G4b3n
10th August 2013, 18:34
I wrote this for a political forum filled with bourgeois reactionaries, most of it is basic knowledge, but I feel like it offers a good insight for the beginners and a decent simplification of some Marxist views that can grow to be quite complex at times. If you see any errors or have any changes to offer, please let me know.
I would like to start by explaining what liberalism actually is as a political philosophy. Contemporary liberalism calls for social progress through reform as opposed to revolution, these include things such as affirmative action, state assistance for the poor, and things of that sort. These reforms are intended to establish equality for all people within the status quo, i.e the capitalist mode of production. This is where the liberal and the socialist part ways, the liberal is a reformist thinker while the socialist is a revolutionary thinker.
Now, let us examine the historical context of this ideology. We must begin with what the modern day conservative considers to be his ideological forerunner, which is classical liberalism. This was the ideology of the progressive bourgeoisie (i.e middle class) leading up to revolutionary destruction of feudalism as a mode of production. The merchant class was considered to be the "middle class" at this time because it was in between the autocracy and the working class. At this point in history (roughly the late 18th century), the bourgeoisie was the primary revolutionary class, it fulfilled its historical role by rising up in revolution against the aristocracy, the best examples of which can be found in the French Revolution of 1789.
Feudalism can best be described of the submission of man to his "natural better" in a hierarchical chain of mutual protection and economic production. The progressive bourgeoisie rejected these notions, claiming that man had inalienable rights to pursue his own wishes. While classical liberalism did precede the industrial revolution, material conditions achieved through mercantile advancement did allow for these notions to become a reality. These ideas were first put into place under the independent American government brought about by the bourgeois (of or pertaining to the middle class) revolution of 1776. It is important to note that "capitalism" as a mode of production as we know today, did not quite exist yet, it was mostly a petty-bourgeois agrarian structure, no huge factories filled with wage workers just yet.
Now, let us fast forward to the thick of the industrial revolution, beginning in Britain in roughly the early 19th century. This is when the bourgeoisie asserts itself as the ruling class in Europe and no is longer progressive but reactionary. This is done through the accumulation of the means of production. During the feudal era, the means of production were owned largely by the workers, who were skilled craftsmen, these generally included primitive hand tools and things of that sort. With the industrial revolution taking place, the means of production shifted from primitive hand tools to large and expensive machinery. It doesn't take a social scientist or historian to know that large factories filled with wage workers are more efficient than the craftsman's hand tools. At this point in history, is when the proletariat (the modern working class) comes into being. The proletariat is composed of the former peasantry and working class of the feudal era, those who were being outproduced by the new mode of production. With no means of surviving through the outdated mode, the peasant is forced to seek a position within the bourgeois mode of production, which is obtained through the selling of his labor for a wage.
Now that the new capitalist, i.e bourgeois mode of production has been established in the thick of the industrial revolution, two major things are happening in the political sphere.
1. Liberalism is taking a new form.
2. Socialism is developing.
Liberalism no longer conforms to the views expressed by the likes of Adam Smith, described usually by the term "laissez faire", meaning "hands off", which is a reference to the notion that government ought to be majorly limited and only interfere in national defense, protection of private property, and the inalienable rights that I mentioned earlier. Liberalism now realizes that progress must be made through establishing a tolerable existence for the extremely impoverished working class, not by abolishing feudal notions of government control. Now, this is something that must be given major attention. It is generally thought today that our founding fathers were seeking to abolish the sort of government control that our modern day liberals are advocating for, this simply false because it they didn't exist yet. They were arguing against feudal notions of government control, notions that no longer exist.
Now that we are done with the former, let us move to the latter, i.e socialism. Socialism as political philosophy developed in roughly the 1820s. We now call these socialists, such as Robert Owens, "utopian" socialists, because their primitive approach did not offer practical means of change, simply idealistic notions for a better society. However, these notions did inspire the first realistic theoreticians of modern socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was at this point that Marx rejected what we would call "liberalism" in its new form (generally referred to as social democracy in its historical context). He claimed that it was not enough to appease the working class with means of progression as the liberals purpose, but that the working class has taken the place of the formerly progressive bourgeoisie as the primary revolutionary class and a sense of class consciousnesses must be established in order for revolution to be realized and carried out correctly.
So if you have taken anything from my blabbing about, it must be this. Liberalism seeks to reform the current system, socialism seeks to abolish it. If I see one more person that tells me that socialism is the redistribution of wealth or that liberals are socialists or vice versa, I just might lose it. Socialists don't want to give the workers an extra slice of the pie, they want the workers to take the oven that is baking it. - Credits to a revleft member who's name I can't recall for the awesome analogy.
