, I would argue that the reason the American working class is so hidebound today is because the Republicans have partially taken over the role of representative of those industries that still employ the majority of them, even without actually enacting any policies to their benefit. The Democrats are seen as the Party of 'outsiders', and while this isn't strictly true, the influence of those sectors they represent are certainly smaller than those of the Republicans.

[cska]

The most obvious relationship, to me, is that between the Republican Party and finance capital: the entire 1980s, in terms of its politics, saw the ascension of banking and other nonproductive capitalist forces over the more traditional industrial capitalists, since those industrial capitalists were rather too fond of Keynesian economics. The Republicans are the Party of the banks first and foremost, with other interests such as oil and defense in a secondary position.

Whom, then, do the Democrats represent? Until the rise of the DLC and the New Democrats, a strong case can be made that they stood for the productive capitalists, the manufacturing magnates and their ilk, and the New Deal era was probably the height of their power and influence. Since then, beginning under Carter and accelerating dramatically with Clinton's Presidency, the Democrats have fallen under the sway of the IT sector, and have recently bolstered their ranks with emerging 'green' sectors.

There's something in this division that we're missing, but I can't quite place it. There's something here that ought to be of use to us. Of course, I would argue that the reason the American working class is so hidebound today is because the Republicans have partially taken over the role of representative of those industries that still employ the majority of them, even without actually enacting any policies to their benefit. The Democrats are seen as the Party of 'outsiders', and while this isn't strictly true, the influence of those sectors they represent are certainly smaller than those of the Republicans.

And both represent the military industrial complex.

[Tzadikim]

And both represent the military industrial complex.

That complex prefers the Republicans, I think. The Democrats, at least during the Clinton Administration, tried to create a sort of "smart military" that minimized human involvement; we saw this most plainly with the intervention in Kosovo. It failed, and the traditional heavy arms manufacturers seem to oppose this change.

Which is hardly to whitewash the Democrats. But of the two, I think the arms manufacturers prefer a Party more willing to openly subsidize their activities without requiring them to adopt expensive new technology in the process.

[Peace on Earth]

Those involved with the military-industrial complex favor Republicans, who are more gung-ho for out-and-out war than Democrats. With other sectors of business, corporations favor Republicans to ease restrictions and regulations, but they'll move over to Democrats when they implode and need assistance.

[Tzadikim]

Those involved with the military-industrial complex favor Republicans, who are more gung-ho for out-and-out war than Democrats. With other sectors of business, corporations favor Republicans to ease restrictions and regulations, but they'll move over to Democrats when they implode and need assistance.

We musn't, however, pretend that there aren't sectors of the bourgeoisie that out-and-out prefer the Democrats. It seems that most of what can be considered the backbone of the "New Economy" - non-industrial, non-labour intensive sectors like IT - prefer the Democrats. This division runs deep and can, I think, be exploited with a little effort.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The finance capitalists don't care which of the two parties are in power, actually. You can see this with that wedding of Chelsea Clinton to some investment fund guy.

The military-industrial complex capitalists prefer the GOP. So do the traditional energy capitalists.

The Hollywood capitalists clearly prefer the Dems. So do the renewable energy capitalists.

That's five groups of capitalists so far. That doesn't count "small business," which is Republican in the rural areas and Democratic in the urban ones.

[Tzadikim]

Would it be fair to say that a good chunk of the former backers of the Democrats - the automotive and housing capitalists, say - have shifted over to the Republicans?

[Martin Blank]

Both parties represent competing platforms within the corporatist capitalist consensus, as is seen in the fact that Obama has continued the agenda of the George W. Bush -- albeit with marginally more "legitimate" credentials (e.g., actually winning an election). More to the point, each party represents a coalition of differing groups within the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie.

The Republicans have become the de facto "vanguard party" of the capitalist class, steadfastly claiming to represent its interests at every turn. However, they only really have the loyalty of a few sectors (energy, transport, armaments/hardware). The Democrats, on the other hand, have been more of a "coalition party" of the capitalists and petty bourgeoisie, seeking to staple an "egalitarian" mask on to its decidedly corporatist face. Within the exploiting and oppressing classes, the divisions increasingly appear as national-based capital (generally supporting the GOP) versus "globalized" capital (generally supporting the Democrats). However, most of the bourgeoisie itself hedges its bets, supporting whichever party appears to be giving it the better deal at a given moment. It is the petty bourgeoisie that gives the quantitative differences between the two parties the air of spectacle.

