I guess the first thing you learn in political economy courses in left-wing organizations, parties, unions - if such courses still exist - is the trick that says you don't look directly into the capitalist's eyes, which, as we all know, are the mirror of the soul. The trick, of course, does not apply to a date with a member of the upper classes, nor to a job interview with an "employer", as members of the upper classes are euphemistically called in this context. It refers to trying to understand economics and capitalism in your spare time that can provide you with a successful epilogue dating a member of the upper classes or a unionized "employer". The understanding of capitalism promoted in such courses says that the economy does not depend on the character or moral qualities of the capitalist. There are systemic features of capitalism, such as e.g. competition, which forces them to do this or that, regardless of their individual characteristics.
However, political dynamics and conflicts are more inclined to more classical dramatic plots than to drafts of post-dramatic theater in which we should recognize lines, not characters. In addition to the fact that the economic powers appear in their performances as flesh and blood people and thus necessarily distract attention from the background processes, it is easier to organize politically if the enemy is "concrete", if problematic individuals can be singled out whose suspension or removal would solve the problems . Considering that the (un)successes of the left in the last forty years obviously do not depend only on the problems of personification of economic categories, the forms of that personification or at least social representation also depend on some other factors.
At the end of the 19th century and in the first half of the last century, capitalists, by their public reputation, resembled Weberian charismatic figures. They built business empires, made key innovations and "earned" prestige with their work ethic. The most famous figure in this sense is probably Henry Ford. There was, therefore, a high level of identification between them and the company. After World War II, capitalists slowly slip into anonymity. There is a rationalization of company management, the separation of ownership and management functions and the privileging of neutral calculations and planning. What is today called "corporate culture" is born in the embryo. However, at the end of the century, changes occurred again. Several factors contributed to this. Due to changes in investment flows and financing, stock market indices and trust based on them have become increasingly important indicators. The increasing public presence of the director additionally "thickened" that trust. The ideal director is one in whom stockholders have confidence. Short-term gains in the stock market outweighed the importance of long-term planning.
The second factor, related to the technological boom, concerns the reappearance of the entrepreneur who allegedly created everything from nothing, the innovator. As interpreted by Michael Eby, this rise was accompanied by a specific literary genre. There is almost no modern technology mogul whose business and life path has not been biographed with an emphasis on adversity in growing up such as dyslexia, bullying or parental divorce. Thus, capitalists appeared again whose personification (phase) of capitalism is too strong and whose appearances dictate the general conception of the functioning of capitalism among wider social strata. In addition to global personifications of economic categories and processes that serve as a yardstick for measuring "real" capitalism, there are also domestic forms that mainly serve as evidence that we have not yet reached "real" capitalism.
The most impressive figure in us was that of the tycoon. It is not so much in use anymore, but it still serves as a moral compass in political economy and the literary-journalistic genres that accompany it. The tycoon was the one who "undeservedly" got hold of the initial capital during the conversion and privatization. It is important to point out that tycoon was a supra-political label, that is, that its use could be enjoyed by everyone, both left and right, however they were defined. To the right, the tycoon was the representative of the "red bourgeoisie", or according to the currently popular jargon of the "deep state", who used the socialist directorship to gain ownership of the company. To the left, tycoons were "proof" of the dysfunction of capitalism and material for strengthening the narrative that began with "it was better before...". The liberals were mostly bothered by those drivers or waiters who managed to get rich in the war-privatization maelstrom. Therefore, those who did not deserve it through education became capitalists.
What binds all these positions and why the moral compass is still the same is the belief in meritocracy in capitalism, which is shared by more or less all political options in Croatia. Some, depending on political preferences, see the outcome of fair meritocratic processes as a family business, some as a technological startup, and some as a so-called socially responsible company. Belief in meritocracy is what most hinders the political imagination here. And that's why probably the best representation of our political scene would be an exhibition where the works of the parties would be displayed on the topic: how do you imagine your ideal personification of capital?
Bonus video:
