/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1801648
To respond with my own personal theory: no, I don't think they do. Most of them at least.

Y'know what I think the sad fact of this all is? I think, honestly, a lot of individual Capitalists don't feel like they're "in control" or what have you. I think about the Holocaust sometimes, how all those Nazi freaks would try to pull the "I was just following orders!" trope. Want to know what makes that so awful? To some extent you can see the thought process:
>"I'm not committing genocide, I'm pushing the Jews into the cattle cars."
>"I'm not committing genocide, I'm just accounting for all the prisoners."
>"I'm not committing genocide, I'm just telling them they have to head for the showers."
>"I'm not committing genocide, I'm just pressing a button when ordered to."

That's the brilliance of evil, I guess. You can divide it and subdivide it into a million little parts, until everyone is a little guilty but no one "feels" guilty. I think Oil Bougies think "The Government" will step in to save the day, so they don't have to do anything. The government thinks that Capitalist R&D will "fix" climate change. The scientists developing new methods of oil extraction will think that the company can reinvest its profits in renewables. On and on it goes, endlessly, down to the individual.

That's Liberalism's greatest weakness and its greatest strength. No one can take responsibility. There's no one head to cut off to solve everything. I think the sad fact is that even if the White House were to be hit by a meteor and the entire executive branch would be wiped out, you'd still have the genocide in Gaza continuing on autopilot. That's the absurd, stupid horror of it. I think it's reflected in how Q-Anon conspiracies filtered even to the upper echelons of government power; you'd have guys in the Trump Whitehouse taking Q-bullshit seriously, thinking it's indicative of reality, when they're the ones the conspiracy is talking about. They would know they don't have some 5D Chess plan to overthrow "the cabal" but all these idiots likely think they're just "left out" of the planning parts of it. Clarence Thomas would go to Bohemian Grove to rub shoulders with the elites, while his wife rants about "The Deep State."

You could have a real Illuminati out there existing in the world, and this table of guys meeting in smoke-filled rooms and discussing plots to get "their" people in government will still likely defer responsibility to someone else, or think "other people" are the ones really ruling the world.

Christ, it almost gives a renewed appreciation for autocracy. At least then, one person is unmistakably in charge.

>>1801669
thanks for the reply, i understand your point and i think it reasonably fills in the gaps for me
i'll think more about it with this in mind

>>1801669
They were just excusing themselves to avoid punishment. Don't believe liars' lies, they were fully into it. Even the Ahrens from Nuremberg Trials dropped the whole "we wuz just doing drills" and the "wolf digging two meters deep during a winter to exhume bones" story later on

>>1801648
>capitalists generally have a concept or understanding of capitalism's eventual self-imposed collapse

Only when they see an alternative. The most obvious example is Russian nobility around the Revolutions time, where they majorily sided with social-revolutionaries of all kinds. They had this conundrum of being fed and clothed by the current system, but also seeing very clearly that the system they live in is immensely inefficient and poor compared to capitalism in England or France or USA

Depends on who you are, I guess.

Petites are generally libertarians in the States and liberals in the West.

Hautes, on the other hand, can afford not to be engrossed by ideology, so either they're being hypocritical (i.e, bullshit to keep the system alive as long as possible) or they just keep mum.

Finance elites were reading Capital en masse after the GFC in 2008, by the way. Most of them are trying to make a couple of million by age 40, then retire, so they're not that affixed to capitalism, and making money in finance is often a question of "hacking" or "breaking" the capitalist system.

The latter case, they're ideologically "woke" on capitalism, but won't jump ship unless you can give them a better offer.

>>1801706 (me)

You have to realize, the shitbaggery at i-bank circles DEPENDS on capitalism not working; i.e, they can make hustles through derivatives mispricing and so on, which in efficient markets theory shouldn't really exist or should be minimally profitable.

You should actually be viewing them as heroes, and if you have the mathematical chops to make it, go become a quantitative analyst, because it's the biggest way of sticking it in the face of capitalism, by making money from no real labor and just laughing all the way to the bank at capitalist misallocations.

The only fundamental problem with their role, however, is where the fucking money goes. Doing it for a SWF, however few there may be, is doing it for the masses, the people, etc… doing it for an i-bank is for private profit.

Where can I find a Marxist / socialist hedge fund?

>>1801708 (me)

Frankly, the ideal is a Marxist hedge fund that buys puts, then does some insider trading with affiliated unions and labor activists on the underlying security to create labor disruptions at the target firm.

That causes the value of the security to crater, allowing the buyer of the put to sell high, buy low, then work with labor to create more sustainable working practices.

Rinse, repeat, laugh all the way to the bank. Gotta love finance.

>>1801669
>To respond with my own personal theory: no, I don't think they do. Most of them at least.
people like Musk and Bezos are beholden to their shareholders you're right in many ways

>somewhat simple good faith question: do you think capitalists generally have a concept or understanding of capitalism's eventual self-imposed collapse?
Most porkies are spoiled trust fund babies but they employ educated specialists as advisors.

>>1801648
Many American billionaires have sprawling bunkers, so they get it. Others - not so much.

>>1801648
I suspect thats why e acceleration is being pushed. They know the current system cant last forever so they are pushing for magical tech solutions. The le "Tech feudalism"

The capitalism that Marx studied collapsed long ago and was finally abolished just after WW2. In Marx's time, businesses were owned by individual owners and this collapsed when states had to intervene to prop up labor markets, dissolve monopolies and supply states to fight in wars.

Today most big businesses are owned by a more diverse group, but the same families that owned businesses in Marx's time are also the diverse groups that own businesses today, just with different legal and political structures. This is why the bourgeoisie has nothing to fear because the people in this class will be in the top class in whatever the next system is. They are friends with politicians and the state, so they will be put in charge of the new organizations that pop up.

Russian and Chinese Revolutions were anomalies and won't happen again because modern state security will put down revolutions before they begin.

>>1804413
However, the same social crises spawned by capitalism will still occur; it’s just that the repressive apparatuses are way more effective at ending them in favor of elites.

End of the day, tens or even hundreds of millions of people will be unemployed or underemployed in the coming decades due to AI; I.e, the system of capitalism that exists cannot endure, and modern “late-stage capitalism” will fall. We simply don’t have a guarantee that it will fall into socialism or communism.

>>1801709
What's "puts"?

>do you think capitalists generally have a concept or understanding of capitalism's eventual self-imposed collapse?
It is clear fact. See the most recent annual WEF meeting. The bourgeoisie themselves argue for higher taxation and social spending.
>i feel like the people who essentially run everything have to have some kind of understanding / awareness of the unsustainable nature of the system they dominate, right?
The democrats who actually run bourgeois states know this completely so they keep the system stable by continuously subsidizing the bourgeoisie.
>what ends up being the endgame for these people?
The continuation of existing conditions.

No one is in charge of a system. Marx's translation of hegel's Spirit to capitalism is to see how we are all actively engaging in the capital relation, and so are all capitalist actors (this is also why all anti-capitalism is "ideological" and reaffirms the system; just look at the punks and anarchists) - thats why agency is given to the system itself as a conglomeration of internal class contradictions that will resolve themselves. Marx suggests a "negation of the negation" but i dont agree.
>what ends up being the endgame for these people?
To make money. What else?
>>1804413
Yeah exactly, the transition from liberalism to corporatism (what mussolini describes as the "trust" enterprise of private and state power) has already been completed, and the abolishment of the gold standard furthers the keynesian insights that like marx, undo the foundations of previous economic thought, with insights like chartalism and the role of force in the foundations of society (as opposed to smith's uncritical eternalising of capitalist relations, where the barter myth has even been overturned by developments like "the gift economy" of early history). I would add also an analysis of "the managerial revolution" theoretically forwarded by people such as james burnham for relevance in the way capitalism has changed.
History is always in process.

>>1804491
>The continuation of existing conditions.
Yes, but the battle is not just capital vs labour, its also an intra-capitalist civil war (that marx and engels describe in the 3 volumes of capital, and that someone like michael hudson also describes). Big business vs small business, MSM vs alternative media, mainstream vs indie, etc.
Existing conditions are propping up a decaying ruling class that will soon be replaced by a newer and fresher one.