How predictable is capitalism for the ruling classes?

[Rafiq]

For me, it really isn't. I've been seeing a trend, among some Leftists, to talk of the State "defending capitalism" or the ruling classes "strengthen capitalism". But what does this really mean? Isn't capitalism a very complex, and somewhat unpredictable (Unless, of course, you're good with Marxian economics) process that no one can really "control" or have a firm grasp upon? Why, instead, do we not use terms like "Defending the interests of the Bourgeois class" or "defending the Bourgeoisie". Capitalism isn't a planned mode of production, even for the ruling classes. I just thought it would be more appropriate to talk of (them) in a different manner, on the basis of defending class interests, rather than the capitalist mode of production in itself. Because really, is this not what it all comes down to? The Bourgeois class doesn't feed capital because it's altruistic, i.e. Because it prefers one system to another, it feeds capital to achieve it's own ends.

Okay, and another thing, this time, it's a question. How can we be sure what kind of mode of analysis the Bourgeois state uses to predict the outcomes of certain modes of regulation, when to do them, etc. ? Would we not expect them to use Marxian economics for such, (We've all heard how people utilize it for the stock market) and I am aware that Soros does, ironically, use a tad bit of that mode of analysis when he's acting financially.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I see your point, and I never thought of it that way. When I say "defending capitalism" usually I mean "defending the capitalist system" - i.e. the interests of the bourgoisie. So I think it's just short-hand.

[JustMovement]

the state does strengthen capitalism, in fact the state is a prerequisite for capitalism because it creates and guarantees those legal catagories which make capitalist accumulation possible.

The modern state and capitalism were born like entwined snakes- the metaphorical term "strengthens capitalism" is a misnomer because it implies a seperation between the so-called public sphere and private sphere. Capitalist ideology mantains that the public sphere is the realm of politics and the private sphere is kind of a neutral zone, where everyone can seek to attain their utmost happiness as long as they dont infringe on anybody elses. Marx shows how money and private property, these apparently neutral things that rely on consensual exchange, are in fact political.

As far as the mode of analyisis goes, they have economic theories likes Keynesianism of the Neo-classical model. It is wrong to think that these are in outright contradiction with Marxism. These are economic theories and Marxism is a theory of political economy and I think the distinction is important, they look only at the realm of exchange while Marxism encompasses all of society. Bourgeois economic analysis can then be effective in the short-term at least, just like I am sceptical of Marxism as some way to bet on the stock market, its apples and oranges.

[Rafiq]

I see your point, and I never thought of it that way. When I say "defending capitalism" usually I mean "defending the capitalist system" - i.e. the interests of the bourgoisie. So I think it's just short-hand.

Wasn't directed at you, but alright

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, and another thing, this time, it's a question. How can we be sure what kind of mode of analysis the Bourgeois state uses to predict the outcomes of certain modes of regulation, when to do them, etc. ? Would we not expect them to use Marxian economics for such, (We've all heard how people utilize it for the stock market) and I am aware that Soros does, ironically, use a tad bit of that mode of analysis when he's acting financially.

As you highlighted above, it would be better to describe defending or strengthening capitalism as defending the bourgeoisie's class interest. Would this not also relate to your question? I don't really think that there are people scheming which modes of regulations will best pacify the people and thus continue capitalism's existence; but rather through acting in their own class interests (ie: striving to accumulate more capital) said results come about.

[L.A.P.]

I really would like to hear more about capitalists like Soros studying Marx. It makes sense, I'm surprised there isn't a Marxist financial advisor out there.

[Art Vandelay]

I really would like to hear more about capitalists like Soros studying Marx. It makes sense, I'm surprised there isn't a Marxist financial advisor out there.

I wouldn't doubt if there was, but they couldn't really come out and say now could they.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wasn't directed at you, but alrightI didn't think it was directed at me, but I think I probably say things like "they want to defend capitalism when they do such and such".

[RRRevolution]

This is a good point. The United States had no interest in defending capitalism as a whole when it fought with Nazi Germany. Both these countries were capitalist so either victory would be a victory for a certain sector of the ruling class. The interest was specifically in defending American capitalism against German capitalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

First, it's actually not so clear cut to me that the state is not guided by a desire to save capitalism. A lot of the hallmarks of what a modern state does - enforcing contracts, breaking up monopolies, regulating the stock market, even social welfare - are all to some degree predicated on the need to save capitalism from itself. This implies some sacrifices on the existing capitalists, but that is often a price the same capitalists by and large seem to accept, albeit grudgingly. And I think there are things like the bank bailouts that are indicative that the state sometimes sacrifices some aspects of capitalism (e.g., letting failed banks fail) for what it sees as the broader interests of capitalism (e.g.,avoiding banking system doesn't collapse)

Second, I doubt you can divorce the capitalist system from the interests of the capitalists as a whole, or even their perceived interests.

Although I haven't conducted surveys, I suspect most capitalists are firmly of the opinion that the capitalist system, unique among all world systems, serves their interests spectacularly well in ways that no other system can. They often cheat and rig it to their favor, but most would probably agree the "system works on the whole".

The exceptions to this are noteworthy for how non-capitalistic their societies are - foremost comes to mind e.g. the gulf monarchy where feudal priviledges have gone into making the ruling class rich but even there the nascent "new money" bourgeosie class has found a way to impose basically capitalism on all in places like Dubai.

And in places like Russia to some degree the capitalists have carved out alternatives to capitalism for themselves. But what's noteworthy is that this hasn't been replicated on a large scale in other capitalist societies. A materialist interpretation of history would indeed indicate that such attempts by the individual elements of the capitalist class to ossify their power structures are in fact in the long run largely counterproductive to the development of the class as a whole.