Industrial, trade, and finance capital: three interests, two political divides

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/special-factors.html

In the blog above, Boffy wrote at the end:


Social-Democracy has always been the real ideological representation of the interests of Big Capital, whereas the Conservative policies of the Tory Right, or the Republicans in the US have always been more closely a reflection of the interests of small capital, of the petit-bourgeoisie, and more backward sections of society.

This brought to mind a thread in the main Theory forum about the traditional economic policies of the main bourgeois parties (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-contradiction-and-t154653/index.html), the party of order and the party of liberty (usually labelled "conservatives" and "liberals," respectively)

Traditionally, capital from Hilferding to more populist discourse is said to be divided between Industrial Capital and Finance Capital. That's not the case. There are three forms of capital: Industrial, Trade, and Finance. Finance capital is never the predominant form of capital, but rather subordinated to the other two at one point. Neoliberalism is an instance of subordination to *Trade* Capital.

In relation to the economic policies of the two big parties, Boffy seems to be asserting above that there's homogenous Big Capital support for *progressivism*/*liberalism* (not "social democracy"), and the same for any homogenous petit-bourgeois support for conservatism, when that's not the case.

I think the real divide between any given Party of Order and any given Party of Liberty (the terms Mike Macnair uses to describe typical conservative and liberal politics, respectively) is the interests of Trade Capital vs. the interests of Industrial Capital.

Shopkeeping, non-industrial fishing, small farming, consulting, etc. do not exhibit an "industrial" character. They are all more involved in Trade. Bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements that engage in their respective activities divide more along the Industrial/Trade lines.

Neoliberalism, where Finance Capital was subordinated to Trade Capital, was merely a period whereby Industrial Capital's interests on the liberal side may not have been very well represented, with the fetish for free trade agreements.

[Desperado]

Their base of support traditionally lied with the petit-bourgeoisie, but how much have Tory policies concretely supported them in opposition to the big capital bourgeoisie?

[Zanthorus]

I'm finding it really difficult to decide if this thread really belongs in the Economics subforum. It doesn't seem to be about any issues of economic theory but rather more political and class issues (I realise that these issues will overlap to a significant extent but I think there is still a divide of some sort where you aren't actually saying anything in particular about economic theory and DNZ has definitely crossed it here). I'm not sure exactly where it would go either though which is probably half my problem.

[Desperado]

I think theory would be fair. It's a bit too general to go into politics.

[Zanthorus]

I was thinking that myself but yeah...

Moved to theory.

[Jose Gracchus]

I'm skeptical on this "Trade Capital"; what defines it as unique v. other forms.

[DinodudeEpic]

Actually, I think the Social Democrats/Liberals(Both classical and social) 'represent' (Ideology is based on the individual. Not the class of said individual. Thus it is more like a majority then anything else. ) the 'petit-bourgeosis' (Middle Class) and entrepreneurs the most. Of course, they can be conservative/reactionary like how workers can have those ideologies. The reason is simply that they are not the ruling class, and they don't want the status quo.

Right-wing ideologies 'represent' big capital mostly. Which you can call more like the Aristocracy. It is just simply that the ruling class wouldn't want to pass reforms, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Fascism has it's support from all classes. It's purpose is to end class conflict via national unity. (Which is just code for let the big capital rule via the all-powerful state.) It also has something to offer for everyone. (So it says.)

Of course, Industrial capital is mostly liberal or social democratic. Agricultural capital is mostly conservative or reactionary. Financial capital mostly wants a hands off economy, which conservatives today support. The simple reason is that Industry is where most technological advances come from, and is the most progressive field of the economy. Agriculture is traditionally backwards.

[CAleftist]

Actually, I think the Social Democrats/Liberals(Both classical and social) 'represent' (Ideology is based on the individual. Not the class of said individual. Thus it is more like a majority then anything else. ) the 'petit-bourgeosis' (Middle Class) and entrepreneurs the most. Of course, they can be conservative/reactionary like how workers can have those ideologies. The reason is simply that they are not the ruling class, and they don't want the status quo.

Right-wing ideologies 'represent' big capital mostly. Which you can call more like the Aristocracy. It is just simply that the ruling class wouldn't want to pass reforms, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Fascism has it's support from all classes. It's purpose is to end class conflict via national unity. (Which is just code for let the big capital rule via the all-powerful state.) It also has something to offer for everyone. (So it says.)

Of course, Industrial capital is mostly liberal or social democratic. Agricultural capital is mostly conservative or reactionary. Financial capital mostly wants a hands off economy, which conservatives today support. The simple reason is that Industry is where most technological advances come from, and is the most progressive field of the economy. Agriculture is traditionally backwards.

I tend to think some of industrial capital's "progressiveness" is also the result of having unionized workforces (at least historically).

Agriculture is much more static than industry and finance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm skeptical on this "Trade Capital"; what defines it as unique v. other forms.

Back in the early 20th century, before "means of production" became bigger in definition, there was talk of "means of production and distribution." For example, all the stuff leading to and including Labour's infamous Clause Four mentioned this. Trade Capital deals particularly with the "means of distribution."