I. The Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie, according to Engels, is "...the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour."1 The capitalist does not participate directly in the process of production. Instead, his function is only "...the appropriation and therefore control of the labour of others and... the selling of the products of this labour."2 This is what differentiates the bourgeoisie from the petty bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeois proprietor may also own means of production, and he may also employ labor, and therefore he is also nominally a capitalist. However, writes Engels: "capitalist production requires an individual capital big enough to employ a fairly large number of workers at a time; only when he himself is wholly released from labour does the employer of labour become a full-blooded capitalist."3 The petty proprietor lives by his own labor (as well as, in the case of the upper petty businessman, the labor of others) while the capitalist lives exclusively by the labor of others.

The number of capitalists in the United States does not amount to more than 2,000,000, accounting for less than 1.8% of the "economically active" population. However, this small fraction of the population controls the businesses which account for 94% of all business sales, a reflection of the concentration of the means of production in their hands. The concentration of economic power is shown in Table A-1.

Table A-1

Concentration of Business Sales (1978)4

Social Class

Employment Size

Number of Companies

Percent of Companies

Sales
(Millions $)

Percent of Sales

Petty Bourgeoisie

Under 5

2,136,656

57.20

292,255

5.7

Small Capitalist

5-49

1,442,600

38.60

1,049,505

20.5

Middle Capitalist

50-499

143,522

3.80

848,287

16.6

Large Capitalist

500-4,999

12,223

.30

845,880

16.6

Monopoly Capitalist

5,000 & over

1,450

.04

2,072,151

40.5

Total *

3,736,451

100.00

5,108,078

100.0

*Independent rounding of figures may result in totals varying from the sum of the individual units

These figures show clearly that the petty bourgeoisie has been relegated to the economic sidelines and that virtually all economic activity in the U.S. is in the hands of the capitalist class. But even the majority of the capitalists play a relatively insignificant role. The small and middle capitalist enterprises (those with less than 500 employees) make up more than 99% of capitalist enterprises but account for less than 37% of all business sales. The monopoly capitalist enterprises (those with more than 5,000 employees), numbering only 1,450, were responsible for more than 40% of all sales. These monopoly capitalist enterprises are concentrated in the decisive sectors of the economy and they control an even greater portion of these sectors. For example, in mining, 26 monopoly capitalist companies pull in 87.9% of total sales.5 A similar study, measuring assets rather than sales, concluded that:

The strength of the monopoly sector is still greater if measured by net income. One study, using 1977 IRS statistics, showed that the largest 1,300 corporations appropriated 82.2% of all corporate net income after taxes. The largest 100 corporations alone accounted for 45.8% of corporate net income after taxes.7

The real power of the monopoly bourgeoisie is even greater than an accounting of assets, net income or sales alone tells. The lesser capitalist and petty bourgeois businesses are nominally independent but they are actually completely dependent on the monopoly capitalists. They are financed by the monopoly capitalist banks and their businesses usually revolve around the monopoly capitalists – they sell or transport the goods produced by the monopolies, produce goods for sale to the monopolies, etc.

Those Who Own Stock and Those Who Control Corporations

Stock ownership, as a rule, is limited to a small part of the population: the capitalists, the upper petty bourgeoisie and a small number of the middle petty bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy. Over 85% of the country's population owns no stock whatsoever.8 One study showed that in 1975 711,000 families, making up only 1% of all families, owned 66% of all personally-held corporate stock. Within this select group, 194,000 families (those with a net worth of over $1,000,000), making up only 0.3% of all families, owned 35% of all personally-held stock.9 Once again, however, real economic power is held in far fewer hands than these.

Stockholding in the large monopoly corporations has been extended to include large numbers of the lesser capitalists, the upper petty bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy simply in order to place more capital at the disposal of the monopoly capitalists. For the petty bourgeois professional, the purchase of stocks is simply a form of savings. For the capitalist who controls the corporation, however, these savings of the petty bourgeoisie are transformed into his capital.

Who Are The Monopoly Bourgeoisie?

The monopoly bourgeoisie is the sector of the bourgeoisie that controls the monopoly corporations. The core of this stratum, as we have said, is made up of several hundred families. A large number of these families, along with the main companies they are associated with, are listed in Table A-2. Several of these families stand out as the personification of monopoly bourgeois wealth and power. The Rockefellers, Mellons, and DuPonts each own billions of dollars worth of corporate stock and control not one, but numerous, gigantic industrial firms and financial institutions. The Rockefellers control the Standard Oil group (Exxon, Mobil, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of Indiana, Arco) as well as the Chase Manhattan Bank, Equitable Life Assurance and numerous other companies. The Mellons control the Mellon Bank as well as Gulf Oil, Alcoa, Koppers, Consolidation Coal and numerous other firms. Among the DuPont interests are the DuPont Corporation, General Motors, Uniroyal and Phillips Petroleum.10

The present-day monopoly bourgeoisie is composed primarily of families that accumulated their wealth during the rise of monopoly: capitalism (more or less from the Civil War to World War I). There are, of course, a few new monopoly bourgeois families, but this does not affect the overall character of the class.

