During the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the genesis of the process of restoration of capitalism, the world witnessed a veritable festival of fraudulent privatizations and appropriations of collective property by a small group of former apparatchiks, bureaucrats state and mafia businessmen. This was the large, new capitalist class needed in these countries to make the process of capitalist restoration “irreversible,” as Western economists and technocrats of the time liked to say. Complicity in this large-scale theft on the part of imperialist banks and Western political leaders played a major role in this process: it was functional to the interests of the entire capitalist class internationally.
However, the main actor in the formation of a capitalist class in the former bureaucratized socialist states remained the national state. To ensure that the State guaranteed and legally legitimized the wealth of these new bourgeois, certain oligarchs began to exert direct political influence on society, or even to exercise political functions themselves. The new capitalists’ close ties with the state guaranteed them enormous profits. At the same time, their participation in national, regional and local authorities allowed them to adopt specific measures to promote their businesses. An overlap favored by a context of achievement, that of a troubled period of “transition”, of profound transformation of society and political regimes whose legitimacy was weak but with a Bonapartist and authoritarian nature.
An increasingly direct involvement of big capitalists in US politics
In capitalism, big capitalists always play a central political role in determining the directions of governments. The bourgeoisie has a thousand ways of directly or indirectly influencing political life through its economic and political levers, but also through the media. However, in general, in the most powerful states this interference occurs indirectly. Rarely do large capitalists themselves exercise political functions within the state apparatus. This indirect way of influencing political life and determining the general orientations of the State represents a form of guarantee of the legitimacy of the capitalist class.
It is in this sense that the direct involvement of billionaires in the US presidential election can be of concern. As a symbol, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, took an active part in the campaign for Donald Trump, himself a billionaire with a fortune estimated at $5.6 billion. He not only participated in rallies alongside Trump but also used his social network “X” to influence opinion. To do this, he obviously did not hesitate to spread some fake news, relying on his millions of subscribers as well as a manipulated algorithm. THE Financial Times has documented Musk’s activity on X in favor of Trump and claims that ” In the months leading up to the vote, Musk wielded his own megaphone – X – as the owner and most popular account with more than 200 million followers. He flooded the platform with pro-Trump messages, allegations of election fraud and warnings that Kamala Harris would destroy America if she won the White House. In 24 hours on Tuesday, he tweeted nearly 200 times, according to a Financial Times analysis, racking up about 955 million views, after posting an average of more than 100 messages per day in the month leading up to the vote. ».
However, Musk’s direct participation in the campaign was not limited to his frenzied activity on X or speaking at meetings. He is also the main financial contributor to the Trump campaign with $132 million donated to his “friend”. He also “offered” $1 million a day to Trump voters who signed a “free speech” petition, among other things. An “investment” very quickly paid off: following Trump’s victory, Tesla shares gained 12% in value.
In exchange, Musk could be named head of the “Department of Government Effectiveness,” which would simply be responsible for firing thousands of civil servants in the name of fighting “federal bureaucracy.” But Musk’s direct participation in Trump’s government could also have consequences for the companies owned by the billionaire. Remember that Musk’s fortune comes mainly from the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla and the space exploration company SpaceX. It is more than likely that Musk’s presence in the president’s close circles could influence decisions favoring his interests and even give him even easier access to international leaders. THE Wall Street Journal writes about this: “ Trump is not the only world leader Mr. Musk has befriended, mixing business and geopolitics. He has had secret conversations with Vladimir Putin, contacts with China about its role in the electric vehicle market and flirted with Narendra Modi about a potential new business in India. It relies on foreign investors, with the Saudis and Qataris among the largest investors in X. These relationships could influence or complicate Trump’s foreign policy plans ». Gideon Rachman you Financial Times was alarmed last September about Musk’s role in US foreign policy, asserting that “ his unpredictable interventions – combined with immense technological and financial power – make him an unguided geopolitical missile, whose whims can reshape global affairs ».
Musk is far from the only billionaire to have been involved in the campaign. As we said above Trump is a billionaire himself and he has received the support of 52 billionaires, main contributors to the $392 billion raised for his campaign. Trump’s backers include Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts, Miriam Adelson of Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Ray Davis, co-owner and co-chairman of the Texas Rangers.
However, we should not believe that the “participation” of billionaires would have been solely in favor of Trump. It’s actually quite the opposite. There are actually many more billionaires who have supported Kamala Harris and the Democrats. In total, 83 billionaires gave to Harris’ campaign, whose donations totaled $998 billion. Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg are among the top donors to the Democrats with $50 billion and $100 billion each donated respectively. In other words, 135 billionaires have largely influenced and in some way dictated the themes of the presidential campaign.
These exorbitant amounts spent in a hollow and very right-wing campaign, on one side or the other, against a backdrop of competing reactionary speeches, appear like an obscene provocation in a context where the main concern of voters was the inflation and the economic situation in general. Marxist economist Michael Roberts explains the centrality of this question this way: “ I would say there are two reasons for this. First, U.S. real GDP may grow and financial asset prices may rise, but the situation is different for average U.S. households who mostly do not own financial assets to speculate on. Instead, as wealthy investors increase their wealth, under the Trump and Biden administrations, Americans have experienced a horrific pandemic followed by the sharpest decline in living standards since the 1930s, driven by a sharp rise in prices of consumer goods and services (…) According to official figures, prices are still 20% higher than they were before the pandemic although the official index does not take other elements into account aggravating factors (insurance, mortgage rates, etc.) (…) Mortgage rates have reached their highest level in 20 years, and real estate prices are reaching record levels. Auto and health insurance premiums have exploded (…) If a worker has to take a second job to maintain his standard of living, he risks being less enthusiastic about the economy. Indeed, the number of people with multiple jobs has increased significantly ».
Trump has used a lot of demagoguery on the economic issue, which has allowed him to capture a large part of the popular vote. Harris, claiming the legacy of the Biden government in all aspects, could not appear as an alternative. But Trump is just as responsible for the current economic situation and will have to face the crisis of American capitalism. In the coordinates of the crisis of US imperialism, the direct participation of billionaires in political life could increase and be accompanied by tendencies towards the Bonapartization of the regime. From this point of view, we can expect an increase in anti-worker measures, repressive policies but also a possible intensification of class struggle and resistance. All against a government heavily influenced by cynical billionaires like Elon Musk.
