Who are the bourgeoise and who are the proletariat in the 21st century?

[El Rojo]

naturally i understand the bourgeoise to be those who own the means of production and the proletariat to be those who must sell their labour to live, yet Marx drew these conclusions during the industrial revolution, and things have got a bit more complicated since the 1840's. Marx stated that petty bourgeoise gradually sink into the proletariat, but what about say, a consultant who, whilst selling his labour for an income, can be on lucrative salaries. Or those who have producing facilities yet are not that well off? Is there a wealth level that divides the bourgeoise and proletariat? Or any other modern, more precise definition of the two classes?

[BabylonHoruv]

The main class that falls outside of this are the self employed. Those who own their own means of production but do not employ others.

Also, the rise of mutual funds and common stock ownership has greatly confused the concept of capitalist. the difference between a proleterian and a bourgeoisie however is not in wealth level, it is in their source of income.

[mel]

I've been struggling with this question a great deal. It seems that the answer is in a distinction between primary and secondary sources of income, as well as a refinement of what is meant by "means of production" and perhaps in "control" of the means of production, rather than in "ownership" per se. With economic globalization and the offloading of manufacturing into low-cost zones such as China, most workers [in western nations] aren't really engaged in a sort of "production" that is easily identifiable. This has led to a very confused look at the working class.

The example that has been confusing me is the one of the computer programmer. The programmer owns the means of production for the product that the programmer needs to create (software) as long as they own a computer. Development tools are free. This means that a computer programmer owns the means of production. However, the programmer does not control the means of production while they are at work. The programmer has to program what is mandated by the higher-ups. Even though a programmer can have a lucrative job, and owns the means of production (they could program anything they wanted and sell it without worry because they own everything they need to do so) their primary source of income is wage labor, and they do not control the means of production while they are earning that wage (they are producing what is demanded of them). The contract programmer is in the same situation. They are working class.

A person who owns stock, but for whom it is not their primary source of income, and who does not have a significant say in the running of which company they own stock in (a small shareholder does not have a controlling say in the operation of the company) owns a portion of the means of production, but does not control them. In this sense, although they make some money from the exploitation of workers, they are not directly involved in the extraction of surplus value because they do not control the means of production. If their primary source of income is wage labor, they are working class.

A career salesperson is a complex example as their relationship to the means of production is incredibly hazy. A salesperson that buys things and sells them for a profit is probably petty-bourgeois, they take on the role of a shopkeeper and they have control over the means of one center of extraction of surplus value. Profit is created whenever something is sold in the distribution chain. A salesperson like a telemarketer that is paid an hourly wage to peddle goods has no control over the buying and selling. The buying has been done, and they benefit superficially from the selling. They do not see the benefit (or see a small fraction of it) when surplus value is extracted because of their sale. Even if they make a commission, it is still likely that they are entirely working class, like a server that makes tips if they do a good job, or a factory worker that gets a bonus for good performance. I think most sales examples can be simplified to resemble one of these two types of situations, and so some salespeople are petty-bourgeoisie and some are working class.

People in supervisory or management roles are not necessarily bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie because those types of roles can be very important parts of good team organization (although who is selected for these roles is certainly often done poorly in capitalism). It is an unfortunate reality that people are not self-organizing, and having team or project leadership is very important in a workplace. I think it is best to just examine whether the manager or supervisor gets a share of profit (the result of surplus value extraction, such as a controlling shareholder) or is paid a wage (fast-food manager). One is Bourgeoisie, the other is working class, despite the somewhat "cushier" job, because they still work for a wage.

That's the best I've been able to sort out so far. It can be difficult to see the means of production and the relationships to them in the ever-increasing complexity of the capitalist world we live in, but I think they're still there if you really dig down into it.

[jonathan]

I understand globalization to have changed things immensely. I think it's difficult to speak about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in most western nations because the site of exploitation is hidden or blurred. Said another way, the United States and Europe has reached a point of economic development where actual production is parlayed to other nations. In the U.S. or the EU countries, there is a large percentage of the population who benefit from capitalism and live fairly comfortably; this qualifies entire class segments as petitie-bourgeoisie. The proletariat still exist, but they exist in other nations where actual production takes place, like the Dominican Republic or India. This is mostly the reason why I think a communist revolution will not take place in the United States or Europe: most people in these countries benefit from capitalism and will write off revolutionaries as hopeless radicals.

[Old Man Diogenes]

The range of jobs of the proleteriat has definately expanded, as there are not as many industrial jobs nowadays as industry in Britain has sort of declined.

[Il Medico]

This is complicated, but basically there is two classes. They are not based on wealth like capitalist classes are, but on the ownership of the means of production.
Bourgeois= The owners of the means of production. (i.e Factory owners, CEO, Bill Gates, etc)
Proletariat= Those who's only source of wealth is their labor. (i.e Factory workers, gas station clerk, manger of a dollar store, basically anyone who does not own the means of production and relies on labor to gain wealth).

[AvanteRedGarde]

Yes, the definition has grown far beyond Marx's interpretations. One of the first people to note this was Engles, when he remarked that parts of the English working class had become 'bourgeoisiefied.'

Today, modern capitalism, (i.e. the formation and accumulation of capital, production and distribution as capitalist endeavors, etc) takes place on a global level. Centers of capital realization and accumulation (the First World) super-exploit the productive capacity of the vast Third World.

This has created an international divide. In that all First Worlders derive income not just from their labor but also their unique physical and functional relationship with Capital and capital accumulation, the First World is absent an actual proletariat.

[The idea that their are two main class has never been this a part of Marxist doctrine as people here make it out to be. Marx described the Petty Bourgeoisie (owns the means of production but also engaged in regular more direct labor) and unproductive workers (worked for capitalists, personal workers, house cleaners, nannies, etc). Engles described vaugely bourgesified proletarians (english industrial workers into the 1880s). Lenin described semi-proletarians (those who did not alter a commodity but increased the rate of capital accumulation, bank tellers, marketing, consulants, cashiers) and a labor aristocracy (definition varied). I would go so far to say that a most First World workers form a class of petty-exploiters. Hell, even Mao talked about a "New Bourgeosie" under socialism. Point being the idea that there is somehow two classes is ahistorical, reductionist, dogmatic, useless, impractical... It does not conform to reality and the necessities of actual class struggle. Theoretically at least, it is bankrupt and always has been.]

[The Ungovernable Farce]

This is complicated, but basically there is two classes. They are not based on wealth like capitalist classes are, but on the ownership of the means of production.
Bourgeois= The owners of the means of production. (i.e Factory owners, CEO, Bill Gates, etc)
Proletariat= Those who's only source of wealth is their labor. (i.e Factory workers, gas station clerk, manger of a dollar store, basically anyone who does not own the means of production and relies on labor to gain wealth).
I'd agree with this, but I'm really dubious about a manager being counted as proletarian. Surely by that point you're relying on the labour of others to make you money?

[scarletghoul]

Its impossible to evaluate class in the 21st century without a global perspective because of the global economy created by imperialism

With economic globalization and the offloading of manufacturing into low-cost zones such as China, most workers aren't really engaged in a sort of "production" that is easily identifiable. This has led to a very confused look at the working class.
No, it just means that large sections of the proletariat are now based in China etc, rather than western countries. The proletariat still exists. Offloading jobs to china doesnt make them vanish lol, the chinese arent some mechanical mass of labour power that absorbs manufacturing jobs from the first world.
So yeah its true that imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, has shifted the labour force to developing countries. But that doesnt mean there's no proletariat in first world countries too. There are still millions in the uk. Though the grimy minimum wage jobs are gradually shifting overseas (and to exploited foreign labour in this country also), there are many many of what the other post called semiproletarians and stuff. In my oppinion these are still proletarians because it is still exploited labour, even if its not as bad as the 19th century factory labour which has been passed on to the chinese workers.

In other words, it is still true as it was in the 19th century, that the majority of people in the UK (or any other first world country) are proletarians whose labour is exploited. However, their jobs and lives are slowly becoming more comfortable as imperialism shifts the classical proletarian work overseas.

[mel]

This has created an international divide. In that all First Worlders derive income not just from their labor but also their unique physical and functional relationship with Capital and capital accumulation, the First World is absent an actual proletariat.

While you edited this post to make it slightly better, curiously I don't see any "last edited" note (the original wording was that all first-worlders recieve wages over and above the value of their labor, if I'm not mistaken), I still think this is complete bullshit. Workers in the "first world" don't magically have control over the means of production because they live relatively comfortably. That "first worlders" all benefit from exploitation of "third world" workers does not fundamentally change the fact that many "first world" workers are wage slaves and are engaged in productive endeavors. They are employed by capitalists in a productive capacity and need to work to survive, and they receive wages below the value of their labor because it is robbed by capitalists. A relatively comfortable proletariat does not negate their existence, and that they benefit indirectly from the labor of other proletarians who are being more exploited does not mean that they are not exploited at all.


[The idea that their are two main class has never been this a part of Marxist doctrine as people here make it out to be. Marx described the Petty Bourgeoisie (owns the means of production but also engaged in regular more direct labor) and unproductive workers (worked for capitalists, personal workers, house cleaners, nannies, etc). Engles described vaugely bourgesified proletarians (english industrial workers into the 1880s). Lenin described semi-proletarians (those who did not alter a commodity but increased the rate of capital accumulation, bank tellers, marketing, consulants, cashiers) and a labor aristocracy (definition varied). I would go so far to say that a most First World workers form a class of petty-exploiters. Hell, even Mao talked about a "New Bourgeosie" under socialism. Point being the idea that there is somehow two classes is ahistorical, reductionist, dogmatic, useless, impractical... It does not conform to reality and the necessities of actual class struggle. Theoretically at least, it is bankrupt and always has been.]

Marx describes the three classes in the Communist Manifesto, which is many people's first and only exposure to Marx, and in the Manifesto it is most certainly suggested that these are the only classes.



No, it just means that large sections of the proletariat are now based in China etc, rather than western countries. The proletariat still exists. Offloading jobs to china doesnt make them vanish lol, the chinese arent some mechanical mass of labour power that absorbs manufacturing jobs from the first world.

I meant to say workers in imperialist nations, not just "workers", which should remove the rest of the objections you had to that section. It's hard to evaluate the proletariat in an imperialist nation because of globalization which has shifted production to other areas of the world.


I'd agree with this, but I'm really dubious about a manager being counted as proletarian. Surely by that point you're relying on the labour of others to make you money?

Management roles can be productive, and managers who slave for a wage might be proletariat too. Anywhere where there is division of labor workers will rely on other workers to make their money. I don't know what a fast-food manager does, but I have trouble calling somebody who makes a wage for a living and cannot just stop showing up and continue making money a member of the bourgeoisie.