Closely associated with the monopoly bourgeoisie, and indistinguishable from it politically, is a corps of highly-paid agents. These include the top management of the monopoly corporations, the top academic elite, the top government officials and the top military officers. Members of the monopoly bourgeois families many times serve in these capacities themselves, but they bolster their ranks with numerous deputies. These top officials are so highly rewarded through salaries, stock options and "business deals" that they become capitalists themselves.

Table A-2

A Partial List of Monopoly Bourgeois Families

Anderson

Arco Petroleum

Annenberg

Triangle Publications

Babot

Cabot

Bass

oil

Bechtel

Bechtel Construction

Bronfman

Seagram

Brown

Brown and Root

Busch

Anheuser-Busch

Cargill

Cargill

Cheatham

Georgia-Pacific

Clark

Singer

Coors

Coors

Cowles

publishing

Cox

Cox Communications

Crown

General Dynamics

Danforth

Ralston-Purina

Davis

Winn-Dixie

DeVos

Amway

Dillon

Dillon, Read

Dorrance

Campbell Soup

Doubleday

Doubleday

Dow

Dow

Duke

Duke

DuPont

DuPont

Eaton

Eaton

Engelhard

Engelhard

Fairchild

Fairchild

Field

publishing

Firestone

Firestone

Ford

Ford

Fribourg

Continental Grain

Gallo

Gallo

Galvin

Motorola

Gates

Gates Rubber

Gerber

Gerber

Getty

Getty Oil

Grace

W.R. Grace

Haas

Levi-Strauss

Hammer

Occidental Petroleum

Hanna

Hanna Mining

Harriman

Union Pacific Railroad

Hearst

publishing

Heinz

Heinz

Hershey

Hershey

Hess

Amerada-Hess Oil

Hewlett

Hewlett-Packard

Hilton

Hilton Hotels

Houghton

Corning Glass

Hunt

Hunt Energy

Johnson

Howard Johnson

Johnson

Johnson's Wax

Kaiser

Kaiser Industries

Keck

Superior Oil

Kellogg

Kellogg

Knight

Nike

Knight

Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Kroc

McDonald's

Lilly

Eli Lilly

Ludwig

shipping

Lykes

shipping

Marriott

Marriott

Mars

Mars Candy

Mayer

Oscar-Mayer

McDonnell

McDonnell-Douglas

McGee

Kerr-McGee

McGraw

McGraw-Hill

McLean

McLean Trucking

Mellon

Gulf Oil

Milliken

Milliken Textiles

Moore

Intel

Murdock

Cannon Mills

Newhouse

Random House

Olin

Olin Chemical

Packard

Hewlett-Packard

Paley

CBS

Paulsen

Gulfstream Aerospace

Pew

Sunoco

Phipps

International Paper

Pitcairn

PPG Industries

Pulitzer

Pulitzer Publishing

Robins

A.H. Robbins

Rockefeller

Standard Oil, etc.

Rockwell

Rockwell International

Rosenwald

Sears, Roebuck

Scripps

Scripps-Howard Publishing

Searle

G.D. Searle

Simon

Norton Simon

Singleton

Teledyne

Stokely

Stokeley-Van Camp

Stuart

Carnation

Sulzberger

New York Times

Uihlein

Schlitz

Upjohn

Upjohn

Van Andel

Amway

Wallace

Reader's Digest

Walton

Wal-Mart

Wang

Wang

Weyerhauser

Weyerhauser

Woodruff

Coca-Cola

Zellerbach

Crown-Zellerbach

The Political Power of the Monopoly Bourgeoisie

The iron grip that the monopoly bourgeoisie has over the economy is matched by its iron grip on the state apparatus, the chief instruments of which are the military and the police. The monopoly bourgeoisie and its representatives hold undivided political power in their hands. The lesser capitalists also play their role in governing society, especially in local government. But the role of the lesser capitalists in the political, as in the economic, sphere is always subordinate to the monopoly bourgeoisie.

The "Two-Party System". Both the Democratic and Republican parties, which between them hold state power in their hands, are instruments of the monopoly bourgeoisie. In the decades that followed the Civil War, as the monopoly bourgeoisie established itself as the supreme economic power in the country, it also established its hegemony in the two major bourgeois political parties.

In the Republican Party, it beat back and disintegrated the fledgling democratic alliance of freedmen, small farmers and small capitalists ("Radical Republicans"), while in the Democratic Party it established its domination over the former slaveowners who had traditionally ruled the party.

The hegemony of the monopoly bourgeoisie in these two parties has never been overturned. The struggle between the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as the major conflicts within these parties, represent differing views among the monopoly bourgeoisie. The "two-party system" has been firmly implanted as a pillar of monopoly bourgeois dictatorship.

