Department I vs Department II

[Comrade #138672]

I've been reading some Das Kapital and The Accumulation of Capital lately. All the time a distinction is made between department I (production of producer goods) and department II (production of consumer goods). Since department I calls the shots and department II is dependent on department I (because it needs producer goods to produce consumer goods), can it not be said that the bourgeoisie from department I has (economical and political) power over the bourgeoisie from department II?

[Blake's Baby]

No.

Firstly, money doesn't care what colour it is: a firm could make machinery for making machinery and use the machinery that its machinery made to make cupcakes. It doesn't matter, capitalists care about what's profitable.

Secondly, the economy needs both Department I and Department II, and hypothetical Departments III and IV possibly, though my knowledge of such rarified speculations is a bit sketchy.

[Turinbaar]

The importance of Department I in relation to II is its role in enlarged reproduction. It's own expansion drives and necessitates the expansion of Dept. II.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't really see the distinction between the two departments in terms of control being that they exchange capital on equal footing unlike the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

[subcp]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is a direct parallel between the schema Marx uses of Dept.'s I & II, and the factions of the bourgeoisie that struggle against one another (the industrial, commercial, financial) which manifests itself in certain factions supporting 1 bourgeois political party against another.

[Comrade #138672]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think there is a direct parallel between the schema Marx uses of Dept.'s I & II, and the factions of the bourgeoisie that struggle against one another (the industrial, commercial, financial) which manifests itself in certain factions supporting 1 bourgeois political party against another.I was starting to think there is a parallel between the two. This is something I've been wanting to know for some time.

[subcp]

I'm not much of a Marxologist, but from my understand it works like this:

The schema's in Capital are a closed system in a very non-realworld environment and scenario (a world of nothing but capitalists and workers).

This is what drove Luxemburg to write Accumulation of Capital- that the system in Capital doesn't reflect existing conditions- so her conclusions were that a 'third buyer' was necessary for capitalist expansion (enlarged reproduction), which is the worlds large pre-capitalist sector in the late 19th early 20th century. Some groups still adhere to this theory of crisis/economic analysis today.

In the real world, the line between producer of consumer goods and producer goods is blurred. Companies like General Electric, Honeywell, Texas Instruments, etc. do both.

In the US, raw materials extractors and refiners (oil, natural gas, coal- Massey, Georgia-Pacific), industrial manufacturers (National Association of Manufacturer's) often back the Republican Party, while the so-called new economy industries, like education, healthcare, etc. and a chunk of the financial bourgeoisie back the Democratic Party (Goldman Sachs and co.). There is overlap and there are factions within factions that struggle on the political terrain, but that struggle is dictated and terms are set by economic needs and changes (not accounting for the subjective variable within capitalism- the class struggle).