Why is the ruling class so allergic to Social Democracy?
THEY'RE the ones who created the damn thing in the first place. It works perfectly, you buy off the workers with stable jobs, healthcare and housing, and they'll become so loyal they would even die by the millions for your insane wars like what happened in WW1 and WW2.
The crazy thing is that abandoning it resulted in a shitty society EVEN for them. Now they have to live in countries filled with urban blight, constant violence, class tensions, constant chaos. They have to constantly do all kinds of political manouevering to keep this shit under control, when simply giving up a fraction of profits to maintain SocDem would do the trick.
Now don't give me the bullshit of "oh they cant afford it any longer". Literally just go look at the financial statements of any company in the Forbes 2000. They still make billions in profit. It makes no sense at all. Its like they deliberately want to enshitten their own existence for no reason. Are the ruling class retarded? Or is there something else going on here that we're missing?
>>2489834>why are capitalists acting like capitalistsbecause they obey the logic of capital, its both in their immediate material interest and the whole system is set up so they follow the logic of capital, and if they dont, they're replaced by new capitalist that do
>abandoning it resulted in a shitty society EVEN for themyou seem to think ruling class share the same world as normal people. They dont. In their world, they dont do their dishes, they dont wash their clothes, they dont clean their houses, they dont cook their meals, they dont drive except for pleasure, they dont work, they dont go out among people without protection
>simply giving up a fraction of profits a capitalist doesnt do this unless it is forced to. Its the logic of capital.
Read marx, or ian wright on capital as a true god
Capitalist elites kill off social democracy when it creates conditions that lead to powerful uprisings.
For a theoretical understanding of this, see Michal Kalecki on the political implications of full employment:
https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-employment/TLDR, reducing fear of unemployment means workers have more power, and typically want to have a say in not just the terms of their work (wages, working conditions) but also in what work is done and how.
This was true both in the USA and France, which were part of the massive upheavals of 1968. Broadly affluent societies with inexpensive higher education meant a mass of widely educated people who didn't have too worry too much about where their next meal was coming from. That created a restive group of people who wanted more than just a house in the suburbs and 9 to 5 job. It also meant that previously excluded ethnic minorities looked on at what was available to the ethnic majority and wanted in as well, with some not small number achieving some kind of fiscal stability, and able to have the leisure time to stir shit up and contribute to organizations like SNCC, the Black Panthers, and the various Black churches.
So the answer was to crush broad based prosperity and make people desperate and then tell them that it was virtuous to turn society into a winner take all shitshow.
>>2490153One of Nixon's advisors (who also worked for Reagan)
See:
https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reagan/Ironically this asshole's name was Roger Freeman
>“We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. … That’s dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].” >>2489834Because any attack on their wealth, even if it is a mere compromise with capital, is dangerous to the ruling class and/or perceived as a danger.
This is the same ruling class which overthrew the social democracy envisioned by Gough Whitlam in Australia, and it's the same ruling class which seeks to destroy Venezuala. Because god forbid you create an economy that actually holds capital accountable and has it strictly enforced by a governing body.
Any government which confronts capital will have capital confront it.
>>2490216also this
>>2489834There were plenty of capitalists who would have preferred to keep the Fordist compromise in place forever. Who disliked offshoring their businesses or selling them off to private equity firms to be asset-stripped. But they were overruled and it happened anyways. Because the imperative for capital accumulation must be obeyed, regardless of what the people want.
>They still make billions in profitYes because neoliberalism WORKED. It raised profit rates in the developed world, albeit temporarily and at a great human cost.
>>2491778Okishio's theorem is
1. only one of several ways the rate of profit can increase, some of which were mentioned by Marx
2. fringe even within this group of events, that only works with certain elements (cost-cutting) and cannot fundamentally alter the main issue Marx gets at (technological overhauls)
>>2491778>has anyone ever proven the falling rate of profit?The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is
general and
global but there are countervailing tendencies, and wars destroy the productive forces, i.e. both constant capital and variable capital, so profit rates actually go back up during a reconstruction.
>>2490064>is wars truly a capitalist motive? you destruct and build, sell weapons, which provides growth etc. but in the short term its shit for profitsRead Chapter 3 of
Fascism and Social Revolution by Rajani Palme Dutt. I shill it all the time on here but it is so clear about this. Read the entire chapter. It was written in the 1930s in a pre-WW2 climate but I think its content is still relevant today, especially the observations about capitalism in a state of crisis.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-3.pdf >>2491902>If that were true the Nazis wouldn't have sent them to camps, and the business plot wouldn't have tried to overthrow FDR. It's a right deviation but that doesn't mean it ceases to be a predominantly proletarian movement rooted in organized industrial workers.These are inter-bourgeois power struggles. And you dare say social democracy is proletarian?
>if hitler werent a threat to bourgeois rule, then he wouldnt have been locked upWrong. Social democracy is not proletarian at all. Social democracy = fascism. Read
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/ch06.htm The Programme of the Comintern Sixth Congress 1929 PART VI. The Strategy and Tactics of the Communist International in the Struggle for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. SECTION 1. IDEOLOGIES AMONG THE WORKING CLASS INIMICAL TO COMMUNISM states that social-democracy is utterly bourgeois deviation from Communism which is imposed by imperialist bourgeois and petty-bourgeois. AS CLEARLY STATED, social democracy is the chief deviation from Communism.
>>2491902>[social democracy after 1914 is a] predominantly proletarian movement rooted in organized industrial workers.right deviating post
>>2491978>Social democracy is not proletarian at all. Social democracy = fascism.left deviating post.
>>2491980the RoP might level out, yes. but Porky is also likely to pork out and start another global war in order to push the RoP back up. the wild card is nooks
barring war, what I suspect will happen is that Porky simply stops investing when the RoP gets too low
>>2492091>the RoP might level out, yes. but Porky is also likely to pork out and start another global war in order to push the RoP back up. the wild card is nooksbarring war
But nobody would profit in global thermonuclear war. Companies' values are just fictitious numbers in the stock market. How would tanking the market(not to mention destroying civilization)be profitable?
>>2492091> what I suspect will happen is that Porky simply stops investing when the RoP gets too lowWhat else can they do with their money? I think they will start investing more of their money into land lording instead though, and those will become more profitable as compared to business before. But then again the governments could easily pass laws to stop them from that, but they won't, at least in America. China recently dealt with similar issues with the real estate market.
>>2492188>But nobody would profit in global thermonuclear waryes they would. thermonuclear war would destroy immense amounts of fixed capital
>How would tanking the market(not to mention destroying civilization)be profitable?read Capital. nooks -> fixed part of constant capital destroyed -> lower OCC -> higher RoP. Porky doesn't care if 90% of the population dies in the process
>I think they will start investing more of their money into land lording instead thoughyes. we're already seeing signs of this. rentierism is on the rise
>governments could easily pass laws to stop them from thatnot in bourgeois nations
Unique IPs: 28