On the subject of a Cancer within American Capitalism

[theblitz6794]

I wanted to contribute to the aforementioned thread but sadly it was closed. As someone who borders on the proletariat-bougois class (family owns a restaurant, studying engineering---> a lot of money, and an upper middle class family), yet a ferverent Marxist at heart, here's my imput. Apologies if it's shallow--I'm new to leftist theory discussions.

I think defectors are a key to enabling the revolution.

1. The uneducated masses still idolize the capitalist classes. They still imagine themselves to be rich one day and that the American Dream is within reach. Individuals who are living the dream and profusing that the Dream is a product largely of luck and timing will do well to undermine this idolization.

2. Their existance simply gives leftists ammunition in debate/conversation, which leads to the multiplication of leftists because these defectors will be living examples of people going against "human nature" of greed. A lot of conservatives/moderates/even liberals talk of capitalism being a neccesary evil because of human nature. We need people who go against the grain...A sort of Socrateal sacrifice.

3. They give us insider information. We have a broad understanding of how the capitalist system is setup. Defectors work within it everyday and know the ins and outs. Knowledge is power eh?

4. The capitalists will become paranoid with the knowledge that there are traitors in their midst. When they start suspecting each other, instead of colluding, the internal contradictions of the capitalist system will more quickly become fatal weakpoints.

5. Let's face it. We need money for supplies, advertising, logistics, ect. And money gives us options that we don't otherwise have. In the 21st century it's increasingly possible to do with more minimal amounts of money of course, but that doesn't make it easy.

I must hedge that defectors must not have any privledged status within the revolution thanks to their status. They must be viewed and view themselves as being socialists who simply happen to have more and are giving back accordingly. If merit places them in leading positions, then it is on merit alone.

On a sidenote, with the advent of kickstarter, startups, DIY projects, ect, I'm noticing that the middle class is making early inroads into forming a hybrid capitalist-proletariat class. I'm still personally unsure of where this will lead but it's worth exploring I think. It also makes a traditional Marxist/Lennist revolution much more difficult if not undesirable because of the blurs between Proletariat and Capitalist. The Scandanavians seem to be doing just fine in slowly pushing their economies toward true Socialism in a democratic, peaceful, and evolutionary (vs revolutionary) manner.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

1. The uneducated masses still idolize the capitalist classes. They still imagine themselves to be rich one day and that the American Dream is within reach. Individuals who are living the dream and profusing that the Dream is a product largely of luck and timing will do well to undermine this idolization.

Alright, seriously, this is the first thing you need to get rid of. I could talk about other errors, such as the notion that Sweden is anywhere close to socialism or is moving in that direction, but this is, I feel, more important. Think about it: you have just called the proletariat, the groups whose interests the socialists uphold and whose strength they rely on, "the uneducated masses".

Here is a serious question: have you actually talked to any of the workers, I mean actually approached them as human beings instead of yelling "wake up sheeple!" at them? I have, and although I'm not from America I've talked to quite a few American workers, and not one of them said anything about "the American dream". The workers knew they were well and truly fucked. The only ones who talk about "the American dream", in my experience, are the petite bourgeoisie.

So yeah, if you call yourself "a fervent Marxist", the first thing you need to do is let go of the disdain for the working class, because the last thing we need is some hoity-toity student telling the workers they're just to dumb to do anything.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Like 870 said you might want to check yourself when it comes to how you view the "uneducated masses". Yeah there are people chasing the American Dream but recent polls have shown the American Dream is dying away in the minds of the people, especially amongst the younger generations(who also view socialism positively). http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/news/economy/american-dream/

60% in that recent poll think it's unattainable. I'd wager most people in the working class are going to work not for some American Dream but because we have to live and eat like everyone else. Anecdotally, the only person in my workplace who seems to give a damn about the American Dream and "making it" is a person who is much like you. More wealthy family, going to college, etc. In other words someone who has more access to the Dream.

