Yeah, but not just social/political policies. Also labor peace and productivity levels in exchange for higher wages.
>also increases the relative bargaining power of labor against capital.
True, but at a cost, no? Wasn't that power gained at least in part through domestic slavery, Jim Crow, and the exporting of higher levels of exploitation? As you've said in the past, the only barrier capitalism can't overcome is polarization. This bargaining power for *segments* of labor was made possible by its assent to capital's stratifications.
> It's why capital hates Keynesian arrangements, and set out to bust them up
> in the late 1970s.
Those arrangements were under attack well before the 70s. Workers got tired of all bosses, union as well as corporate, not to mention fathers and husbands.
>You make it sound like it's all about regimentation and subordination,
Of course it's not. Capital's turn to unions after the war was a capitulation to and harnessing of the militant union activity of the 30s, just as the neoliberalism wanted to capture the production of "liberated" subjectivities.
> but the ruling class doesn't see it that way.
I can't imagine why we should be concerned with the way "the" ruling class sees things.