[NoMore]

This is complicated, but basically there is two classes. They are not based on wealth like capitalist classes are, but on the ownership of the means of production.
Bourgeois= The owners of the means of production. (i.e Factory owners, CEO, Bill Gates, etc)
Proletariat= Those who's only source of wealth is their labor. (i.e Factory workers, gas station clerk, manger of a dollar store, basically anyone who does not own the means of production and relies on labor to gain wealth).
If somebody acquires alot of wealth just through labor are they considered bourgeois?

[BabylonHoruv]

If somebody acquires alot of wealth just through labor are they considered bourgeois?

This does not happen.

[AvanteRedGarde]

How do people like lil wayne, barry bonds, george lukas and angelina jolie? They're part of the proletariat?

[BabylonHoruv]

How do people like lil wayne, barry bonds, george lukas and angelina jolie? They're part of the proletariat?


I hold that you are simply not seeing the ways in which their wealth relies on the exploitation of others.

[CommunityBeliever]

Net Worth:
Net worth or basically the amount of money someone owns can be used to determine if someone is bourgeoisie. You can pretty safely say that someone is bourgeoisie if they are a millionaire because one you have a net worth in the millions of dollars then you can use that net worth as capital and at the point that you are a millionaire your labor will no longer be required and your children may not have to do jobs either because they can inherit your money. Any job that a millionaire has is essentially just something they want to do, something they are not forced into doing. In fact Bill Gates admits unemployment he just travels around the world pretty much living in his million dollar houses and donating to causes that he supports.

Often times millionaires and billionaires just choose to boss other people around as their proffession, actually most billionaires are CEOs for example Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, Eric Shmidt are all CEOs. George Lucas is a billionaire and he is the boss at Lucasfilm although he isn't even the CEO because he just leaves Micheline Chau working for him. George Lucas barely does any labor at all so ya he is bourgeosie.

If you are interested in how net worth can be used as a form of capital such that the person involved doesn't need to work for anybody, here is something you might want to research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund

Other Capital:
Other then money people often have large plots of land rented out to people and those can also be used as a form of capital, you can just live primarily off of other people's money that is coming in from renting so then of course you are bourgeosie. Someone who is a proletariat can be pretty much defined as someone who does not own significant sources of capital and who spends large amounts of money he/she gets on things like rent. Rent is a great example of the distinction between bourgeosie and proletariat because the person who rents a home is generally considered a proletarian and the person who is on the recieving end who is taking the money is bourgeoisie.

Jobs
The jobs that are done by people who get salaries of over 100,000$ are increasingly bourgeoisie administrative jobs such as CEOs. In the case of doctors for example those that earn more then 100,000$ they are very often bosses of other doctors. The jobs that are actually contributing something significant to the world can generally be classified as proletariat jobs and the jobs that are not contributing something, in which are essentially bossing others around or telling them what to do those are bourgeoisie jobs. Below a salary of 100,000$ are generally proletarian jobs. The small salaries can be explained by the fact that in capitalism the people that work the hardest are payed the least.

http://www.careerbuilder.com/Article/CB-605-Job-Search-Six-Figure-Jobs/?ArticleID=605&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=31547dd0dccd4d5aa296482e05788829-299824414-x1-6&ns_siteid=ns_us_g_six_figure_salary_jobs

The above describes six figure salary jobs. For example there is sales managers and financial managers where they use "manager" as a euphimism for bossing people around. It is clear that the managers make more then the workers.


How do people like lil wayne, barry bonds, george lukas and angelina jolie? They're part of the proletariat?

No they are bourgeosie each of them because I can rate them in terms of millions of dollars. They could retire at anytime, they do not need a job and their children do not have to wake up someday worrying about getting a job.

George Lucas - 3900 million
J.K Rowling - 500 million
Angelina Jolie - 150 million
Lil Wayne - 50 million
Barry Bonds - 15 million


If somebody acquires alot of wealth just through labor are they considered bourgeois?

The people that acquire large amounts of wealth usually where fairly well off to start with you know with all of their issues such as food and water already covered they just decided to organize together to boss and exploit workers.

[mel]

If you make a salary of over 100,000$ then you are definitely bourgeoisie nobody makes more then that without seriously exploting people.

Bullshit. I have family members that work VERY hard and do not have any employees from whom they extract surplus value that make at least that much money. Skilled professionals are capable of making money over and above that amount in a year.

That said, they are often not "working class" but petit-bourgeoisie and are rarely persuaded towards revolutionary ends.


Proletariat - Teachers, Bus Drivers, Garbagemen, Clerks, Waitresses, Engineers, Scientists, Doctors, pretty much all the people doing the real work and they usually make 10,000$ a year or less. Some of the luckier ones make 50,000$ a year.

Doctors make WELL above $150,000 a year. Engineers often make around or above $125,000, scientists can make an absolute fortune, and far more than your quoted figure, and a person working 40 hours a week at minimum wage (and most of your examples make above minimum wage, even if not much) makes $14,000 a year. Most of the positions you mentioned make above minimum wage, a few WELL above minimum wage, and while you're right that the average salary for all workers is probably close to about $35,000 many members of the proletariat will not make that little and you cannot differentiate between classes at income boundaries.

Most of the people you mentioned are bourgeoisie not because of how much money they make, but because that money is made by having employees who produce value for them, and by investing in the stock market shuffling money around instead of earning it. They can comfortably stop working because they have investment capital which they spread at each opportunity in order to make more money instead of working for a living wage.

[punisa]

hmm... this tends to become somewhat confusing :blink:
Let me fire another example if I may..
Say I am a music perfomer that plays guitar at wedding celebrations. I work for a rather large company called "Wedding PRO" that sends me to play where playing is needed, on daily basis. I work and I'm payed as a part of the working class - a proletariat. Think we all agree on this one.

Then one fine day this capitalist bastard notices that I'm really talented etc and offers me to play in this soon to be popular band.
Just like any exploited worker nowadays I'm offered to sign a contract which obligates me that I must work (compose, play, perform) when and where my boss tells me.
Soon enough band becomes mega popular and I earn millions from sold out arenas all over the world.
What am I know?
A bourgeoise? On basis of what?
thanks

[h9socialist]

The question of "bourgeois and proletariat" will get even more muddled as this century progresses. By 2050 only 2% of the world's workforce will be employed in manufacturing -- and even service industry employment will be in decline. The revolutionary class will be those with little or no connection to capital. But it will not be the "proletariat" in the classic sense. The greatest portion may be those who are simply superfluous to capitalism. If socialists don't carry out the struggle for radically shorter work hours at a living level of renumeration for everyone, economic catastrophe will not be avoidable.

[AvanteRedGarde]

So a millionaire can be a proletariat, punsia?

[mel]

I think by the time somebody becomes a millionaire they are capable of retiring semi-comfortably on that amount of money (and no longer working) investing that money (to make more money, and no longer working) or start a new enterprise with employees (and no longer working) so in practice a millionaire cannot be proletariat because they do not need to work for a wage anymore (even if they are contractually obligated to continue doing so)

[CommunityBeliever]

Doctors make WELL above $150,000 a year. Engineers often make around or above $125,000, scientists can make an absolute fortune, and far more than your quoted figure, and a person working 40 hours a week at minimum wage (and most of your examples make above minimum wage, even if not much) makes $14,000 a year.

Most of the proletariat in the world makes less then 10,000$ and they work all day. I know about those doctors and things that make 150,000$ but most of those are administrators of a sort so they are actually more bourgeosie. It is true that scientists and engineers can make a lot of money but most of them are not bourgeoisie. I did not say that every god damn scientist is a proletarian nor did I say ever teacher is some of them work in private schools I am just saying most of these people are doing actual work. Even in a communist society we are not getting rid of scientists and engineers.


Most of the people you mentioned are bourgeoisie not because of how much money they make, but because that money is made by having employees who produce value for them, and by investing in the stock market shuffling money around instead of earning it. They can comfortably stop working because they have investment capital which they spread at each opportunity in order to make more money instead of working for a living wage.

We need those types of workers even if we create a communist society we are still going to have scientists in fact one of the good thing about socialist societies is they have way more people who are qualified scientists because you do not have to pay for college education.

I know that the last three raise the most objections Engineers, Scientists, and Doctors it is true that some of them are bourgeoisie but still we are going to need the other ones that are the actual workers. Some of them are administrators and those are the bourgeoisie ones but that does not mean you should hate on the entire group of people. There is a small amount of scientists in American society and a small amount of scientists that are bourgeosie.


Bullshit. I have family members that work VERY hard and do not have any employees from whom they extract surplus value that make at least that much money. Skilled professionals are capable of making money over and above that amount in a year.

Do you have to argue with everything? I was trying to make a general rule to make the situation easier to understand. Maybe you know somebody who does real work and gets 120,000$ a year but I do not think that person would object that much to a 100,000$ maximum wage. I think 100,000$ is a very high wage already and it should probably be even less can't you have a little bit of understanding for that!?!

If you make 100,000$ a year then you are denying 10 people of a 10,000$ salary and most of the actual workers in the entire world make well less then 10,000$. We cannot let a whole lot of people make 100,000$ without creating poverty in the world so you should understand why I object to people making more then that.

[mel]

Most of the proletariat in the world makes less then 10,000$ and they work all day. I know about those doctors and things that make 150,000$ but most of those are some administrators of a sort so they are actually more bourgeosie. It is true that scientists and engineers can make a lot of money but most of them are not bourgeoisie. I did not say that every god damn scientist is a proletarian nor did I say ever teacher is some of them work in private schools I am just saying most of these people are doing actual work. Even in a communist society we are not getting rid of scientists and engineers.

Who suggested getting rid of scientists and engineers? My point was that many of the people who you agreed were proletarians do not make as little as you think they do. Class status is not defined by income, and trying to divide classes based on income is counterproductive and buys into the bourgeoisie discourse that perpetuates the myth of the so-called "middle class".


We need those types of workers even if we create a communist society we are still going to have scientists in fact one of the good thing about socialist societies is they have way more people who are qualified scientists because you do not have to pay for college education.

You're really good at distorting my arguments. Of course we need scientists, engineers and doctors.


I know that the last three raise the most objections Engineers, Scientists, and Doctors it is true that some of them are bourgeoisie but still we are going to need the other ones that are the actual workers. Some of them are administrators and those are the bourgeoisie ones but that does not mean you should hate on the entire group of people. There is a small amount of scientists in American society and a small amount of scientists that are bourgeosie.

I am not "hating on" scientists, doctors, and engineers. They do make more money but that is not the problem, capitalism is.


To you have to argue with everything? I was trying to make a general rule to make the situation easier to understand. Maybe you know somebody who does real work and gets 120,000$ a year but I do not think that person would object that much to a 100,000$ maximum wage. I think 100,000$ is a very high wage already and it should probably be even less can't you have a little bit of understanding for that!?!