State Monopoly Capitalism. State power in the U.S. is characterized by the merger of the monopoly capitalist enterprises and the state apparatus. The mammoth private corporations and banks are so intertwined with the official state organs, both in terms of their personnel and their operations, that it is many times difficult to distinguish one from the other. The state organs act as agencies to determine and carry out the collective interests of the monopoly capitalist class, regulating the activities of individual corporations and interest groups within this class when these conflict with the higher collective interests of the class as a whole, and marshalling the forces of the class for unified action, both domestically and internationally. Thus, the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury Department and the commissions that regulate banking are traditionally, and almost without exception, headed by the most powerful and respected (among the capitalists) bankers from Wall Street. The huge private banks actually own most of the federal debt and are the main depositories for the great financial assets of the government.

The top military posts (Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.) are also exclusively reserved for top monopoly capitalists recruited directly from the top echelon of private industry. The armaments industry (IBM, General Motors, DuPont, Hewlett-Packard, Ford, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc.) is particularly well represented among these positions. The same kind of close "partnership" and interchange of personnel between government and industry can be found in all of the various government agencies and departments.

The political apparatus of the monopoly bourgeoisie also includes numerous private "foundations", "councils" and "institutes", which formulate general state policy and act in many ways as a shadow government. Probably the most important among these is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The membership of the CFR (which is restricted to 1600) is carefully selected from among the most influential members of the monopoly bourgeoisie, top corporate executives and corporate lawyers, and key military and intelligence officers, politicians, publicists and academics. Until 1970, CFR membership was restricted to Anglo-American men; since then a number of women and national minorities have been selected for token representation. The Chairman of the Board of the CFR is David Rockefeller, who is generally recognized as the premier spokesman for the monopoly bourgeoisie.

In the CFR, the monopoly bourgeoisie discuss and formulate their international strategy. The basic policy decisions made by the CFR have invariably been carried out by the U.S. government. This fact is not at all surprising when one considers that virtually every top government minister charged with financial, military or foreign affairs over the last thirty years (and undoubtedly much longer) has been a member of the CFR. An examination of who actually governs tears the mask off all pretensions about "democracy for the people" in the U.S. and exposes the government for what it is – a dictatorship of the monopoly bourgeoisie. Table A-3 lists the men who have held the posts of President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the last seven administrations, from Eisenhower to Reagan, and the monopoly bourgeois institutions with which these men have been associated. Of the 43 men listed, all but five have belonged to the CFR. Many are corporate lawyers or investment bankers and although the names of their firms are not commonly known they are among the nerve centers of Wall Street.

Table A-3

Top Government Officials and Their Connections with the Monopoly Bourgeoisie (1953-1983)

Position

Name

CFR Member

Main Occupation

Institutional Connections with the Monopoly Bourgeoisie

President

Dwight Eisenhower

X

Military

 

Vice President

Richard Nixon

X

Corp. lawyer / Politician

 

Sec. of State

John Foster Dulles

X

Corp. lawyer

Sullivan & Cromwell, Rockefeller Foundation

Sec. of Treasury

Robert Anderson

X

Corp. Exec.

Bank of NY

Sec. of Defense

Thomas Gates, Jr.

X

Corp. Exec.

Hanover Bank, Fa1conbridge Nickel, Ford Foundation, Drexel & Co., Scott Paper

Nat. Sec. Adviser

Gordon Gray

X

Publisher

Piedmont Publishing, Reynolds Tobacco, Champion Paper

CIA Director

Allen Dulles

X

Corp. lawyer

Sullivan & Cromwell

         

President

John Kennedy

X

Politician

Kennedy family

Vice President

Lyndon Johnson

 

Rancher/ Politician

 

Sec. of State

Dean Rusk

X

Foundation Exec.

Rockefeller Foundation

Sec. of Treasury

C. Douglas Dillon

X

Investment Banker

Dillon Read Co., Chase Manhattan Bank, Rockefeller Foundation

Sec. of Defense

Robert McNamara

X

Corp. Exec.

Ford Motor

Nat. Sec. Adviser

McGeorge Bundy

X

Foundation Exec.

Ford Foundation

CIA Director

John McCone

X

Corp. Exec.

Bechtel-McCone Constr., Standard Oil of Cal.

         

President

Lyndon Johnson

 

Rancher/ Politician

 

Vice President

Hubert Humphrey

X

Politician

 

Sec. of State

Dean Rusk

X

Foundation Exec.

Rockefeller Foundation

Sec. of Treasury

Henry Fowler

X

Inv. Banker

Goldman Sachs

Sec. of Defense

Robert McNamara

X

Corp. Exec.

Ford Motor

Nat. Sec. Adviser

Walt W. Rostow

X

Foreign Policy Expert

 

CIA Director

John McCone

X

Corp. Exec.

Bechtel-McCone Constr., Standard Oil of Cal.

