Is power more important than money to the Capitalist Class/Bourgeoisie ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is power more important than money to the Capitalist Class/Bourgeoisie ?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-Political-Power-More-Important-Than-Money

[danyboy27]

i think its even worst than that.

perpetuating capitalism is their reason d'être, Its not so much about making money to enjoy it.

Basically, they are making profits, to invest, to make profits, to invest to make profits.....

Beyond x amount of money, its useless even for a guy to make more, the guy just cant spend it all, he have to invest it.

Take GM for exemple, the CEO and big shareholder got more money than they can actually spend it, even with a frivolous lifestyle, so they invest in the stock market, or invest in new machines.

Its a vicious circle, all the efforts they make, the lobbyst group they finance, the people they bribe, they are doing all this in order to get a biggest share of profit, so they can invest it to have even more profit.

if you are a capitalist and stop making profit, then all your Universe will come crashing down, not so much beccause you will stop having a grand lifestyle, but beccause your existance has a buisnessman would become meaningless, beccause that what a buisnessman does, generate big profits to invest to get more profits, Its not really about making things, beccause you dont create, build or even use the product you are selling.

[Drosophila]

Not sure. John Paulson isn't a very powerful man, but he's a very rich man.

[Revolution starts with U]

It varies with each individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism

[Mr. Cervantes]

In today's world money is the personification of power. So I think that should answer your question.

[trivas7]

Is power more important than money to the Capitalist Class/Bourgeoisie ?


Money is power in class-divided society.

[LI CHE]

Capitalists careing about something other than money?!?!?!? :confused:

OMG

[RGacky3]

One in the same, money IS power and power IS money.

[Lyev]

I think these two conditions are perhaps inconsistent.
Power: there are some managers who do not own the property of a workplace, but still have more power than their colleagues.
Money: small business owners are not proletarian (they own private property), yet they do not have nearly as much money* as the millionaire shareholder in some transnational corporation.

The "power" of the bourgeoisie comes from their control of the means of production; a form of capital (capital defined here as money invested to make more money: M-C-M') which is not simply "money". Further, the worker can sell nothing but their labour-power which grants the bourgeois power; that the worker does not have enough capital to buy their own private property does so as well. If the worker does gain enough funds to buy their own small shop or something, the business would be small (they would be petit-bourgeois, not haute-bourgeoisie proper), and chances are they will be stamped out by competition or bought out and become part of some bigger chain. Through the ownership of private property, the ruling class also gains and maintains power through the control of capitalism's cultural institutions: the mass media, advertising, movies, TV programmes etc. These all legimitise consumption and reinforce divisions of class etc. as the immutable norm.

There is also a sense powerlessness on the proletarian's part as they are alienated from the sphere of production: they have no control over what they make, or over their working conditions etc. Also, with the division of labour, they are just an "appendage of flesh attached to iron" (IIRC Marx's phrase is something to that effect). Obviously, in 21st century capitalism, the machinery and tools are not made from iron, but I really think this isolation in the modern workplace still applies greatly. From the way we are herded like cattle onto trains into the armpits of strangers, or the way the modern worker is kept in a cubicle attached to a computer screen their whole working life. And whilst these workers get a relatively good wage on an international scale, (although I suppose it still is often quite poor as are the other conditions of work), the money from the wage does not grant the worker a great deal of power of their life.

* Perhaps we should be talking about capital here, really; they could be hoarding their 'money' etc.

[RGacky3]

Power: there are some managers who do not own the property of a workplace, but still have more power than their colleagues.


But generally they make more, and their power is'nt real power its power bestoed apon them by the property owners. Like amung slaves their may be some slave steward who is a slave himself, his power is not real power, its just a manifestation of the owners real power.


Money: small business owners are not proletarian (they own private property), yet they do not have nearly as much money (perhaps we should be talking about capital here, really; they could be hoarding their 'money' etc.) as the millionaire shareholder in some transnational corporation.


Money IS capital, its one in the same really, capital itself is juts less fluid capital whereas money is more fluid.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Capitalists started becoming wealthy under feudalism - in some places they would become richer than many aristocrats. But the feudal system wasn't as effective a situation for capitalists and so they needed political power in order to create good business conditions. It's the same today, the power of the Navy of the British or American Empires is needed for them to dominate trade routes and get all the money.

[trivas7]

Capitalists started becoming wealthy under feudalism - in some places they would become richer than many aristocrats. But the feudal system wasn't as effective a situation for capitalists and so they needed political power in order to create good business conditions. It's the same today, the power of the Navy of the British or American Empires is needed for them to dominate trade routes and get all the money.
Wow, this is a hack job of understanding economic formations; it lacks the basics of a material understanding of history. Capitalists had to wait for the industrial revolution to assume political power; of itself political power doesn't create good business conditions.

[Broletariat]

Money IS capital, its one in the same really, capital itself is juts less fluid capital whereas money is more fluid.

Money is only Capital when it is in the M-C-M' cycle actually. While going C-M-C it is not being used to expand its value.

[RGacky3]

Money is only Capital when it is in the M-C-M' cycle actually. While going C-M-C it is not being used to expand its value.

Actually not even that, even stored up money is Capital, because it can be used as capital, kind of like owning lay land.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow, this is a hack job of understanding economic formations; it lacks the basics of a material understanding of history. Capitalists had to wait for the industrial revolution to assume political power; of itself political power doesn't create good business conditions.The industrial revolution - the one that happened after the English Civil Wars that began the end of hegemony of the aristocracy, the French Revolution, and other even earlier bourgeois revolutions? These battles were fought in order to clear the way for the enclosure of peasant lands and set up standardized laws and regulation for trade and even relative equal rights so that rich merchants weren't subject to the rule of poor and decrepit aristocrats.

The capitalist class existed under feudalism but was pinned in by the ridged structures and so in order for society to be organized in a more profit-friendly way, the old political structures had to be gotten rid of.