I have to argue with things that are stupid. $100,000 is not THAT much, especially with inflation on the rise. A wage of $100,000 will support a relatively comfortable middle-class lifestyle for a family of 3, maybe 4, in some neighborhoods, and will support significantly more than that in others. The point is not to equalize all wages, or reduce all of the "rich" down to wages that are FAR below the poverty line in any western nation.


If you make 100,000$ a year then you are denying 10 people of a 10,000$ salary and most of the actual workers in the entire world make well less then 10,000$. We cannot let a whole lot of people make 100,000$ without creating poverty in the world so you should understand why I object to people making more then that.

Economics is not a zero-sum game, this analysis shows some of the least understanding of the issues at hand that I have ever seen. A person making $100,000 does not automatically mean that another 10 people cannot make $10,000. There is not a fixed amount of money in the world, since it's entirely arbitrary anyway. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of how much money people the world over make, but in terms of the class struggle and how to abolish the system of money in its entirety.

[CommunityBeliever]

I have to argue with things that are stupid. $100,000 is not THAT much, especially with inflation on the rise. A wage of $100,000 will support a relatively comfortable middle-class lifestyle for a family of 3, maybe 4, in some neighborhoods, and will support significantly more than that in others. The point is not to equalize all wages, or reduce all of the "rich" down to wages that are FAR below the poverty line in any western nation.

Well I am not saying 100,000$ for an entire family of six people or ten people of course that is cool I am just saying one person with a 100,000$ wage is where the people start getting really bourgeoisie. After that general area the people involved are exponentially more CEOs, administrators, and other bourgeosie people.

Don't give me that shit that 100,000$ is a not a lot of money my family of four makes 20,000$ or less and I am living in America so I have it good. People in other countries live in serious poverty. You act bourgeoisie like you do not see the poverty in the world 100,000$ is a lot of money!


A person making $100,000 does not automatically mean that another 10 people cannot make $10,000. There is not a fixed amount of money in the world, since it's entirely arbitrary anyway.

Yes there is a fixed amount of money in the world and last I checked if you gave each person an equal share of that money then everybody would get 10,000$ somebody getting 100,000$ means he takes away the salary of ten people.

[mel]

Well I am not saying 100,000$ for an entire family of six people or ten people of course that is cool I am just saying one person with a 100,000$ wage is where the people start getting really bourgeoisie. After that general area the people involved are exponentially more CEOs, administrators, and other bourgeosie people.

Bourgeoisie and Proleteriat is not defined by income, and the relative comfort of the first world does not preclude them from proletariat status.


Don't give me that shit that 100,000$ is a not a lot of money my family of four makes 20,000$ or less and I am living in America so I have it good. People in other countries live in serious poverty. You act bourgeoisie like you do not see the poverty in the world 100,000$ is a lot of money!

If your family of four makes less than $20,000 per year then you only have one family member working full time, and if anybody else is working at all, it is less than 10 hours a week, because even minimum wage for most people in the US amounts to a yearly salary of $14,000 per year, and that is not even close to a living wage. You either are ignorant of what your family actually makes, deliberately distorting the figures, or are living far below the poverty line and should be eligible for assistance of some kind. However you slice it, there are areas of the country that are so expensive to live in that $100,000 for a family of four would not even begin to be enough to cover tax and travel expenses.


Yes there is a fixed amount of money in the world and last I checked if you gave each person an equal share of that money then everybody would get 10,000$ somebody getting 100,000$ means he takes away the salary of ten people.

This simply isn't true and shows an extreme misunderstanding of economics on your part, I can't even begin to explain all the ways which this is false, but if somebody else would like to take a stab at this be my guest.

[CommunityBeliever]

Bourgeoisie and Proleteriat is not defined by income,

True. However if one particular individual is earning a billion dollars then you can clearly state that he is bourgeoisie and having studied these things I find that people who earn 200,000$ are very often CEOs or something similar and they require the exploitation of the common people.


If your family of four makes less than $20,000 per year then you only have one family member working full time, and if anybody else is working at all,

Me and my brother are going to college and I do not want to get into what my parents do why should you care obviously you know nothing about poverty. My parents say they both get 600 dollars a month not counting the benefits we get like food stamps and hud housing so 20,000$ is a high estimate. Yes I do live below the poverty line.


This simply isn't true and shows an extreme misunderstanding of economics on your part, I can't even begin to explain all the ways which this is false, but if somebody else would like to take a stab at this be my guest.

What a great argument. Do you want evidence that 10,000$ is the amount everybody should be given per year?

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=gdp+per+capita+of+the+world&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Seriously though you know nothing about poverty in the world giving one person 100,000$ seriously denies money from the rest of the people in the world.

[mel]

True. However if one particular individual is earning a billion dollars then you can clearly state that he is bourgeoisie and having studied these things I find that people who earn 200,000$ are very often CEOs or something similar and they require the exploitation of the common people.

But the problem is that by defining it based on income distracts from the real issue, which is the relationship to the means of production. The bourgeoisie defines classes in terms of income in order to perpetuate the myth that everyone can be "middle class". By constantly talking about income, you hide the real problem and help to perpetuate the myth that "moving up" is possible.


Me and my brother are going to college and I do not want to get into what my parents do why should you care obviously you know nothing about poverty. My parents say they both get 600 dollars a month not counting the benefits we get like food stamps and hud housing so 20,000$ is a high estimate. Yes I do live below the poverty line.

If your parents are making $600 each per month they are each working at about half minimum wage, which means they are working illegally or not working full time. This is fine, and I understand if that is the case, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the world should make less than half of what your family makes.

Don't tell me what I know about poverty. My parents are both working class, were both unemployed for a period, and I had to live with other family for a long time to avoid being an economic burden on my parents, who are now in so much debt that they will need to work until they die and most likely will not even be able to get out of debt then. There were times when food was scarce. Things are better now, but I've lived below the poverty line before, and I understand what it can be like. Things have never been as bad for me as it is for workers the world over who don't even have that much going for them, and I've never been homeless. In this respect, I'm very lucky to have been born in the first world, and to have extended family that could take care of me when it would have cost my parents too much.


What a great argument. Do you want evidence that 10,000$ is the amount everybody should be given per year?

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=gdp+per+capita+of+the+world&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Seriously though you know nothing about poverty in the world giving one person 100,000$ seriously denies money from the rest of the people in the world.

The GDP is not a measure of anything that matters at all to this discussion. It's the "market value" of all of the goods and services in the world for every 100,000 people or so and has fuck-all to do with how much money anybody should get, which jobs should exist, who should be doing them, or how much money anybody should make in a year. Even if that was indicative of the total amount of money that could be evenly divided between everyone in the world, it wouldn't make a difference, because communism is more than just giving everyone an equal salary and retaining the capitalist mode of production.

[CommunityBeliever]

But the problem is that by defining it based on income distracts from the real issue, which is the relationship to the means of production.

Ya but it can be helpful for some people to look at things in terms of the income and you can certainly make conclusions based on income. It is not like income is some force that does not matter.


The GDP is not a measure of anything that matters at all to this discussion. It's the "market value" of all of the goods and services in the world for every 100,000 people or so and has fuck-all to do with how much money anybody should get, which jobs should exist, who should be doing them, or how much money anybody should make in a year.

I did not say that GDP is the end all measure of everything in the world and that the GDP is super special and it is all that matters I am just saying that you can use it to understand the income relations to put things into perspective.


I had to live with other family for a long time to avoid being an economic burden on my parents

So did I, I had to live in somebody elses home for a while in Florida.


as it is for workers the world over who don't even have that much going for them

I was saying that people in America and such go around with more then 100,000$ well people in Haiti are struggling to survive. I am saying that they should not be aloud to have more then 100,000$ well other people are making 365$ a year (a dollar a day). You say that 100,000$ is not that much money but you could employ 200 people in the third world with that kind of money so ya.


Even if that was indicative of the total amount of money that could be evenly divided between everyone in the world, it wouldn't make a difference

The point is that one person in America makes more 100,000$ well people in the third world make 500$ when if things were distributed well they could make 10,000$ which is a much better living I mean you can get everything you need with 10,000$ and I am not saying this is the end all there is much more to be done in a communist society.

[mel]

Ya but it can be helpful for some people to look at things in terms of the income and you can certainly make conclusions based on income. It is not like income is some force that does not matter.

Of course it matters, it makes a material difference in peoples lives. It does not make a difference in determining what class somebody belongs to.




I did not say that GDP is the end all measure of everything in the world and that the GDP is super special and it is all that matters I am just saying that you can use it to understand the income relations to put things into perspective.

No, you can't. All it tells you is the MARKET value of the goods and services produced in the world for every 100,000 people. If that is $10,000 then that means that for every 100,000 people in the world, they only produce $10,000 worth of goods, so if that had any meaning whatsoever (and it doesn't) it would mean that people should make less than $1 per year. Luckily GDP is not a measure of what you think it's a measure of.


So did I, I had to live in somebody elses home for a while in Florida.

I was just saying that you can't tell me I don't understand living under the poverty line. You don't know me.


I was saying that people in America and such go around with more then 100,000$ well people in Haiti are struggling to survive. I am saying that they should not be aloud to have more then 100,000$ well other people are making 365$ a year (a dollar a day). You say that 100,000$ is not that much money but you could employ 200 people in the third world with that kind of money so ya.

It's all relative and "spreading the income around" doesn't make any difference because the value of money is ENTIRELY arbitrary and defined by the government. In the end, they're just pieces of fucking paper with no inherent worth, so attempting to apply a meaningless income statistic to the entire world doesn't make any sense. A person making $10,000 in one area of the world could not survive with the price of goods. A person making $10,000 in another area of the world has a veritable fortune. You can't just spread around money perfectly evenly and expect to have a reasonable system. That is not the goal of communism and reducing it to that is not only counterproductive but absolutely ridiculous.


The point is that one person in America makes more 100,000$ well people in the third world make 500$ when if things were distributed well they could make 10,000$ which is a much better living I mean you can get everything you need with 10,000$ and I am not saying this is the end all there is much more to be done in a communist society.

Luckily a communist society isn't attempting to redistribute money made under a capitalist mode of production but fundamentally change human relationships to production and the fundamental purpose of that production.

[CommunityBeliever]

I was just saying that you can't tell me I don't understand living under the poverty line. You don't know me.


Well then why did you continuouly take favoritism for people who are making more then 100,000$ a year and I haven't seen you show support for the people living in poverty at all you have just have been justifying people who acquire more then 100,000$.


No, you can't. All it tells you is the MARKET value of the goods and services produced in the world for every 100,000 people.

Okay may be that does not prove what I was saying but if you really think about it, it makes a sense that about 10,000$ would be the amount to give every single person.


That is not the goal of communism and reducing it to that is not only counterproductive but absolutely ridiculous.

I never said it was. I actually said the opposite you just seem to be distorting what I am saying. However, it appears that you do not see the injustice of people in America making billions of dollars well people in other countries seriously suffer.