It also seems condescending when people with money talk about how other people with little to no money should stop chasing after it because it's evil. If it's so evil hand it over to me, I need money, my rent is almost due and foodstamps don't buy diapers!

Number 2 I just completely disagree with. Leftists should not tout around rich people as some token if they support the movement. "Hey workers look who agrees with us, a rich person," is not something we should showcase. What is much more impressive to show people is the number of working class people you can get to agree with a communist program and organize.

I'll leave it off right there and hopefully return to this, but I have about ten minutes to get ready for work :glare:

[BIXX]

you might want to check yourself...
...Before you wreck yourself.
Case closed, op is an elitist.

[Creative Destruction]

On a sidenote, with the advent of kickstarter, startups, DIY projects, ect, I'm noticing that the middle class is making early inroads into forming a hybrid capitalist-proletariat class.

lol, what. there is no "hybrid capitalist-proletariat class." they're distinct concepts. the moment you derive most of your income from the ownership of means of production is the moment you are a capitalist.


I'm still personally unsure of where this will lead but it's worth exploring I think.

you might want to start by having a more solid conception of class.


It also makes a traditional Marxist/Lennist revolution much more difficult if not undesirable because of the blurs between Proletariat and Capitalist.

Leninist "revolution" is already undesirable.


The Scandanavians seem to be doing just fine in slowly pushing their economies toward true Socialism in a democratic, peaceful, and evolutionary (vs revolutionary) manner.

no, they're not. welfare capitalism was put in place specifically to combat the possibility of "true Socialism." socialism can't happen in an "evolutionary" manner because it is a complete break with capitalism and its basic laws. when something "evolves," it changes but retains some basic characteristics that define what that thing is. the Scandinavians are still subject to crisis and the ills that come with capitalism. (last i checked, for example, there is a housing bubble happening in Norway.)

[John Nada]

