The Bourgeoise and Bailouts

[Coggeh]

Following the Republicans along with some others in America rejecting the bailout I'm a little confused, its just that shouldn't the bourgeoise jump at bailing out capitalism ?

I've already posted an article in politics somewhere about the republicans voting against the bailout because they see it as a chance to attack unions but it seems a little odd all the same .

Just why don't they bail them out ?:confused: (And btw I don't support the bailout )

[GPDP]

Some of those Republicans that voted against the bail-out did so purely on opportunistic grounds (they knew the bail-out would be unpopular with their constituency). Others were more principled, to be sure. These are your let-the-free-market-do-its-thing conservatives.

Either way, they are not our allies.

[not_of_this_world]

What few Americans realize is that a "bail out" means they are paying for it. The Federal Reserve really loves bail outs because they can run the presses day and night figuratively and just add to the public debt that is a burden on all future generations for eternity that is of course unless we abolish the debt to the Fed when we nationalize them! That must happen in our revolution should it ever come. We need to educate more that is the key, capitalism is not for the majority of people in America!

[The Intransigent Faction]

This has been said, but---laissez-faire economics ("free market").
I remember some Conservatives here saying that they were hesitant to support a bailout of the "Big Three" here in Ontario because they saw GM's fall as a natural result of a failure to compete due to GM workers demanding higher wages than what the Japanese car company employees demanded...

[The Douche]

Well traditional conservatives would oppose it due to legitimate free market economics. But there are few if any traditional conservatives (at least when it comes to economics) in the US congress. They're doing it on a solely opportunistic basis, because the majority of the people don't want to failout big corporations. Unfortunately most of the unions (since they are yellow) want the bailout to go ahead, so the democrats are supporting it.

[Rawthentic]

This needs to be seen through a materialist lense, and nothing less (not to say that discussing politicians' relation to it is not important).

That is, this should be understood as an act by which the US government "bails out" the capitalist system and the capitalist class - and is an institution (as all under this system) that serves exploitation and oppression, here and around the world.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is clear that the bailout is designed to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie and prevent the collapse of the capitalist system, especially given that the bailout did not involve the government taking direct control of the financial sector and managing banks according to the interests of the working population - instead the same managers have been left in control and banks which have been supported by the government (i.e. the taxpayer) are now carrying out housing repossessions in the US and other countries around the world. How then, can we explain the fact that many Republicans to vote against the bailout? The answer lies in the way we conceive the role of the state in a capitalist society. Marxists generally agree the state is an organ of class oppression but we also need to recognize that the individuals who comprise the elected components of the state apparatus may not always act in accordance with the class interests of the bourgeoisie in the short-term due to the impacts of ideology, and the Althusserian notion of relative autonomy. For the past twenty years, the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie have aggressively promoted the cause of neo-liberalism by arguing that the government should abstain from intervening in the economy and allow banks to operate independently, and yet in the past months we have seen a complete reversal of this trend as governments have taken control of banks and other important sectors of the economy and are increasing expenditure with the aim of maintaining economy growth when confronted with declining retail sales and an increase in unemployment. However, the ideology of neo-liberalism retains its influence on elected representatives, particularly Republicans, a party traditionally associated with non-interventionism (bringing the role of historical ideological consistency into play) and this influence, when combined with the ideological expectations imposed on representatives by their constituents, creates restraints on the ability or desire of elected representatives to mechanistically reflect and implement the objective class interests of the bourgeoisie. This is what Althusser meant when he pointed out that ideology exhibits relative autonomy, using the analogy of a house with three stories (the lowest story being the mode of production, the highest being ideology) to demonstrate his point. There are other examples of this tendency in history - consider, for example, the fact that the bureaucracy in the USSR did not immediately conduct privatization as soon as they had taken power, not because it was not in their class interests to do so, but because their own internalized ideology and the expectations of the Soviet population prevented them from doing so.

[Kassad]

It's mostly an example of the Republicans and Democrats pretending to have more differences than they truly do. It's very necessary for them to contrast on some issues. This makes sure that the average American believes he has a choice in the matter when, in reality, the two parties are nearly identical and collaborate quite well to maintain control of the American republic.

[JimmyJazz]

Some of those Republicans that voted against the bail-out did so purely on opportunistic grounds (they knew the bail-out would be unpopular with their constituency). Others were more principled, to be sure. These are your let-the-free-market-do-its-thing conservatives.

Either way, they are not our allies.

True, just want to add that the "constituency" they are worried about offending is not limited to citizens/workers, but includes capitalists from other areas that aren't getting bailed out, yet whose corporate taxes are paying for it. The financial sector is absolutely crucial to capitalism, so most capitalists fat cats probably were smart enough to support it. But I could imagine Senator X having gotten big campaign donations from some convenience store chain (Wal-Mart or whatever) that is not to keen on paying taxes to bail out Detroit.