Capitalist Class Fractions and Socialist Tactics and Strategy

Lisbeth Latham

The last decade has seen the growth in significant differences within the capitalist class, both globally and within individual countries. The open intra-class hostilities reflect the increasing instability and uncertainty within the capitalist system. The uncertainty which is both the result of external factors, such the climate crisis and the COVID pandemic, and also within the system with the ongoing long-run crisis in capitalist accumulation of the past five decades since the end of the long post-war boom.

Within capitalist societies the capitalist class act in the interests of the class and the system as a whole these include: 

• Achieving constant growth in profits; 
•  Achieving a stable environment in which capital accumulation can occur; 
• Stability for the system as a whole;

However, despite these shared interests, conflicts between sections of the ruling class can occur. These different segments of the capitalist class, or class fractions, can develop on both the different needs of the fractions for the accumulation of capital in their specific sector of the economy. This can be a simple as the interests of finance capital versus industrial capital, or export-focused industries versus industries primarily focused on selling within the domestic markets (a conflict that has given rise to historic tensions between pro-free trade versus pro-protectionism wings of the capitalist class) or on differences in subjective political outlook as to how best achieve the interests of a specific class fraction or the capitalist class as a whole. These differences also articulate themselves as conservative versus more liberal wings of the capitalist class, which in itself can have further differentiations.

The primary mechanism via which intra-class conflict within the ruling class has been mediated is through the state and governmental structures. During the early period of parliamentary democracy, when the franchise was more limited in terms of ownership of capital in some form, parliaments held greater power over the state, however as the franchise expanded, and parties emerged that represented the interests of the subaltern classes emerged and there was a danger of these parties gaining control of or having significant influence over the government, the state in many countries became more independent from the government with the creation of career bureaucracies, primarily loyal to the state, and thus the ruling class.

While some sections of the bureaucracy are drawn from the capitalist class, the vast majority of the bureaucracy are drawn from other classes and as the bureaucracy has gotten ever larger and the working class more educated, increasingly from the working class. Whilst this could be seen as a threat, the processes of education and reward tends to build an outlook within the bureaucracy, particularly its leadership (which is overwhelming drawn from sections of the ruling class and increasingly moves freely between capital and the state), that it views its interests with that of the capitalist class.

This relative autonomy, although primarily aimed at mediating and protecting the interests of capitalism, also creates space for these state actors to shift directions and support between fractions of the ruling class, based on either their judgements as to the best interests of capitalism, for a class fraction, or their own interests as a bureaucratic caste. This can also give rise to conflicts within the bureaucracy and between the bureaucracy and the capitalist class fractions most clearly reflected in their more extreme forms in young officer movements and military coups.

Whilst the capitalist class has interests that tend to converge as outlined above, there are periods of time where the interests of individual capitalists or groups of capitalists can diverge from those of other capitalists. Whilst, this can be an objective divergence of interests, it can simply be subjective, i.e. that they believe what they need for their interests to be advanced are different from what other capitalists or the state are advocating or pursuing. This can particularly be the case during periods of crisis, or where new technologies are emerging casting into the question the survival of sections of capital. 

Because the world is complicated, and no one is omniscient, divisions can open up as to how to respond to this uncertainty. These differences may be in relation to the focus re industries to be supported, but it can also be in relation to the level of aggression that should be deployed in responding to challenges to capitalist power. Repression or undermining of rights, whilst they can cement the position of capital and reinforce capitalist accumulation, can also result in unintended consequences. Most notably, rather than forcing the popular classes into retreat, repression can instead intensify class antagonisms and force subaltern groups to defend themselves resolutely, resulting in further destabilisation of the state, the system, or both. It is for this reason that sections of the ruling class, or at least their mouthpieces in the mainstream media, may publicly oppose actions by the government or state which on the face it might appear to be in their immediate interests because those sections of capital have made a judgement that course of action is too dangerous, and ultimately against their interests.

The convergence of interests between subordinate classes and ruling class fractions As conflict occurs between the ruling class and subaltern classes, the intraclass conflicts within the capitalist class can bring into alignment, at least partially and for a limited period, the interests of subaltern class(es) with those of a capitalist class fraction. In these circumstances, it is possible to build alliances with these capitalist class fractions in order to strengthen the position of the subaltern class forces. Doing so is important. Not just because we cannot be indifferent or ambivalent about intra-class conflict within the capitalist class - those conflicts can have dire consequences for the rest of society - but because they can create new opportunities for challenging the system and shattering the class unity which the capitalist system relies so heavily on to reproduce and maintain itself. The classic example of this includes alliances within national liberation struggles which include sections of the national capitalist class which have been in revolt against colonial powers.

Whilst such alliances can be important in bolstering the position of the working class and its allies, any such alliance should only be of a tactical nature, around specific demands where interests converge, and not be strategic in character, most notably this means that the working class and its allies must seek to maintain their independence from the “progressive wing” of the capitalist class fractions and resist efforts by these sections to co-opt the movement, and instead seek to maintain the leadership of the movement. This is not a question political class purity, but a recognition that as conflict escalates, there is a danger that the “progressive-wing” of the capitalist class will move to defend capitalism and support escalating repression against radical forces as these forces become a greater threat to their class interests than other wings of the capitalist class or the course of action which they had been proposing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.