         

President

Richard Nixon

X

Corp. Lawyer / Politician

Vice President

Gerald Ford

X

Politician

Sec. of State

William Rodgers

X

Corp. Lawyer

Roger & Wells, Dreyfus Fund

Sec. of Treasury

David Kennedy

X

Banker

Continental Ill. Bank, Int'l Harvester

Sec. of Defense

Elliot Richardson

X

Corp. Lawyer

Millbank, Tweed, Hadley, McCoy

Nat. Sec. Adviser

Henry Kissinger

X

Foreign Policy Expert

Rockefeller Bros. Fund, Chase Manhattan

CIA Director

Richard Helms

X

Intelligence

         

President

Gerald Ford

X

Politician

Vice President

Nelson Rockefeller

X

Politician

Rockefeller family

Sec. of State

Henry Kissinger

X

Foreign Policy Expert

Rockefeller Bros. Fund, Chase Manhattan

Sec. of Treasury

William Simon

X

Inv. Banker

Solomon Bros., Citibank

Sec. of Defense

Donald Rumsfeld

X

Corp. Exec.

Nat. Sec. Adviser

Henry Kissinger

X

Foreign Policy Expert

Rockefeller Bros. Fund, Chase Manhattan

CIA Director

George Bush

X

Gov. & Corp. Exec

Zapata Petroleum

President

Jimmy Carter

Planter / Politician

Trilateral Comm.

Vice President

Walter Mondale

X

Politician

Trilateral Comm.

Sec. of State

Cyrus Vance

X

Corp. Lawyer

Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett, IBM, Rockefeller Foundation

Sec. of Treasury

William Blumenthal

X

Corp. Exec.

Bendix, Rockefeller Foundation

Sec. of Defense

Harold Brown

X

Scientist, Corp. Exec.

IBM

Nat. Sec. Adviser

Zbigniew Brzezinski

X

Foreign Policy Expert

Dean Witter

CIA Director

Stansfield Turner

X

Military

         

President

Ronald Reagan

Politician

Vice President

George Bush

X

Gov. & Corp. Exec

Zapata Petroleum

Sec. of State

George Schultz

X

Corp. Exec.

Bechtel Constr., General Motors, Dillon Read

Sec. of Treasury

Donald Regan

Inv. Banker

Merrill Lynch, NY Stock Exchange

Sec. of Defense

Caspar Weinberger

X

Corp. Exec.

Bechtel Constr.

Nat. Sec. Adviser

William Clark

Rancher / Corp. Exec.

Clark, Cole & Fairfield'

CIA Director

William Casey, Jr.

X

Corp. Lawyer

Hall, Casey, Dickler& Howley

The Liberal and Fascist Wings of the Monopoly Bourgeoisie

The liberal and fascist political movements both have their headquarters in the monopoly bourgeoisie. Fascist political organizations portray themselves as independent from the monopoly bourgeoisie and opposed to it in order to win the confidence of the petty bourgeoisie and the workers. In fact, some pseudo-Marxists promote the idea that fascism is a political movement "led by the petty bourgeoisie" or, alternatively, that it represents "new wealth" opposed to the "East Coast Establishment." Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fascist movement is headed by the most reactionary and chauvinist sections of the monopoly bourgeoisie. Politically, the movement is organized through the right wings of the Republican and Democratic Parties, the Heritage Foundation, the American Security Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, etc., all of which are completely controlled by sections of the monopoly bourgeoisie. The Mellon and Pew families, who epitomize monopoly bourgeois "old wealth of the East Coast," bankroll the fascist movement along with "western" capitalists such as the Hunts and the Coors.13

The liberal political movement is also directed by a section of the monopoly bourgeoisie, through such agencies as the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (Kennedy, etc.), the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Common Cause, the Center for Policy Studies, the Urban League, etc.

The liberal and fascist wings of the monopoly bourgeoisie both have the same fundamental class interests. The distinction between them is simply a question of differences on the most expedient form of state power to best maintain bourgeois dictatorship. The liberal wing of the monopoly bourgeoisie is perfectly capable of adopting fascist methods when it decides the situation calls for them.

It was, after all, the liberal Democratic administrations of Kennedy and Johnson that carried out the barbarous invasion and occupation of Indo-China. The Rockefeller Foundation, which has sponsored such liberal protégés as Ralph Bunche, Whitney Young, Vernon Jordan and John Gardner, is also quite capable of sponsoring reactionary protégés such as John Foster Dulles arid Henry Kissinger, who supervised the violent installation of fascist regimes in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile and many other countries. Political representatives of the liberal wing of the monopoly bourgeoisie, such as Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, actively collaborated with the McCarthyite repression following World War II, because they decided that certain fascist methods were necessary to suppress the communist movement.

"The liberal and fascist wings of the monopoly bourgeoisie both have the same fundamental interests. They differ only on the most expedient form of state power to best maintain bourgeois dictatorship."

Capitalists of the Oppressed Nationalities

In 1977, the Census Bureau did a survey of "Minority-owned businesses" which provides us with some data on the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nationalities. There were, according to the survey, 561,395 minority-owned businesses in 1977. The great majority (93%) of these businesses were in the realm of the petty bourgeoisie, 81% employing no workers and another 12% employing less than five (see Table A-4). There were 19,560 companies which we can generally classify as capitalist (employing five or more workers). Once again, the great majority of these were small capitalist enterprises and employed less than 50 workers; only 663 companies had more than this number.

