Does the government keep capitalist interests on the top ?

Depends which country, the countries laws and ruling party. In, most western countries capitalists do have alot of sway.

One thing to keep in mind regarding the USA is that it's not a proper democracy (gerrymandering + indirect votes for president + money lobbies). That by itself skews the political game in favor of the rich and power holders.

I can speak for my country, Brazil, which also has lobbies for stuff that's bad for workers (temer and bozo's years immediately come to mind), like allowing companies to hire MEI (individual micro entrepreneur, basically a company of yourself) instead of "real workers", thus bypassing most labor related laws and taxes, which all become optional for the MEI to pay.

Bottom line is: people with fuckloads of money spend their money to ensure laws that help them keep said money are passed. Fucking workers is a side bonus for them, most of the time.

There are a couple of different ways of looking at this but I think either way the answer is yes.

Firstly, capitalism as an economic system requires a government of some sort to maintain it. If we accept this (and outside of a small minority of extreme right wing libertarians and anarchocapitalists, most of us do), then there's a fairly simple answer to your question: without a supportive government, there is no capitalism and therefore no capitalist interest. So, yes.

But I think the question you're asking is perhaps more like, 'Does the government make a deliberate effort to keep capitalists, i.e., shareholders, in control of the economy, as opposed to some other group?'

I think the answer to this rephrased question is slightly more complex, although it does also boil down to 'Yes'. Businesses are required by law to prioritise shareholder returns. Insofar as the government could change the law, but doesn't, the answer to your question again must be 'Yes'.

But, while that law does exist, it's not the only law. All governments do, in practice, constrain what businesses can and can't do, and therefore do effectively restrict the theoretical profits a shareholder can make. Many governments also protect the existence and activities of groups like trade unions, which are often seen as running counter to the interests of shareholders. In this case, while I still think that basically the answer to your question is 'Yes', we can safely add a 'but', as in, '... but that's not ALL that governments do'.

There's another angle here, which is that many or even most people in the developed world are at least partially or indirectly shareholders and, therefore, capitalists. If you have a savings account or a pension, you own shares through your bank/pension provider. So, some might argue that keeping capitalists/shareholders 'on top' actually benefits nearly everyone. I don't quite buy this, but it's worth considering.

I think I could probably add further points and caveats here (e.g., tax policy might benefit 'the rich' who tend largely to also be 'the capitalists/shareholders') but I think I've said as much as I can without repeating myself.

Of course. That's who the government works for. That's who pays them, lobbies them. Gives them sweet luxury vacations. Laws are written by the ultra wealthy.

Hahahaha umm yeah it does. This is kind of why a lot of people have some issues with the whole capitalism thing. It's not good for anyone but capitalists.

Mostly so.

I think the short answer is basically, yes, but in the context of your specifics I look at it as a little more complex than that, though still, yes.

The first nuance, though I'm not sure how important this distinction is, is that I don't think there's a cohesive entrenched in stone and detailed policy that says "keep capitalist interests on top". I think it's a consequence of the system where despite safeguards to try and keep it in check like democracy, the concentration of wealth leads inexorably to influence and power. This means if there is a real or even just perceived threat, some strong economic headwinds on the horizon perhaps, if somebody has to eat shit, the owners of capital are going to make damn sure it isn't them. It doesn't matter if the consequences for them would be mild in relative terms compared to the unshielded masses, they won't have it it's selfish and repugnant but then perhaps possibly to an extent understandable, it's just human nature to use the resources at your disposal to ensure the best outcome for yourself and while by and large we do also have pro-social instincts, if you have a situation where some can opt not to experience a downturn and others don't get that choice then you're going to see what we see, they use their influence to make sure they don't suffer anything and they steer governments to this end.

Another nuance and a less understandable and more sinister one, but one which I definitely believe is happening, is that given point number 1, exceptional circumstances prevail and a public mood of acceptance is more likely to develop and be exploited. Rich people with significant business interests that would benefit from relaxed labour laws will lobby to erode such laws at all times and tend gradually to succeed anyway, but when you have crisis, lobbyists don't let them go to waste and they harness them to accelerate their permanent agenda. Sometimes crisis are invened, moral panics deliberately whipped up to allow an agenda to be pushed through but sometimes they're real crisis and "exceptional circumstances" really do prevail which is particularly insidious since they can take this moral license and mood of acceptance to push well past what's necessary or fair and usually weasel a way to keep the "temporary" changes in place ever after even when the exigencies have long passed.

My third and final point, for nuance is a devilish one because it can be interwoven nicely in to points 1 and 2 to justify terrible things. As I say, I don't think there's a secret evil plan amongst governments specifically to protect capitalist interests above social interests, but I do think governments are more beholden to them and also that sometimes circumstances mean the state has to step in to protect and shield segments of society against crisis. While you and I and many would probably think that it ought to be the more vulnerable and less wealthy that need that protection, for the sake of intellectual honesty I should at least acknowledge the justification they might make for instead protecting capital. It's not how I look at things, but I should imagine if pushed in to a corner where they have to acknowledge that that is indeed what they're doing this is what your government might say. "We have to protect the interests of corporations and capitalists because they are the economic engines of our society and the source of our welfare and prosperity. If we let them suffer, or even fail, the social consequences would be far greater than if we didn't protect them at the expense of the working class because it will worsen the impact of a crisis across the board for all". They'll claim that the crisis that you'd think would mean workers need more protection are in fact the very reason that they should be fired more easily because they'll frame labour laws ironically as a kind of bourgeois indulgence that can be tolerated in times of plenty but will burden corporations too much in times of crisis. I really don't agree with this idea but it is important to know what the supposed logic is to help at least prevent the exploitation of crisis in light of a well meaning mood of public acceptance.