That is what I am inclined to believe, but let's test that proposition a bit. It implies that capitalist decision makers know what is to their best interests when they make their decisions (i.e. they are profit maximizers in the neoclassical lingo). No doubt that the profit maximization logic of organizational behavior is the official ideology of the ruling class - but I doubt that such claim is true. In other words, the captains of the industry may ex-post-facto rationalize their own decisions by evoking profit maximization logic, but they do not necessarily follow that logic while making their decisions.
Marx's theory was based on the observations of British 19th century capitalism, which was dominated by owner-managed firms. It is thus conceivable that the concentration of ownership and decision making capability in one person can, on average, produce a drift toward profit maximization at the firm level. But in most other countries, including the US, firm ownership and fiorm management have been separated long ago. What's best for managemnt is not necessarily best for stock owners - so the proposition of profit maximization at the firm level is untenable under these conditions.
That is to say, corporate managers pursue their own interests that may or may not coincide with the interests of the firm owners (stockholders) or the firm itself. Moreover, corporate managers do not necessarily have sufficient or accurate knowledge what course of action will lead to maximum profitability. Oftentimes, their 'satisfice" rather than maximize i.e. mainating the minimum performance to keep their jobs and fat salaries.
So the end effect is that the actual behavior of corporate decision-makers is guided by an odd mixture of self-interest, beliefs embedded in the corporate culture, mimicry, incompetence, ass-coverage, and more-or-less successful attempts at profit maximization. It is thus important to investigate those actual motives rather than assume them a priori as the economists (neo-classical and marxist alike) do.
Of course that does not contradict Marx's clam that the dominant culture is that of the ruling class, and that all competing ideas are systematically attacked by the ruling class hacks. But it it is one thing to say that all ruling class actions are *legitimated* by the ruling class ideology, but quite a different thing to say that the *actual motives* of the ruling class decision makers are those specified by that ideology. If that were ture, we would have to accept that the actual motives of the crusaders and conquistadores coul dbe find in christian religion (e.g. a desire to "save" those who had not had a chance to 'find jesus') - which of course is utter bullshit. Ditto for corporate managers. They want us to believe they are ruthless yet efficient profit maximizers - yet the truth is that they tend to be incompetent, unimaginative idiots, aping each other, blindly following the groupthink and covering their asses by wrapping themselves in the dominant ideology (the market in the US or dictatorship of the proletariat in the x-USSR).
wojtek
>