* From: Marvin Gandall ============================= I hesitate to describe these other capitalists as "part" of the US ruling class. They constitute the ruling class in their own countries even though they are strongly allied to, influence, and rely on the protection of the dominant American one, whose geopolitical interests they share. Only in this loose sense, can the capitalist ruling class be said to be "transnational".
^^^^^ CB: But isn't _capital_ transnational itself in comparison with the beginning of the 20th Century ? Also, might we think of capital as in the form of corporations ,not individual rich people. The personification of the corporation in U.S. law is actually not a legal fiction about economic reality. It is the law telling a truth about economic reality. The Capitalist is now The Corporation. ^^^^^^^ But the three branches of the US government, including its vast bureaucracy and "bodies of armed men", implements the program of corporate America - in particular, that of its dominant sectors - rather that that of competing capitalists in other countries. ^^^^ CB: As an aside here, shouldn't we be clear that when we speak of a state, and the United States state, that it includes , importantly, state (province in Canada), county, and city/town/village government, not just the federal government ? Also, I am interested in your response to the issue that as a ruling _class_, the coporations are mainly interested in the laws and state actions that impact the class struggle with the working class. Much of the law and government action are not important to the class struggle, the conflict between the classes. ^^^^^^ The US government enters into trade and other agreements which frequently results in foreign corporations being favoured at the expense of weaker domestic ones, but this is only with the advice and consent of the US capitalist class as a whole, acting through its various lobbies, which is the initiator of such arrangements. ^^^^^ CB: I agree. But this only implicates the ruling class as a class to the extent that it impacts the ruling class's conflicts with the ruled classes. Conflicts between corporations and sectors of the capitalists, foreign and domestic, are , well, divisions in capital, as the thread title refers to. They are an indirect aspect of _the_ class struggle between the capitalists and the working class to the extent that the working class might exploit them, if it were organized , conscious and acting as a class for itself. ^^^^^^^ If the share of US fixed and financial assets acquired by foreign investors were to increase, there would be a commensurate increase in their influence, but presently, even if they were to act in concert, their influence in Washington nowhere resembles the power wielded by the US-based corporations. ^^^^^^ CB: Doug and others often point out that there is more net export of capital to the U.S. from foreign transnational capitalists than from the U.S. elsewhere. However, I don't know what the proportion of the whole domestic investment in the U.S. this is. Overall, it seems likely that the foreign transnational investors in the U.S. would have common interests with the domestic U.S. capitalist _vis-a-vis the U.S. working class_. This is always a critical point. Whatever the conflicts among the capitalist, foreign and domestic, the usually find a way to be united on their points of conflict with the working classes of the different countries. By united is meant more united among themselves than the working classes are united on the points of conflict. Toyota, for example, probably agrees with GM , Ford and Daimler-Chrysler ( I forgot about German transnationals as part of the U.S. ruling class) that "President Bush should force the UAW to take cuts in their OUTRAGOUS HUMONGOUS (sic) Pay and Benefits? "
