The Bourgeoisie are not Civilians, they are Murderers [Archive]

View Full Version : The Bourgeoisie are not Civilians, they are Murderers

Klashnekov

9th February 2010, 17:34

CAPITALISM DIRECTLY KILLS 25 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY SINGLE YEAR. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOOD AND RESOURCES FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET. THE PROBLEM IS CAPITALISM AND THE FACT IT HAS ALLOWED 90% OF THE WEALTH TO BE CONCENTRATED WITHIN 10% OF THE POPULATION.

The Bourgeoisie continue the Political System which exterminates 25 Million people every year and leaves 90% of the wealth concentrated in the Bourgeoisie's possession.

My argument for this is not justification to kill members of the Bourgeoisie without a progressive strategy. My Argument for this statement is to condemn labeles of Communists as "Terrorists". We must resist the public opinion and classification of Communists as "Terrorists" for attacking the Bourgeoisie. It is not terrorism to attack the Bourgeoisie as they are not Civilians. The Bourgeoisie are killing innocent people and continuing a Political System that acts only in the interests of the exploiters. They are murderers.

Do not support anarchistic attacks against the Bourgeoisie. But do not condemn them as "Terrorist". We should be supporting attacks against the Bourgeoisie WHENVER THEY ARE PROGRESSIVE FOR OUR REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.

I hear so-many Communists accepting the classification of FARC as "terrorist" without even accepting the fact that the people who FARC are killing are continuing a Ruling Class Society which kills tens of millions of innocent people every year.

The Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany was absolutely nothing compared to the Holocaust committed by Capitalism.

cyu

10th February 2010, 00:35

THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOOD AND RESOURCES FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET. THE PROBLEM IS CAPITALISM AND THE FACT IT HAS ALLOWED 90% OF THE WEALTH TO BE CONCENTRATED WITHIN 10% OF THE POPULATION.

The Bourgeoisie continue the Political System which exterminates 25 Million people every year and leaves 90% of the wealth concentrated in the Bourgeoisie's possession.

I don't like your characterization of anarchists, but I approve of this message - mostly :lol:

cyu

10th February 2010, 00:56

By the way, excerpts from http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2835

"The U.S. government has now established a 'death list' for U.S. citizens abroad akin to those established by Latin American dictatorships during their so-called dirty wars"

constitutional scholar, Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois Law School, told IPS that "this extrajudicial execution of human beings" violates both international human rights law and the fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution.

Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, told IPS, "As with its embrace of the [George W.] Bush approach to indefinite detention, the Obama administration's even greater reliance on targeted extra-judicial killing - including of U.S. citizens - is a tragic legal, moral, and practical mistake."

"Even for those who accept the legitimacy of the death penalty, this further undermines the rule of law that is our best weapon in the fight against true terrorists, while completely subverting due process and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens," he said.

Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said, "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorise the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"

KlÃ©ber

10th February 2010, 01:07

Klashnekov, you would enjoy this, it clears up many of the contradictions you are thinking about (individual terror vs state terror, bourgeois terror vs revolutionary terror).

Ignore who the author is, this was one of Stalin's favorite books too.

Terrorism and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm)

LeninistKing

10th February 2010, 01:23

You are right, while a few in America are enjoying super-luxury lifestyles, vacation cruises, big luxury houses, luxury cars, sports-cars, women, parties, night clubs, healthy foods, gyms, spas, and plastic surgeries, the majority in America are beating the bullets economically, depressed and stressed because of expensive electricty and a super-expensive life combined with low incomes for the majority of Americans

Life is a damn hell and punishment for most americans and a heaven for a few.

.

CAPITALISM DIRECTLY KILLS 25 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY SINGLE YEAR. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOOD AND RESOURCES FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET. THE PROBLEM IS CAPITALISM AND THE FACT IT HAS ALLOWED 90% OF THE WEALTH TO BE CONCENTRATED WITHIN 10% OF THE POPULATION.

The Bourgeoisie continue the Political System which exterminates 25 Million people every year and leaves 90% of the wealth concentrated in the Bourgeoisie's possession.

My argument for this is not justification to kill members of the Bourgeoisie without a progressive strategy. My Argument for this statement is to condemn labeles of Communists as "Terrorists". We must resist the public opinion and classification of Communists as "Terrorists" for attacking the Bourgeoisie. It is not terrorism to attack the Bourgeoisie as they are not Civilians. The Bourgeoisie are killing innocent people and continuing a Political System that acts only in the interests of the exploiters. They are murderers.

Do not support anarchistic attacks against the Bourgeoisie. But do not condemn them as "Terrorist". We should be supporting attacks against the Bourgeoisie WHENVER THEY ARE PROGRESSIVE FOR OUR REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.

I hear so-many Communists accepting the classification of FARC as "terrorist" without even accepting the fact that the people who FARC are killing are continuing a Ruling Class Society which kills tens of millions of innocent people every year.

The Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany was absolutely nothing compared to the Holocaust committed by Capitalism.

RadioRaheem84

10th February 2010, 01:33

I didn't believe that the bourgeoisie could be murderous like what I read in Chomsky's writing until I found out that the elite in Venezuela were firing on civilians of both camps in order to make it look like civil unrest. I was shocked that something like this was true! I didn't even believe it until one of the perps confessed. The lengths that these peole will go to to secure their stance in society is beyong evil. The scorched earth business policy that they enact whenever an elected democractic leader wants to level the playing field is evil. And the way the elite establishement of the world supports their endevors is disgusting. It's no wonder we see people take arms to overthroe their rule. And I still don't understand just why Americans are shocked whenever they see people stand up for their themselves?

bcbm

10th February 2010, 02:19

you can't blow up a social relationship

Tablo

10th February 2010, 03:07

you can't blow up a social relationship
I agree.

We need mass education to change things, not bombs.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

10th February 2010, 07:35

Guerrilla22

10th February 2010, 11:32

Kill 'em all.

LeninistKing

11th February 2010, 04:24

I think that the real cause on why people still vote for capitalist-parties is that there is still a large middle class in this world. As long as we still have a large middle class people will keep voting for capitalist parties, another reason is that electoral departments are capitalists and are rigged, another reason is that the ideas of our societies are capitalist ideas (The media and press are owned by capitalists)

another reason might be that people vote for capitalist parties because they think that some day they can become rich like Ted Turner and Donald Trump. Another reason might be that is that the left is too divided and now formed into United Socialist Fronts in each country.

If each country had a United Socialist Front, the left would have better chance to getting to power.

And many, many, many other reasons on why capitalists are in power and leftists are not. Many of those reasons have to do with the complicated world of power. You can read more in the book "The Quantum Nietzsche". Here is a little bit about the Glass Bead Games related to power in this world. The book "The Prince" by Nicholas Machiavelli also talks about the complicated world of politics from a realist perspective:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Biography/Friedrich_Nietszche/quantum_nietszche_ii.htm

1. The Glass Bead Games of Manfred Eigen

Everything that happens in the world resembles a vast game in which nothing is determined in advance but the rules, and only the rules are open to objective understanding. The game itself is not identical with either its rules or with the sequence of chance happenings that determine the course of play. It is neither the one nor the other because it is both at once. It has many aspects as we project onto it in the form of questions.

.

CAPITALISM DIRECTLY KILLS 25 MILLION PEOPLE EVERY SINGLE YEAR. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOOD AND RESOURCES FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS PLANET. THE PROBLEM IS CAPITALISM AND THE FACT IT HAS ALLOWED 90% OF THE WEALTH TO BE CONCENTRATED WITHIN 10% OF THE POPULATION.

The Bourgeoisie continue the Political System which exterminates 25 Million people every year and leaves 90% of the wealth concentrated in the Bourgeoisie's possession.

My argument for this is not justification to kill members of the Bourgeoisie without a progressive strategy. My Argument for this statement is to condemn labeles of Communists as "Terrorists". We must resist the public opinion and classification of Communists as "Terrorists" for attacking the Bourgeoisie. It is not terrorism to attack the Bourgeoisie as they are not Civilians. The Bourgeoisie are killing innocent people and continuing a Political System that acts only in the interests of the exploiters. They are murderers.

Do not support anarchistic attacks against the Bourgeoisie. But do not condemn them as "Terrorist". We should be supporting attacks against the Bourgeoisie WHENVER THEY ARE PROGRESSIVE FOR OUR REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.

I hear so-many Communists accepting the classification of FARC as "terrorist" without even accepting the fact that the people who FARC are killing are continuing a Ruling Class Society which kills tens of millions of innocent people every year.

The Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany was absolutely nothing compared to the Holocaust committed by Capitalism.

cmdrdeathguts

11th February 2010, 14:08

Do not support anarchistic attacks against the Bourgeoisie. But do not condemn them as "Terrorist". We should be supporting attacks against the Bourgeoisie WHENVER THEY ARE PROGRESSIVE FOR OUR REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.

The problem with terrorism is not that there are deaths, or that there are civilian deaths, or that it's a sneaky, 'cowardly' tactic - this is just a feature of war, and no doubt a revolutionary civil war as much as any other. The problem with terrorism is that it doesn't work - that is why we have to energetically oppose it in the movement. It isn't progressive for us at all; it just makes it harder for us to organise legally.

That does not mean we equate the violence of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor. The FARC, and the Provos in Ireland, had real roots in their communities and in that respect have a positive side as well as a negative side. But terrorism hasn't worked in Colombia, and it didn't work in Ireland either.

LeninistKing

11th February 2010, 16:35

You are so right, and kidnapping people, terrorizing them is plain evil and immoral. So if we we kidnap children of capitalists if we begin highjack people, whe would become nazis, terrorists and fascists. Just like Israel. I mean the jews were terrorized by Nazis, but today they are terrorizing palestinians.

I wouldn't have the immorality to kill or kidnap anybody

.

The problem with terrorism is not that there are deaths, or that there are civilian deaths, or that it's a sneaky, 'cowardly' tactic - this is just a feature of war, and no doubt a revolutionary civil war as much as any other. The problem with terrorism is that it doesn't work - that is why we have to energetically oppose it in the movement. It isn't progressive for us at all; it just makes it harder for us to organise legally.

That does not mean we equate the violence of the oppressed with the violence of the oppressor. The FARC, and the Provos in Ireland, had real roots in their communities and in that respect have a positive side as well as a negative side. But terrorism hasn't worked in Colombia, and it didn't work in Ireland either.

red cat

11th February 2010, 17:45

cyu

11th February 2010, 20:24

I think that the real cause on why people still vote for capitalist-parties is that there is still a large middle class in this world.

I think this comes closer: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/note.html

It is conventional political wisdom that you can't make a serious run for the Presidency unless you know the names of at least twenty wealthy people who can raise big money for your campaign. Political pros say this is a very elite group -- numbering no more than a few hundred around the country.

From Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one (http://everything2.com/title/Freedom+of+the+press+is+guaranteed+only+to+those+w ho+own+one):

Freedom of the press is considered to be one of the cornerstones of a functioning democracy. Without it, you wouldn't know what you were voting on, and the process of voting would be worthless.

Silvio Berlusconi is Italy's wealthiest person. He also controls more "freedom of the press" than any other person in Italy. Of course, he also happens to have been elected to the most powerful post in Italy multiple times. Not too surprising.

Control over the media translates to control over the ideas and issues discussed at election time. The more that control is concentrated into fewer hands, the less of a real democracy the nation becomes. Authoritarian regimes use the same method to win their sham elections. Since they control the media, they control all discussion and critiques of various policies. Once you control the ideas, you control what people will vote for. The more control of the media you have, the easier it is to control the vote.

While the electorate may not be "illiterate" in the sense that they can't read or engage in complex feats of engineering, they can still be rendered politically illiterate by surrounding them with media that only pretends to be "fair and balanced" or "pravda" when it is not.

As the gap between the rich and poor widens, it shouldn't be surprising that many members of the wealthy classes would use their growing power to influence the media. The more influence they gather, the more they can consolidate their wealth, and further widen the gap. If left unchecked, the democracy itself would be destroyed.

As Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed."

LeninistKing

11th February 2010, 20:42

Yeah that was not only a prediction by Lincoln, but i think that Lincoln knew and realized and was aware that the United States's Constitution and system was installed as a bourgeoise-state, and maybe he realized that it was normal for the bourgeoise-state created in 1776, to evolve into an oligarchic imperialist-state. So more than a prediction it was a judgement on the kind of state that the US founders founded in 1776. Bolshevik-Russia was different, it didnt *evolve* into an oligarchic-state, it was overthrown by Mensheviks and Stalinists.

.

.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln

bcbm

12th February 2010, 01:40

I think that terrorism sometimes becomes an inseparable part of the revolution. As long as the revolutionary party is led by the working class, or at least remains loyal to the working class, any act of violence against those representing the bourgeois dictatorship is justified.

because the working class (or, fucking hell, some party that "remains loyal," whatever that means) can never make mistakes? because all "representatives" of the bourgeois dictatorship are guilty and deserve to die? this kind of logic is insane. this is the kind of logic our enemies use when they burn villages full of innocent people to the ground.

black magick hustla

12th February 2010, 06:46

Os Cangaceiros

12th February 2010, 07:09

The bourgeoisie are merely fulfilling their historical role (according to Marxism). Most of the time they're about as conscious of their societal role as a class as most proletarians are...which is to say not at all.

I hear so-many Communists accepting the classification of FARC as "terrorist" without even accepting the fact that the people who FARC are killing are continuing a Ruling Class Society which kills tens of millions of innocent people every year.

"Terrorist" is a meaningless term, but the fact remains that groups like FARC and others also kill members of the non-bourgeoisie and carry out acts that would be worthy of much righteous moral condemnation had they come by the hands of bourgeois forces.

Chambered Word

12th February 2010, 11:26

"Terrorist" is a meaningless term, but the fact remains that groups like FARC and others also kill members of the non-bourgeoisie and carry out acts that would be worthy of much righteous moral condemnation had they come by the hands of bourgeois forces.

Exactly. Just because the term is used liberally doesn't mean we should praise individuals or groups who really are terrorists.

It's one thing to occupy factories and execute reactionary politicians, it's another to conduct random acts of violence 'in the name of the workers'.

ZeroNowhere

12th February 2010, 11:29

because all "representatives" of the bourgeois dictatorship are guilty and deserve to die?I think you're misrepresenting RC's argument here, torture, rape and such also count as acts of violence.

So if we we kidnap children of capitalists if we begin highjack people, whe would become nazis, terrorists and fascists. Just like Israel.Terrorists, bastards and so on, yes, but fascists? I don't see that there's any reasonable argument for that, it's like arguing that revolution in the name of socialism necessarily leads to capitalism using the 20th Century, or indeed the many similar arguments used by socialists against other kinds of socialists.

bcbm

13th February 2010, 01:15

I think you're misrepresenting RC's argument here, torture and such also count as acts of violence. okay, so let's lower the bar to torture instead of death. that doesn't really change the point i was making. i don't think simply being a "representative" (what does this mean?) of the bourgeoisie is reason enough to deserve violence.

red cat

13th February 2010, 01:30

okay, so let's lower the bar to torture instead of death. that doesn't really change the point i was making. i don't think simply being a "representative" (what does this mean?) of the bourgeoisie is reason enough to deserve violence.

A capitalist, a manager, a corrupt government official or a top-cop are some of the ones who represent bourgeois dictatorship, as they implement it in their own fields. I think that these people deserve violence.

Others who somehow help the bourgeois dictatorship are cop-informers, biased journalists, technicians etc. They may be corrected through re-education, but at times when the CP is too weak, it cannot afford that, and in the interests of the class war, it has to take military action against these people for a greater good.

black magick hustla

13th February 2010, 01:34

Others who somehow help the bourgeois dictatorship are cop-informers, biased journalists, technicians etc. They may be corrected through re-education, but at times when the CP is too weak, it cannot afford that, and in the interests of the class war, it has to take military action against these people for a greater good.

lol

black magick hustla

13th February 2010, 01:54

you people are fucking incredible. you drink the whole fucking kool-aid and can say shit like "reeducation camps" with a straight face.

Robocommie

13th February 2010, 01:55

you people are fucking incredible. you drink the whole fucking kool-aid and can say shit like "reeducation camps" with a straight face.

It really bothers me sometimes.

McCroskey

13th February 2010, 02:17

Saorsa

13th February 2010, 02:56

Try and go to the colombian villages whose pheasants are being executed by the FARC because they refuse to work like slaves or give up their few acres of land, which with they feed their families, for their drug trafficking "corporations", and tell them they deserve to be killed because they are in the way of intellectual ideals they don´t even know about.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha haha

ahahahahahahahahah

ahahaha

ha.

Saorsa

13th February 2010, 02:58

you people are fucking incredible. you drink the whole fucking kool-aid and can say shit like "reeducation camps" with a straight face.

What's so wrong with the idea of former reactionaries (i.e. police officers) being reintegrated into the new society, and putting processes in place to help them with this transition? I wonder what your alternative is, perhaps we should just kill them all :rolleyes:

Decommissioner

13th February 2010, 04:19

This thirst for blood is really worrying...
Define, burgeoisie, who is a representative of it? Because once I belonged to a communist party whose militants accused me of being burgeois because I enjoyed going on a weekend trek to the mountain with my friends... should I get killed, then? You seem to forget that the same working class you guys are supposed to defend don´t want wars, don't want violence, they just want to have a chance to raise their kids in a peaceful and equal world.

Try and go to the colombian villages whose pheasants are being executed by the FARC because they refuse to work like slaves or give up their few acres of land, which with they feed their families, for their drug trafficking "corporations", and tell them they deserve to be killed because they are in the way of intellectual ideals they don´t even know about. Or try to tell that to the working class families mourning sons, mothers, cousins, etc who got killed in the IRA executions just for being on the wrong neighbourhoods.

This thirst for blood can only come from intellectuals with no connection to the real plead of the working classes. I really can´t see the difference between being blown up by a bomb planted by an imperialist corporation in order to secure benefits and being shot in the back of the head by a revolutionary who thinks I'm the enemy because I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You have to start asking the working class what they think about bloodshed, you might get surprised.

I understand your concerns.

I once co-ran a small diy punk venue with some friends (who happen to be anarchists). Does this make me a bourgeoisie? And even if it did, do I deserve to be shot in the head? Are some of us more "true" proletarians than others? Should it even matter?

This calling for blood is just nonsense. I understand the need for violence wherever it applies. I don't understand the need to kill all "capitalists, managers, government officials and top cops" without cause other than them being capitalists, managers and cops. If they pose a serious threat to the working class in a revolutionary situation, I can understand casualties stemming from self defense. Actively going out to execute people because they are a capitalist, a manager, or a cop? That is purely insane. I know nice people who happen to be petti-bourgeosie, and who ironically agree with a lot of my politics. Most are not aware of their historical roles, and are not bad people by virtue alone. And "managers", what does that even mean? Are we to execute every "manager" from every wal-mart, mcdonalds etc etc? I can understand killing cops if the state implemented them as a tool to suppress the revolution, but outside of violent struggle, what is the point in going out and executing cops (or in a post-revolutionary situation, used to be cops) if they are not actively posing any threat? Some may even be persuaded to our side, and some may just be apathetic and some may find that their job is not worth dying for in the midst of revolutionary conflict.

I think we need to stop romanticising violence and look at revolution from a more realistic position, just as marxists have originally done and have been doing all along.

RadioRaheem84

13th February 2010, 04:38

I was walking throug the mall one day and felt disgusted by all the rampant materialism and consumption. I looked at all the shoppers and realized that not a single of these people were conscious of their status in society. It's no wonder that they would believe anything the beourgoise tells them about us. Do you blame them for supporting anti communist measures? All they see is a bunch of armed men coming in to disrupt thier lives. They have no idea what we're about because they don't understand class relations and the full extent of capitalism. If they did they wouldn't support the beorgoise against us. That goes for a lot of people from the local landlord to petit middle manager attending an anti commie rally. As said before they're just fulfilling thier historical role.

black magick hustla

13th February 2010, 09:33

What's so wrong with the idea of former reactionaries (i.e. police officers) being reintegrated into the new society, and putting processes in place to help them with this transition? I wonder what your alternative is, perhaps we should just kill them all :rolleyes:

i dont think you get it. this guy was talking about putting "biased journalists, technicians" in what are essentially prisons. so essentially people with "bad ideas." and of course, i think it doesnt requires too much imagination that "bad ideas" generally mean people who do not tail the line of the state.

Calmwinds

13th February 2010, 09:37

because talking in allcaps to show your anti-capitalist cred is clearly the road to a fairly governed society.

The Red Next Door

13th February 2010, 18:08

They are more than civilians, they are human beings, this is the type of logic that the fascist follow, not all bourgeoisie are evil. It the same stuff people said about communism that it kills people, so therefore, we must murder all communists, that what you are sounding like.

RotStern

13th February 2010, 18:42

This is ridiculous.
Killing somebody just because they are bourgeois is no good deed.
Most of the bourgeoisie are unaware of what happens in the world because of Capitalism.
Let's flip the situation.
If there was a developing Communist country and for whatever reason would you advocate the killing of any member of the working class?

Sogdian

13th February 2010, 19:19

Perhaps we should first put lines on class divisions, who are the bourgeoisie and the working class. Here's a good statement on this subject...

Classes in the U.S.

There is a lot of confusion about class in the United States. Politicians, academics, media pundits and even trade union leaders, have obscured the issue. As a result many think the main classes in the United States are the rich, poor and middle class. This view has problems. It pits the employed section of the working class against the unemployed sections of the working class, by suggesting that the working class is the middle class and has different interests from the unemployed sections of the working class. Another variant is to think that everyone who owns a cabin or lives in the suburbs is "rich." The effect of this kind of analysis is to pit the working class against itself, confounding friends and enemies and deadening class consciousness.

Marxists approach the matter differently, and we believe that to be a part of the working class is something to be proud of. When socialists look at the issue of class we see that every kind of society, from ancient times until now, is organized around its tools - it means of producing things that satisfy people's needs and wants. Ownership of the means of production is basic. Classes are large groups of people, who have a defined relationship to the means of production, such as ownership. They also have a defined place in the social division of labor, for example some people are supervisors or managers. The result of the these differences in who owns what and where one fits into the social division of labor, means a difference in who gets how much wealth.

The following are the principal classes in the United States. When it is stated that a given class or social group thinks or acts in a given way, it is based on the understanding that nothing is uniform and more can be learned on one hand, but that it is vital that we understand the general motion of something on the other.

Monopoly capitalists

The monopoly capitalist class is the dominant class the United States. They own and control the big corporations like Citicorp, General Motors and Wal-Mart. This class of billionaires, multimillionaires and those in their immediate circles are real rulers of the U.S.

Some of the family names in this class are familiar - they have been there for generations - such as the DuPonts and Rockefellers. Others are comparative newcomers such as the Waltons or Bill Gates. All of them are parasites that live off the labor of the working class.

This class has several specific features. First, they rule not only the United States; they control an empire that spans the globe. This means they quite literally have friends and allies on every continent. Every blow that weakens U.S. imperialism assists those of us here in fighting our common enemy.

Secondly, they control the political and cultural life of this county, from Congress and the judiciary, the media and military to institutions of education and the arts. They finance a host of institutions and think tanks that actively consider and promote their strategic interests, including the Heritage Foundation, the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others. They also utilize a host of business associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

They are tied - like puppet masters to their puppets - in a thousand and one ways to the main political parties - the Republicans and the Democrats. This control is maintained through a host of laws that ensure that the electoral process favors the rich, direct and indirect campaign contributions, outright bribery, cheating, and corruption, and by an army of lobbyists who are guardians of their interests on a day-to-day basis.

As a practical matter this class includes the upper stratum of politicians, military figures, and some intellectuals.

Finally, this class has shown time and time again that it will stop at nothing to maintain its power and privilege.

This class of monopoly capitalist is the principal target of revolution in the United States.

Non-monopoly capitalists

These are the capitalists who are important on a local or regional level. They include some of the smaller banking and finance groups and some of the smaller manufactures, for example in furniture building and food processing, the owners of large farms and ranches, with a larger section centered in the service sector - for example the owners of smaller restaurant chains.

This group also includes a section of large local land developers and real estate speculators, a section of well-off intellectuals, some big entertainers and cultural figures, and a section of politicians, including some big city mayors.

Their distinguishing feature is that they have not made it into the monopoly capitalist class, and they face a constant competitive pressure from the corporations with great resources. Because of that pressure they frequently attempt to compensate by obtaining higher than normal rates of exploitation, and they are often extremely hostile to trade unions and workers' rights.

While they have some independence from, and at times some are hostile to, some of the agenda advanced by the monopoly capitalists (for example, some resent paying for tax-funded projects that benefit their larger competitors and others are concerned about trade issues), as a whole this is not a progressive class. The non-monopoly capitalists are also a target of revolution in the United States.

That said, there are individuals within this class who have the potential to be favorable or at least not hostile to revolutionary change. Given the multinational character of the United States, we note there are also non-monopoly capitalists based in the oppressed nationalities, who at times are hostile to national oppression, and under favorable conditions can be brought into the united front against monopoly capitalism.

Petty Bourgeoisie

In the U.S. the petty bourgeoisie is a large and varied class that includes most professionals, like doctors and lawyers, and supervisory personnel. It encompasses the majority of intellectuals, such as college professors and scientists. It also includes the owners of small businesses that produce or sell goods and services, small farmers, and small landlords who get the majority of their income from rent.

