Charles replied:
MG: > 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.
Yes. But by capitalists I also mean the mulitnationals, not the wealthy.
Their sources of investment, operations, and sales have all grown apace with
the development of the world capitalist economy. But it's still the case
that Japanese automakers rely on Tokyo and the US automakers on Washington
and that Walmart is more dependent on Washington than Beijing. Shists in the
political focus of the multinationals follow shifts in global markets.
===============================
MG: 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.
Unlike more centralized jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere, the American
states and Canadian provinces are primarily responsible for the regulation
of labour-management relations. But even in Canada and the US, these
relations on an interstate and interprovincial level are the responsibility
of the national governments. Moreover, the fiscal, trade, and other "macro"
policies of the central governments - which are not directly
labour-related - have more of an effect on working class conditions - and,
therefore, on collective bargaining and other aspects of the "class
struggle", such as it is - than the powers reserved to the lower levels to
regulate workplace standards and labour relations within their
jurisdictions.
==================================
MG: > 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.
I was only pointing out that governments do not always act in the interests
of each of their individual corporations - especially weaker ones - but do
consistently act in the interests of their own multinationals against
others. I'm not sure in what sense you mean these are only "indirect
aspects" of class struggles, although I guess you are referring to all
capitalist behaviour as predicated in the final analysis at finding ways to
extract more surplus value from the working class.
=====================================
MG: > 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? "
=============================
In the most important sense, this is true. Capitalists and their states will
always come to aid of each other against any threat to the system of private
property in another country. I know of no historical instance where
capitalists supported socialist revolutions abroad, which had the potential
to spread to their own workers or to limit their access to markets and
resources.
But, within this framework, there are lots of examples where capitalists
have applauded wage gains and labour and other forms of regulation which
have raised the cost of production for their competitors - within industries
and between regions and countries. It's not only the unions but also the
companies, for example, who are pushing "fair trade" legislation involving
higher labour and environment standards abroad to protect their declining
industries.