Table A-4

Businesses of the Oppressed Nationalitiees14

Social Class

Employment Size

Number of Companies

Percent of Companies

Gross Receipts (Thousands of Dollars)

Percent of Gross Receipts

Not classified by size

---

19,351

3.4

3,016,658

11.4

Lower Petty Bourgeoisie

0

456,251

81.3

7,386,045

28.0

Middle and Upper Petty Bourgeoisie

1-4

66,233

11.8

5,400,546

20.5

Small Capitalist

5-49

18,897

3.4

6,796,020

25.8

Middle and Large Capitalist

50 and over

663

0.1

3,782,833

14.3

Total*

561,395

100.0

23,382,102

100.0

*Independent rounding may result in totals varying from the sum of the individual units.

Two main conclusions can be drawn from this data: first, that there are indeed capitalists among the oppressed nationalities (some varieties of revisionism deny this!); and, second, that the capitals of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations are extremely small when compared with those of the Anglo-American monopoly bourgeoisie. The gross receipts of all minority-owned businesses combined ($26,782,833,000) add up to only one-half of one per cent of the business receipts of all U.S. businesses ($4,699,000,000,000).15

Afro-American Capitalists. Of the 561,395 businesses owned by national minorities, the Census Bureau classifies 231,203 as owned by "Blacks," 219,355 as owned by people of "Spanish origin," and 110,837 as owned by "Asians, Indians and others."16 Detailed information on the capitalist sections of these businesses among each separate nationality is not available, but Black Enterprise magazine provides more detailed information about the Afro-American capitalist class.

Black Enterprise annually compiles a list of the Black-owned banks, insurance companies and savings and loans, as well as the 100 largest non-financial Black-owned businesses. In 1981, these enterprises, which represented the upper stratum of the Afro-American capitalist class, had combined assets of just under $5,000,000,000 and had a total of 30,884 employees.17 The oldest and most stable sector of the Black capitalist enterprises are the life insurance companies that have existed throughout the Black Belt South for decades, many since the turn of the century.

On the other hand, 33 of the 46 banks and 83 of the top 100 non-financial businesses were founded after the Harlem Rebellion in 1964. The decade that followed the Harlem Rebellion was marked by an effort on the part of the Anglo-American monopoly bourgeoisie to allow for a slight growth of the Afro-American capitalist class, which they had completely stifled until then. This new "Black Capitalism," however, was to be completely subordinate, its only purpose being to create a stronger base for reformism among the Afro-American people.

Over the last decade, many of these businesses have been wiped out under the pressure of the economic crisis. The Anglo-American bourgeoisie, and the very nature of the capitalist system, will never allow the development of a powerful, or in any way independent, Afro-American capitalist class. Of the 13,673 large capitalist enterprises in the U.S. (over 500 employees) only 10 (0.07%) are owned by Afro-Americans, and all these fall into the lower category of large capitalists. Tables A-5 and A-6, compiled from Black Enterprise data, show that even the top Black capitalists are overwhelmingly small and middle-sized capitalists.

Table A-5

Top 100 Afro-American Owned Non-Financial
Businesses by Number of Employees (1981)
18

Number of Employees

Number of Businesses

Less than 50

27

50-99

37

100-499

26

500 and over

10

Total

100

Table A-6

Afro-American Owned Financial
Businesses – By Assets (1981)
19

Amount of Assets

Number of Businesses

Less than 50

27

50-99

37

100-499

26

500 and over

10

Total

100

In comparison, the Anglo-American industrial monopolies employ tens of thousands of workers, and the assets of the monopoly banks and insurance companies are counted in tens of billions of dollars. The stifled and distorted character of the Afro-American capitalist class can be further seen by looking at the fields in which its businesses are concentrated, shown on Table A-7.

Table A-7

Top 100 Afro-American Owned Non-Financial
Businesses by Type of Business (1981)
20

Type of Business

Number of Businesses

Manufacturing

13

Publishing & Entertainment

9

Construction

13

Sale of Industrial Supplies & Services

14

Energy Distribution & Sales

9

Automobile Sales & Service

29

Sales of Other Consumer Goods (Retail & Wholesale)

14

While the vast majority of the largest Anglo-American-owned non-financial corporations are involved in manufacturing, only 13 of the top 100 Afro-American non-financial businesses are involved in this field. Nearly half of these top Afro-American-owned businesses are involved in the sale of consumer goods, most of these being car dealers, beer distributors and gasoline marketers. These businessmen are simply compradors, distributing the goods of the Anglo-American monopolies in the Afro-American communities. The 14 companies that sell supplies and services to industry can also be classed as compradors because their businesses also depend completely on the Anglo-American monopolies.

