<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Örsan Şenalp</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:orsan1234@gmail.com">orsan1234@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:00 AM<br>Subject: [NetworkedLabour] The making of an Atlantic ruling class, 1984 and now<br>To: "<a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a>><br><br><br>All chapters of The making of an Atlantic ruling class in HTML form<br>
reproduced on Libcom:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://libcom.org/library/making-atlantic-ruling-class-kees-van-der-pijl" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://libcom.org/library/making-atlantic-ruling-class-kees-van-der-pijl</a><br>
<br>
Like to post the first part of the first chapter of Kees van der Pijl's<br>
book below, since I believe it bears a major importance which stems from<br>
the clear adaptation of Marx' method and understanding of capitalist<br>
class formation, its unity in fractional diversity, at the international<br>
/ Atlantic level, in the text. It prepares a perfect ground to develop a<br>
perspective imo. for developing inclusive version for informational<br>
capital and its sub-fractions, vis a vis functionally networked -by<br>
capital- labour classes. The original edition of the book was published<br>
in 1984. Suggest also to read the preface to the new edition:<br>
<br>
<br>
Class formation on an Atlantic scale<br>
1. Determinants of class formation<br>
<br>
The concrete process of class formation in the North Atlantic area can<br>
be broken down into several separate dynamics of class conflict, each of<br>
which may be situated on a distinct level of analysis. In terms of the<br>
method offered by Marx in Capital, the industrial bourgeoisie primarily<br>
constitutes itself as a class in struggle with the working class and<br>
landed interests, but the actual process of its formation must be<br>
adduced at successive levels of decreasing abstraction.<br>
<br>
(1) In the labour process, industrial capital faces the task of<br>
subordinating living labour-power to the requirements of the<br>
valorization of capital. Here, different modalities of the exploitation<br>
relation yield corresponding varieties of the capital-labour<br>
relationship in class terms: Absolute surplus-value production, in which<br>
the rate of exploitation varies with the length of the working day and<br>
the flat speed of work, tends to produce a rigid polarization of the<br>
employed and the employers. Relative surplus-value production, on the<br>
other hand, which is obtained by reducing the reproduction costs of<br>
labour-power in relation to aggregate capital outlay, fosters<br>
flexibility in the relations between capitalists and workers on account<br>
of an apparently common interest in rising productivity. This illusion<br>
of an identity of interests is part of the shift from the formal to the<br>
real subordination of labour to capital.<br>
<br>
The absolute (in the sense of general and abstract) unity of the<br>
bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the working class therefore dissolves into<br>
concrete differentiations as soon as the real relation with the workers<br>
is taken into consideration. Lenin referred to this differentiation in<br>
his 1910 pamphlet, Differences in the European Labour Movement. On the<br>
side of the bourgeoisie, he distinguished between the method of<br>
'liberalism' (in the sense of flexibility) and the method of force; on<br>
the side of the working class these are matched by reformism and<br>
anarcho-syndicalism, respectively.<br>
<br>
These different modes of reproduction of the basic class antagonism,<br>
based on absolute or relative surplus-value production, were pertinent<br>
at various points in the overall process of Atlantic class formation. In<br>
continental Europe, the low living standards at the turn of the century<br>
helped to preordain the incapacity of the European bourgeoisie to<br>
maintain a flexible format of labour relations in the 1930s. Since in<br>
the Old World the prospect of mass consumption of durable manufactures<br>
did not exist, 'Fordism' in all its aspects (productivity, social wage,<br>
further subordination of labour) was not feasible and the rate of<br>
exploitation could only be sustained by gearing to absolute<br>
surplus-value production. Hence, whereas the crisis of the 1930s in the<br>
United States saw 'liberalism' (in Lenin's sense) survive through the<br>
generalization of Fordism in the New Deal and its insertion into a<br>
strategy of internationalization, in continental Europe authoritarianism<br>
and Fascism prevailed. The distinctions between absolute and relative<br>
surplus-value production, and between fractions of the bourgeoisie<br>
grouped around a concept of force and those advocating concessions, are<br>
crucial to understanding what happened in Europe at this juncture, and<br>
in fact have been chosen as a point of departure by several influential<br>
Marxist analyses of the nature of bourgeois class support for Hitler's<br>
rise to power in Germany.<br>
<br>
These determinants of bourgeois class formation on the level of the<br>
labour process, however fundamental, are not sufficient to analyse the<br>
various ideological tendencies within the bourgeoisie. Although<br>
labour-process differentiations may help to elucidate the broad<br>
differences between, for example, the New Deal and German National<br>