Those who make up the petty bourgeoisie either have some specialized skill or knowledge or are owners of the means of production or distribution. As a class they value what independence they have. The upper stratum of this class hopes to join the capitalists, and lower stratum fears being pushed into the working class.

Some petty bourgeoisie get a part of their income by exploiting the labor of others, for example most restaurant owners or owners of small auto shops. Others do not, like most doctors employed by hospitals.

Based on their relationship to other classes and their income, the petty bourgeoisie can be broken down into three groups or strata: upper, middle and lower.

The upper stratum of the petty bourgeoisie has a rising standard of living. For them life is getting better. And for those in this group who produce or sell goods and services - they would like to join the ranks of the big capitalists. They live in well-to-do suburbs, condominiums and gated communities. The upper stratum includes many of those who practice law, doctors, small business owners who are doing well and hire workers, accountants, scientists, local media personalities, some landlords and others. They see themselves as the middle class and many want "government to get off their backs" or view themselves as "fiscal conservatives." This section of the people tends to be active in politics on a state and local level and at present time it is an important social base for the political right wing. Given that, some sections are more progressive than others, for example college professors.

The middle section of the petty bourgeoisie is treading water. They want to move on up, but capitalism is pulling them down. For them, things seem to be stagnating. They feel okay about their economic well-being but fear the future. This group includes a section of management and administrators, small business owners who have some employees but they still have to do some of the actual work, and small time landlords who maintain a few buildings. This group includes professionals who are not doing as well as some of their peers. They tend to own nice homes. Politically this group tends to be a mixed bag. The small business owners hate government regulation. Professionals employed by government tend to have a very different view.

The lower section of the petty bourgeoisie is a step away from the working class and many have an income that is lower than the upper or even middle sections of the working class. They own small neighborhood businesses that frequently fail. Small farmers, owner operators of trucks, some small building contractors and working supervisors with the power to fire are all part of this group. Many in this section of the petty bourgeoisie have their roots in the working class, and really like being their own boss. This section of the people frequently places demands on government, as is the case with many farm movements. They use small business loans, and are as a group hostile to big business and would like to see the power of the monopolies curbed.

Over the long run, the petty bourgeoisie as a whole has no future as a class. It cannot realistically compete with the big capitalists and there is a tendency in many of the professions towards less independence - for example the decline of small medical practices.

It is important that as many people as possible within this class be brought into the united front against monopoly capitalism. In some cases, this will be done based on the economic interests of sections of this class. For example, building farm protest movements or uniting with small storeowners to oppose a Wal-Mart in the community. In other cases work will be done by building progressive political centers in a certain profession for example, for example building the organizations of progressive lawyers.

Working Class

The working class constitutes the majority of the American people and it will be both the main and leading force for revolutionary change in this country. It is composed of women and men of all nationalities who labor to create goods and services, be it in factories, offices or the fields. It encompasses the employed and the unemployed, those who do manual labor or mental labor, people working in the service sector or manufacturing and transportation. It includes the organized and the unorganized.

The working class makes its living by selling its ability to work. The capitalists own the places and things that are used to create goods and services. They appropriate for themselves all that is produced by the collective labor of the working class. This gives rise to an irrepressible conflict, a clash of basic interests that can be solved by the working class taking all power into its own hands.

The U.S. working class has a proud history of struggle. From the fight for the 8-hour day in the 1880's to the heroic battles against concessions that have been waged over the past 20 years and the inspiring movement of undocumented workers for full equality, the capacity of the working class to take its destiny into its own hands has been repeatedly shown.

In the U.S. today the working class as a whole is characterized by a low level of class consciousness. While it's true that many workers are dissatisfied with the existing order of things, there is not a widespread understanding that the working class has a distinct set of interests that can only be addressed by the collective action of the class. In fact, while there is a widespread perception among working people that life for them and their children might well get harder, many workers, particularly the sections of the working class which are better off or more stable, either do not view themselves as a part of the working class or have hopes of leaving it altogether.

Broadly speaking, the working class can be divided into upper, middle and lower sections.

The upper sections of the working class have both the largest income and the highest social status within the class as a whole. It includes those in the skilled trades, such as electricians, plumbers, some carpenters, some tool and die makers and those who do specialized repair and maintenance. Teachers and nurses are a part of this group. It also includes a section of organized workers in basic industries such as mining, auto and steel, and some government workers.

