America the colony

[rogerashton]

Back to soft-core Marxism,

(Once again) Marx said in passing that the government in a capitalist country is the executive committee of the ruling class, but clearly knew, and careful-thinking Marxists have known all along, that that's a bit of a (useful) oversimplification.

One reason is, as Sweezy observed, the ruling class is not a monolith. There are divisions and even intense conflicts within the capitalist class. Indeed there almost must be, since the capitalist class exists in order to compete with one another for wealth, and the "war for wealth" is a defining constant of capitalism.

Sweezy (in one essay) stressed the conflicts between national and local capitalists -- each Peoria, Paducah, and Pottstown having its own elite of wealth, and the interest of these local elites often being opposed to the interests of the national elite whose wealth is dispersed widely in and identifiable with the country as a whole. Conflicts between those groups have been important in American history in the 20th century and before, with Populists often on the side of the local elites ("small business" is usually code for "local capitalist") and liberals on the other side. I have been reading a bio of Mussolini, and, yes, this conflict played a big part in the growth of Fascism, too.

But in a world of globalization, we have a new layer, the global capitalist class whose wealth is dispersed across many countries and whose interests accordingly are global, not national -- and can conflict with the interests of both national and local capitalisms.

This is less new than it may seem. In colonies there has long (always?) been a conflict between the capitalist groups who are national (i.e. within the colony) and transnational (i.e. spread out over the mother country and its whole colonial empire.) This was recognized by Marxists in anticlonial liberation movements, who discussed and often adopted the strategy of allying with the "national bourgeoisie" against the imperial capitalist class (and the imperial system).

From this point of view, what globalization has done is to reproduce, in almost all countries of the world, the conflicts formerly characteristic of colonies. Conversely, it is natural for global capitalists to treat the Unitied States as a colony, subordinating its interest to their interests dispersed throughout their global "empire," the global capitalist system.

Where do presidents fit into this? My suspicion is that Bush I was 100% on the side of the global capitalists, and so was Clinton. Bush II, however, is trying somehow to mediate the interests of both, leaving nobody out -- "no enemies on the right." But that's "hard work," and costly, as the deficit shows. Give the globalists their war and the nationals their tax cut! Mussolini tried initially to mediate the interests of both local and national capitalists, but eventually had to quash the local interests.

So. Clinton's success was in pitching to the global capitalist class in this country that a Democratic regime would more faithfully advance their interests than a Republican party still under the control of national and local elites. That actually looks like being true, given the way this administration is screwing up by trying to be all things to all capitalists.

[On the Road]

1. Democrats Certainly Have Something to Offer Business

Just not the way GWB does it. Bush panders to the corporate wish-list, which is not the right way to run the country. What Clinton did, and what Democrats are better at doing, is to manage the whole economy and the federal budget better and lift all boats. In the long run, that's better for businesses. And more enlightened business leaders know it.

[rogerashton]

2. And "manage the national economy" means

"discipline the capitalist class so that individual capitalists, and parochial groups of capitalist, do not undermine the profits of the capitalist class as a whole by their competitive pursuit of their private and parochial interests."

But I don't think that's what Clinton did. I think he disciplined the local and national capitalists in the interests of the global capitalists.

[On the Road]

3. That's True, But...

he avoided a lot of what Bush has done. Clinton reduced the miliary budget and the demands of the military/industrial complex, and also did not support the foreign adventurism which is so good for arms dealers. By raising the bottom, he also improved profit conditions for the local capitalists.

[rogerashton]

4. Oh, I'm not saying it is a bad thing.

Long run, it is probably the least evil of the realistic possibilities.