Raghu wrote:
[MG]If the central banks aren't centrally concerned with protecting capitalist class interests, than who is? You might as well jettison class entirely as a framework for understanding social and economic conflict. But in this
This is not such a convincing argument. First of all, there is the country club faction of the Republican party and its affiliated think-tanks and lobbying groups who are more directly concerned with class warfare on behalf of the capitalists. It is hard to argue that the Fed is a mere puppet of this faction. Second, why be dogmatically attached to one framework such as class struggle. I think it remains useful today, but the day will come when class will no longer be a useful framework for understanding social conflict. ==================================== The past century has reinforced how powerfully nation, race, religion, gender and other factors influence group behaviour. These other forms of social identity are often a distorted expression of class interests - as, for example, in the case of antagonisms which arise between the religious rural poor and more secular and socially liberal urban classes - but acceptance of the "relative autonomy" of these other identities implies a non-dogmatic, non-reductionist way of looking at class. We can agree also that the Fed and the state apparatus in general are very rarely the "puppet" of any one faction. Classes are divided vertically, horizontally, and ideologically, and one or another of the dominant factions is often out of step with what the system requires. The more conservative wing of the class you describe above arguably did not understand what was required to promote economic recovery in the 30s while the more liberal wing did not understand what was required to restore profitability in the 70s. The state mediates these internal conflicts within the ruling class and is entrusted by all factions with the responsibility of taking whatever measures are deemed necessary to protect their combined property and power. Sometimes this involves war against other classes or nations, mostly compromises with them, debates are inevitable, and miscalculation occurs. This is what makes politics interesting. I didn't mean to suggest that the defence of class interests always and necessarily involves conflict.