In the building and skilled trades, this section of the working class is disproportionately white due to discrimination and national oppression. Depending on the region of the country, and whether the production facility is based in an urban or rural area, this is less true in the unionized sections of basic industry.

At times the upper section of the working class has shown itself to be extremely militant when it comes to defending its class interests.

Some parts of the upper sections of the working class are influenced by white and national chauvinism; hence, these elements at times exercise a conservative influence in the labor movement and society as a whole.

Over the past thirty years, this section of the working class has been hit hard by changes in the productive forces and the departure of factories to other countries - particularly in the basic industries. As a result, it is less of a force in the working class as a whole.

In a similar vein, some of the skilled trades have gone through a process whereby the degree of skills required has declined (machinists) or where the degree of unionization has declined (carpenters) and as a result, larger and larger sections of these professions have found themselves in the middle or lower sections of the working class.

In the private sector, this is the most organized section of the working class. This section of the working class often sees itself as a part of the "middle class," and in many ways believes that their whole way of life is disappearing.

The most important section of the upper section of the working class are those concentrated in basic industries, where there are still many large, multinational workplaces.

The middle sections of the working class include most workers in the public sector, unionized workers in light industry, transportation and communications and a large section of the office workers in finance, insurance and real estate. While public employees have a higher rate of unionization than the working class as a whole, the middle section of the working class is less organized than the upper and many tend to work under less socialized conditions.

This section of the working class is under serious pressure, and is seeing its standard of living erode. While public sector workers face real pressures, many in this section of the class are in danger of being pushed into the lower sections of the class in times of economic crisis or restructuring. This is particularly true where households have fewer resources to fall back on, for example, oppressed nationality workers who face 'last hired and first fired.'

The middle section of the class has been where most new union members have come from in the past forty years. This is partly because of the growth of the service and healthcare industries. It is also because of the motion of public sector workers into joining unions.

The civil rights movement had a large impact on the union movement among the public sector because of the significant employment of Black workers. When Martin Luther King Jr. died in Memphis, he was there supporting a strike of sanitation workers.

The requirements of organizing new members made unions change, and in turn led to struggles against the failures of the old union leadership.

Organizing new members is in the interests of the class, and in the main, organizing the unorganized has contributed to the class struggle.

The lower section of the working class is growing, labors under the most difficult conditions and is disproportionately made up of women and oppressed nationalities. It includes many who work in agriculture, retail, and the food processing industries, the less unionized sections of light industry, prison laborers, and temporary workers - especially those who do not receive benefits. Workers without jobs are a part of this section of the working class.

The employed section of this group of workers has no illusions about being part of the "middle class." As a group, homelessness is just a few lost paychecks away. Issues like health care and childcare affect the entire working class and parts of the petty bourgeoisie as well, but for the lower sections of working class their importance cannot be overstated. No childcare can well mean no job. No heath care coverage means long waits in hospital emergency rooms for basic care.

Many undocumented workers are in the lower section of the working class, and a portion of this section of the class would like to see radical change.

The urban poor is the stratum of the lower section of the working class who are without jobs or who lack stable employment. It includes people on public assistance and day laborers. The urban poor is extremely dissatisfied with conditions, and it is the only stratum of the working class that as a whole, is open to revolutionary ideas about changing society.

Lumpen Proletariat

The lumpen proletariat is made up of those who make their living primarily by criminal means, including drug dealing, street cons and theft. It is mainly made up of former members of the working class who have turned to anti-social means to get by.

While in the main it is the working class that suffers from its behavior, sections of this group can change and become allies of the working class.

frso.org/about/5congress/class.htm

The only proper punishment for the bourgeoisie (monopoly capitalists) that I can think of is labour camps and prison for life. Though as Lenin said: In order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. In the process of revolution surely many of the bourgeoisie will be killed. :thumbup1:

LeninistKing

14th February 2010, 01:04

Indeed, killing is evil, Nazi, fascist and satanic, even killing nazis, inflcting pain in people wether killing them or punishing them for wrong doing is also evil and dumb. Because of the fact that there is no justice really in torturing criminals, or killing criminals. In fact, I think that we should treat everybody with dignity and respect even criminals and capitalists.

.

This is ridiculous.
Killing somebody just because they are bourgeois is no good deed.
Most of the bourgeoisie are unaware of what happens in the world because of Capitalism.
Let's flip the situation.
If there was a developing Communist country and for whatever reason would you advocate the killing of any member of the working class?