The 35 companies involved in manufacturing, construction, publishing and entertainment are the only businesses that can be said to have any degree of "independence." These companies, however, are hardly independent. They operate within the confines of the laws and regulations of the Anglo-American state and they are dependent financially on loans arranged by the Small Business Administration and the major Anglo-American banks and financial institutions. The contractors are largely dependent on government contracts and several of the manufacturers produce directly for sale to the monopoly corporations. The Afro-American banks and insurance companies are likewise completely tied in with, and subordinate to, the monopoly banks and insurance companies.

The complete identification of the Afro-American bourgeoisie with the interests of the Anglo-American monopoly capitalists is demonstrated by the appointment of a number of the top Afro-American capitalists to the executive boards of Anglo-American monopoly corporations. For instance, George Johnson, president of Johnson Products, the largest Black-owned manufacturing company, serves on the boards of directors of Commonwealth Edison and Metropolitan Life; John Johnson, president of Johnson Publishing (Ebony magazine, etc.), is a director of Twentieth Century Fox and Marina City Bank; William Kennedy III, president of North Carolina Mutual Life, the largest Black-owned insurance company, has been appointed to the boards of NBC and RCA; Henry Parks, chairman of Parks Sausage Company, the fourth largest Black-owned manufacturing company, sits on the boards of directors of First Pennsylvania Bank and Magnavox.21

The Afro-American bourgeoisie is a comprador class. The idea that it could carry out any action independent of the Anglo-American monopoly capitalists is completely unfounded.

It is impossible to discuss the Afro-American capitalist class without discussing the Afro-American churches. Because of the severe restrictions on the development of capital by Afro-American proprietors through traditional means, the Afro-American churches played an important role in the original accumulation of money in the hands of the Afro-American bourgeoisie. The upper section of church officials have traditionally been among the most wealthy and powerful men in the Black community. Their capital came from the collection plate and was then many times multiplied through business enterprises, loans, investments and speculation. Indeed, it was church revenues that provided the initial capital on which many of the Afro-American insurance companies were built.

The Afro-American churches have been able to provide funds for the Afro-American bourgeoisie because of their relative independence from the Anglo-American church hierarchy. But the denominational independence of the Afro-American churches has been matched by their political subservience, and the Afro-American preachers' promotion of reformism and pacifism among the masses.

Leon Sullivan, pastor of the Zion Baptist Church of Philadelphia, Chairman of Zion Investment Associates, Inc., and Director of the Girard Trust Bank and the General Motors Corporation, is the epitome of the Afro-American preacher-capitalist.22 He numbers among his "accomplishments" the writing of a new labor code for Black workers at the General Motors plants in Azania (South Africa). This was a farce designed to give a better face to GM's propping up of the fascist apartheid regime and its super-exploitation of the Azanian workers. Such activities are typical of the hypocritical Afro-American bourgeois-reformists.

One further note on the Afro-American capitalist class. Roughly half of all Afro-American businesses are located in the South.23 Of the 244 top Afro-American businesses listed in Black Enterprise, 94 (42%) are located in the Black Belt South or the cities along its borders (Atlanta, Houston, Birmingham, etc.). This number includes 30 of the 38 insurance companies and 16 of the 36 non-financial businesses with over 100 employees.24 Atlanta, Durham and Richmond, the traditional centers of the Black bourgeoisie, remain central although New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities outside the Black Belt region have become increasingly important.

Political Role of the Bourgeoisie of the Oppressed Nations

The story of dependence and subservience that characterizes the Afro-American bourgeoisie is repeated in the case of the Chicano bourgeoisie, the Diné (Navajo) bourgeoisie, the Puerto Rican bourgeoisie and the capitalists of the other oppressed nations and nationalities in the United States. While the capitalists of the oppressed nations and nationalities are economically insignificant, politically they are a very significant force. They are the front line of the capitalists' efforts to demobilize and pacify the revolutionary national movements; they are the heart and backbone of the national reformist political movement.

Flowing from the fact that the capitalists of the oppressed nationalities are economically subordinate to the Anglo-American monopoly bourgeoisie, the national reformist organizations are also completely politically subservient. They have gone so far as to include representatives of the Anglo-American bourgeoisie on the executive boards of these organizations. For instance, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the monopoly bourgeoisie's top foreign policy experts and Carter's National Security Advisor, sits on the board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the late Winthrop Rockefeller was a permanent member of the board of the National Urban League.25

On the other hand, Vernon Jordan, until recently the executive director of the National Urban League, sits on the board of Bankers Trust and the Celenese Corporation.26 It is widely known that in the exchange for the Rockefeller Foundation's generous gifts, representatives of the Foundation have personally picked out and arranged for the training of the top leadership of the National Urban League and the United Negro College Fund.

Strategy of the Proletariat against the Capitalist Class

Within the U.S. capitalist class there are many conflicts. There are conflicts between the monopoly capitalists and the lesser capitalists as the former cannibalize the latter. There are conflicts between the capitalists of the Anglo-American oppressor nation and the capitalists of the oppressed nations within the U.S. borders. There are conflicts between the capitalists of the various agricultural and industrial sectors and between the capitalists of one region and those of another. There are conflicts between the politically liberal wing of the capitalists and the fascist wing.