Luckily a communist society isn't attempting to redistribute money

Stop distorting my words. I did not say anything of the sort. I did not say that the purpose of a communist society is to redistribute the wealth I just said it is an injustice for people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to make such high incomes well other people seriously suffer.

You apparently think income does not matter but it does and people like Bill Gates can use their income to take goods out of the hands of thousands of people.

[mel]

Well then why did you continuouly take favoritism for people who are making more then 100,000$ a year and I haven't seen you show support for the people living in poverty at all you have just have been justifying people who acquire more then 100,000$.

It's not favoritism to point out that a person who is a proletarian making $100,000 per year does not make them bourgeoisie because their standard of living is higher than somebody in the "third world".


Okay may be that does not prove what I was saying but if you really think about it, it makes a sense that about 10,000$ would be the amount to give every single person.

NO, it doesn't because in the US, it is impossible to survive on that amount of money. Besides, if one person is making $10,000 per year then 10,000 people can't make $1 per year. OMG INJUSTICE.


I never said it was. I actually said the opposite you just seem to be distorting what I am saying. However, it appears that you do not see the injustice of people in America making billions of dollars well people in other countries seriously suffer.

Of course I do, but somebody making $100,000 and living in an area where that is the amount of money that is required to live in that area and makes that money by working is not bourgeoisie.


Stop distorting my words. I did not say anything of the sort. I did not say that the purpose of a communist society is to redistribute the wealth I just said it is an injustice for people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to make such high incomes well other people seriously suffer.

Of course it is, because those people do not work for their money and make it through extracting surplus value from their workers under them, and from their investments in stock which are unproductive.


You apparently think income does not matter but it does and people like Bill Gates can use their income to take goods out of the hands of thousands of people.

Income alone does not matter. Income is only a problem when it becomes capital and becomes involved in the direct exploitation of others in extracting surplus value. Income is only capital when there is enough surplus to reinvest it. If a person is in an area of the world where the cost of living is $98,000 per year then a salary of $100,000 per year is not suficient to become investment capital. You fail to understand that income is only significant when it changes a person's relationship to the means of production, and that economics is not a zero-sum game where money can just be handed out in equal divisions to everyone in the world. If all of the money in the world was pooled together and distributed evenly right now, it would not fundamentally change the means or forces of production because income equalization is not the solution (or even a solution) to anything, the abolition of private property and the capitalist mode of production is.

[CommunityBeliever]

Besides, if one person is making $10,000 per year then 10,000 people can't make $1 per year. OMG INJUSTICE.

10,000 imaginary people cannot make 1$ per year OMG OMG OMG.


Of course I do, but somebody making $100,000 and living in an area where that is the amount of money that is required to live in that area and makes that money by working is not bourgeoisie.

Where the heck is he/she living and what the heck is he/she doing? Is this a real person?


Of course it is, because those people do not work for their money and make it through extracting surplus value from their workers under them, and from their investments in stock which are unproductive.

Okay and you can generalize that people over a certain income are going to be like that. Maybe a doctor can make 150,000$ but that doctor could live with 100,000$ instead. Some people do work and make more then 100,000$ but it is not that common


in the US, it is impossible to survive on that amount of money.

WTF do you know? People live off of 0$ a year because they can get free water at the parks and free food at the salvation army. People can certainly live with 10,000$ a year but what the hell does this have to do with anything?


Income alone does not matter. Income is only a problem when it becomes capital and becomes involved in the direct exploitation of others in extracting surplus value.

Okay but tell me how the hell are you going to become a millionaire without exploiting people? Hmm? I said it is okay to make 100,000$ already so what about this?


If all of the money in the world was pooled together and distributed evenly right now

Hello I am a communist and I was never suggesting this I was just saying that a maximum wage of 100,000$ in America makes sense because people at that point don't need more money and at that point exploitation is very very common. People like Bill Gates should have their money seized. I am a communist I am not saying we should only seize his money I also suggest that the means of production be siezed so please do not distort what I am saying.

What exactly is your biggest objection to a maximum wage of 100,000$? Why do you think that people can make 150,000$ or so without seriously exploiting the system?

[mel]

10,000 imaginary people cannot make 1$ per year OMG OMG OMG.

That number is equally valid as the one which you pulled out of your ass.


Where the heck is he/she living and what the heck is he/she doing? Is this a real person?

There are places where the cost of living is that high.


Okay and you can generalize that people over a certain income are going to be like that. Maybe a doctor can make 150,000$ but that doctor could live with 100,000$ instead. Some people do work and make more then 100,000$ but it is not that common

That doesn't make differentiating based on income any more valid.


WTF do you know? People live off of 0$ a year because they can get free water at the parks and free food at the salvation army. People can certainly live with 10,000$ a year but what the hell does this have to do with anything?

You can't just arbitrarily set a worldwide equal wage to some random made up some and expect it to mean anything. People that live off of $0 a year are called homeless, and you shouldn't wish that existence on everyone. In some areas you cannot get any shelter at a salary of $10,000 a year.


Okay but tell me how the hell are you going to become a millionaire without exploiting people? Hmm? I said it is okay to make 100,000$ already so what about this?

You made up an arbitrary number and said "oh shit, if you make more than this you don't need it" without taking into account the cost of living in a given area, the size of the family that needs to be supported, or the way in which those people made that money.


Hello I am a communist and I was never suggesting this I was just saying that a maximum wage of 100,000$ in America makes sense because people at that point don't need more money and at that point exploitation is very very common. People like Bill Gates should have their money seized. I am a communist I am not saying we should only seize his money I also suggest that the means of production be siezed so please do not distort what I am saying.

Once the means of production have been seized, arbitrarily setting any sort of "maximum wage" or standard wage is ridiculous because the mode of production will be fundamentally changed.


What exactly is your biggest objection to a maximum wage of 100,000$? Why do you think that people can make 150,000$ or so without seriously exploiting the system?

My biggest objection to a maximum wage of $100,000 is that it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't take cost of living into consideration, and as somebody who used to advocate for a maximum wage myself, it is no more progressive and makes less practical sense than a steep income tax, which is to say: it may materially improve conditions for workers by thrusting more money into the public sector to fund welfare programs like free healthcare, which is a good thing, but it's ultimately just a way of dressing up capitalism in nicer clothes. A maximum wage solves nothing and serves no true purpose if the basic condition of workers is still one of powerlessness and exploitation. Those who retain their income from businesses would have less money to play around with, but still would not need to work. Your efforts will do nothing to further the cause of communism because it leaves the fundamental relationship between workers and production unchanged.

In short, your efforts at instituting a "maximum wage" either

1) serve no purpose because the means of production have already been seized.

or

2) are meaningless because the relationship between workers and the means of production remain unchanged.

If the maximum income limit did not apply to businesses, then CEOs would simply write themselves a check for the equivalent of the maximum wage and then hide the rest of the assets in the business, use business money to fund their personal lives, or pay off politicians to get the law changed back so that they can continue making that sort of money for themselves.

It's impossible to apply to businesses because a business would just ensure that their net income remained under whatever the limit was and use the rest of the company money on other things that can be made to look like business expenses, like a private jet for the smaller-time executives etc. etc. etc. The income would never be passed down to the workers.

[CommunityBeliever]

it doesn't take cost of living into consideration

Well if the place we are talking about is bourgeosie and you have to bourgeoisie to get in then I would not want to live there anyways.


it's ultimately just a way of dressing up capitalism in nicer clothes.

I am still interested in getting rid of capitalism okay :cool:


A maximum wage solves nothing and serves no true purpose if the basic condition of workers is still one of powerlessness and exploitation.

I never said it is an end all solution but it makes things better for the workers well limiting abusive CEOs.


If the maximum income limit did not apply to businesses, then CEOs would simply write themselves a check for the equivalent of the maximum wage and then hide the rest of the assets in the business, use business money to fund their personal lives, or pay off politicians to get the law changed back so that they can continue making that sort of money for themselves.

I agree but at least this hypothetical situation is better then what we got now I mean I never said that maximum wage is the only policy I would ever want to implement.


as somebody who used to advocate for a maximum wage myself,

I am tired of arguing, maybe someday I will no longer believe in the maximum wage. It doesn't seem like that much of a good idea anymore because if we move land and the other assets into the workers control it would probably result in a maximum wage of 100,000$ indirectly because the millionaires will lose all there means of creating their wealth. We should still take away their money though if they are carrying more then 100,000$ and maybe it should be increased to 150,000$ in special cases because I agree that some people are exceptional.

I was actually going to say that the maximum wage would be 200,000$ at first but I thought that other communists would think that is too high :lol:

[BabylonHoruv]

The question of "bourgeois and proletariat" will get even more muddled as this century progresses. By 2050 only 2% of the world's workforce will be employed in manufacturing -- and even service industry employment will be in decline. The revolutionary class will be those with little or no connection to capital. But it will not be the "proletariat" in the classic sense. The greatest portion may be those who are simply superfluous to capitalism. If socialists don't carry out the struggle for radically shorter work hours at a living level of renumeration for everyone, economic catastrophe will not be avoidable.

I think that would make the lumpenproleteriat the revolutionary class, an idea marx was not real keen on.

[h9socialist]

That's one reason why I think the more accurate class distinction has to do with the connection (or "access" to capital, rather than the traditional delineations. Michael Jordan's wealth came from his ability to use his basketball talents to have access to capital. This is consistent with a line that Marx explained in Volume II of Das Kapital when he noted that at it's beginning the capitalist and the worker are essentially the same. It is only when capital accumulates to the point that the labor of others can be commodified (bought and sold) that capital comes into its own -- capital being the accumulation of exchange value to the point that it commands human labor.
However, my larger point is that the development of capitalist technology continues to make more aspects of industrial labor superfluous. As this occurs, the proletariat (as traditionally understood) loses strength. Nevertheless, the access to capital is still a clear dividing line between classes. The problem is how to organize the modern "proletariat" if it is not brought together in social relationships by the common nexus of industrial labor. In a simpler way of putting it: technology trends are making it easier for the capitalists to alienate workers from each other. A new form of socialization may be necessary in order to develop a revolutionary class -- it requires time away from labor, and the construction of new institutions outside the capitalist workplace. These are becoming more possible in this century.

[punisa]

So a millionaire can be a proletariat, punsia?

I have no idea, thus my question :lol:
Can he/she?
We need to make some adjustments to the 21st century I guess.

As I said before:
1. a rock star millionare doing rock shows as boss tells him to - a proletariet?
2. a guy who opens a car repair shop in his garage and employs two young fellas to work with him (notice its the WITH part, not the FOR part) - a capitalist?

Its obvious that keeping the absolute definition will only make us look stupid. We should be able to determine a person's revolutionary potential on other factors as well, apart from the classic Marxist class division.

[mel]

...at it's beginning the capitalist and the worker are essentially the same. It is only when capital accumulates to the point that the labor of others can be commodified (bought and sold) that capital comes into its own...


I have no idea, thus my question :lol:
Can he/she?
We need to make some adjustments to the 21st century I guess.

As I said before:
1. a rock star millionare doing rock shows as boss tells him to - a proletariet?
2. a guy who opens a car repair shop in his garage and employs two young fellas to work with him (notice its the WITH part, not the FOR part) - a capitalist?

Its obvious that keeping the absolute definition will only make us look stupid. We should be able to determine a person's revolutionary potential on other factors as well, apart from the classic Marxist class division.

1. Bourgeoisie because they have access to capital, and despite being locked into a contract for a certain period of time, can use all of the money not being used to live off of to accumulate wealth through investments.

2. Probably petty-bourgeoisie, similar to a shopkeeper that has to work for their money, but also hires laborers. There really isn't sufficient money made to reinvest in the growth of the business beyond the original workers, but if profit is being extracted and used for reinvestment, they are either bouregoisie or on their way there.

The classic division lines make sense, it is just difficult in some areas to find the relationship each person has to production.

[punisa]

1. Bourgeoisie because they have access to capital, and despite being locked into a contract for a certain period of time, can use all of the money not being used to live off of to accumulate wealth through investments.

2. Probably petty-bourgeoisie, similar to a shopkeeper that has to work for their money, but also hires laborers. There really isn't sufficient money made to reinvest in the growth of the business beyond the original workers, but if profit is being extracted and used for reinvestment, they are either bouregoisie or on their way there.

The classic division lines make sense, it is just difficult in some areas to find the relationship each person has to production.

But having these two made up examples in mind, who do you think would be more eager to join the socialist revolution?

And the excess of capital made as a worker is not very clear to me.
Last month I made 500 bucks that go over my monthly expenses. When I paid my rent, got me some food and cigars I ended with 500 bucks extra in my wallet.
So you're saying that now I can buy stocks with these and suddenly I'm a capitalist?

I still support my claim that definition is loose and can not be over generalised.

[mel]

But having these two made up examples in mind, who do you think would be more eager to join the socialist revolution?

And the excess of capital made as a worker is not very clear to me.
Last month I made 500 bucks that go over my monthly expenses. When I paid my rent, got me some food and cigars I ended with 500 bucks extra in my wallet.
So you're saying that now I can buy stocks with these and suddenly I'm a capitalist?

I still support my claim that definition is loose and can not be over generalised.

500 dollars is not sufficient to higher a worker or to invest to a sufficient degree to keep you from working. You cannot use 500 dollars to gain control over the means of production. A millionaire rock star can use their money to control the means of production. The millionaire rock star is bourgeoisie because they have access to capital and are unlikely to join a socialist revolution.

The shop worker is probably petit-bourgeosie and not a member of the proletariat, but theoretically the petit-bourgeoisie is more susceptible to revolutionary goals and can theoretically aid the revolutionary class. There is nothing wrong with being petit-bourgeoisie per se, many are, they simply are not the revolutionary class, but some may be swayed towards revolutionary ends.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Just notice how in the group above the person who does the most work is Barry Bonds and he apparently is payed the least. All millionaires are bourgeoisie and they cannot say that they are working class. If you make a salary of over 100,000$ then you are definitely bourgeoisie nobody makes more then that without seriously exploting people.

Where I work I can be making more than that in about a decade... Does this make me bourgeois? Is it once I pass this line that I become bourgeois even though I would still be doing the same job?

Ughhh this thread is filled with so much worthless bullshit. It doesn't really matter what we call someone does it. There are the bosses then there are the workers. That's is all you need to know. The bosses want to give you the least amount of money as possible and you want to make the most possible. That's all that matters really.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I think it is up to the person to decide for themselves where they think they fall.


Upper/middle class manager type thinks he's well off? Probably draws himself on the Bourgeoisie.
Janitor struggling to keep a roof over his head and threatened by Immigration? Probably a Prole.

There are obviously people who would fall on the wrong side of the line if we have an arbitrary line-in-the sand drawn from wages or standards of living. for example, University students identify with the worker in solidarity, but let's face it, University is built upon the labour of the proletariat, while nothing save capital and some demonstrations are returned to the labour. People struggle everyday to provide an environment for the studies of people wearing Che shirts.

On the other hand we can say politicians, while worthless scum in general, are doing what they believe can help lower-class families. We can say the same about police, labourers who wanted to help but are cast on the other side due to our history.

If we look at the normal way of looking at the "Poor Prole" and the Big-Bad-Bourgeois we can see there is a yin-yang pattern. Each side is trying to defeat the other to attain their goal (the little circle in the sea of the opposite colour) but however much territory they gain they lose to their opponent. This traditional form of thinking we can absolutely see our reduced struggle, the black and white form of which we are comfortable printing on pamphlets and shouting at rallies is in one of the oldest symbols known to Mankind.

However, with the people on either side of any line not constricted entirely by the imaginary line, we can obviously say that the line isn't absolute. Perhaps there are many people on both sides of what we have proposed for prole and big-bad (I dislike trying to spell that big word, you know which one I mean) as well as people changing their sides or opinions based on their circumstances. With this sort of fluidity in mind, I say that the Prole/Big-Bad struggle looks more like the electromagnetic static seen in television, the snow-storm kind if you know what I'm talking about.

I'm not allowed to post pics, so I'm not to sure if this gets my point across, but to sum up: Don't judge a book by the price on its cover.:lol:

[CommunityBeliever]

Where I work I can be making more than that in about a decade... Does this make me bourgeois?

You mean you can get a million dollars in a decade and not have to spend that money on rent, water, electricity, food, and all those other things? You are not bourgeoisie yet but if you do make 1,000,000$ then you could use that money as capital and use it to create more money and live entirely off of that income and you won't have to do any work at all, in which case of course you would be bourgeoisie.

If you use a mere 100,000$ as capital then you could afford food for a year without working, however, you could not really afford rent so if you possess 100,000$ in our current society you cannot be bourgeoisie and I think you should be aloud to keep the 100,000$.

The maximum wage idea is indeed quite stupid in retrospect. I never said I supported it, I just realize that I haven't heard of someone in our current society making sumes of money in the hundreds of thousands without exploitation.

What should really occur is all the major sources of capital should be seized so if you have more then 100,000$ the surplus should be seized and if you have large amounts of land or you own some factories then those should be put into workers control, if you remove their sources of income then those people making more then 100,000$ salaries right now will be eliminated anyways.

[punisa]

for example, University students identify with the worker in solidarity, but let's face it, University is built upon the labour of the proletariat, while nothing save capital and some demonstrations are returned to the labour.

Agreed. And majority of students do study in order to earn more money afterwards. They will be higher qualified and have higher wages. A top student of economics can't "help" himself not become upper class.
If he is really good and gifted, major corps will hunt him down and he'll end up with a paycheck that is obviously above working class average.

STILL, this fact does not rule out possibility that the young man or woman in this story is actually ideologically a radical leftist.
But common sense tells you that it is not wise to give up your job just because you are damn sure Marx was right. We are living in hardcore capitalism and can not deny that.

Personally I believe, if we judge from person to person basis. The economic student from the story above is having a much stronger revolutionary potential then the worker who barely survives (remeber that we stated that this particular student is very keen to tha marxist ideology, many are not),
Why is that?

Underpaid worker is ready to take on any ideology that will pull him out of the gutter he is in. It could be socialism, but could as well be fascism, extreme christen mambo jambo or scientology.
Eventually these type of followers will take a socialist path if you present strong cases it will work, BUT may bitterly disapoint and betray you in the end.

Case study: millions of people of Eastern Europe who gave up socialism over night. Because they have never been socialist in the first people, only the huge masses of opportunists.

For the 21st century revolutionaries we need people who are ideologically willing to pursue socialism, not for sole situational change of being "better off".
That's my point of view, the only draw back I find in it is the fact that it would make our struggle 100 times harder :lol:
well, Kill the believer !

[mel]

I think it is up to the person to decide for themselves where they think they fall.

The problem with this is that class isn't dependent on whose class interests you align yourself with. Many many many working class people actively work against their own interests every day by siding with the bourgeoisie. That does not change their relationship to the means of production.


There are obviously people who would fall on the wrong side of the line if we have an arbitrary line-in-the sand drawn from wages or standards of living.

Agreed, it's a good thing that class is defined based on relationship to the means of production.


for example, University students identify with the worker in solidarity, but let's face it, University is built upon the labour of the proletariat, while nothing save capital and some demonstrations are returned to the labour. People struggle everyday to provide an environment for the studies of people wearing Che shirts.

University students identify with the theoretically "pro-worker" end of the bourgeoisie, and university students aren't students forever.


On the other hand we can say politicians, while worthless scum in general, are doing what they believe can help lower-class families.

No they are doing what they believe can help them get more power in the future. It's mind-boggling to me that you think they believe the rhetoric that they use to get votes when they actively fight against working class interests every day.


We can say the same about police, labourers who wanted to help but are cast on the other side due to our history.

Police aren't cast on the other side because of our history, they're cast on the other side because they protect bourgeoisie property rights and actively work against even the most peaceful types of mass demonstrations.


If we look at the normal way of looking at the "Poor Prole" and the Big-Bad-Bourgeois we can see there is a yin-yang pattern. Each side is trying to defeat the other to attain their goal (the little circle in the sea of the opposite colour) but however much territory they gain they lose to their opponent. This traditional form of thinking we can absolutely see our reduced struggle, the black and white form of which we are comfortable printing on pamphlets and shouting at rallies is in one of the oldest symbols known to Mankind.

What does this have to do with anything?


However, with the people on either side of any line not constricted entirely by the imaginary line, we can obviously say that the line isn't absolute. Perhaps there are many people on both sides of what we have proposed for prole and big-bad (I dislike trying to spell that big word, you know which one I mean) as well as people changing their sides or opinions based on their circumstances. With this sort of fluidity in mind, I say that the Prole/Big-Bad struggle looks more like the electromagnetic static seen in television, the snow-storm kind if you know what I'm talking about.

Of course the petit bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie can work against their own interests, in theory, and join the proletariat for class struggle. However that does not make them members of the revolutionary class, and it does not make them proletarians, it just makes them sympathizers.


You mean you can get a million dollars in a decade and not have to spend that money on rent, water, electricity, food, and all those other things? You are not bourgeoisie yet but if you do make 1,000,000$ then you could use that money as capital and use it to create more money and live entirely off of that income and you won't have to do any work at all, in which case of course you would be bourgeoisie.

While you're getting closer to finally defining things on the relationship to the means of production instead of your arbitrary income deliniations, nobody said anything about $1,000,000 and the other poster was saying that due to raises and the like, it is conceivable that within 10 year's time they'll be making $100,000 per year. My best guess is that a huge chunk of that is going to go into paying for all of those bills you mentioned, plus taxes.


If you use a mere 100,000$ as capital then you could afford food for a year without working, however, you could not really afford rent so if you possess 100,000$ in our current society you cannot be bourgeoisie and I think you should be aloud to keep the 100,000$.

You're making those arbitrary income distinctions again.


The maximum wage idea is indeed quite stupid in retrospect. I never said I supported it, I just realize that I haven't heard of someone in our current society making sumes of money in the hundreds of thousands without exploitation.

Now you have.


What should really occur is all the major sources of capital should be seized so if you have more then 100,000$ the surplus should be seized and if you have large amounts of land or you own some factories then those should be put into workers control, if you remove their sources of income then those people making more then 100,000$ salaries right now will be eliminated anyways.

The greatest thing is, instead of working with these ridiculously useless ideas of "salaries" the way they exist now, once the means and forces of production have been seized we can burn all of the worthless strips of paper that money represents and either create a temporary, non-circulating currency (generally these are called "labor vouchers") for transitioning into a system where even that isn't needed.


Agreed. And majority of students do study in order to earn more money afterwards. They will be higher qualified and have higher wages. A top student of economics can't "help" himself not become upper class.

Most students aren't top students, and a whole lot of people graduate university and then go on to have really mediocre paying jobs. Sure the "top" students will reach the "top" income brackets, theoretically (but not always), but a lot of college graduates make a modest living on a modest salary.


If he is really good and gifted, major corps will hunt him down and he'll end up with a paycheck that is obviously above working class average.

"Above the working class average" is meaningless unless it's far enough above the working class average to qualify as capital.


STILL, this fact does not rule out possibility that the young man or woman in this story is actually ideologically a radical leftist.
But common sense tells you that it is not wise to give up your job just because you are damn sure Marx was right. We are living in hardcore capitalism and can not deny that.

And nobody should have to give up a relatively comfortable living because they firmly believe in a working class ideology. Marx was petit-bourgeoisie, but he dedicated his life to the class struggle.


Personally I believe, if we judge from person to person basis. The economic student from the story above is having a much stronger revolutionary potential then the worker who barely survives (remeber that we stated that this particular student is very keen to tha marxist ideology, many are not),
Why is that?

Because the economics student is educated, and the worker who barely survives is more concerned with surviving than politics.

[Chairman^-_-^]

What do you call that section of the proletariat that exploits other sections of the proletariat?

I am thinking of supervision type posts which rely on wages, but substantially higher wages than people doing the "frontline" work.

[mel]

What do you call that section of the proletariat that exploits other sections of the proletariat?

I am thinking of supervision type posts which rely on wages, but substantially higher wages than people doing the "frontline" work.

That really depends. I think, unlike many people here, that there is a legitimate need for some "management"-type roles to aid in team organization, direction, the creation of short and long-term goals, and that a person with skill in this area, relegated to this sort of "management" are adding value (and many managers have other responsibilities which also constitute real work) but I'd hesitate to call them a segment of the proletariat.

Most management roles are probably petty-bourgeoisie, but I'm not really familiar with the ins and outs of what exactly managers do in different contexts, I'd like to see a real-world description of, for instance, a fast-food manager's job as opposed to a salaried middle-manager in order to better understand their specific relationship to the means of production.

[punisa]

Because the economics student is educated, and the worker who barely survives is more concerned with surviving than politics.

I completely agree upon this and this is 100% correct. What troubles me is how to keep that worker loyal after his/her basic needs are met?
If he/she joined the revolution only to survive, he will still remain uneducated and a very easy victim to nationalism, religion and all of those bad ism's out there :rolleyes:

Simple logic tells us that we need the masses with higher awarness of the cause we are fighting for. The good ol' catchphrase "You're exploited, join us and you'll live better" is still a powerful motivational tool, but its the long run I worry about.

Let's just look at the Berlin wall. DDR had to build it to keep its people from fleeing to the exploitational west..

[Chicano Shamrock]

You mean you can get a million dollars in a decade and not have to spend that money on rent, water, electricity, food, and all those other things? You are not bourgeoisie yet but if you do make 1,000,000$ then you could use that money as capital and use it to create more money and live entirely off of that income and you won't have to do any work at all, in which case of course you would be bourgeoisie.

If you use a mere 100,000$ as capital then you could afford food for a year without working, however, you could not really afford rent so if you possess 100,000$ in our current society you cannot be bourgeoisie and I think you should be aloud to keep the 100,000$.

The maximum wage idea is indeed quite stupid in retrospect. I never said I supported it, I just realize that I haven't heard of someone in our current society making sumes of money in the hundreds of thousands without exploitation.

What should really occur is all the major sources of capital should be seized so if you have more then 100,000$ the surplus should be seized and if you have large amounts of land or you own some factories then those should be put into workers control, if you remove their sources of income then those people making more then 100,000$ salaries right now will be eliminated anyways.
Why are you talking about seizing peoples money? I don't understand what you are talking about.

Depending on how good your union is Carpenters, Longshoreman etc... Can make money into the hundred thousands a year.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

*Snip*

Excuse me, I believe you have quotes attributed to me that aren't mine in post #44. However you make some good points.

[mel]

Excuse me, I believe you have quotes attributed to me that aren't mine in post #44. However you make some good points.

Sloppy copypasta, it's been corrected.

[CommunityBeliever]

we can burn all of the worthless strips of paper

Well I would recycle the paper :thumbup1:
Burning is cool too though :cool:

If you would care to be somewhat polite to people in the future instead of saying that everything they say is bullshit I think that would also go a long way :thumbup:

[mel]

Well I would recycle the paper :thumbup1:
Burning is cool too though :cool:

If you would care to be somewhat polite to people in the future instead of saying that everything they say is bullshit I think that would also go a long way :thumbup:

I read your longer response before you deleted it because I get the thread subscriptions in my email. I know in your editing note you say that you got rid of it because "arguing isn't very socialist", but what you need to remember is that this is a discussion forum, the point of it is to discuss and to challenge people's beliefs and past associations, so that everyone in the process gets a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. My wording may sound a little harsh at times, but I always try to be at least civil, and learning is never a waste of time.

On your post, the burning was a metaphor. The point is that capitalist money will serve no everyday purpose in a post-revolutionary society. We can recycle it, we can burn it, we can drop it from a plane and pretend we're controlling the weather, we can put it in a museum, we can make a massive sculpture out of it. I don't care what we do with it as long as we don't try to use it as currency. Oh, and I didn't use the word "bullshit" in response to you (at least not in my most recent response to you, I may have used it earlier), but if that's what you think that your ideas are, far be it from me to stop you thinking that.

[CommunityBeliever]

Oh, and I didn't use the word "bullshit" in response to you

It was the first word you used to respond to me. :cool:


Bullshit. I have family members that work VERY hard and do not have any employees from whom they extract surplus value that make at least that much money.

I know about those people and I did not mean that your family members are evil or anything in fact my sister who has a doctorate in pharmacology is going to make more then 100,000$ per year.

Lets think about this for a second though. There are many more trained professionals outside of America such as in Cuba and those outside of America doing the same work will make much less then the 100,000$ salary we described earlier.

The capitalist war industry has exploited these foreign countries by taking their natural resources and bringing them over to America. A huge percentage of that is going to be given to those people who make over 100,000$ per year. They live off of other countries natural resources and they indirectly contribute to poverty either way.

For example with 9000$ per month if a large portion of that is going to rent like 3000$ then that person is most certainly living in a fairly luxurious house well other people like me live in much worse conditions. Either way then they have what 2000$ for all the other expenses like food, water, and internet they still have 5000$ per month for themselves. That 5,000$ is most certainly going to be going in to spending on things that where stolen from other countries natural resources.

I know and admit that some people making over 100,000$ can be considered to be doing real work without any source of capital but I think we can agree that those particular individuals indirectly contribute to poverty.

I really thought you would say something to show support for people like me living in poverty but I can understand that you want to protect your family members. :cool:

[FreeFocus]

When it comes down to it, a "worker" making $200,000 a year won't care at all about communist theories about "selling labor power" or the bourgeoisie "owning the means of production." What it comes down to is if situation is impeding your (and others') ability to provide for yourself and reach your full potential.

Some people will criticize my position, but a millionaire cannot be a proletarian. Even if a person somehow earned a million dollars from their labor, they still wouldn't be a proletarian, nor would they be able to relate to the struggles of the oppressed. There's a psychological effect to having money in a capitalist society, and there's also a material interest people with a lot of money have in supporting capitalism and imperialism.

After all, who wants to see their millions become worthless? They support strengthening the dollar and having it retain its primacy. How does this happen? Imperialism.

[mel]

It was the first word you used to respond to me. :cool:

I know about those people and I did not mean that your family members are evil or anything in fact my sister who has a doctorate in pharmacology is going to make more then 100,000$ per year.

Lets think about this for a second though. There are many more trained professionals outside of America such as in Cuba and those outside of America doing the same work will make much less then the 100,000$ salary we described earlier.

The capitalist war industry has exploited these foreign countries by taking their natural resources and bringing them over to America. A huge percentage of that is going to be given to those people who make over 100,000$ per year. They live off of other countries natural resources and they indirectly contribute to poverty either way.

For example with 9000$ per month if a large portion of that is going to rent like 3000$ then that person is most certainly living in a fairly luxurious house well other people like me live in much worse conditions. Either way then they have what 2000$ for all the other expenses like food, water, and internet they still have 5000$ per month for themselves. That 5,000$ is most certainly going to be going in to spending on things that where stolen from other countries natural resources.

I know and admit that some people making over 100,000$ can be considered to be doing real work without any source of capital but I think we can agree that those particular individuals indirectly contribute to poverty.

I really thought you would say something to show support for people like me living in poverty but I can understand that you want to protect your family members. :cool:

The post you quoted is not my most recent response to you, I've posted another since then, but I quoted 3 people in it, so I understand how you may have missed it.

Everyone on the planet indirectly contributes to poverty. Everyone in the US certainly does, including you, unless you can honestly say that there is nothing in the room you are in that carries a label that says "made in china". Even if you could say that, that doesn't mean you're immune from contribution to poverty. I guarantee you that you do buy or have bought from companies which exploit workers because all companies exploit workers.

The kinds of solutions you suggest are, at best, stopgap measures which might make capitalism a little prettier (but aren't even the most practical ways to do so). All of this talk of income, of maximum wages, and of people making $5,000.00 a year is ultimately of no use in determining who the exploited class is. There is really no way of adequately seizing and redistributing the money of somebody who makes over $100,000 per year (not to mention that most people with assets have it in property, not pure income. It's not like CEOs are walking around with $3 billion in cash in their wallets). There is a reason why the abolition of private property is necessary.

