The definition of bourgeois [Archive]

godlessmutha

11th March 2010, 08:14

This question, imho, really goes to the heart of Marx's theories and their applicability and utility, both in the past and now. I think that they may have made a lot of sense in the mid 19th century, but not so much in the 20th and not today.

I'll relate it to my own family's experience in the early and mid 20th century as I think its a perfect example. And I really don't want this to become a d*ck swinging contest; many times when I bring this up, the refrain is that unless you have as much money as the Nizam of Hyderabad, then you are not really bourgeois.

On my mothers side, my folks were merchant bankers. They had a fair bit of money (about a million pound sterling in the 30s), but they also worked for a living. They served on corporate boards and earned salaries, they didn't own the means of production, they invested, traded in commodities; they also earned salaries serving on public boards of enquiry and representing foreign governmental and corporate interests here in Australia.

They were very comfortably wealthy, but they also served in the military, in the public service, as directors of the Sydney Exchange (now the ASX), and other companies.

They were hardly working class, but they didn't own the means of production either. They didn't own any factories, they worked for a living so I think they could be labeled proletariat. However they were obviously also keen capitalists.

How do you define someone who doesn't own the means of production, and works, but is also capable of living off their investments? I have a lot to learn about Marxism, but to me this seems to represent how Marxist ideas are a bit outdated. Think of a corporate CEO; they work for a living, but they don't own the means of production. How are they defined?

LeftSideDown

11th March 2010, 08:17

RGacky3

11th March 2010, 10:27

I agree that Marxist class definitions are not totality complete, but heres the mistake, what makes the Bourgeois Bourgeois is not OWNING, its CONTROLLING, and where they get their pay from.

CEOs control the means of production, unless the share holders actually control the means of production, they are just share holders, i.e. putting their money in a bank, the bank of a buisiness. CEOs make tons and tons of money from other peoples work, and generally also hold tons and tons of stock in many othe companies.

THe ruling class nowerdays is so much more powerful and so much more advanced than in Marxes day. Nowerdays, a CEO will literally be running one company with the board of directors, while they all hold massiave stock interests in other companies, nowerdays, the big guys play with derivatives and credit default swaps. This new class of Super Capitalists is much more power full than the manegerial (Boss) class, that used to be the Capitalists, i.e. they own the company and they run it. YOu know have guys that are in the boards of directors in like 4 companies and are CEOs in other companies.

Marx used to say that 1/10th of the people control 9/10s of the wealth, you say that now you'd be laughed at, would'nt that be a utopia, nower days the wealth, and much more importantly the power, is concentrated so much more.

godlessmutha

11th March 2010, 13:38

I agree that Marxist class definitions are not totality complete, but heres the mistake, what makes the Bourgeois Bourgeois is not OWNING, its CONTROLLING, and where they get their pay from.That is a very fair point; in my opinion, controlling is as meaningful as owning. And from my point of view, once you attain a certain level of wealth, more money doesn't mean anything, its power that one craves.

CEOs control the means of production, unless the share holders actually control the means of production, they are just share holders, i.e. putting their money in a bank, the bank of a buisiness. CEOs make tons and tons of money from other peoples work, and generally also hold tons and tons of stock in many othe companies. Fair point. However, I think that in the 21st century, the impersonal force of the market is also just as powerful i.e. institutional investors, pension funds etc. I work in the superannuation industry (Australian 401ks). In Australia, it is mandatory for employers to contribute 9% of your gross on top of your salary to a fund that you specify.

The market is dominated by "industry funds", funds that are usually set up by unions or industry peak bodies, and run only for the benefit of their members. Australian super funds have about a trillion US dollars under management, and hence in this case, in an impersonal way, the proletariat do have some ownership, if not control, over the means of production.

THe ruling class nowerdays is so much more powerful and so much more advanced than in Marxes day. Nowerdays, a CEO will literally be running one company with the board of directors, while they all hold massiave stock interests in other companies, nowerdays, the big guys play with derivatives and credit default swaps. This new class of Super Capitalists is much more power full than the manegerial (Boss) class, that used to be the Capitalists, i.e. they own the company and they run it. YOu know have guys that are in the boards of directors in like 4 companies and are CEOs in other companies. I agree with your analysis, and I think that much of the financial industry has became a giant scam dominated by insider trading, rather than an efficient means of directing investment capital, as it should ideally be.

Marx used to say that 1/10th of the people control 9/10s of the wealth, you say that now you'd be laughed at, would'nt that be a utopia, nower days the wealth, and much more importantly the power, is concentrated so much more.I agree. I'm not worried about the top 10%, I'm more concerned about the extremely exclusive 2000-3000 people, billionaires, bankers, top level politicians and bureaucrats, that make policy at meetings like Davos and G20 and Bilderberg.

Muzk

11th March 2010, 13:59

Holy fucking distortion of marxist theory.

Then again, when you see counter-revolutionaries asking counter-revolutionaries what marxism is, then it's normal that they spill lies.

Bourgeoisie
The class (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class) of people in bourgeois society (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeois-society) who own the social (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialisation) means of production (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production) as their Private Property (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#private-property), i.e., as capital (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capital).
Smart investors? You don't have to be smart to own capital, you just have to own it. Besides, even the richest motherfuckers leave their capital in the hands of some bank, which then unite many different branches of production under one banner, forming giant corporations to control the people with. They own the means of propaganda as well as the means of production.

If you even fucking care, read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/04.htm#030)

But we all know that you reactionaries are best at being against any form of equality and justice ; ] That's why we are going to oppress you! Don't cha get it?

godlessmutha

11th March 2010, 15:07

Holy fucking distortion of marxist theory.

Then again, when you see counter-revolutionaries asking counter-revolutionaries what marxism is, then it's normal that they spill lies.Haha, and Trots wonder why even fellow socialists don't like them.. Chill out mate. People can debate and discuss in good faith.

Smart investors? You don't have to be smart to own capital, you just have to own it. Besides, even the richest motherfuckers leave their capital in the hands of some bank, which then unite many different branches of production under one banner, forming giant corporations to control the people with. They own the means of propaganda as well as the means of production.You don't have to be smart to inherit capital. But you do have to be smart, or have a certain amount of market cunning, to invest well and make money from it.

If you even...I'll take a look.

But we all know that you reactionaries are best at being against any form of equality and justice ; ] That's why we are going to oppress you! Don't cha get it?
Bla bla bla. You Trots aren't going to oppress anyone, nor do you impress anyone with that kind of talk. The security services and federal police don't take you guys seriously anymore, its not the 1920s. Trotskyism is dead as a viable political force. And your own talk about oppressing people renders the previous sentence about equality and justice totally null and void. Can you feel the hypocrisy?

godlessmutha

11th March 2010, 16:29

Why were you restricted, anyways?

You seem like an internet tough guy - sectarian and unfunny

Why do you think I was restricted? I'm not a socialist. I came on here to discuss socialism with forum members, and I accept the forum rules.

With regards to being an internet tough guy, I'm trying to recall the one who was going around threatening to "oppress" people? A ludicrous threat from a Trot in and of itself, it also indicates that you either have not realised the political reality of the 21st century, or you're trolling.

With regards to being sectarian, that word makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the discussion that was occurring before you made your... contribution.

#FF0000

11th March 2010, 16:33

1) Muzk, cut that shit out.
2) Godlessmutha, you're kind of on thin ice with that "English class" comment. Not everyone on this forum speaks English as their first language. Keep that in mind.

godlessmutha

11th March 2010, 16:37

1) Muzk, cut that shit out.
2) Godlessmutha, you're kind of on thin ice with that "English class" comment. Not everyone on this forum speaks English as their first language. Keep that in mind.

Yeah, I thought twice about it and edited it out. Point taken

danyboy27

11th March 2010, 17:47

i got a rather simplistic explanation of what a bourgeois is.

-an individual not rich enough to be on the top of the pyramid, but favorised enough by his/her material conditions to benefit from the capitalist system.

to me, a rich person and a bourgeois are definitively not the same thing.

Zanthorus

11th March 2010, 18:16

On my mothers side, my folks were merchant bankers. They had a fair bit of money (about a million pound sterling in the 30s), but they also worked for a living. They served on corporate boards and earned salaries, they didn't own the means of production, they invested, traded in commodities; they also earned salaries serving on public boards of enquiry and representing foreign governmental and corporate interests here in Australia.

They were very comfortably wealthy, but they also served in the military, in the public service, as directors of the Sydney Exchange (now the ASX), and other companies.

They were hardly working class, but they didn't own the means of production either. They didn't own any factories, they worked for a living so I think they could be labeled proletariat. However they were obviously also keen capitalists.

How do you define someone who doesn't own the means of production, and works, but is also capable of living off their investments? I have a lot to learn about Marxism, but to me this seems to represent how Marxist ideas are a bit outdated. Think of a corporate CEO; they work for a living, but they don't own the means of production. How are they defined?

I'm a bit of a dunce when it comes to class categories beyond the basic proletariat and bourgeoisie to be honest. However it seems their level of autonomy would place them somewhere in the petit-bourgeoisie.

I think it's worth pointing out that (as far as I've seen anyway) this seems to be an unusual situation for people to be in and you could easily fall back on a weaker form of class analysis, that even though some exceptions exist as a general rule Marxism will be an accurate description of reality and a useful analytical tool in sociological analysis.

On CEO's you could check out "The New Middle Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htm)" by Anton Pannekoek.

#FF0000

11th March 2010, 19:16

Keep in mind that whenever you're talking about society or anything related to people aside from, like, biology, things aren't going to comfortably fit into defined categories all the time.

syndicat

11th March 2010, 20:29

How do you define someone who doesn't own the means of production, and works, but is also capable of living off their investments? I have a lot to learn about Marxism, but to me this seems to represent how Marxist ideas are a bit outdated. Think of a corporate CEO; they work for a living, but they don't own the means of production. How are they defined?

Your first sentence is self-contradictory. If a person has "investments", they own business assets...capital. This counts as "means of production." That's because, in capitalism, anyone with financial capital can go out and acquire means of production and run a business. Also, this means there are people indirectly employed by them, that is, employed by the firms in which they have invested.

Maybe you're confused by the fact that capital nowadays is owned collectively, or pooled, via corporations. The firm is a capitalist entity. It amasses capital and employs workers, and makes profits off the labor of workers.

CEOs of companies and other top corporate officers usually also own a stake in that company. They often are given large stock options. The other owners want to make sure they identify with the interests of the owners.

However, the growth of the big corporations and the state in the past century did greatly increase the size of the bureaucratic class...middle managers, top accountants, corporate lawyers, judges, government bureuacrats, etc. Unlike the capitalists, this class often does do some of the socially necessary labor. In that sense they "work for a living." But a large part of their "work" is control over the workforce, a kind of policing function, where they get people to work as hard as they can, pay them as little as they can get away with, etc. So much of the work they do wouldn't be needed in an economy based on direct worker management of social production.

But, yes, there is a sizeable bureaucratic class between the capitalist and working classes nowadays. but the working class is nonetheless the majority...even more of a majority than it was in Marx's day. Because this class has only been a major group since the early 1900s, it is sometimes called "the new middle class."

Jimmie Higgins

11th March 2010, 21:19

I don't think Marxist class definitions are outdated as much as there are many shades of gray in society - class is not a caste system and people move around between classes (not as much as the media likes to pretend this happens) in their lives or from generation to generation.

While CEOs might not directly own a factory, investment capital is a means of production and CEOs are definitively capitalists in the role they play in society as well as in general class outlook.

This doesn't mean individual CEOs are this or that as individuals... the might be solid progressives or even sell-off their assets and retire as class traitors who decide to side with workers.

Marxist class identifications are outdated. Consider this: according to the Marxist definition of bourgeois, Michael Jordan is a member of the proletariat, forced to sell his labor to the entertainment/sports industry. Can't wait for his class consciousness to emerge.Actually, major sports figures or major Hollywood actors tend to become capitalists not because of their high wages, but because (MJ is a great example) become sort of CEOs of their own image. While getting high salaries, the top few sports stars make their real money through endorsements and managing/selling their image. As sports wage-earners they are prols, as Hollywood producers/sports image industries they are capitalists.

But on the whole, pro sports and pro actors are prols and the vast majority do not make high wages (AAA players, background actors, bit-actors). And they DO HAVE CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS as evidenced by their trade unions (fighting for your own interests as a class against your employers), strikes, and solidarity.

RGacky3

11th March 2010, 22:08

That is a very fair point; in my opinion, controlling is as meaningful as owning. And from my point of view, once you attain a certain level of wealth, more money doesn't mean anything, its power that one craves.

As Capitalism has grown and expanded, owning stock really does'nt mean much, unless its enough to actually choose the board of directors, and the way it is in the states almost not even that. In a sense the ruling class has found a way to get people to fund them while maintaining control of the money flow. So money MEANS power, but not owning it perse, controlling it.

Fair point. However, I think that in the 21st century, the impersonal force of the market is also just as powerful i.e. institutional investors, pension funds etc. I work in the superannuation industry (Australian 401ks). In Australia, it is mandatory for employers to contribute 9% of your gross on top of your salary to a fund that you specify.

The market is dominated by "industry funds", funds that are usually set up by unions or industry peak bodies, and run only for the benefit of their members. Australian super funds have about a trillion US dollars under management, and hence in this case, in an impersonal way, the proletariat do have some ownership, if not control, over the means of production.

Like I said ownership means nothing unless you control the actual means of production, technically speaking the people in the USSR "owned" the means of production too, but it does'nt mean anything because they did'nt have control.

I agree with your analysis, and I think that much of the financial industry has became a giant scam dominated by insider trading, rather than an efficient means of directing investment capital, as it should ideally be.

Thats the "free market" for you, when the rich and powerful find ways to manipulate it to control it more and enrich themselves more and gain more power, of coarse they'll do it, the more ruthless and insane they are, the more ruthless and insane everyone else has to be keep up.

I agree. I'm not worried about the top 10%, I'm more concerned about the extremely exclusive 2000-3000 people, billionaires, bankers, top level politicians and bureaucrats, that make policy at meetings like Davos and G20 and Bilderberg.

THOSE are the ruling class of today, obviously there are different levels, but they litererally call themselves "masters of the universe," in Marxes day, if you said there would be 2000-3000 people that essencially control the world, you'd be laughed at, and yet people still say theres no class system any more.

Bud Struggle

12th March 2010, 12:51

As Capitalism has grown and expanded, owning stock really does'nt mean much, unless its enough to actually choose the board of directors, and the way it is in the states almost not even that. In a sense the ruling class has found a way to get people to fund them while maintaining control of the money flow. So money MEANS power, but not owning it perse, controlling it. But it's the Proletarians that own stock (through owning a couple of shares of through various pension funds) that have the power--and they use it. They require the managers of the companies to do one thing for them--make more money. Is there really any difference between bourgeoise that lives off his investments and a union pensioner that lives off his retirement fund? Both want the same thing from the people who run the companies they are invested in--more and more money. It's not like the people who actually run companies have any choices to make. The investors, big and small are quite unified on the point that they want greater and greater return on their investments.

Proletarians have no class consciousness when it comes to getting their check in the mail. ;)

Thats the "free market" for you, when the rich and powerful find ways to manipulate it to control it more and enrich themselves more and gain more power, of coarse they'll do it, the more ruthless and insane they are, the more ruthless and insane everyone else has to be keep up. Markets are manipulated just as much for the Proletarian invester as they are for the larger investor. In fact most of the pressure for short term profits of large companies comes from pension funds who need regular and steady income for their pensioners. Rich investors often have longer and more patient investment strategies.

THOSE are the ruling class of today, obviously there are different levels, but they litererally call themselves "masters of the universe," in Marxes day, if you said there would be 2000-3000 people that essencially control the world, you'd be laughed at, and yet people still say theres no class system any more. I find this "Illuminati, Tri-Lateral Commission" plot stuff a bit hard to swollow. :rolleyes:

godlessmutha

12th March 2010, 13:15

Your first sentence is self-contradictory. If a person has "investments", they own business assets...capital. This counts as "means of production." That's because, in capitalism, anyone with financial capital can go out and acquire means of production and run a business. Also, this means there are people indirectly employed by them, that is, employed by the firms in which they have invested.Its true that they invested in the means of production, but they didn't specifically own factories or natural resources etc.. they were businessmen, that is true, but they made their mark as public servants, earned Knighthoods, CBEs and so forth, from public service and activity that generated a salary.

Maybe you're confused by the fact that capital nowadays is owned collectively, or pooled, via corporations. The firm is a capitalist entity. It amasses capital and employs workers, and makes profits off the labor of workers.So how do you define, for example, an Australian industry superannuation fund, that amasses enormous amounts of capital, but is owned by people that are indisputably proletarian?

However, the growth of the big corporations and the state in the past century did greatly increase the size of the bureaucratic class...middle managers, top accountants, corporate lawyers, judges, government bureuacrats, etc. Unlike the capitalists, this class often does do some of the socially necessary labor. In that sense they "work for a living." But a large part of their "work" is control over the workforce, a kind of policing function, where they get people to work as hard as they can, pay them as little as they can get away with, etc. So much of the work they do wouldn't be needed in an economy based on direct worker management of social production.The thing is that this has been a phenomenon throughout history. Look at the Cecil family in the UK; William Cecil attained unparalleled influence and power in Elizabethan England, however he was nowhere near the great magnates of the realm in terms of wealth and the size of his estate. Only later did that family attain a great fortune.

But, yes, there is a sizeable bureaucratic class between the capitalist and working classes nowadays. but the working class is nonetheless the majority...even more of a majority than it was in Marx's day. Because this class has only been a major group since the early 1900s, it is sometimes called "the new middle class."What is to happen to this kind of, if I can put it this way, haute petit-bourgeois, under a socialist system? Barristers, senior public servants, senior military officers.. they are generally comfortable financially, but they don't own the means of production in any significant sense. Are they to be abolished under socialism?

godlessmutha

12th March 2010, 13:29

But it's the Proletarians that own stock (through owning a couple of shares of through various pension funds) that have the power--and they use it. They require the managers of the companies to do one thing for them--make more money. Is there really any difference between bourgeoise that lives off his investments and a union pensioner that lives off his retirement fund? Both want the same thing from the people who run the companies they are invested in--more and more money. It's not like the people who actually run companies have any choices to make. The investors, big and small are quite unified on the point that they want greater and greater return on their investments.I agree

Proletarians have no class consciousness when it comes to getting their check in the mail. ;)
Markets are manipulated just as much for the Proletarian invester as they are for the larger investor. In fact most of the pressure for short term profits of large companies comes from pension funds who need regular and steady income for their pensioners. Rich investors often have longer and more patient investment strategies.Working in one of these pension funds, and seeing this day in, day out, I also agree wholeheartedly.

I find this "Illuminati, Tri-Lateral Commission" plot stuff a bit hard to swollow. :rolleyes:The truth usually is. There is no Illuminati of a few dozen people running the entire world, but anyone that denies the existence of a supranational elite that makes self-interested policy through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, honestly has their head in the sand.

I don't subscribe to the theory that everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy, however I know from personal experience that they do happen and they are often what socialists would define as counter-revolutionary in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

I know because a particular member of my family on my mothers side, a senior military officer, was involved in setting up what was almost an extra-constitutional coup against a progressive government.

The Australian Prime Minister at the time introduced universal free healthcare, free tertiary education, withdrew Australian troops from Vietnam, and started speaking out against CIA manipulation and involvement in Australian domestic politics.

The Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, the equivalent of the Queen of England dismissing the Prime Minister of the UK, going against all precedent, and installing the conservative opposition leader as Prime Minister by executive fiat, at the urging of a small clique of wealthy bankers, right-wingers, and military officers.

Anyone who picks up a history book knows that this is the historical norm. To say otherwise is like J Edgar Hoover saying the mafia didn't exist.

RGacky3

12th March 2010, 15:25

Bud Struggle

12th March 2010, 15:54

Do you know how hard it is for small time stockholders to have any effect on the management? Do you know how corporate boards and executives are actually chosen? If you do, you'd realize, that not even bigtime stockholders have any power, much much less working class people, and the small amount of stock products they might own. No. The pensioners have vast amounts of say. Read godless's post above. ALL the pensioners want, is better and better returns on their money. They want nothing else--if they did they would instruct thei pension funds to that effect.

There is a HUGE difference between a union pensioner and a Capitalist, one, the Union pensioner WORKED ofr a living, the Capitalist gained from toher peopels work, the Union pensioner essencially had some of his money put away, he's not making a living from the investment.
Yes he is making money from his investment--a pensioner is doing EXACTLY what every businessman does--he invests his money in a venture that promises to make him profit on his investment.

So here's your definition of the Bourgeois, and at least 95% of them at that--he's a retired Proletarian. The pensioner USED to work for a living once he began to live off his retirement he now lives off of other people's work. I used to work for a living but I saved some money ans sarted a business and now I live off the profits. That's no different than a pensioner except for the time frame. I started doing it early in my career--they do it a bit later. :)

RGacky3

15th March 2010, 13:53

No. The pensioners have vast amounts of say. Read godless's post above.

. . . I read godless's post it did'nt say anything. Nothing about what I said about how Corporations are run was debunked... so try again Bud.

ALL the pensioners want, is better and better returns on their money. They want nothing else--if they did they would instruct thei pension funds to that effect.

So what, whats your point.

Yes he is making money from his investment--a pensioner is doing EXACTLY what every businessman does--he invests his money in a venture that promises to make him profit on his investment.

Yeah, but he MAKES HIS LIVING by working, the money he put into his pension fund is money he worked for, its no different from a bank. A Capitalist, does'nt work for a living, he makes money from other peoples work.

So here's your definition of the Bourgeois, and at least 95% of them at that--he's a retired Proletarian. The pensioner USED to work for a living once he began to live off his retirement he now lives off of other people's work. I used to work for a living but I saved some money ans sarted a business and now I live off the profits. That's no different than a pensioner except for the time frame. I started doing it early in my career--they do it a bit later.

No he does'nt, the money he put into the pension is money he worked for, and he has absolutely no control over the means of production, not even a say in the fund he invested in.

My definition of bourgeouis, infact every definition, is those who HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, which pensioners do not.

Bud Struggle

15th March 2010, 21:37

. . . I read godless's post it did'nt say anything. Nothing about what I said about how Corporations are run was debunked... so try again Bud. Both godless and I said that it's the UNIONS before all others that drive corporations to look for higher and better profits. Unions and by proxy workers are squeezing corporations not the rich.

So what, whats your point. My point is that unions and through them workers have plenty of say about how corporations work--and they are interested in nothing but higher profits--not matter how that is achieved.

Yeah, but he MAKES HIS LIVING by working, the money he put into his pension fund is money he worked for, its no different from a bank. A Capitalist, does'nt work for a living, he makes money from other peoples work. except IT'S NOT A BANK. It's an investment. A worker invests $100 and he gets $200 back--and someone has to make that second $100 and that's on the backs of otherworkers. No different than any other invester.

No he does'nt, the money he put into the pension is money he worked for, and he has absolutely no control over the means of production, not even a say in the fund he invested in. That's how every investor starts--you strat out working for the money then you invest. That's how I did it. That's how Rockefeller did it. Now me and Rocky chose to RE invest--but that's our business. And worker's have a SAY in their pension funds. They vote in union leadership--that's their say.

My definition of bourgeouis, infact every definition, is those who HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, which pensioners do not. Unions and other workers have more say over the means of production than rich people.

Retired workers are the new Bourgeoise. :)

LeftSideDown

15th March 2010, 23:26

My definition of bourgeouis, infact every definition, is those who HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, which pensioners do not.

Then, as I said earlier, Michael Jordan is a member of the proletariat. He has to sell his labor to the evil capitalist of the entertainment and sports industries. Don't you feel sorry for him?

#FF0000

16th March 2010, 02:46

Then, as I said earlier, Michael Jordan is a member of the proletariat. He has to sell his labor to the evil capitalist of the entertainment and sports industries. Don't you feel sorry for him?

I'm pretty sure Jimmie Higgins explained why you're wrong on this earlier in the thread.

I also said this:

Keep in mind that whenever you're talking about society or anything related to people aside from, like, biology, things aren't going to comfortably fit into defined categories all the time.

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 04:32

I was just replying to RGacky's adherence to Marx's definition (or at least I assume its Marx's...)

Drace

16th March 2010, 04:41

Well playing definition games really doesn't accomplish anything. Marx's argument is just as valid if bourgeois as a term makes any sense or not.

So you can raise similar fallacies with the definition. Does the person who Disney land a bourgeois since he doesn't own any means of productions?

But yeah, bankers did exist in Marx's time.

LeftSideDown

16th March 2010, 04:57

RGacky3

17th March 2010, 12:12

I was just replying to RGacky's adherence to Marx's definition (or at least I assume its Marx's...)

What Michael Jordon gets paid for is essnecially advertising, he's an advertiser, he has nothing to do with the productive economy, he does'nt get paid FOR entertaining (thats a tiny portion of the buisiness).

LeftSideDown

17th March 2010, 16:45

What Michael Jordon gets paid for is essnecially advertising, he's an advertiser, he has nothing to do with the productive economy, he does'nt get paid FOR entertaining (thats a tiny portion of the buisiness).

Yeah, but does he own the advertising business, or is he merely paid by them to appear? If it is the latter, than he is still laboring for the evil capitalist advertising industry.

#FF0000

17th March 2010, 18:27

Yeah, but does he own the advertising business, or is he merely paid by them to appear? If it is the latter, than he is still laboring for the evil capitalist advertising industry.

Why are you still trying to push this analogy when someone already explained why it was stupid.

And then there was this.

Keep in mind that whenever you're talking about society or anything related to people aside from, like, biology, things aren't going to comfortably fit into defined categories all the time.

RGacky3

18th March 2010, 14:13

Both godless and I said that it's the UNIONS before all others that drive corporations to look for higher and better profits. Unions and by proxy workers are squeezing corporations not the rich.

Your wrong, the executives and the stockholders are what drive corporations.

Thats because the Rich control the corporations, and the coporations are squeezing the workers. Are you claiming that because unions want higher wages they control the corporations? Honestly Bud.

My point is that unions and through them workers have plenty of say about how corporations work--and they are interested in nothing but higher profits--not matter how that is achieved.

No they don't, especially not in America, maybe in some social-democracies. Union busting is well and alive in America. Also workers are not interested in higher profits, they are intersted in higher pay.

except IT'S NOT A BANK. It's an investment. A worker invests $100 and he gets $200 back--and someone has to make that second $100 and that's on the backs of otherworkers. No different than any other invester.

Banks are investments dumbass. What do you think they do with your money in a bank? sit on it? Keep in in a vault?

The difference is the big time investors, meaning the Capitalists and CEOs actually control the means of production. THATS the difference.

That's how every investor starts--you strat out working for the money then you invest. That's how I did it. That's how Rockefeller did it. Now me and Rocky chose to RE invest--but that's our business. And worker's have a SAY in their pension funds. They vote in union leadership--that's their say.

They vote in union leadership-thats their say. Honestly Bud? Do you honestly think that Unions have a real voice on wall street?

Rockefeller did not choose to invest without having a say, he owned his own and controlled his own company. Thats a huge difference from what is essencially putting money in the bank.

Unions and other workers have more say over the means of production than rich people.

Retired workers are the new Bourgeoise. :)

Bud, how far in the sand do you have to have your head to make a comment so retarded it would shock Glenn Beck, you are like a child that still believes in Santa even though he saw his dad put on the costume.

Yeah, but does he own the advertising business, or is he merely paid by them to appear? If it is the latter, than he is still laboring for the evil capitalist advertising industry.

First of all, evil is your word, I don'nt know any socialist that calls them evil capitalist. Second, even a CEO gets paid a Salery, Micheal Jordan gets paid yes, but he by no means is forced to sell his labor. If you can't tell the difference, then theres nothing I can do for you.

Bud Struggle

18th March 2010, 14:34

Your wrong, the executives and the stockholders are what drive corporations. And the PENSION FUNDS are to a good extent major stockholders in megacorporation America. For example look how easily Chrysler pension fund TOOK OVER ownership of that company--they held the nmajoriet of stock in it already.

Thats because the Rich control the corporations, and the coporations are squeezing the workers. Are you claiming that because unions want higher wages they control the corporations? Honestly Bud. I'm not saying that AT ALL. I'm saying there are lower wages in corporations because UNION PENSION FUNDS want a steady annual return for their investment and if that takes corporation pushing workers harder and harder--so be it.

No they don't, especially not in America, maybe in some social-democracies. Union busting is well and alive in America. Also workers are not interested in higher profits, they are intersted in higher pay. I'm not disagreeing with WORKERS I'm saying that RETIRED WORKERS_-WHO--LIVE ON THEIR INVESTMENTS (PENSIEN FUNDS) are looking for a steady return on their investment no matter how the market is actually doing. They are the ones driving the push for higher earnings.

Banks are investments dumbass. What do you think they do with your money in a bank? sit on it? Keep in in a vault? Banks are savings. The fact that the banks invest has nothing to do with the fact you can alway pull out what you put in. In investment--there is a gamble.

The difference is the big time investors, meaning the Capitalists and CEOs actually control the means of production. THATS the difference. You are acting like the CEOs have some leeway on what they can do in most cases--you get to be a CEO and you stay a CEO only if you can make profit for a company. Otherwise you are out. These guys are just hired guns (extremely well paid hired guns, to be sure) that make money fopr the investers--that's all. They are puppets of the stockholders and in many cases pension funds are the stockholders.

They vote in union leadership-thats their say. Honestly Bud? Do you honestly think that Unions have a real voice on wall street? With all the money that the unions have invested on Wall Street the unions can have a lot of say in what companies are doing. For the most part they have never used that right besides calling for higher profits from their investments. If unions don't choose to use their clout for the betterment of workers--what can I do?

Rockefeller did not choose to invest without having a say, he owned his own and controlled his own company. Thats a huge difference from what is essencially putting money in the bank. Rockefeller started his own business--what he did with his money is his business.

If I were head of a union--personally I'd do exactly what union heads are doing righ now--push union fund operators for higher and higher profits. But then again, I'm a Capitalist. :)

LeftSideDown

19th March 2010, 08:10

Keep in mind that whenever you're talking about society or anything related to people aside from, like, biology, things aren't going to comfortably fit into defined categories all the time.

So how do you know who to shoot then?

Patchd

19th March 2010, 15:35

Surely a member of the 'bourgeoisie' is someone whose survival depends on the exploitation of labour, or is dependant on someone who does exploit labour, whereas a 'worker' would be someone (or a dependant of someone) whose survival is dependant on the selling of their labour power. A worker can be financially wealthier than a member of the bourgeoisie, that doesn't diminish their class status, nor does it represent the majority of people that consist that class. Class doesn't necessarily denote whether an individual will be a revolutionary or not, but it gives a clear indication of who will be more susceptable to liberation ideologies.

RGacky3

20th March 2010, 10:52

And the PENSION FUNDS are to a good extent major stockholders in megacorporation America. For example look how easily Chrysler pension fund TOOK OVER ownership of that company--they held the nmajoriet of stock in it already.

Do they control the money flow in the company? If the answer is no, then it does'nt matter.

I'm not saying that AT ALL. I'm saying there are lower wages in corporations because UNION PENSION FUNDS want a steady annual return for their investment and if that takes corporation pushing workers harder and harder--so be it.

Thats a bunch of horse shit, if that were the case the CEO bonuses and their compensations would be dropped immedietly, it has nothing to do with that, your just pulling stuff out of your ass to try and destroy unions.

I'm not disagreeing with WORKERS I'm saying that RETIRED WORKERS_-WHO--LIVE ON THEIR INVESTMENTS (PENSIEN FUNDS) are looking for a steady return on their investment no matter how the market is actually doing. They are the ones driving the push for higher earnings.

Pensioners are not the ones that have the market power, look at who controls the majority of the wealth in America, its not pensioners, if your gonna try pull this your gonna have to get some facts to back it up.

Banks are savings. The fact that the banks invest has nothing to do with the fact you can alway pull out what you put in. In investment--there is a gamble.

As far as pensions, the amount you get in returned is not dependant on the market, so again, I don't know what your talking about.

Either way, to make your point valid you have to show that pensions actually have control of the money flow in corporations.

You are acting like the CEOs have some leeway on what they can do in most cases--you get to be a CEO and you stay a CEO only if you can make profit for a company. Otherwise you are out. These guys are just hired guns (extremely well paid hired guns, to be sure) that make money fopr the investers--that's all. They are puppets of the stockholders and in many cases pension funds are the stockholders.

CEOs are selected by the board of directors, which is appointed by the CEO of which stockholders can only vote yes or no on, without any real information, Corporations are less democratic than north Korea. BTW, EVEN if they were democratic, the control is still in the hands of the wealthy few, not penioners.

With all the money that the unions have invested on Wall Street the unions can have a lot of say in what companies are doing. For the most part they have never used that right besides calling for higher profits from their investments. If unions don't choose to use their clout for the betterment of workers--what can I do?

Im gonna need some actual facts for the information that you have had stored in your ass, i.e. that unions actually have wallstreet power, I need some facts because I'm calling bullshit.

Rockefeller started his own business--what he did with his money is his business.

If I were head of a union--personally I'd do exactly what union heads are doing righ now--push union fund operators for higher and higher profits. But then again, I'm a Capitalist.

The unions job is do represent the workers, do what they want you to do, and yeah, they want good pension funds, but that does'nt mean they have any control over the market.

I want high intrest on my bank accounts too, that does'nt mean I control the bank.

If your saying the unions have real power on wallstreet, I need some facts first, because thats a rediculous statement.

Bud Struggle

20th March 2010, 14:55

If your saying the unions have real power on wallstreet, I need some facts first, because thats a rediculous statement.

They certainly have the clout to do it. The public-sector funds are huge, accounting for an ever-greater share of the 20 to 25 percent of investments in the U.S. equity markets that pension funds--both public and private--constitute.

Public-pension assets have grown sevenfold in the past 20 years, to $2.3 trillion. Corporate assets have crept up more slowly, to $4.2 trillion--only about twice as big as the public funds, compared with three times as big two decades ago.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/18565/Public_Pension_Systems_Wield_Clout_to_Twist_Govern ment_Corporate_Arms.html

powerful pension funds keep corporate canada in check

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/18784602/powerful-pension-funds-keep-corporate-canada-in-check (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/18784602/powerful-pension-funds-keep-corporate-canada-in-check)

Lots more. 20% to 25% of the equity market--let alone all of the worker 401Ks is huge.

Also:
your just pulling stuff out of your ass to try and destroy unions.

I'm not trying to destroy unions. I want to envision a NEW sort of union for the 21st century not like the 19th and 20th centruy models. I want the union to work WITH management to better focus and control the workers--to help them understand that everyone working together is best for the company. We could all make a lot of money if we all pull together as a team. And did we tell you the name of the game, Gack? We call it riding the gravy train. :)

Robert

20th March 2010, 17:50

So how do you know who to shoot then? :laugh:

But trust me, they'll come up with a policy.

Do your best to get in on the rules committee yourself. Or else. :eek:

Lord Testicles

21st March 2010, 02:32

I want the union to work WITH management to better focus and control the workers--to help them understand that everyone working together is best for the company. :)

What you are describing is class collaboration.

Welcome to fascism 101.

Nolan

21st March 2010, 02:53

The vast majority of proletarians (99%?) do not own stock or have any influence in business whatsoever. It is irrelevant. It's laughable to say class lines have "blurred" because a few do. Corporations existed in Marx's time.

As for people like professional athletes, actors, etc., yes, they are technically proletarians. But the bourgeoisie value them more than your run of the mill worker. Proletarians that are that wealthy and powerful are so few they are irrelevant to greater class relations.

anticap

21st March 2010, 03:28

Then, as I said earlier, Michael Jordan is a member of the proletariat. He has to sell his labor to the evil capitalist of the entertainment and sports industries. Don't you feel sorry for him?

No, he doesn't have to. A proletarian has to sell her labor power because she hasn't got hundreds of millions of dollars to live on. Celebrity athletes continue to play because they choose to; the maids who scrub their toilets do so because they must.

There are other factors to consider as well. But I'll let comrade Cooney explain (skip ahead to 1:18):

HjJjAaHUnP4

Anyway these threads are never sincere attempts to learn -- they're trolling. This is obvious given that it is virtually impossible for a member of this forum to remain unaware of the existence of Marxists.org and its expansive encyclopedia.

anticap

21st March 2010, 03:31

So how do you know who to shoot then?

How do your capitalists heroes decide this? Why have they turned their guns on the small businessmen and entrepreneurs in the marketplaces of Iraq, for example? According to the doctrines of your religion, these were the sainted ones who make the world go round. By what criteria did your heroes decide to slaughter the saints of capitalism by the tens of thousands?

Nolan

21st March 2010, 03:31

No, he doesn't have to. A proletarian has to sell her labor power because she hasn't got hundreds of millions of dollars to live on. Celebrity athletes continue to play because they choose to; the maids who scrub their toilets do so because they must.

But they don't own any means of production, do they? They could, but the possibility of owning mop doesn't make one a member of the bourgeoisie. They generate profit for others with a hefty return for themselves, so they are technically some kind of proletariat, though I agree with your point that they're not forced to.

anticap

21st March 2010, 03:50

But they don't own any means of production, do they? They could, but the possibility of owning mop doesn't make one a member of the bourgeoisie. They generate profit for others with a hefty return for themselves, so they are technically some kind of proletariat, though I agree with your point that they're not forced to.

But they do have millions of dollars continuously generating more millions. Still, it is true that in the case of their relationship to the owners of the team, they are workers. However, they are also monopolists of sorts, as Cooney explains in the video I posted previously.

At any rate, a defining feature of the proletariat is that they have "nothing to sell except their own skins (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm)." I don't believe that one's relationship to the means of production is sufficient. Bill Gates did not become a proletarian when he manned a cash register to sell Halo 3:

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20070925/450halo26_342mu_gates.jpg

He clearly did it for fun (though the capitalist sycophants will object that we was technically engaged in publicity work :rolleyes:).

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 10:00

The vast majority of proletarians (99%?) do not own stock or have any influence in business whatsoever. It is irrelevant. It's laughable to say class lines have "blurred" because a few do. Corporations existed in Marx's time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/22/business/the-markets-survey-says-78.7-million-own-stocks-in-united-states.html?pagewanted=1

Cough cough, you might want to do a fact check before you throw out random numbers, cough cough, kind of makes you look silly.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 10:13

No, he doesn't have to. A proletarian has to sell her labor power because she hasn't got hundreds of millions of dollars to live on. Celebrity athletes continue to play because they choose to; the maids who scrub their toilets do so because they must.

There are other factors to consider as well. But I'll let comrade Cooney explain (skip ahead to 1:18):

I think you're taking on the job of a God here, and deciding what people "need" and what people "must" do. No one says that you have to live. It really is as simple as that: there is no need to live. It is a desire like all others, so why does it take so much importance with you fellas? Besides, the alternative to not working isn't dieing (all unemployed would be dead in that case) its mooching, in one way or another, off society. Or you could become a street performer: you'd be working for yourself.

How do you know the basketball player doesn't have to? You're making broad generalizations. What if the basketball player donates all but 3000 dollars a year, and he lives off that. IN that case he would need to continue working. The maid "chooses" to continue working because it improves her standard of living more than if she stopped working. It is advantageous to her. There is no coercion or force.

They seem to turn an obvious part of human nature into a negative, that humans will work to remove uneasiness. Also claiming that people are coerced to work or coerced to conform to society's rules is another card they play. You can't name anyone (in this country) that works without reason. All of them work to gain something. Their productivity will raise their overall wealth. People don't work because they are forced to without something in return. No one is coerced to work, but for human survival you must work to substain your self. It's an integral part of nature, but we don't see the communist rushing to the aid of a hungry lion that must work for possibly days to weeks for his catch.

Communist also often fail to reply to the fact that wages rise. They say we work for "next-to-nothing wages", but can't seem to comprehend that people make above the state fixed wage (that can't possibly happen with greedy capitalist).

They can't comprehend that life isn't already filled with "uneasiness". If that was the case, we wouldn't need to work. Everything we need would already be there. People have been working for thousands of years to advance their lives. In the past couple there's been a growing group of people who seem to think that working to continue your survival is barbaric and exploitive.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 10:15

How do your capitalists heroes decide this? Why have they turned their guns on the small businessmen and entrepreneurs in the marketplaces of Iraq, for example? According to the doctrines of your religion, these were the sainted ones who make the world go round. By what criteria did your heroes decide to slaughter the saints of capitalism by the tens of thousands?

Well, in a true free market theres no coercion so we don't have to decide this because honestly I think its wrong for anyone to decide that anyone else should be shot unless they themselves have done/are doing something that invades another's property rights (including the right to self-ownership). Imperialist America =\= capitalism. Try again.

LeftSideDown

21st March 2010, 10:17

But they do have millions of dollars continuously generating more millions. Still, it is true that in the case of their relationship to the owners of the team, they are workers. However, they are also monopolists of sorts, as Cooney explains in the video I posted previously.

At any rate, a defining feature of the proletariat is that they have "nothing to sell except their own skins (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm)." I don't believe that one's relationship to the means of production is sufficient. Bill Gates did not become a proletarian when he manned a cash register to sell Halo 3:

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20070925/450halo26_342mu_gates.jpg

He clearly did it for fun (though the capitalist sycophants will object that we was technically engaged in publicity work :rolleyes:).

So, if someone has a specific skill (lets say car-repairing) than he is not proletarian because he is no longer selling his skin, he is selling his skill at car-repairing. So this means that anyone who has any skill at all isn't proletarian, because they are essentially selling this skill to the marketplace (assuming that the skill they have is the skill that they employ during work).

Nolan

21st March 2010, 17:38

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/22/business/the-markets-survey-says-78.7-million-own-stocks-in-united-states.html?pagewanted=1

Cough cough, you might want to do a fact check before you throw out random numbers, cough cough, kind of makes you look silly.

Dumbass, The US is not the world. And this is also the petit-bourgeoisie, not just proletarians.

gorillafuck

21st March 2010, 17:39

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:46

I think you're taking on the job of a God here, and deciding what people "need" and what people "must" do. No one says that you have to live.

Stopped reading here.

I love it when you guys unwittingly make it this easy to dismiss you. And you'll never learn, because you'll never understand why the shit you say is so abhorrent -- because you believe it sincerely.

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:51

Imperialist America =\= capitalism. Try again.

Hmm... I see two paths before me: I could follow you down the easy path and simply respond that no person has ever been shot by any communist of any stripe, because anyone who has every shot anyone while claiming to be a communist was a liar and a fraud; or I could take the other path, which begins with you trying again, and impressing me so much with your answer that I'll be willing to follow you down that path. I await your cue....

anticap

22nd March 2010, 21:52

So, if someone has a specific skill (lets say car-repairing) than he is not proletarian because he is no longer selling his skin, he is selling his skill at car-repairing. So this means that anyone who has any skill at all isn't proletarian, because they are essentially selling this skill to the marketplace (assuming that the skill they have is the skill that they employ during work).

Oh. Is that how it works? Wait, no, that doesn't seem right. Why don't I go back to the video I posted earlier and get the answer for you. BRB...

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 21:58

Stopped reading here.

I love it when you guys unwittingly make it this easy to dismiss you. And you'll never learn, because you'll never understand why the shit you say is so abhorrent -- because you believe it sincerely.

I'm talking like an economist here, not an ideologue. There are no "needs" for an economists, only wants.

I'm sorry, if its a moral duty for me to ensure everyone lives (notwithstanding deciding how long someone should live and at what standard of living) than every second that I don't sell all my material wealth and donate it to charity I'm being immoral. I don't think that is a correct moral philosophy because there are problems with performative contradiction.

If necessity is a justification for the violation of private property, and since there are people starving in Africa, and you have a bunch of nice things (at least you have a computer to my knowledge). In order for you to live compatibly with your moral doctrine you would have to sell all these things and only keep enough money for you to lead a hand to mouth existence while donating the rest to other people who have necessities that are not being met.

Bud Struggle

22nd March 2010, 21:58

^^^ Couldn't all those antics by anticap be accomplished in one post. :blink:

LeftSideDown

22nd March 2010, 22:13

Hmm... I see two paths before me: I could follow you down the easy path and simply respond that no person has ever been shot by any communist of any stripe, because anyone who has every shot anyone while claiming to be a communist was a liar and a fraud; or I could take the other path, which begins with you trying again, and impressing me so much with your answer that I'll be willing to follow you down that path. I await your cue....

"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." -- Karl Marx

To this Russian writer of the late 1800s, terrorism represented an application of modern science to the revolutionary struggle.9 In spite of justifications and theories underpinning revolutionary terrorism, Marxists disapprovingly referred to it as `individual terror'. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels often conflated the concept with force or violence in general. Marx stated that revolutionary terrorism was the only solution to shorten the "agonies of the old society and the birth pangs of the new"

Karl Marx wasn't a communist or anything.

anticap

22nd March 2010, 22:14

^^^ Couldn't all those antics by anticap be accomplished in one post. :blink:

Why don't we discuss that when I've got at least 1 post per day, and you've got less than 7.

Oh, wait, yours are quality, and mine are "antics."

Shit, you're right: I should have caught up on the entire thread before responding, and done so all at once, rather than as I read them. lern2forum, eh?

No, wait, that's how most everyone else appears to do it, too. Hey, is there some other reason you're singling me out? I'm on to you, Bud Struggle! You don't like me! :rolleyes:

anticap

22nd March 2010, 22:23

"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." -- Karl Marx

To this Russian writer of the late 1800s, terrorism represented an application of modern science to the revolutionary struggle.9 In spite of justifications and theories underpinning revolutionary terrorism, Marxists disapprovingly referred to it as `individual terror'. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels often conflated the concept with force or violence in general. Marx stated that revolutionary terrorism was the only solution to shorten the "agonies of the old society and the birth pangs of the new"

Karl Marx wasn't a communist or anything.

Are you really missing the point by this much, or are you just hoping I'll start listing capitalist atrocities? Because, no.

The point, my body-counting comrade, is that your "American capitalism =\= capitalism" refrain is not only tiresome (as fuck), but it doesn't get you where you wanted to go with your initial snide question about triggerhappy commies -- because you've left "right back atcha" as a valid response (ya dang fool).

Now: try again, or accept the witty "rubber/glue" defense I borrowed from my elementary school playground.

And stop making me do your work for you. You could have figured this out for yourself, if you'd bothered to read.

Oh and, have a lovely evening. :)

Nolan

22nd March 2010, 22:25

Bud Struggle

22nd March 2010, 22:28

Why don't we discuss that when I've got at least 1 post per day, and you've got less than 7.

Oh, wait, yours are quality, and mine are "antics."

Shit, you're right: I should have caught up on the entire thread before responding, and done so all at once, rather than as I read them. lern2forum, eh?

No, wait, that's how most everyone else appears to do it, too. Hey, is there some other reason you're singling me out? I'm on to you, Bud Struggle! You don't like me! :rolleyes:

No. Just three post in a row.

Just combine them for easy reading. :)

Not love and hate--not political. Just good internet manners.

anticap

22nd March 2010, 23:08

Don't call other ideologies religions as a form of criticism, it makes us look bad.

1) Who's "us"? I don't want to be mistaken for an "individualist" (*gag*), but seriously: I'm an unaffiliated anti-capitalist/pro-communist. I represent no ACRONYM that has to sell magazines and collect membership fees. If there's no room for snark within the broader communist camp, then "we" are in serious trouble, and I'd rather die heroically in the revolution than witness the dour scene to follow.

2) Capitalism is a religion. It has a god, the "Invisible Hand (http://bp0.blogger.com/_H5wXIzk4tOc/RpyGabgdplI/AAAAAAAAAHA/feET5ThqKEY/s1600-h/slow070716.gif)"; a trinity (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Fredy_Perlman__The_Reproduction_of_Daily_Life.html #toc3), "Land, Labor, and Capital"; and priests, known as "economists." No, pointing this out doesn't open the door for the altar-boys of capitalism to say the same thing about communism -- they passed through that door long ago, after it was kicked open by certain self-described communists whose names I shall not speak (Peace Be Upon Them).

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 06:46

Are you really missing the point by this much, or are you just hoping I'll start listing capitalist atrocities? Because, no.

The point, my body-counting comrade, is that your "American capitalism =\= capitalism" refrain is not only tiresome (as fuck), but it doesn't get you where you wanted to go with your initial snide question about triggerhappy commies -- because you've left "right back atcha" as a valid response (ya dang fool).

Now: try again, or accept the witty "rubber/glue" defense I borrowed from my elementary school playground.

And stop making me do your work for you. You could have figured this out for yourself, if you'd bothered to read.

Oh and, have a lovely evening. :)

If I'm not allowed to say "American capitalism =\= capitalism" then you're not allowed to say "russian/chinese communism =\= communism"...

Deal?

RGacky3

23rd March 2010, 09:30

If I'm not allowed to say "American capitalism =\= capitalism" then you're not allowed to say "russian/chinese communism =\= communism"...

Deal?

No deal,

Basic tennants of Capitalism, private property and free market of goods capital, labor and land.

The basic tennant of communism, is communally controlled means of production.

Is there private property and free market in the US? Yes,

Was the means of production by any means controlled communally in the USSR? No, the only way the USSR could be called even socialist would be if the state was a functioning democracy, it was'nt. I've always said that Norway, a capitalist country, is more socialistic than China.

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 14:15

No deal,

Basic tennants of Capitalism, private property and free market of goods capital, labor and land.

The basic tennant of communism, is communally controlled means of production.

Is there private property and free market in the US? Yes,

Was the means of production by any means controlled communally in the USSR? No, the only way the USSR could be called even socialist would be if the state was a functioning democracy, it was'nt. I've always said that Norway, a capitalist country, is more socialistic than China.

There is not a free-market. That is where you are wrong
1) There are government interventions (which cause distortions)
2) There are bailouts (which cause distortions)
3) There is a central bank with an inflationary monetary policy (which causes distortion)
4) There are federally imposed regulations (which cause distortions)
5) There is also government control of health insurance (which causes distortions)

None of these things exist in a free market.

RGacky3

23rd March 2010, 15:47

There is not a free-market. That is where you are wrong
1) There are government interventions (which cause distortions)
2) There are bailouts (which cause distortions)
3) There is a central bank with an inflationary monetary policy (which causes distortion)
4) There are federally imposed regulations (which cause distortions)
5) There is also government control of health insurance (which causes distortions)

It may be a free market with distortions but its still a free market, the USSR was'nt even communism with distortions, there was not communism.

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 16:39

It may be a free market with distortions but its still a free market, the USSR was'nt even communism with distortions, there was not communism.

I disagree, its not a free market.

RGacky3

23rd March 2010, 20:48

I disagree, its not a free market.

Its not 100% free, but its a market system, and the most free market system around.

Bud Struggle

23rd March 2010, 20:53

Its not 100% free, but its a market system, and the most free market system around.

It is what markets look like in 2010. There is no real Communism--there is no real Capitalism. There are just the markets of 2010.

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 23:26

Its not 100% free, but its a market system, and the most free market system around.

Okay if I was to say the USSR wasn't 100% communist, but it was a communist system, and the most Communist system around, then I could call the USSR communist?

Nolan

23rd March 2010, 23:31

Okay if I was to say the USSR wasn't 100% communist, but it was a communist system, and the most Communist system around, then I could call the USSR communist?

Um, it was a socialist system. ;)

LeftSideDown

23rd March 2010, 23:46

Um, it was a socialist system. ;)

It doesn't matter what it was, what matters is what I'm calling it. If I say that America is Fascist, it doesn't matter to RGacky, because he will just say what I just said and that, apparently, refutes me.

anticap

25th March 2010, 05:52

If I'm not allowed to say "American capitalism =\= capitalism" then you're not allowed to say "russian/chinese communism =\= communism"...

Deal?

Echoing RGacky3: No deal, for essentially the reasons he gave.

Capitalism is a mode of production. It relies on a particular set of property relations, which must be enforced. Whether that is done by a so-called "public state" [sic] (i.e., a union of capitalists under nominal public influence), or by a private state (which is what so-called "anarcho-capitalism" [sic] amounts to), is immaterial to the question of whether or not the capitalist mode of production exists. The U$ is, in fact, capitalist.

Communism is a classless, and, therefore, stateless, society. It ought to be blindingly obvious that a so-called "communist state" [sic] is an oxymoronic impossibility, and that neither the USSR nor PRC were ever communist.

Socialism is (among other things) where production is under the democratic control of the producers. Hopefully without getting myself into trouble with my comrades, suffice it to say that I do not believe this condition existed for most of the history of either of those states (though I do believe that they were progressive advances over capitalism, and plainly superior to it, as I would measure such things, setting aside the obvious objections to them).

In the early days, "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. They eventually came to mean different things. Simply put: we'll know we've arrived at communism when we get there, which neither the Soviets nor the Chinese ever claimed to have done. Rather, they claimed to be socialist states, run by communist parties, meaning parties that advocated and worked toward communism. They were certainly communist in that sense; but that doesn't save you here, since we're not arguing over whether the U$ is run by enthusiastic advocates of capitalism (it clearly is), but whether the capitalist mode of production is prevalent (and it clearly is).

Ramon Mercador

25th March 2010, 06:03

I think the pathetic excuse for human scum in this restricted area are the definition of bourgeoise, i cant believe they havent put the Trotskyites in here as well yet

Long live Stalin

RGacky3

25th March 2010, 18:06

Okay if I was to say the USSR wasn't 100% communist, but it was a communist system, and the most Communist system around, then I could call the USSR communist?

No it was'nt even 10% communist, I'd even venture to say it was'nt 10% socialist.

FOr it to be Socialist the state would have to be a functioning democracy, I don't believe it was. So, yeah, sorry.

Your gonna have to start using things like facts and logic.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 00:13

No it was'nt even 10% communist, I'd even venture to say it was'nt 10% socialist.

FOr it to be Socialist the state would have to be a functioning democracy, I don't believe it was. So, yeah, sorry.

Your gonna have to start using things like facts and logic.

Can I sell my labor for any price I choose? (I.e. 4 dollars an hour)
Theres no freemarket in labor.
Can I (not me in this case, but I'll use this pronoun from here on) rent out my land in big cities for a price that reflects demand? (I.e. for more than the rent control)
Theres no free market in rent.
The list goes on.

America is not free market. The central bank illustrates this. All of the regulatory industries illustrate this. The UHC bill illustrates this. Social security illustrates this. Medicare/Medicate/SCHIP illustrate this. A true free market is about as possible as true communism, so saying I'm being stingy because I'm just not taking what I can get is like saying you're being too stingy because you're not taking what you can get (USSR/China).

syndicat

26th March 2010, 02:15

Can I sell my labor for any price I choose? (I.e. 4 dollars an hour)
Theres no freemarket in labor.

Translation: Can I as an employer hire people at as low a wage as my ownership power would otherwise let me?

No. The working class fought to have limits placed on how low wages could be forced, and hence the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. And a good thing too. But what has happened since the late '60s is that the real value of the minimum wage has shrunk, because employers have used their political power to prevent it being increased with inflation.

So, it's a class power struggle. Markets mean you use your economic power to try to get what you can. Markets have never been completely "free" in your sense nor could they be.

Can I (not me in this case, but I'll use this pronoun from here on) rent out my land in big cities for a price that reflects demand? (I.e. for more than the rent control)
Theres no free market in rent.

Land has no rent control, in some cities there are limits on how much you can raise rent on dwellings. But the landlords have usually been powerful enough to get all kinds of loopholes...owner move-in evictions, freedom to raise rent when someone moves out. So, owners compensate for rent control by simply raising vacant units to a greater degree.

What you apparently want is a society where there is a total dictatorship over the working class so they can't use political pressure to protect themselves against the rapacity of capitalists.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 02:55

Translation: Can I as an employer hire people at as low a wage as my ownership power would otherwise let me?

There is no such thing as ownership power.

No. The working class fought to have limits placed on how low wages could be forced, and hence the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. And a good thing too. But what has happened since the late '60s is that the real value of the minimum wage has shrunk, because employers have used their political power to prevent it being increased with inflation.

So why are we being so stingy? Why don't we raise minimum wage to 1000 dollars an hour for everybody? Why not a million. You're not taking your logic far enough. You're being a greedy capitalist big. One trillion dollars an hour for everybody. Thats how you solve problems; legislate them.

So, it's a class power struggle. Markets mean you use your economic power to try to get what you can. Markets have never been completely "free" in your sense nor could they be.

Its not a class power struggle. You cannot build a society on conflict; it would never come together. Marx is wrong; historical materialism is wrong. Society came together because people are more productive where the division of labor is wrong. If you're being exploited stop working for that company, leave, go in the wild, live where you can get all the fruits of your labor. You can come back when you realize you're more productive and your wages are higher in society as anyone with a brain realizes without direct experience.

Land has no rent control, in some cities there are limits on how much you can raise rent on dwellings. But the landlords have usually been powerful enough to get all kinds of loopholes...owner move-in evictions, freedom to raise rent when someone moves out. So, owners compensate for rent control by simply raising vacant units to a greater degree.

Rent control is dumb. It stimulates demand for housing in that city, causing more people to move there and exacerbates the problem. Its simple supply and demand; if you set the rent control below equilibrium price there is more demand than supply and suddenly there is a shortage. Good job government.

What you apparently want is a society where there is a total dictatorship over the working class so they can't use political pressure to protect themselves against the rapacity of capitalists.

I don't care about labor unions organizing. I don't think there should be government interference in this matter. If workers are really worth the wages/working condition increase they are advocating they will get it. If not the owner will hire workers who are willing to work at that price and at those conditions. Capitalists have no "rapacity" they are people just like workers. There is no "bourgeois".

anticap

26th March 2010, 03:17

What you apparently want is a society where there is a total dictatorship over the working class so they can't use political pressure to protect themselves against the rapacity of capitalists.

:thumbup1: Nicely put.

There is no such thing as ownership power.

There are not words adequate to describe such abject denialism.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 03:27

There are not words adequate to describe such abject denialism.

Me owning something doesn't give me any power. Just because I own a factory doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a house doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a toothbrush doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own 10 factories doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a shoe doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I also own another shoe doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a car doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a farm doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I cow doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a forest doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a lawnmower doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a tent doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a bowie knife doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a computer doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own a phone doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because I own clothing doesn't mean I have control over you somehow. Just because you're dumb doesn't mean you're allowed to ignore facts somehow.

syndicat

26th March 2010, 04:21

There is no such thing as ownership power.

Of course there is. A defining feature of capitalism is that there is a relative monopoly of ownership of productive property by a minority. By "productive property" I mean any means of production used by workers to produce things that others want, or business assets that can be used to acquire such in a market society.

In the USA less than 10 percent of the population are able to live through their ownership of productive property, that is, who make their living through such ownership. The working class are 3/4 of the population. That is, they have no means of production or productive property through
which to make a living, so they are forced to seek jobs...to rent our parts of their lives...to employers and submit to the dictatorial regime of the business. that is "ownership power."

X is forced to do A when not doing A will have dire consequences. Starving, being forced out of your apartment because you can't pay your rent, not being able to buy food for your kids...these are dire consequences. If these are the consequences of you not taking a job offer, then you're forced to take the job. And this means being forced to submit to the dictatorial authority of management, to do what they tell you in order to make profits for the owners and big salaries for the top managers.

in addition to the working class and the owning class, there's also the bureaucratic class...managers, corporate lawyers, judges, cops, all the people who define working class people's jobs and control them. one of systematic inefficiencies of capitalism is that it creates a huge bureaucratic bloat...a vast bureaucratic layer whose role is mostly policing and controlling the working class. In the USA supervisors alone are 15.7 percent of the population.

me:
The working class fought to have limits placed on how low wages could be forced, and hence the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. And a good thing too. But what has happened since the late '60s is that the real value of the minimum wage has shrunk, because employers have used their political power to prevent it being increased with inflation.

you:

So why are we being so stingy? Why don't we raise minimum wage to 1000 dollars an hour for everybody? Why not a million. You're not taking your logic far enough. You're being a greedy capitalist big. One trillion dollars an hour for everybody. Thats how you solve problems; legislate them.

I think everyone should be paid at the same pay rate, assuming equal effort. What this would mean would depend on what the society is able
to produce to satisfy the desires of the population.

The Fair Labor Standards Act came about as a response to a vast working class rebellion. Between 1933 and 1940 the number of workers in unions quadrupled, between 1936 and 1938 (when minimum wage was created), there were 530 workplace seizures by workers (sitdown strikes). in 1934-35 there were 4 city-wide general strikes. millions of workers created new unions in the '30s and engaged in large scale mass actions. That's what I advocate. Because that's how working class power is built. It isn't built by electing politicians.

To get rid of capitalism this movement has to come to aspire to do so, and it has to involve millions in the process, and then workers have to simply seize control of the workplaces, and expropriate the assets of the capitalist elite, push the managerial bureaucracy aside, and set up their own system to collectively manage social production for direct human benefit. That ain't "looking to solve problems through legislation."

you:
If you're being exploited stop working for that company, leave, go in the wild, live where you can get all the fruits of your labor. You can come back when you realize you're more productive and your wages are higher in society as anyone with a brain realizes without direct experience.

Oh right, so 100 million workers can just quit en masse and set up a life they control...where? on whose land?
you:

Rent control is dumb. It stimulates demand for housing in that city, causing more people to move there and exacerbates the problem. Its simple supply and demand; if you set the rent control below equilibrium price there is more demand than supply and suddenly there is a shortage.

Because there is only a limited supply of land in an commuting distance of where the jobs are, landlords are not operating in a perfectly competitive market.

Capitalism tends to create speculative bubbles. This leads to things like rapidly rising rents, where people are forced out of their neighborhoods, or people are forced to double up because of rising rents. Rent control laws are created in response to popular protest over these kinds of real conditions.

Your market utopianism doesn't fit what happens in the real world.

LeftSideDown

26th March 2010, 04:36

Of course there is. A defining feature of capitalism is that there is a relative monopoly of ownership of productive property by a minority. By "productive property" I mean any means of production used by workers to produce things that others want, or business assets that can be used to acquire such in a market society.

Yes, because only a few are capable to speculate successfully on the future demand of consumers

In the USA less than 10 percent of the population are able to live through their ownership of productive property, that is, who make their living through such ownership. The working class are 3/4 of the population. That is, they have no means of production or productive property through
which to make a living, so they are forced to seek jobs...to rent our parts of their lives...to employers and submit to the dictatorial regime of the business. that is "ownership power."

Before capitalism you would work all day and you would still be starving. Capitalism raised standards of living so much the fact that you complain that you still ahve to work sickens me. You are so much better of its imcomparable to anything else, and people still find things to complain about. I'd rather be homeless today than a peasant 500 years ago.

X is forced to do A when not doing A will have dire consequences. Starving, being forced out of your apartment because you can't pay your rent, not being able to buy food for your kids...these are dire consequences. If these are the consequences of you not taking a job offer, then you're forced to take the job. And this means being forced to submit to the dictatorial authority of management, to do what they tell you in order to make profits for the owners and big salaries for the top managers.

And you obviously get nothing out of it. All you can think about is your envy for the upper class.

in addition to the working class and the owning class, there's also the bureaucratic class...managers, corporate lawyers, judges, cops, all the people who define working class people's jobs and control them. one of systematic inefficiencies of capitalism is that it creates a huge bureaucratic bloat...a vast bureaucratic layer whose role is mostly policing and controlling the working class. In the USA supervisors alone are 15.7 percent of the population.

Most of the bureaucracy in the United States is either directly hired by government or related to government regulation.

I think everyone should be paid at the same pay rate, assuming equal effort. What this would mean would depend on what the society is able
to produce to satisfy the desires of the population.

IF everyone gets paid at the same rate wheres the incentive to improve?

The Fair Labor Standards Act came about as a response to a vast working class rebellion. Between 1933 and 1940 the number of workers in unions quadrupled, between 1936 and 1938 (when minimum wage was created), there were 530 workplace seizures by workers (sitdown strikes). in 1934-35 there were 4 city-wide general strikes. millions of workers created new unions in the '30s and engaged in large scale mass actions. That's what I advocate. Because that's how working class power is built. It isn't built by electing politicians.

Why don't you just ask the capitalists to leave. If you hate working for a living so much just tell them to leave and you'll be so much better off. No more exploitation!

To get rid of capitalism this movement has to come to aspire to do so, and it has to involve millions in the process, and then workers have to simply seize control of the workplaces, and expropriate the assets of the capitalist elite, push the managerial bureaucracy aside, and set up their own system to collectively manage social production for direct human benefit. That ain't "looking to solve problems through legislation."

Once workers take control they can give themselves any wage. yay.

Oh right, so 100 million workers can just quit en masse and set up a life they control...where? on whose land?

Lots of open land in Canada, Siberia, Greenland etc etc. I'm sure you could sneak around government land as well.

Because there is only a limited supply of land in an commuting distance of where the jobs are, landlords are not operating in a perfectly competitive market.

Theres a limited supply of everything. Next point.

Capitalism tends to create speculative bubbles. This leads to things like rapidly rising rents, where people are forced out of their neighborhoods, or people are forced to double up because of rising rents. Rent control laws are created in response to popular protest over these kinds of real conditions.

Your market utopianism doesn't fit what happens in the real world.

Not capitalism, central bank inflation of the monetary supply and a forced lower interest rate does this.

Communism doesn't fit what happens in the real world, markets are the only thing that do.

syndicat

26th March 2010, 05:04

me:

A defining feature of capitalism is that there is a relative monopoly of ownership of productive property by a minority. By "productive property" I mean any means of production used by workers to produce things that others want, or business assets that can be used to acquire such in a market society.

you:

Yes, because only a few are capable to speculate successfully on the future demand of consumers

Ha ha. what a jokester. between 50 and 70 percent of all wealth is inherited according to economists who've researched this. for example, a large majority of the Forbes 400 wealthiest individuals got there through inheritance.

capitalists are parasites. they are entitled to suck up a huge income just from owning a title to something.

besides, I thought you were saying the present system isn't capitalism, now it seems you agree it is.

Before capitalism you would work all day and you would still be starving.
According to Juliet Shor's book "The Overworked American", in the middle ages peasants in France and other European countries worked on average only an 8 hour day. what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries is that with arrival of capitalism, and a huge propertyless population forced to seek work from the capitalists, the owners were able to lengthen hours to as much as 12 to 14 hours a day. Only through worker mass struggles between the 1880s and 1940s did the 8 hour day get brought back.

Capitalists will not automatically share with the working class their gains from increased labor productivity. This is shown by the fact that American labor productivity went up 50 percent from the early '70s to late '90s, but the real wage rate actually went down about 12 percent.

IF everyone gets paid at the same rate wheres the incentive to improve?
If we can produce more or better things with less labor, then we have more things for our labor, or we can work less. If workers re-org work so that it is under their control and everyone is educated to skills and knowledge, work becomes more pleasant, and acquires more of a craft sense of accomplishment, and this is another motive.

Why don't you just ask the capitalists to leave. If you hate working for a living so much just tell them to leave and you'll be so much better off. No more exploitation!
I don't hate working, I hate capitalism.

You mean, why don't I quit? I'd just have to find another job somewhere else. Or do you mean, why don't i leave the country? This reminds me of a comic where a skyjacker points a gun at a pilot and says "Take me to a free country." The pilot responds, "This is a jet, mate, not a fucking space ship."

Capitalism and class domination and exploitation exist throughout the planet.

Lots of open land in Canada, Siberia, Greenland etc etc. I'm sure you could sneak around government land as well.

So 100 million Americans are going to sneak across the border? And there are means for them to survive there? It's not about me as one individual. It's about a system of oppression, the fate of the working class majority. But I know, you think because you don't give a shit about anybody else that's the way everyone must think.

RGacky3

26th March 2010, 13:37

Can I sell my labor for any price I choose? (I.e. 4 dollars an hour)

With some restrictions .... Yes you can, I said for the most part its a free market.

Can I (not me in this case, but I'll use this pronoun from here on) rent out my land in big cities for a price that reflects demand? (I.e. for more than the rent control)

But you still have massiave leway.

Listen things are not always absolute, there is a large amount of free market in the Unted States, there was no public control in the USSR, sorry, pointing out that there are some restrictions does'nt cut it.

If the USSR had public control, but with some restrictions I would say it was somewaht socialist, but it did'nt have any public control.

Norway, is more socialistic than the USSR, because at least what the state there is somewhat democratic, which means that there is some public control over state industry.

America is not free market. The central bank illustrates this. All of the regulatory industries illustrate this. The UHC bill illustrates this. Social security illustrates this. Medicare/Medicate/SCHIP illustrate this. A true free market is about as possible as true communism, so saying I'm being stingy because I'm just not taking what I can get is like saying you're being too stingy because you're not taking what you can get (USSR/China).

As I said, the US is not a total free market, but it has a lot of free market aspects.

The USSR/China did'nt have any communistic aspects. SO I'm not being too stingy.

LeftSideDown

1st April 2010, 01:19

With some restrictions .... Yes you can, I said for the most part its a free market.

Really, when?

If the USSR had public control, but with some restrictions I would say it was somewaht socialist, but it did'nt have any public control.

Norway, is more socialistic than the USSR, because at least what the state there is somewhat democratic, which means that there is some public control over state industry.

What did USSR have if not public control? I think what people are opposed to is seeing the real face of communism/socialism so blatantly revealed to the world through the actions of the Bolshevists. Norway (and the other Scandinavian countries as well) all rank in the top 40 most economically free societies, so you'll have to prove your claim that its more socialistic and not just closer to your view of what a society should be. Remember, socialism means no private ownership of the means of production.

As I said, the US is not a total free market, but it has a lot of free market aspects.

The USSR/China did'nt have any communistic aspects. SO I'm not being too stingy.

They were founded by people declaring themselves Marxist/Communist and originally there was no distinction between communism/socialism. "In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. The political parties of Marxism which considered the Communist Manifesto as the unalterable gospel of their doctrine called themselves socialist parties. The most influential and most numerous of these parties, the German party, adopted the name Social Democratic Party. In Italy, in France and in all other countries in which Marxian parties already played a role in political life before 1917, the term socialist likewise superseded the term communist. No Marxian ever ventured, before 1917, to distinguish between communism and socialism." In the USSR there was no privately owned means of production, so saying it wasn't socialistic/communistic just because it doesn't fit in with what you think communism/socialism should be/look like doesn't make it any less socialistic/communistic.

syndicat

1st April 2010, 20:38

They were founded by people declaring themselves Marxist/Communist and originally there was no distinction between communism/socialism. "In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. The political parties of Marxism which considered the Communist Manifesto as the unalterable gospel of their doctrine called themselves socialist parties. The most influential and most numerous of these parties, the German party, adopted the name Social Democratic Party. In Italy, in France and in all other countries in which Marxian parties already played a role in political life before 1917, the term socialist likewise superseded the term communist. No Marxian ever ventured, before 1917, to distinguish between communism and socialism." In the USSR there was no privately owned means of production, so saying it wasn't socialistic/communistic just because it doesn't fit in with what you think communism/socialism should be/look like doesn't make it any less socialistic/communistic.

the basic fallacy here is in assuming that the words "socialism" or "communism" have one clear meaning. this is incorrect.

prior to, and within, the Russian revolution there were fundamental divisions on the radical left about what "socialism" or "communism" would mean, and the steps to get there in a revolutionary situation.

This became especially clear in the Russian revolution. The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were influenced by the state socialism of the pre-war social democracy. They thought of "democracy" only in terms of election of leaders to run a government. They never emphasized direct democracy and direct participation by the workers themselves.

thus Lenin in "State and Revolution," published in 1917, said that the bureaucratically administered German post office was a good model for socialism.

On the other hand, there were very powerful syndicalist and libertarian socialist tendencies in that era who advocated direct worker management of industries and rooting worker power in direct rank and file participation, starting with face to face democracy of assemblies and then up to soviets or congresses of delegates.

This difference got played out in the Russian revolution in the conflict between the Bolsheviks and the various libertarian socialist groups, particularly the maximalists (Union of Socialist Revolutionaries-Maximalists) and syndicalists and the Nabat federation (libertarian communists in Ukraine who included Makhno).

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks favored top down soviets where the power was concentrated in the top executive, usually dominated by party leaders from the intelligentsia. Meanwhile, in Kronstadt, where the maximalist/syndicalist alliance was dominant, the delegates of shiip crews and workers ran the soviet, and also ran the ships and workplaces through weekly assmeblies and elected committees.

This contrast got played out also in the fight over control of industry. The factory committee movement, based on assemblies and shop committees, proposed a national congress for planning of the economy by workers from below. This proposal was supported by the maximalist/syndicalist alliance.

This was sabotaged and prevented by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks set up in Nov 1917 a Supreme Council of National Economy, with people appointed from above...managers, engineers, union bureaucrats, party stalwarts, to plan the economy, top down. This then led to "one-man management"...appointment of managers from above by the party-state.

There were similar disagreements over whether the revolution should be defended by a worker militia. Bolsheviks builit instead a conventional hierarchical army headed by thousands of tsarist officers.

So the effect of Bolshevik policies was to empower a new bureaucratic ruling class, dominating and exploiting workers.

but, as Marx had said in 1864, "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." This implies that what the socialist movement is all about is working class emanicpation, so that it is no longer subordinate to, and exploited by, any dominating class. By creating a bureaucratic ruling class controlled regime, the Bolsheviks did not construct an authentic socialism, but created a new form of class society, based on the continued domination and exploitation of the working class.

It was the libertarian socialists and syndicalists in the Russian revolution who pointed to an alternative direction...and thus an alternative conception of what socialism is all about.

So your idea that there is just one thing that "socialism" means is obvisously false.

RGacky3

2nd April 2010, 16:07

Really, when?

Yeah, anytime you want, theres a minimum wage but beyond that is up to you. Look the point is, we have examples of countries that are more social-democratic, and countries that are more market based, and we know the results.

What did USSR have if not public control? I think what people are opposed to is seeing the real face of communism/socialism so blatantly revealed to the world through the actions of the Bolshevists. Norway (and the other Scandinavian countries as well) all rank in the top 40 most economically free societies, so you'll have to prove your claim that its more socialistic and not just closer to your view of what a society should be. Remember, socialism means no private ownership of the means of production.

It had state control, and the state was not a funtioning democracy, how is that public control if the public doesnt have a say over it???

About Norway, things are not black and white, there are societies that lean more toward socialism and more toward capitalism, Norway, leans more toward socialism than they do toward capitalism. minimum wage of more than $20, state owned oil, state controlled health, lots of state industry, a relatively democratic state, high tax rates and extensive welfare, in other words more public control ... less private control.

BTW, what defines economically free? THat says nothing about socialism or capitalism.

The political parties of Marxism which considered the Communist Manifesto as the unalterable gospel of their doctrine called themselves socialist parties. The most influential and most numerous of these parties, the German party, adopted the name Social Democratic Party. In Italy, in France and in all other countries in which Marxian parties already played a role in political life before 1917, the term socialist likewise superseded the term communist. No Marxian ever ventured, before 1917, to distinguish between communism and socialism." In the USSR there was no privately owned means of production, so saying it wasn't socialistic/communistic just because it doesn't fit in with what you think communism/socialism should be/look like doesn't make it any less socialistic/communistic.

Absolute Monarchies don't have privately owned means of production, that does'nt mean they are communist or socialism. Not having privately owned means of production is'nt and never was the definition of socialism/communism. It was always, and is, public control, COMMUNISM, common ownership, for gods sake your just making things up.

LeftSideDown

4th April 2010, 17:23

Yeah, anytime you want, theres a minimum wage but beyond that is up to you. Look the point is, we have examples of countries that are more social-democratic, and countries that are more market based, and we know the results.

My whole point is there is a minimum wage, which means there isn't a free market in labor (a very important element in an economy) which generally excludes the existence of a true free market. The results being that those that are/were more free market prefer much more output, gdp per capita, and a higher standard of living?

It had state control, and the state was not a funtioning democracy, how is that public control if the public doesnt have a say over it???

State is acting for the people. I'm sorry it wasn't your Utopian paradise that Fourier predicted with all the anti-hippopotami running around, but thats the form socialism took; state control of the means of production and despotism and tyranny of the people.

About Norway, things are not black and white, there are societies that lean more toward socialism and more toward capitalism, Norway, leans more toward socialism than they do toward capitalism. minimum wage of more than $20, state owned oil, state controlled health, lots of state industry, a relatively democratic state, high tax rates and extensive welfare, in other words more public control ... less private control.

BTW, what defines economically free? THat says nothing about socialism or capitalism.

You're making these assertions, I'd like you to prove them. Please show me how many/what proportion of the GDP is made up of public/private expenditure.

"Individuals have economic freedom when property they acquire without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others and they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others. An index of economic freedom should measure the extent to which rightly acquired property is protected and individuals are engaged in voluntary transactions."

"Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself."

"We measure ten components of economic freedom, assigning a grade in each using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. The ten component scores are then averaged to give an overall economic freedom score for each country. The ten components of economic freedom are:

Business Freedom | Trade Freedom | Fiscal Freedom | Government Spending | Monetary Freedom | Investment Freedom | Financial Freedom | Property rights | Freedom from Corruption | Labor Freedom"

http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/2010/Index2010_Methodology.pdf

Absolute Monarchies don't have privately owned means of production, that does'nt mean they are communist or socialism. Not having privately owned means of production is'nt and never was the definition of socialism/communism. It was always, and is, public control, COMMUNISM, common ownership, for gods sake your just making things up.

Woah woah woah Partner. Hold your horses there. You're confusing a system of government with an Economic system. You can have an autocracy that is socialist (doesn't have privately owned means of production) and you can have a theocratic free-market. Government's structure doesn't not preclude an economic system. And I'm not making this stuff up:

"There was in the opinion of Lenin only one group in Europe that might—although without any prospect of success—try to prevent the revolutionary upheaval: the depraved members of the intelligentsia who had usurped the leadership of the socialist parties. Lenin had long hated these men for their addiction to parliamentary procedure and their reluctance to endorse his dictatorial aspirations. He raged against them because he held them responsible for the fact that the socialist parties had supported the war effort of their countries. Already in his Swiss exile, which ended in 1917, Lenin began to split the European socialist parties. Now he set up a new, a Third International which he controlled in the same dictatorial manner in which he directed the Russian Bolshevists. For this new party Lenin chose the name Communist Party. The communists were to fight unto death the various European socialist parties, these "social traitors," and they were to arrange the immediate liquidation of the bourgeoisie and seizure of power by the armed workers. Lenin did not differentiate between socialism and communism as social systems. The goal which he aimed at was not called communism as opposed to socialism. The official name of the Soviet government is Union of the Socialist (not of the Communist) Soviet Republics. In this regard he did not want to alter the traditional terminology which considered the terms as synonymous. He merely called his partisans, the only sincere and consistent supporters of the revolutionary principles of orthodox Marxism, communists and their tactical methods communism because he wanted to distinguish them from the "treacherous hirelings of the capitalist exploiters," the wicked Social Democratic leaders like Kautsky and Albert Thomas. These traitors, he emphasized, were anxious to preserve capitalism. They were not true socialists. The only genuine Marxians were those who rejected the name of socialists, irremediably fallen into disrepute.

Thus the distinction between communists and socialists came into being. Those Marxians who did not surrender to the dictator in Moscow called themselves social democrats or, in short, socialists. What characterized them was the belief that the most appropriate method for the realization of their plans to establish socialism, the final goal common to them as well as to the communists, was to win the support of the majority of their fellow-citizens. They abandoned the revolutionary slogans and tried to adopt democratic methods for the seizure of power. They did not bother about the problem whether or not a socialist regime is compatible with democracy. But for the attainment of socialism they were resolved to apply democratic procedures.

The communists, on the other hand, were in the early years of the Third International firmly committed to the principle of revolution and civil war. They were loyal only to their Russian chief. They expelled from their ranks everybody who was suspected of feeling himself bound by any of his country's laws. They plotted unceasingly and squandered blood in unsuccessful riots."

They weren't differentiated until 1917... by LENIN. You seem to be confusing the "lower" and "higher" forms of Communism. I don't think the higher form will ever come, so I'll focus on the lower: the dictatorship of the proletariat. Now, the proletariat, at this point, is still infected with bourgeois ideals, common ownership without a coercive body is impossible. Thus we have the emergence of a state that arbitrates everything, because people still cannot be trusted yet; the proletariat hasn't earned Utopia. So, everything is not publicly owned; its state owned, and distributed by the state. You seem to be upset that Russia and China and every communist dictatorship remained in this form and is doomed to stay in this form and never reach the wonderful day of the anti-lion, anti-zebra, and anti-antelope that Fourier informed all of us would happen with the advent of socialism/communism.

Gravediggers

14th April 2010, 01:45

This question, imho, really goes to the heart of Marx's theories and their applicability and utility, both in the past and now. I think that they may have made a lot of sense in the mid 19th century, but not so much in the 20th and not today.

On my mothers side, my folks were merchant bankers. They had a fair bit of money (about a million pound sterling in the 30s), but they also worked for a living. They served on corporate boards and earned salaries, they didn't own the means of production, they invested, traded in commodities; they also earned salaries serving on public boards of enquiry and representing foreign governmental and corporate interests here in Australia.

They were very comfortably wealthy, but they also served in the military, in the public service, as directors of the Sydney Exchange (now the ASX), and other companies.

They were hardly working class, but they didn't own the means of production either. They didn't own any factories, they worked for a living so I think they could be labeled proletariat. However they were obviously also keen capitalists.

How do you define someone who doesn't own the means of production, and works, but is also capable of living off their investments? I have a lot to learn about Marxism, but to me this seems to represent how Marxist ideas are a bit outdated. Think of a corporate CEO; they work for a living, but they don't own the means of production. How are they defined?

From what you have stated above it's pretty obvious that your parents were in a position to live off their investments without having to 'work'. Its immaterial if they decided to do some kind of 'work' by supervising their portfolio, or did not directly own a couple of factories. What is material is that in essence their investments in the means of living provided sufficient income, in the form of profit from dividends, at a level where they were not dependent on a wage or salary in order to live.

Indeed, they exploited the surplus value generated by the workers and were members of the capitalist class. Full stop. The same applies to a CEO if their investments generates sufficient surplus value so they are in a position to live of that income they are capitalists. On the other hand if they have no investments they like other members of the working class are being exploited by the capitalists who have invested in their productivity.

LeftSideDown

14th April 2010, 01:59

Ha ha. what a jokester. between 50 and 70 percent of all wealth is inherited according to economists who've researched this. for example, a large majority of the Forbes 400 wealthiest individuals got there through inheritance.

Just thought I'd do a quick fact-check for you (I know, I know, facts often get in the way of us trying to make points) and, as it turns out, less than 20% of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans inherited their wealth! The number I got (from the Forbes 400 website (listed 74 of the 400 as having inherited their wealth) was around 18% I think? Is this a large majority? Maybe I should fact check majority, because I might be wrong. Ahhh, here it is: majority --the property resulting from being or relating to the greater in number of two parts. Well this is a bit complicated, heres a simpler definition -- More than 50%. Now, I don't think we really need to fact check that 18% < 50%, but I will fact check how much much less 18% is than 50%. Well, its about a 32 percentage point difference, or its 18% is 2.77778 less than 50%.

I'll stop being rude and sarcastic now.

syndicat

14th April 2010, 02:00

On my mothers side, my folks were merchant bankers. They had a fair bit of money (about a million pound sterling in the 30s), but they also worked for a living. They served on corporate boards and earned salaries, they didn't own the means of production, they invested, traded in commodities; they also earned salaries serving on public boards of enquiry and representing foreign governmental and corporate interests here in Australia.

They were very comfortably wealthy, but they also served in the military, in the public service, as directors of the Sydney Exchange (now the ASX), and other companies.

They were hardly working class, but they didn't own the means of production either. They didn't own any factories, they worked for a living so I think they could be labeled proletariat. However they were obviously also keen capitalists.

How do you define someone who doesn't own the means of production, and works, but is also capable of living off their investments? I have a lot to learn about Marxism, but to me this seems to represent how Marxist ideas are a bit outdated. Think of a corporate CEO; they work for a living, but they don't own the means of production. How are they defined?

Money capital or owning investments (such as securities) counts as owning means of production. A person is a capitalist if their main source of prospects and livelihood is through owning title to income-producing assets. People who are capitalists usually also do the sorts of things you mention, such as serving on boards of directors, representing corporate interests in various capacities, including in the government.

RGacky3

14th April 2010, 11:26

My whole point is there is a minimum wage, which means there isn't a free market in labor (a very important element in an economy) which generally excludes the existence of a true free market. The results being that those that are/were more free market prefer much more output, gdp per capita, and a higher standard of living?

Well there was a time before minimum wage, I guess you liked that time better huh?

State is acting for the people. I'm sorry it wasn't your Utopian paradise that Fourier predicted with all the anti-hippopotami running around, but thats the form socialism took; state control of the means of production and despotism and tyranny of the people.

The state is acting for thepeople? How? How on earth do you get to that conclusion? Did they ask the people what they wanted? Did the people decide on policy?

Are you honestly trying to argue that the USSR was a functioning democracy? Because I will have that argument but first I want you to make the statement that you are arguing that so we can all laugh at you before I disprove it.

You're making these assertions, I'd like you to prove them. Please show me how many/what proportion of the GDP is made up of public/private expenditure.

I'm not gonna look that up, but I will say that the oil is nationalized and it is the biggest industry in Norway, the state also owns significant amounts of the telecom industry, the banking system and other industry. Its pretty much common knowledge the Norwegian economic system, but if you want to deny it go ahead.

Government's structure doesn't not preclude an economic system. And I'm not making this stuff up:

If the State is not a functioning democracy and then the State controls the means of productoin, then it can't be socialist. SOcialist DOES NOT mean the state controls, it means the people control, or the public do, the state controlling is only a means to an end, and it only works IF the state is under public control. Its hard to beat Logic my friend.

As far as your part about Lenin, I'm not interested in what lenin wrote or what he said because he was a socialist in the same way Hitler was a democrat.

Bud Struggle

14th April 2010, 13:23

Money capital or owning investments (such as securities) counts as owning means of production. A person is a capitalist if their main source of prospects and livelihood is through owning title to income-producing assets. People who are capitalists usually also do the sorts of things you mention, such as serving on boards of directors, representing corporate interests in various capacities, including in the government.

Yea, it really doesn't matter if you get your money from one investment like owning a factory or a thousand smaller investments like owning stock in a thousand factories, you still are Bourgeoise--in that respect.

That being said: I still have a difficult time categorizing what to do with the income people like this earn if they do work. Is it that being Bourgeoise trumps everything else?

RGacky3

14th April 2010, 13:38

Yea, it really doesn't matter if you get your money from one investment like owning a factory or a thousand smaller investments like owning stock in a thousand factories, you still are Bourgeoise--in that respect.

Thats true, however in my opinion control of the means of production is much more important than how you get your income. However, in general, those who make the majority of their income through investments are bourgeois, howeve many also make their income through massiave bonuses, and other forms by controlling the money of those who invest, so its not so clear cut when it comes to deciding who is who in the top 1% of the population, because those people have so many damn tricks for controlling and profiting there is no easy deciding factor. But thats irrelivent.

Bud Struggle

14th April 2010, 13:50

Thats true, however in my opinion control of the means of production is much more important than how you get your income. However, in general, those who make the majority of their income through investments are bourgeois, howeve many also make their income through massiave bonuses, and other forms by controlling the money of those who invest, so its not so clear cut when it comes to deciding who is who in the top 1% of the population, because those people have so many damn tricks for controlling and profiting there is no easy deciding factor. But thats irrelivent.
Look at stock brokers or better yet fund managers--they control VAST amounts of money and own none of it.

RGacky3

14th April 2010, 16:45

Look at stock brokers or better yet fund managers--they control VAST amounts of money and own none of it.

Big time fund managers are EXTREMELY rich, the ones that manage the funds of the big time guys are also extremely rich.

syndicat

15th April 2010, 06:11

Just thought I'd do a quick fact-check for you (I know, I know, facts often get in the way of us trying to make points) and, as it turns out, less than 20% of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans inherited their wealth! The number I got (from the Forbes 400 website (listed 74 of the 400 as having inherited their wealth) was around 18% I think? Is this a large majority? Maybe I should fact check majority, because I might be wrong. Ahhh, here it is: majority --the property resulting from being or relating to the greater in number of two parts. Well this is a bit complicated, heres a simpler definition -- More than 50%. Now, I don't think we really need to fact check that 18% < 50%, but I will fact check how much much less 18% is than 50%. Well, its about a 32 percentage point difference, or its 18% is 2.77778 less than 50%.

what are you babbling about? are you claiming that the Forbes 400 have all wealth?

my source for the claim about 50 to 70 percent of wealth being inherited is Lester Thurow, The Future of Capitalism: How Today’s Economic Forces Will Shape the Future and Daphne Greenwood and Edward Wolff, "Changes in Wealth in the United States 1962–1983," Journal of Population Economics, 1992.

as to the Forbes 400, in 1997 United for a Fair Economy did an investigation of the sources of their wealth. They found that 42 percent of the plutocrats were born with enough wealth to qualify for the Forbes 400. Another 6 percent inherited a large prosperous company or total wealth of at least $50 million. Another 7 percent inherited a medium-sized company or wealth of more than $1 million. And 14 percent were born into a well-to-do family or obtained some startup capital from their family. Only 31 percent were born into relatively humble circumstances.