Socialism, they fail to account for such trajectories as the French<br>
Popular Front, where a united working-class movement, partly of Fordist<br>
inspiration, was able to ward off the threat of Fascism but failed to<br>
realize a positive programme comparable to the New Deal.<br>
<br>
(2) To arrive at a more complete picture, we have to proceed to the next<br>
level of abstraction: that of circulation relations between various<br>
categories of capitalists, or fractions of social capital. Such<br>
fractions are bank, commercial, or industrial capital. In France at the<br>
time of the Popular Front, the working class joined forces with the<br>
liberal wing of the bourgeoisie, but within the capitalist class, this<br>
'productive' alliance did not succeed in subordinating the interests of<br>
the financial world. Since it could not move forward to full-fledged<br>
Fordism, which would have included the partial expropriation (or as<br>
Keynes called it, 'euthanasia') of the rentier segment in the capitalist<br>
class, Leon Blum's Lilliput New Deal was doomed to be rolled back as a<br>
consequence of the dynamics of circulation relations.<br>
<br>
(3) A further dimension of the concrete fractionation of the bourgeoisie<br>
resides in the profit-distribution process, which, in the spirit of<br>
Volume Three of Capital, should be theorized as the third level of the<br>
determination of class formation. In the overall distribution of<br>
metamorphosed surplus-value between capitals, fractions of capital,<br>
landed interests and even a segment of the working class (those paid out<br>
of the mass of surplus-value without contributing to it directly),<br>
specific class fractions crystallize, enter into alliances, and press<br>
their particular strategic concepts. Moreover, the hegemony of<br>
particular fractions in this profit-distribution pattern may help to<br>
explain a specific political climate: e.g. the prevalence of laissez-<br>
faire concepts in the United States during the late 1950s when the<br>
profit- distribution process was temporarily skewed towards the<br>
financial and rentier sphere; or the Keynesian activism of the Kennedy<br>
Administration during a subsequent period as the resurgence of<br>
industrial capital.<br>
<br>
Of course the three levels of abstraction on which class formation may<br>
be theorized as taking place, i.e., the labour process, circulation<br>
relations, and the profit-distribution process, are in reality only<br>
moments of a dynamic totality. This totality also encompasses sedimented<br>
layers of older social relations, forms of ethnic and sexual oppression,<br>
as well as the survival of elements of pre-capitalist modes of<br>
production. And although it is the accumulation of capital which<br>
primarily articulates and incessantly revolutionizes it, the concrete<br>
social formation derives its external appearance in large part from<br>
these autochtonous characteristics. Thus the internationalization of<br>
capital, and concomitantly of class formation, in the North Atlantic<br>
area included the mobilization of the legacies of anti-semitism,<br>
Anglo-Saxon chauvinism and national messianism. At the same time the<br>
actual structures of absolute and relative surplus-value production<br>
tended to be built upon pre-existing racial, sexual and national<br>
differentiations amongst the workers. In this fashion the modern world<br>
struggles between the imperialist states, and their subsequent alliances<br>
against socialism, have absorbed the 'dead weight' of the past.<br>
<br>
Yet despite the multi-layered complexity of the political alliances<br>
involved, a characteristic inner logic can be observed in the class<br>
strategies evolved by the Atlantic bourgeoisies. Time and again, an<br>
offensive, 'liberal-flexible' way of dealing with the working class or<br>
other challenges has alternated with a defensive 'method of force'.<br>
These strategic options have loosely corresponded with, respectively,<br>
relative and absolute surplus-value extraction, and have been linked up<br>
internationally (in the sense of functioning as determinants of class<br>
formation) through specific patterns of circulation relations in which<br>
particular fractions of capital and their ideal-typical concepts were<br>
prominent. The money-capital and the productive-capital concepts<br>
constitute such functional ideal-types, and we shall therefore briefly<br>
review the distinctions from which they may be theoretically reconstructed.<br>
<br>
Capital fractions in Marxist theory<br>
<br>
The notion of fractions of total capital (i.e., units other than<br>
individual capitals related to particular functions in the reproduction<br>
of capital) provides an important clue to differentiations within the<br>
bourgeoisie which are ideologically pertinent. The concept was developed<br>
by Marx in Volumes Two and Three of Capital. The basic functional<br>
differentiation of capital is presented in Volume Two. Discussing the<br>
forms that capital assumes in the course of its reproduction cycle, Marx<br>
distinguishes between productive capital and the two forms belonging to<br>
the stage of circulation, money capital and commodity capital, in the<br>
sense of capital in money and commodity form respectively.<br>
<br>
Apart from the three functional forms, we therefore have the distinction<br>
between the stage of circulation and the stage of production, a<br>
distinction which is equally important for all further specification and<br>
concretization. The stage, or sphere, of circulation comprises capital<br>
in money and commodity form; the stage or sphere of production,<br>
productive capital. The criterion for this bifurcation is the fact that<br>
whereas all forms of capital represent modes of appropriation of<br>
surplus-value, only the productive form is engaged in its creation<br>
through the subsumption of living labour-power. As will be demonstrated<br>
below, this distinction is particularly important when it comes to<br>
reconstructing the ideological propensities of the functionaries of<br>
productive capital.<br>
<br>
This also goes for another distinction Marx deploys in Volumes Two and<br>
Three the one between capital engaged in the production of means of<br>
production and capital engaged in the production of consumer goods:<br>
Departments I and II. Since Fordism in the era of Atlantic integration<br>
rested on the dynamic articulation of relative surplus-value production<br>
in the consumer-durables sector and a concomitant reorientation of key<br>
'Department I’ industries towards supplying this sector with<br>
semi-finished products (notably steel), the departmental division is<br>
relevant in this light as well. For the moment, however, we shall<br>
proceed from the money- commodity-productive triad.<br>
<br>
In Volume Three, Marx again considers the basic differentiation into<br>
functional forms of capital. This time the level of abstraction has been<br>
reached where 'the embodiments of capital. . . stepwise approximate the<br>
form in which they operate at the surface of society, in the action of<br>
the different capitals upon each other, competition; and in everyday<br>
consciousness of the agents of production'.4 Accordingly, the three<br>
functions analysed in Volume Two are raised to a more concrete level.<br>
Beginning with the functional form of commodity capital, Marx writes<br>
that 'to the degree that this function of capital operative in the<br>
circulation process is autonomized into a special function of a special<br>
capital at all, and crystallizes as a function assigned by the division<br>
of labour to a particular kind of capitalist, commodity capital becomes<br>
commodity-dealing capital or commercial capital'.<br>
<br>
The commodities in which commercial capital deals are use- values or<br>
money, but money only to the degree it is used for the exchange of<br>
goods. Commercial capital therefore can be sub-divided again into<br>
commodity-dealing and money-dealing capital. The crucial element in the<br>
definition of both is the separation from the production process. In<br>
practical terms, because of its institutional form as bank capital,<br>
money-dealing capital may be difficult to isolate from its counterpart,<br>
interest-bearing capital (credit), which is also handled by banks.<br>
Although different national banking systems sometimes, and to various<br>
extents, reflect the functional differentiation (say, in commercial and<br>
investment banking), some forms of credit are by themselves hybrid in<br>
this respect, like commercial credit. In the distinction between money<br>
markets and capital markets, the two functions are separated however.<br>
<br>
The notion of fictitious capital transcends the distinction between<br>
money- dealing capital and interest-bearing capital. Fictitious capital<br>
is considered by Marx as the comprehensive counterpart of all real<br>
economic activity under capitalist conditions. As such, it brings a<br>
unity to these activities which turns it into the nearest equivalent of<br>
total social capital. “To the degree that it appears on the market”,<br>
Marx writes, 'money capital is not represented by single capitalists, by<br>
the owner of this or that particle of capital present in the market, but<br>
it appears as a concentrated, organized mass, which, entirely unlike<br>
real production, is subject to the control of bankers representing<br>
social capital'.<br>
<br>
As an aggregate fraction, therefore, bankers, and their quasi- banker<br>
counterparts inside integrated companies, in a sense represent a single<br>
collective capitalist due to their joint control of fictitious capital.<br>
In capitalist reality, this social dimension remains a form, behind<br>
which the competition among private capitals proceeds unabated. Yet, the<br>
special position of bank capital in this respect is brought out by its<br>
twofold presence in the political economy: as a sector among others, and<br>
as part of the overarching economic state apparatus.<br>
<br>
Summarizing the main distinctions introduced so far (circulation/<br>
production, real and fictitious capital, as well as the three functional<br>
forms of capital and their concrete embodiments), we arrive at the<br>
following figure.<br>
<br>
FIGURE ONE<br>
<br>
Apart from landed property, which represents a relation of distribution<br>
rather than one of production, these are the fractions of social capital<br>
analysed by Marx in Capital. Hilferding's concept of ' finance capital'<br>
was developed to capture the twin phenomena of the institutional<br>
interpenetration of bank and industrial capital, and of the relative<br>
separation of a distinct oligarchical fraction of finance capitalists<br>
from the 'simple' bankers and industrialists. Widely popularized by<br>