I absolutely care about the struggles of the people living through poverty (most of my family is out of work and struggling right now). To suggest that I don't and only care about protecting the interests of "my family" is quite frankly insulting. I just understand that the answer to the world's problems isn't taking money out of the hands of anybody living relatively comfortably and giving it all away to the poor, that does nothing to eliminate the capitalist mode of production.

[mel]

When it comes down to it, a "worker" making $200,000 a year won't care at all about communist theories about "selling labor power" or the bourgeoisie "owning the means of production." What it comes down to is if situation is impeding your (and others') ability to provide for yourself and reach your full potential.

Why the scarequotes around worker? And how do you know that nobody making $200,000 a year is a revolutionary? My best guess is both Marx and Engels made the equivalent of at least that in a year, yet it's his theory of value that we use time and time again to justify our own position.


Some people will criticize my position, but a millionaire cannot be a proletarian. Even if a person somehow earned a million dollars from their labor, they still wouldn't be a proletarian, nor would they be able to relate to the struggles of the oppressed. There's a psychological effect to having money in a capitalist society, and there's also a material interest people with a lot of money have in supporting capitalism and imperialism.

After all, who wants to see their millions become worthless? They support strengthening the dollar and having it retain its primacy. How does this happen? Imperialism.

Of course a millionaire cannot be a proletarian. This has been addressed multiple times already in this thread: the millionaire has "access to capital". A millionaire has money that is not engaged in consumption, a significant amount of it, actually, which will not sit idle, but will at some point necessarily be engaged in the accumulation of profit through the exploitation of workers. This is not necessarily true of the person who makes $100,000 or $200,000 per year, which is a salary that a worker in a "professional" trade can make, and which is not necessarily invested. Most of these people do continue to support capitalism now, but so do most people in the working class. There are relatively few people who are actually engaged in revolutionary struggle, whether it is in their interests to be so engaged or not

[CommunityBeliever]

. I just understand that the answer to the world's problems isn't taking money out of the hands of anybody living relatively comfortably and giving it all away to the poor

Well according to Friederich Engels in the communist theory FAQ here is actually what he considers to be one of the first steps in the creation of a communist society.

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

Progressive taxation implies taking money out of the hands of the rich and "giving it all away to the poor" and also inheritance tax also implies taking money out of the hands of rich children. Also I never said progressive taxation is the end to all the world's problems so please don't twist my words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax

If you do not believe in progressive and inheritance taxation and taking money away from the rich that is okay with me. You can believe whatever you want.


The kinds of solutions you suggest are, at best, stopgap measures which might make capitalism a little prettier

It isn't about making capitalism a little prettier it is about limiting private property. Taxation is one of the first means of limiting private property on the road to communism, IMHO.


There is really no way of adequately seizing and redistributing the money of somebody who makes over $100,000 per year

Progressive personal income tax and inheritance taxes.


not to mention that most people with assets have it in property, not pure income.

After the implementation of progressive taxation then of course then the next phase would be gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry.


It's not like CEOs are walking around with $3 billion in cash in their wallets

They have bank accounts. For example, Warren Buffet keeps billions of dollars in the bank without spending the money, however, he does have people he hires to use his money as capital to get even more money.


I absolutely care about the struggles of the people living through poverty

I did not say I didn't care there although I did in a much earlier post. I said that you did not show support for people living in poverty, maybe that implies you do not care?


Everyone on the planet indirectly contributes to poverty.

I am sure there are some people so seperated from the world that they do not contribute to anything so that is false.


Everyone in the US certainly does, including you, unless you can honestly say that there is nothing in the room you are in that carries a label that says "made in china"

Are you just trying to make contributes to poverty seem meaningless? You are being illogical. "Contributes to poverty" is not a true/false question some people do it more then others so you are arguments here are unfortunately quite ridiculous to me.

The only real way I can explain your logical fallacy is that you are converting a number into a boolean. I am sorry but some people make massive contributions to poverty such as those that possess massive amounts of private property and then there are people that a very very small contribution such as me.

[CommunityBeliever]

A millionaire has money that is not engaged in consumption, a significant amount of it, actually, which will not sit idle, but will at some point necessarily be engaged in the accumulation of profit through the exploitation of workers. This is not necessarily true of the person who makes $100,000 or $200,000 per year, which is a salary that a worker in a "professional" trade can make

We pretty much agree here what I said earlier is I was worried that people here would think I was acting bourgeoisie if I said it was okay for people to earn salaries of 200,000$ so that is why I lowered it to 100,000$ as the maximum. I guess we can just say they are petit-bourgeosie at that point.

Maybe if it I put it this way. Can you agree that it is unfair that these trained professionals make such much more money just because they live in America?

[mel]

Well according to Friederich Engels in the communist theory FAQ here is actually what he considers to be one of the first steps in the creation of a communist society.

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

Progressive taxation implies taking money out of the hands of the rich and "giving it all away to the poor" and also inheritance tax also implies taking money out of the hands of rich children. Also I never said progressive taxation is the end to all the world's problems so please don't twist my words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax

If you do not believe in progressive and inheritance taxation and taking money away from the rich that is okay with me. You can believe whatever you want.



It isn't about making capitalism a little prettier it is about limiting private property. Taxation is one of the first means of limiting private property on the road to communism, IMHO.



Progressive personal income tax and inheritance taxes.



After the implementation of progressive taxation then of course then the next phase would be gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry.



They have bank accounts. For example, Warren Buffet keeps billions of dollars in the bank without spending the money, however, he does have people he hires to use his money as capital to get even more money.



I did not say I didn't care there although I did in a much earlier post. I said that you did not show support for people living in poverty, maybe that implies you do not care?



I am sure there are some people so seperated from the world that they do not contribute to anything so that is false.



Are you just trying to make contributes to poverty seem meaningless? You are being illogical. "Contributes to poverty" is not a true/false question some people do it more then others so you are arguments here are unfortunately quite ridiculous to me.

The only real way I can explain your logical fallacy is that you are converting a number into a boolean. I am sorry but some people make massive contributions to poverty such as those that possess massive amounts of private property and then there are people that a very very small contribution such as me.

Progressive taxation is a far cry from what you were advocating for before, which was forcibly seizing everything that a person makes over and above $100,000 regardless of the cost of living in an area.

You claim that I do not show support for people living in poverty, you've claimed this multiple times, and nothing I've said can back up your making of that assumption.

You made the claim in your last post that people who make more than about $100,000 contribute massively to poverty, indirectly because of their consumption. Because they buy goods that were made through capitalist theft. However so does anybody who buys anything created by a capitalist. A person who makes $100,000 a year only contributes marginally more to third-world poverty than somebody who makes $50,000 or $30,000 a year. If you live in the US, you are benefiting at the expense of "third-world" labor.

[mel]

We pretty much agree here what I said earlier is I was worried that people here would think I was acting bourgeoisie if I said it was okay for people to earn salaries of 200,000$ so that is why I lowered it to 100,000$ as the maximum. I guess we can just say they are petit-bourgeosie at that point.

Maybe if it I put it this way. Can you agree that it is unfair that these trained professionals make such much more money just because they live in America?

Of course, but that does not mean that the answer is, as you had been suggesting for a long time, cutting the salaries of first world workers to a bare minimum (you had been suggesting that $10,000 would be fair) and paying people more overseas.

The solution can only be a complete transition away from capitalism, not an equalization of world wages.

[CommunityBeliever]

A person who makes $100,000 a year only contributes marginally more to third-world poverty than somebody who makes $50,000 or $30,000 a year

Look I have no problem with those few people in America that are making 100,000$ to 200,000$ per year through their own labor. However, if those people decide to start stockpiling that money and using that money as capital then I think we should reduce that money to 100,000$ also if they start to become landowners and they start to possess massive amounts of private property that is an injustice too.


You claim that I do not show support for people living in poverty, you've claimed this multiple times, and nothing I've said can back up your making of that assumption.

I do not need a lack of something to back up that a lack of something exists. Forget that I said anything though.


Progressive taxation is a far cry from what you were advocating for before, which was forcibly seizing everything that a person makes over and above $100,000 regardless of the cost of living in an area.

Someone who is stockpiling money and who has more then 100,000$ might be a threat to the abolition of private property. Also do not worry too much about the cost of living that shouldn't be that big of a factor after we expropriate the landowners.


The solution can only be a complete transition away from capitalism, not an equalization of world wages.

I didn't say I wanted to equalize world wages I was just using the amount of poverty in the world as an argument against people making 100,000$ per year.

Of course I believe in a complete transition away from capitalism why the heck else would I be on this forum? :lol:


Of course, but that does not mean that the answer is, as you had been suggesting for a long time, cutting the salaries of first world workers to a bare minimum (you had been suggesting that $10,000 would be fair) and paying people more overseas.

Show me one time that I said "the answer to all the world's problems is equalizing wages" where did you get this misconception from? I was just talking about reducing the amount of unfairness in the income distribution as a means of preparing for the inevitable abolition of private property.

[mel]

Look I have no problem with those few people in America that are making 100,000$ to 200,000$ per year through their own labor. However, if those people decide to start stockpiling that money and using that money as capital then I think we should reduce that money to 100,000$ also if they start to become landowners and they start to possess massive amounts of private property that is an injustice too.

Yes, possession of private property is an injustice. However arguing for goals like "If somebody makes money and uses it, it's okay, but we should take away extra money that they make before they use it as capital" doesn't make a lot of sense. If we have the kind of power necessary to be seizing income like this, we have the kind of power we'd need to abolish private property and skip this nonsense step entirely. Things like progressive taxation and limits on inheritance are great, and things we could potentially actually achieve within the confines of bourgeois society, or are steps we maybe ought to take after the revolution once we've seized power to transition into socialism (though I feel that's iffy ground), but I can think of no period where seizing profits in excess of a certain amount, or seizing the contents of bank accounts directly and redistributing it would be useful at all.

OBVIOUSLY capitalism creates injustice, but there is no reason to redistribute wealth in the fashion you suggest.


I do not need a lack of something to back up that a lack of something exists. Forget that I said anything though.

You can't make the unsusbtantiated claim that I don't care about the poor simply because every post isn't an emotional plea to help the impoverished people of the world. I believe that the simple fact that I'm a socialist would make it quite clear that I do, in fact, care about and wish to aid the impoverished.



Someone who is stockpiling money and who has more then 100,000$ might be a threat to the abolition of private property. Also do not worry too much about the cost of living that shouldn't be that big of a factor after we expropriate the landowners.

How could somebody having money be a threat to the abolition of private property? If private property is abolished they can't use that money as a bartering tool anymore. If we retain the capitalist mode of production and capitalist production, then we're not in power and don't have the capability to seize their wealth directly. In either case, my main point remains unchanged: while progressive taxation and other limits on the extent of private property are good things, the kinds of measures you suggest are things which we could only hope to achieve after we have attained the amount of power that would make them unnecessary to implement.