All of these conflicts, however, are conflicts among the enemy and there is no basis whatsoever for a proletarian revolutionary strategy based on an alliance between the proletariat and any sector of the capitalist class. All sectors of the bourgeoisie are reactionary. All sectors support and benefit from imperialism. All sectors support the suppression of the working class and the maintenance of the capitalist system by force.

Under the banner of an "anti-monopoly coalition," the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) promotes an alliance of the workers and the non-monopoly capitalists:

"For our Party," writes Gus Hall, "the anti-monopoly struggle must now become target center for our strategic and tactical considerations.... The sharp edge of the struggle must be directed against the monarchs of monopoly capital, the top dominating section of monopoly capital.... It is this that gives a special meaning to the concept of using divisions in the ranks of the ruling class.27

In line with the CPUSA's "special meaning" of "using divisions in the ranks of the ruling class," it includes among the proletariat's strategic allies the sector of "small business" which it defines as an "elastic term stretching from the corner grocer to firms employing hundreds of workers."28 Quite an "elastic term" the CPUSA has picked up – one that lumps the poorest of the small proprietors who do not exploit labor together with rich capitalist exploiters. According to the CPUSA, all of these "small business owners," even those who exploit hundreds of workers (!), "can be brought into an alliance with the working class against monopoly."29

The CPUSA paints a picture of virtually all of society, workers, professional employees, small proprietors and non-monopoly capitalists, marching together in a great "anti-monopoly coalition" against a handful of monopoly capitalists. It's a pretty picture, but it is a farce. The revisionist strategy of the CPUSA directly contradicts the fundamental political program of Marxism-Leninism, which makes a clear distinction between direct and indirect reserves of the proletariat. The direct reserves of the proletariat, and its strategic allies in its battle against capital, include the small proprietors who do not exploit labor, other non-exploiting strata and the national revolutionary movements.

The proletariat can make use of the conflicts within the capitalist class, including the resistance of the small capitalists against the monopolists, but these are only indirect reserves – divisions in the ranks of the enemy. Despite the conflicts between them, the interests of the small capitalist and the monopoly capitalist are identical vis-à-vis the proletariat.

The small capitalist is not stupid. He knows that the fall of the monopoly bourgeoisie would never, and could never, mean the rise to power of the small capitalist, but rather the rise to power of the proletariat, the destruction of the capitalist system and the seizure of his property. Genuine Marxist-Leninists have no use for the CPUSA's "special meaning" of using divisions among the ruling class because it amounts to nothing more than tailing after the petty bourgeoisie and the capitalists and surrendering the revolutionary aims of the proletariat.

Further, the idea of a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the capitalists of the oppressed nations within the borders of the U.S. is equally bankrupt. The Afro-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican and Native American capitalists are overwhelmingly compradors, tied by a thousand strings to the Anglo-American monopoly bourgeoisie. They may very well want a bigger piece of the action within their nations, but they have not undertaken, and are not about to undertake, revolutionary struggle against the U.S. imperialists. They adopt liberalism and reformism as their political stand. They are absolutely opposed to revolution and, therefore, support not only class exploitation but national oppression as well.

There exists the theoretical possibility that some sectors of the capitalists of the oppressed nations within the U.S. borders could playa revolutionary role under certain conditions. The national bourgeoisie (excluding the compradors) in numerous oppressed nations has taken part in national anti-imperialist revolutions, although their role has always been one of conciliation, attempts to limit the revolutionary struggle and, eventually, bitter struggle against the carrying of the revolution through to the end. The most recent examples of this have been in the anti-imperialist revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua.

The extreme weakness of the capitalists of the oppressed nations in the United States and their dependence on U.S. imperialism severely limits the possibility of their participation in revolutionary wars. However, under conditions in which the Anglo-American imperialists are severely weakened by war or revolution, and in which there arises a powerful national revolutionary movement that appears headed for victory, it is conceivable that smaller and more independent national capitalists could side with the revolution. The proletariat would, of course, welcome this assistance, while at the same time fighting to assure proletarian hegemony in the revolutionary movement, and safeguarding it against bourgeois treachery.

Notes

1. Frederick Engels, note to The Communist Manifesto, reproduced in Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, Lewis Feuer, Ed., New York, Doubleday-Anchor, 1959, p. 7.