Lenin's adoption of the concept in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of<br>
Capitalism, the reality it conveys about the new empirical structure of<br>
capital does not obliterate the need for distinguishing the functional,<br>
'original' fractions. For even in a situation where the financial<br>
oligarchy is no longer effectively challenged by a sub- ordinate,<br>
'non-monopolistic' bourgeoisie, certain conflicts within the capitalist<br>
class remain traceable to the different fractions persisting in the<br>
context of an apparent fusion. 7<br>
<br>
The conflicts of interest and allegiance which lead to class formation<br>
cannot be reduced to their functional determinants. In order to be<br>
effective, fractional interests have to be transcended by a formula of<br>
reconciliation or compromise on which a temporary truce may be built<br>
allowing the ruling classes to stay in power, or rather, allowing the<br>
basic social conditions of the mode of production to be preserved and,<br>
if possible, reinforced.<br>
<br>
The economic interest associated with a dominant fraction of capital<br>
requires a complementary formula of reconciliation of that interest with<br>
that of other fractions in order to be an effective vector of class<br>
formation. By itself, the political impact of a single fraction remains<br>
within the confines of pressure-group politics, or what Domhoff calls<br>
the 'special-interest process'. In his study of the fractionation of the<br>
Dutch bourgeoisie in the inter-war years, Ries Bode introduces the<br>
category of comprehensive concepts of control to capture the<br>
transcendent formulation of class interest aggregating such special<br>
interests and subordinating others.8 A concept of control represents a<br>
bid for hegemony: a project for the conduct of public affairs and social<br>
control that aspires to be a legitimate approximation of the general<br>
interest in the eyes of the ruling class and, at the same time, the<br>
majority of the population, for at least a specific period. It evolves<br>
through a series of compromises in which the fractional, 'special'<br>
interests are arbitrated and synthesized.<br>
<br>
The objectivity, and the potential 'general' relevance of a concept of<br>
control, reside in the timeliness of the main elements in its programme,<br>
combining momentarily feasible and desired - if hardly ever mutually<br>
compatible - strategies of labour relations, competition, and domestic<br>
and international politics. The compromises underlying the feasibility<br>
of these various strategies are reached (in the sense of a subjective<br>
elaboration of an objective process) by concrete compensations for the<br>
special interests involved through the profit-distribution process,<br>
complemented by symbolic rewards.<br>
<br>
Comprehensive concepts of control develop in the course of capital<br>
accumulation and class struggle as they evolve over the decades. They<br>
can be defined from certain ideal-types related to the functional<br>
perspective of specific capital fractions. As indicated above, the<br>
process of class formation develops as a concrete totality through<br>
pre-existing and simultaneously reproduced cultural and political<br>
patterns. Besides representing particular functions in the circuit of<br>
capital, concepts of control therefore are also reflections in social<br>
consciousness of the circumstances in which these functions passed<br>
through a mutation in terms of these contingent, extra-economic patterns.<br>
<br>
The historical setting may help to explain why other capitalists, or<br>
other classes, subscribe to the concept of control developed from a<br>
'special interest' vantage-point which strictly speaking is not their<br>
own. For instance, one need not develop a cosmopolitan outlook from<br>
being engaged, as an industrial entrepreneur, in producing textiles.<br>
Yet, the fact that this industry's original prominence coincided with<br>
the heyday of international free trade makes it plausible that the<br>
textile capitalists of the day developed a set of equations in their<br>
world outlook which by and large corresponded to the<br>
liberal-internationalist ideology espoused by hegemonic commercial capital.<br>
<br>
At the same time, the stability of 'textile liberalism' could not be<br>
expected to be the same as that of the mainstream liberalism of the<br>
commercial capitalists. In the 1930s, for instance, the impact of the<br>
world economic crisis undermined the community of interests and outlook<br>
between the two fractions, as the textile industrialists adjusted or<br>
even led the way to protectionism. In the postwar situation, however,<br>
the readiness of the European natural textile producers to accept<br>
American tutelage because of the liberal- internationalist arrangements<br>
in the economic field which were part of the Pax Americana, showed that,<br>
as soon as circumstances allowed it, their original preference for free<br>
trade, which had been reproduced through family, company, regional and<br>
political traditions, was promptly reactivated.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>
</div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: <a href="http://commonstransition.org" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </div><div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br><br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div></div></div></div>
</div>