I didn't say I wanted to equalize world wages I was just using the amount of poverty in the world as an argument against people making 100,000$ per year.

Poverty in the world isn't an argument against people making $100,000 a year. It's an argument against capitalism. There is no justice in removing a relatively comfortable living from somebody making a hair over $100,000 a year and handing it off to somebody else (and if the transfer of wealth from the rich directly to the poor is not what you are suggesting, then your example makes no sense), and it doesn't make sense because if we have the power to directly seize assetts, then we should be taking steps to remove private property. We can directly seize the means and forces of production, instead of seizing $20,000 in savings from a bank account.


Of course I believe in a complete transition away from capitalism why the heck else would I be on this forum? :lol:

I don't know, ask the OIers. The point is that the measures you suggest adopting only make sense in the context of retaining the capitalist mode of production, as they make no sense in a post-revolutionary society, and they don't even make sense in transitioning from a capitalist society to a socialist one, because there are more direct, practical solutions. So far, your argument has amounted to "these people make enough money to live comfortably and other people don't, that's really unfair!". You're preaching to the choir on that one. Of course it's unfair, CAPITALISM is unfair. That's why we want to abolish it. The measures you have been suggesting, like the direct seizure of money from bank accounts to ensure that it does not get used to purchase private property, don't make sense towards that end. If we have the power to seize bank account money, then we certainly have the power to ban the purchase or trade of private property, and to follow from that its complete abolition.


Show me one time that I said "the answer to all the world's problems is equalizing wages" where did you get this misconception from? I was just talking about reducing the amount of unfairness in the income distribution as a means of preparing for the inevitable abolition of private property.

Show me one time that I said "I don't give a fuck about people who live in poverty". I got this from your continued insistence that we can fix unfairness (or at least meter it) by redistributing wages in such a way that everybody makes close to the same amount of money. If it was that easy to "fix" capitalism this way, just by making everyone make a similar amount of money and suddenly everyone could live relatively happily and comfortably, there wouldn't really be a problem with Social Democracy. Why bother with communism if we can make things fair enough just by tweaking capitalism? The fact of the matter is that no government has the power to just yank money out of bank accounts and put it into other peoples, and a government that had that power, and had a desire to use it in the way you describe, would be far better served by taking more immediate steps to abolish private property.

No, you never directly said it was the only solution. I'm just claiming it isn't a solution at all. It's an impractical suggestion, no bourgeoisie government would ever do it, and any government that would want to has much much much better steps to take than the ones you suggest. I AM NOT SAYING THAT I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE INJUSTICE IN THE WORLD. I AM NOT SAYING THAT I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE IN POVERTY. What I am saying, is that the measures you are suggesting to make things more "fair" (with the exception of what you quoted from Engels, limits on inheritance and progresive taxation) are not practical, worthwhile, or useful measures at any stage of development towards a socialist society.

[CommunityBeliever]

If we have the kind of power necessary to be seizing income like this, we have the kind of power we'd need to abolish private property and skip this nonsense step entirely.

Just because we have power over one area of the world doesn't mean we can completely abolish private property and completely eliminate the currency. The money could still be used against our cause.


The point is that the measures you suggest adopting only make sense in the context of retaining the capitalist mode of production, as they make no sense in a post-revolutionary society

Oh so now it is forbidden to talk about something that effects the real world. We can only talk about something that makes sense in post-revolutionary society :cool:


Things like progressive taxation and limits on inheritance are great

This seems to contradict other things that you have said. Why have you said that you are against taking peoples money and redistributing it?


OBVIOUSLY capitalism creates injustice, but there is no reason to redistribute wealth in the fashion you suggest.

My reason for redistributing the wealth is to fight against capitalism.


What I am saying, is that the measures you are suggesting to make things more "fair"

WHY DO YOU TREAT ME LIKE I AM A CAPITALIST!?! Those measures are not to fix capitalism they are to fight against the existence of private property.


I AM NOT SAYING THAT I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE INJUSTICE IN THE WORLD.

Obviously we both are highly biased against one another and we are wasting time.

The reason I said that stuff is because it looked to me like you were supporting both rich people and christains so hopefully you understand. You were never polite to me either, the first god damn thing you said to me is "Bullshit."

Obviously you are not as I thought you were before and if you have a way of running a revolution without caring about the banks I am cool with that as long as you after all do actually care about people living in poverty. We are obviously getting no where going back and forth on this topic so why can't we find a different topic to waste time arguing with each other about :lol:

[CommunityBeliever]

I am sick of arguing over this so I would like to change the subject.

[CommunityBeliever]

The programmer owns the means of production for the product that the programmer needs to create (software) as long as they own a computer. Development tools are free

It is actually not as simple as that unfortunately. Once you have a computer you also need a compiler and before Richard Stallman people did not have control over their own compilers on their computer, and to compile things like C/C++ people had to pay 300$ for a compiler or something similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Another thing is there is different kinds of software that people have to develop including Flash. In the case of Flash the people do not own the development tools only Adobe corporation does. You cannot develop some sorts of websites without paying Adobe corporation 500$ for a license or maybe more.

Flash is not alone though there are all sorts of coporations trying to take over the means of production for developing software (compilers). Including google because they want everyone to run code from their servers in which case they have the power. It is hard and sometimes very expensive for an individual to deploy their own server.

[mel]

It is actually not as simple as that unfortunately. Once you have a computer you also need a compiler and before Richard Stallman people did not have control over their own compilers on their computer, and to compile things like C/C++ people had to pay 300$ for a compiler or something similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

And now they do. GCC is free and exists for almost every platform. Java is 100% open source, and there are free compilers for countless other languages. Microsoft has even released free versions of their Visual Studio compilers/development environments, and if you own a Mac then Xcode and other development tools came on the DVD.


Another thing is there is different kinds of software that people have to develop including Flash. In the case of Flash the people do not own the development tools only Adobe corporation does. You cannot develop some sorts of websites without paying Adobe corporation 500$ for a license or maybe more.

Then don't develop those sorts of websites. Either way, there are ways of creating flash animations using exclusively free software on linux, but it's more complex than doing it using Adobe's software. That definitely creates a barrier to entry, but it's possible. Either way, you can always, as I said before use a different technology. Flash isn't necessary for most things done on the web these days with the exception of making flash games and making a site like youtube, and thanks to HTML5, making a site like youtube can be done without flash too.


Flash is not alone though there are all sorts of coporations trying to take over the means of production for developing software (compilers). Including google because they want everyone to run code from their servers in which case they have the power. It is hard and sometimes very expensive for an individual to deploy their own server.

Google provides a service that allows you to develop web-based software using their servers and their APIs. Sure, they would like to be able to control more information, but there is always the option not to use google's cloud-based services, and there is always the option not to develop cloud-based software. None of this changes the point that a software developer, if they own a computer and an internet connection at all, has access to everything they need to create software. I would know, as I'm a hobbyist software developer.

[CommunityBeliever]

GCC is free and exists for almost every platform.

Thanks to Richard Stallman and in the past twenty years.


Java is 100% open source

I would not say that there are still parts of the core that people use that are not licensed by Sun Microsystems that Sun Microsystems cannot open up. Regardless of that the people in the Java community are heavily propreitary developers so the amount of proprietary libraries and code in that scene is discouraging.


Microsoft has even released free versions of their Visual Studio compilers/development environments, and if you own a Mac then Xcode and other development tools came on the DVD.

In either case you are just developing code that is going to be a subsidary of their corporate platforms because both Apple and Microsoft do not believe in open source or as I like to call it free software.


Either way, there are ways of creating flash animations using exclusively free software on linux, but it's more complex than doing it using Adobe's software.

Well have you ever tried any of those? There is nothing out there that works well.


Either way, you can always, as I said before use a different technology.

Yes but the alternative technology that you have available is silverlight which is developed by Microsoft and that is what Microsoft wants you to use. They want silverlight to take over the web not HTML5 or Flash.

http://silverlight.net/


And thanks to HTML5, making a site like youtube can be done without flash too.

Not if Microsoft has anything to say about it. They have internet explorer which means they decide the future of 75% of all browser users and they can decide rather or not a certain standard is adopted.

There is no support for HTML5 at all from Microsoft not even the Canvas tag which has support from all the other browser vendors. The only way of using Canvas in Internet Explorer is with ExplorerCanvas.js which essentially converts Canvas code to Microsoft's VML technology, that is very very slow and it certainly isn't practical for videos or any decent animations you cannot even make radial gradients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)

I am highly invested in the Canvas tag and HTML5 technology so if Microsoft ever decides to change its mind about this issue then I will be the first one to celebrate, but right now it does not look good because so many people still use Internet Explorer.


Google provides a service that allows you to develop web-based software using their servers and their APIs.

That would be okay but those servers are owned privately by the Google corporation and you have no power over them.


there is always the option not to use google's cloud-based services, and there is always the option not to develop cloud-based software.

Well yes I am just saying Google is one of the people who wants to take over the world of software just like all the other software corporations and none of them deserve to exist. There is also not many options for people who want to run "cloud-based services" because deploying a server can be very very expensive and hard to do.


None of this changes the point that a software developer, if they own a computer and an internet connection at all, has access to everything they need to create software.

I am hoping though that you get a little bit of appreciation of the very temporary luxury of controlling the means of compiling software that we have right now. We only got as much control as we do now by fighting for it starting with Richard Stallman. People fought many years for freeing Java.

Now Adobe corporation has released Adobe Air and they are pushing their technology into the desktop market and we fight against this as free software activists by building Gnash. Now Microsoft corporation is pushing their proprietary .NET framework into GNU/Linux and they have already made all GNOME users also use .NET in the form of Tomboy. They have patents on .NET and they could use that to control the software people have already developed and control the means of making more software.

Microsoft is also coming together with Silverlight which is another proprietary technology that they are trying to use to take over. Google wants everything to "run in the cloud" so to speak in that they control the cloud and it is expensive for an average person to deploy a server and if Google wins out in that then we will lose so many freedoms because nobody has any idea what the code is behind Google.

If you are a programmer yourself then the only way you will get 100,000$ per year is if you are developing code for one of these evil capitalist corporations that wants to completely take over the market and oppress hobbyist developers/free software developers from having any freedom over the work they create. These corporations want to have all software work essentially be on their platform in which they can control. If you are developing for free software then the job you will get will not be that lucrative.

There is development for a free software platform, parrot, to oppose things like .NET but if you are hoping to work for that project as I am then you job is not going to be that lucrative but at least you will be working for the cause of freedom. http://www.parrot.org/

As long as capitalism is allowed to exist free software platforms are a temporary luxury.

[JimmyJazz]

Ultimately it's about relations of production, but when people bring up stock ownership, I find this useful:

Who Rules America?: Wealth, Income, and Power (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)


Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003 (From Shapiro & Friedman, 2006.)

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_5.gif