2. Karl Marx, Capital V. l, p. 308.

3. Frederick Engels, "Synopsis of Capital", Engels on Capital, New York, International Publishers, 1937, p. 75.

4. The data in Table A-1 is from The State of Small Business: A Report of the President, Small Business Administration (SBA), 1982, p. 190. Because this source classifies companies by number of employees it is useful in identifying the social classes that are represented by these companies. We have classified all companies with over five employees as capitalist but, of course, the selection of any particular number as the dividing line between capitalist and petty bourgeois is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. In today's conditions, an employer who has five or more employees, in most cases, is no longer required to participate in productive work himself, but dedicates his entire work time to the supervision of his workforce and the sale of its products. He, therefore, leaves the world of the petty bourgeoisie and enters the world of the capitalist (see Karl Marx, Capital V. 1, pp. 307-309, for his discussion of the minimum amount of money necessary far a "small master" to "metamorphose himself into a capitalist"). Of course, the number of employees necessary far this transition varies depending on the rate of surplus value in a particular sector and enterprise at a particular time. In 1898 Lenin cited one study of the furniture industry in Moscow which related that:

"The employment of 2 or 3 workers provides the proprietor with such a small surplus that he has to work alongside of them.... The employment of five workers already gives the proprietor enough to enable him to give up manual labour in same measure, to take it easy somewhat, and to engage mainly in the last two business functions" (i.e., purchase of material and sale of goods). "As soon as the number of wage workers reaches 10 or exceeds this figure, the proprietor not only gives up manual labour but practically ceases to supervise his workers: he appoints a foreman for the purpose.... He now becomes a. small capitalist, a ‘born master’". (Lenin, Collected Works, V. 3, p. 358-9)

Our division of companies into social class categories corresponds, to a certain extent, with broad categories used by the SBA: companies with less than five employees (petty bourgeois) the SBA calls "family businesses"; companies with mare than five hundred employees (large capitalists), the SBA calls "large businesses", while it calls companies with over five thousand employees (monopoly capitalists) "government-sized businesses". This division understates monopoly capitalist control because many of the smaller companies are also controlled by monopoly bourgeois families and the monopoly corporations.

The data in this chart excludes the great majority of the petty proprietors – those who employ no labor. However, this lower stratum, while relatively numerous and important socially and politically, are economically inconsequential. According to Internal Revenue statistics in 1977 there were 9,295,000 businesses that had less than $25,000 in annual business receipts but all of these businesses put together accounted for less than 1.3% of total U.S. business receipts (Statistical Abstract 1981, Census Bureau, p. 534). The petty bourgeoisie will be discussed in greater detail in another section of this article.

5. The State of Small Business: A Report of the President, SBA, 1982, p. 207.

6. Lawerence White, "Aggregate Concentration in the United States", Journal of Industrial Economics, March 1981.

7. Ibid.

8. Phillip Blumberg, The Mega-Corporation in American Society, figures from 1973, p. 85.

9. James Smith, in Data on the Distribution of Wealth in the United States, Budget Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1977, p. 181.

10. Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super Rich, New York, Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1968, pp. 140-162, 211-319.

11. Ibid., and "The Richest People in America" Forbes, Fall, 1983.

12. U.S. Government Organizational Manual – various years
Council on Foreign Relations Annual Report
– various years
Latin America and Empire Report, Nov. 1971, North American Congress on Latin America
Who's Who in America – various years.

13. Alan Crawford, Thunder on the Right, N.Y., Pantheon Books, 1980
Michael C. Jensen, "The Pews of Philadelphia," New York Times, Oct. 10, 1971
Karen Rothmyer, "Citizen Scaife," Columbia Journalism Review, July/Aug., 1981, p. 41
"Do You Know These Godfathers?," Mother Jones, Feb./March, 1981, p. 33;
The New Right, Michigan Education Ass'n, 1980.

14. 1977 Survey of Minority Owned Business Enterprises: Summary, Census Bureau, 1980.

15. Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1981, (1977 figures), Census Bureau, p. 534.

16. 1977 Survey of Minority Owned Business Enterprises: Summary, Census Bureau 1980.

17. Black Enterprise, May and June, 1982.

18. Black Enterprise, May, 1982.

19. Black Enterprise, June, 1982.

20. Black Enterprise, May, 1982 (Mathematical inconsistency [101 total businesses] in original source).

21. "The Black Directors", Black Enterprise, Sept., 1973.

22. "General Motors Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders", 1976.

23. Black Enterprise, Nov., 1981, p. 44.

24. Black Enterprise, May and June 1982.

25. Who's Who in America, 1976 and 1980.

26. Ibid., 1980.

27. Gus Hall, The Crisis of U.S. Capitalism and the Fight Back, p. 70.

28. New Program of the CPUSA (May 1970), New York, New Outlook Publishers, 1970, p. 79.

29. Ibid. p.80. In addition to the CPUSA's "strategy" of alliance with the non-monopoly bourgeoisie in an "Anti-monopoly Coalition", it promotes "tactical" alliances with the liberal wing of the monopoly bourgeoisie. This "tactical alliance" has been a long-time policy of the CPUSA. Its most recent expression is the slogan of building an "All Peoples Front Against Reaganism." According to CPUSA leader, Henry Winston, such political representatives of the monopoly bourgeoisie as Averel Harriman, George Kennan, and Robert McNamara (who as Secretary of Defense prosecuted the Vietnam War), are envisioned as participating in this front. In reality this is no "temporary tactic". For decades the CPUSA has tailored its entire activity so that it would be acceptable to the bourgeois liberals. It has given up even the pretense of supporting the revolutionary overthrow of the monopoly bourgeoisie.

Click here to return to the Social Classes Contents