Thank you for reading.
I would like to start by explaining what liberalism actually is as a political philosophy. Contemporary liberalism calls for social progress through reform as opposed to revolution, these include things such as affirmative action, state assistance for the poor, and things of that sort. These reforms are intended to establish equality for all people within the status quo, i.e the capitalist mode of production. This is where the liberal and the socialist part ways, the liberal is a reformist thinker while the socialist is a revolutionary thinker.
Now, let us examine the historical context of this ideology. We must begin with what the modern day conservative considers to be his ideological forerunner, which is classical liberalism. This was the ideology of the progressive bourgeoisie (i.e middle class) leading up to revolutionary destruction of feudalism as a mode of production. The merchant class was considered to be the "middle class" at this time because it was in between the autocracy and the working class. At this point in history (roughly the late 18th century), the bourgeoisie was the primary revolutionary class, it fulfilled its historical role by rising up in revolution against the aristocracy, the best examples of which can be found in the French Revolution of 1789.
Feudalism can best be described of the submission of man to his "natural better" in a hierarchical chain of mutual protection and economic production. The progressive bourgeoisie rejected these notions, claiming that man had inalienable rights to pursue his own wishes. While classical liberalism did precede the industrial revolution, material conditions achieved through mercantile advancement did allow for these notions to become a reality. These ideas were first put into place under the independent American government brought about by the bourgeois (of or pertaining to the middle class) revolution of 1776. It is important to note that "capitalism" as a mode of production as we know today, did not quite exist yet, it was mostly a petty-bourgeois agrarian structure, no huge factories filled with wage workers just yet.
Now, let us fast forward to the thick of the industrial revolution, beginning in Britain in roughly the early 19th century. This is when the bourgeoisie asserts itself as the ruling class in Europe and no is longer progressive but reactionary. This is done through the accumulation of the means of production. During the feudal era, the means of production were owned largely by the workers, who were skilled craftsmen, these generally included primitive hand tools and things of that sort. With the industrial revolution taking place, the means of production shifted from primitive hand tools to large and expensive machinery. It doesn't take a social scientist or historian to know that large factories filled with wage workers are more efficient than the craftsman's hand tools. At this point in history, is when the proletariat (the modern working class) comes into being. The proletariat is composed of the former peasantry and working class of the feudal era, those who were being outproduced by the new mode of production. With no means of surviving through the outdated mode, the peasant is forced to seek a position within the bourgeois mode of production, which is obtained through the selling of his labor for a wage.
Now that the new capitalist, i.e bourgeois mode of production has been established in the thick of the industrial revolution, two major things are happening in the political sphere.
1. Liberalism is taking a new form.
2. Socialism is developing.
Liberalism no longer conforms to the views expressed by the likes of Adam Smith, described usually by the term "laissez faire", meaning "hands off", which is a reference to the notion that government ought to be majorly limited and only interfere in national defense, protection of private property, and the inalienable rights that I mentioned earlier. Liberalism now realizes that progress must be made through establishing a tolerable existence for the extremely impoverished working class, not by abolishing feudal notions of government control. Now, this is something that must be given major attention. It is generally thought today that our founding fathers were seeking to abolish the sort of government control that our modern day liberals are advocating for, this simply false because it they didn't exist yet. They were arguing against feudal notions of government control, notions that no longer exist.
Now that we are done with the former, let us move to the latter, i.e socialism. Socialism as political philosophy developed in roughly the 1820s. We now call these socialists, such as Robert Owens, "utopian" socialists, because their primitive approach did not offer practical means of change, simply idealistic notions for a better society. However, these notions did inspire the first realistic theoreticians of modern socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was at this point that Marx rejected what we would call "liberalism" in its new form (generally referred to as social democracy in its historical context). He claimed that it was not enough to appease the working class with means of progression as the liberals purpose, but that the working class has taken the place of the formerly progressive bourgeoisie as the primary revolutionary class and a sense of class consciousnesses must be established in order for revolution to be realized and carried out correctly.
So if you have taken anything from my blabbing about, it must be this. Liberalism seeks to reform the current system, socialism seeks to abolish it. If I see one more person that tells me that socialism is the redistribution of wealth or that liberals are socialists or vice versa, I just might lose it. Socialists don't want to give the workers an extra slice of the pie, they want the workers to take the oven that is baking it. - Credits to a revleft member who's name I can't recall for the awesome analogy.
Thank you for reading.