From roughly 1964 until 2000, the political manifestations these parties had were a little more clear: the Democrats continued to represent the limited bourgeois-democratic alignment created by FDR during the New Deal; the Republicans increasingly began transforming themselves into what we now call a corporatist party, since that was the consensus of those elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie supporting it. After 2000, the Democrats all but purged the bourgeois-democratic elements from the party, replacing them with "liberal" and "moderate" corporatists. In 2008, when it became clear that the corporatist consensus would continue under a Democrat (Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc.), and that the corporate welfare state would engage in the methods of primitive accumulation to keep all sectors of the economy alive (the bailouts, bribes and kickbacks), the petty bourgeoisie went into opposition -- again breaking the last "coalition" agreement and seeking better terms. This was the birth of the Tea Party.

The actions and successes of the Tea Party Nativists have not diminished the Republican Party's role as the "vanguard party" of the American bourgeoisie. On the contrary, it has only clarified that role: the Republicans are now not only the party preserving the existence of capitalism (the Democrats are, too, but using different tactics), but they are also the party that will seek to preserve capitalism on a radically (and militantly) reactionary basis.

[Tzadikim]

If the struggle comes down to two competing factions of the bourgeoisie - national-capital and global-capital - does it not follow that we ought to want global-capital to "win"? Not that we have a dog in their fight, but globalization and internationalism represents the apotheosis of the capitalist system, and is probably the only way to effectively lay the groundwork for a coming global revolution. If the national-capitalists strengthen their position in the coming years, what does that spell for international capitalism and international socialism?


Also, could the fact that the national-capitalists currently employ the majority of American workers account for the American working class' basic reactionary nature?

[Martin Blank]

If the struggle comes down to two competing factions of the bourgeoisie - national-capital and global-capital - does it not follow that we ought to want global-capital to "win"? Not that we have a dog in their fight, but globalization and internationalism represents the apotheosis of the capitalist system, and is probably the only way to effectively lay the groundwork for a coming global revolution. If the national-capitalists strengthen their position in the coming years, what does that spell for international capitalism and international socialism?

First of all, let's keep in mind that we're talking about capitalist globalism and capitalist internationalism when we're speaking of global capital. This would be like saying that, with the rise of monopolies and trusts at the beginning of the 20th century, the more conscious elements of "planning" the big bourgeoisie adopted was a step toward capitalism's abolition.

Regardless of whether national-capital or global-capital has the upper hand, workers in the U.S. and other countries will still be exploited, still be made to pay for capitalism's mismanagement and avarice, and still be removed as a class from having any control over themselves or society.

It might be a good idea to read Marx's commentaries on "free trade". The method he used is very much applicable to this question.

[Tzadikim]

Granted, I certainly understand that capitalism is capitalism, and neither is inherently preferable to the other. However, assuming a basic Marxist paradigm - that the revolution must be global; that the international situation must be roughly harmonious; that capital must be truly and finally internationalized, as the bourgeoisie abandon nationalism and capitalism moves into its final stages - must we not implicitly support global-capital? The ultimate victory of national-capital would represent a return to the old Bismarckian order and the continued division of labour into nationalized labour, while the victory of international-capital would lay the groundwork for international labour.

As I see it, the retreat into nationalism by the global working class is precisely because what you correctly identify as 'national-capital' has been and continues to be victorious over international-capital. Once the groundwork has been lain, as it has begun to be, for the apotheosis of globalization, nationalism will have become outdated and the conditions will exist for internationalized labour to finally emerge.

This is why I find the 'alter-globalization' and 'anti-globalization' movements misguided. It seems to me that, as communists, we ought to want globalism to triumph over more primitive forms of capitalist accumulation.

[Soviet dude]

The opposite is actually the case: finance capital has basically always preferred the Democratic Party, while labor-intensive capital has always backed the Republicans (as their main enemy is the unions, which finance capital doesn't directly have a fight with). This is explained very thoroughly in Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule.

[Tzadikim]

The opposite is actually the case: finance capital has basically always preferred the Democratic Party, while labor-intensive capital has always backed the Republicans (as their main enemy is the unions, which finance capital doesn't directly have a fight with). This is explained very thoroughly in Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule.

I was under the impression that a lot of labour-intensive sectors actually liked the New Deal, as it (a) destroyed worker militancy and (b) directly or indirectly subsidized their activities.

[Rusty Shackleford]

represent Finance Capital and Military-Industrial Complex Capitalists while appealing to the petit-bourgeoisie. The dems do a great job at pacifying the left when elected, and the repubs to a good job of keeping the Financiers and Militarists happy when they are elected. Obama happened to do both though.

a damn good dictatorship if you ask me. slightly schizophrenic but efficient.