I wanted to contribute to the aforementioned thread but sadly it was closed. As someone who borders on the proletariat-bougois class (family owns a restaurant, studying engineering---> a lot of money, and an upper middle class family), yet a ferverent Marxist at heart, here's my imput. Apologies if it's shallow--I'm new to leftist theory discussions.The class that's in between the proletariat(workers) and the bourgeoisie(capitalist) is the petite-bourgeoisie(small-business owners or management). The do have to work, but still employ workers. Depending on how big the restaurant and perhaps shares of stock you own, you might even be straight up bourgeoisie. No worries, it's possible for some individuals of bourgeoisie to betray their own class interests, just like workers do sometimes. Friedrick Engels was born into the bourgeoisie, yet he was very radical, much to the grief of his parents.
I think defectors are a key to enabling the revolution.The proletariat is the most revolutionary class. They do all the work and if not the majority now, will be in the future. Some member's of other classes might join in(peasantry, possibly some of the lower strata of the petty bourgeoisie or class suicidal bourgeoisie), either because they agree with the revolutionary ideals or for self-preservation. However, unlike the workers, as a class their livelihood depends on extracting rent from workers. Their interests are often opposed to the workers, even incompatible. Replacing asshole bourgeois bosses with "nicer" bourgeois bosses will not be a revolution.They cannot continue as a class if socialism is to succeed.
1. The uneducated masses still idolize the capitalist classes. They still imagine themselves to be rich one day and that the American Dream is within reach. Individuals who are living the dream and profusing that the Dream is a product largely of luck and timing will do well to undermine this idolization.Americans are less than 5% of the world. True, there's false consciousness, where for one reason or another support capitalism. But the US isn't the whole world and IME it's more "I'm going to hit the lotto", "There's nothing we can do" or some religious or racist things.
2. Their existance simply gives leftists ammunition in debate/conversation, which leads to the multiplication of leftists because these defectors will be living examples of people going against "human nature" of greed. A lot of conservatives/moderates/even liberals talk of capitalism being a neccesary evil because of human nature. We need people who go against the grain...A sort of Socrateal sacrifice.I wouldn't have a problem with someone betraying their class interests. Good for them. However, this does happen. And the anti-socialists just say they're a hypocrite if they keep their wealth, or they're dumb if they throw it all away to try to be real. Fuck it, there's no communist heaven for lifestylism.
3. They give us insider information. We have a broad understanding of how the capitalist system is setup. Defectors work within it everyday and know the ins and outs. Knowledge is power eh?Would welcome that, but workers actually run all the capitalist's shit. We're not stupid.
4. The capitalists will become paranoid with the knowledge that there are traitors in their midst. When they start suspecting each other, instead of colluding, the internal contradictions of the capitalist system will more quickly become fatal weakpoints.That won't happen the way you think unless the proletariat forces their hand and their demise is near. And they're already suspicious of each other. Otherwise there would be no rival businesses or wars.
5. Let's face it. We need money for supplies, advertising, logistics, ect. And money gives us options that we don't otherwise have. In the 21st century it's increasingly possible to do with more minimal amounts of money of course, but that doesn't make it easy.I would love some money. But paper alone doesn't win revolutions. Those things can be appropriated.
I must hedge that defectors must not have any privledged status within the revolution thanks to their status. They must be viewed and view themselves as being socialists who simply happen to have more and are giving back accordingly. If merit places them in leading positions, then it is on merit alone.Sounds good.
On a sidenote, with the advent of kickstarter, startups, DIY projects, ect, I'm noticing that the middle class is making early inroads into forming a hybrid capitalist-proletariat class. I'm still personally unsure of where this will lead but it's worth exploring I think. It also makes a traditional Marxist/Lennist revolution much more difficult if not undesirable because of the blurs between Proletariat and Capitalist. The Scandanavians seem to be doing just fine in slowly pushing their economies toward true Socialism in a democratic, peaceful, and evolutionary (vs revolutionary) manner.I'd hate to use Godwin's law, but this is what liberals were saying right before the rise of fascism. A more powerful petty-bourgeoisie doesn't lead to socialism. The gains they have are from imperialist exploitation of workers, in their own country and other undeveloped countries that are more like colonies. They have no interest as a class in a communist revolution, in fact they've often been very reactionary.

The Scandinavian countries are imperialist, and they're moving towards neo-liberalism and away from a social democratic capitalism(which isn't socialist).

[A Revolutionary Tool]

...Before you wreck yourself.
Case closed, op is an elitist.
Yeah exactly.

How is somebody basically going to say we can't achieve our goals without the wealthy upperclass(it's a "key" to the revolution) while at the same time saying we can function without them? We can organize ourselves without them, that's what the liberation of the workers by the workers means. If the working class gains allies in the upperclass through their own contemplation of the working classes conditions then it's welcome of course. This isn't the way to go about it though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As far as the USA goes, I think the main problem is pretty simple: people here still have a large amount of respect for 1) property, and 2) work.

[theblitz6794]

The class that's in between the proletariat(workers) and the bourgeoisie(capitalist) is the petite-bourgeoisie(small-business owners or management). The do have to work, but still employ workers. Depending on how big the restaurant and perhaps shares of stock you own, you might even be straight up bourgeoisie. No worries, it's possible for some individuals of bourgeoisie to betray their own class interests, just like workers do sometimes. Friedrick Engels was born into the bourgeoisie, yet he was very radical, much to the grief of his parents.

First of all, thanks for the more....respectful response. This was definitely not the reaction I had expected but all feedback is greatly appreciated. It's definitely worth noting, I think that both Marx and Engels were both of pretty good birth, making Marxism founded upon, well, class defectors.

Petite bourgeoise would be the class for me certainly. I'm still as of yet a university student too. What class does a wage worker making more than 100k belong to though? Everything I'm saying is solely in the context of the United States by the way. American exceptionalism infects us all and I forget how international the internet is. Apologies for not making the context more clear.



The proletariat is the most revolutionary class. They do all the work and if not the majority now, will be in the future. Some member's of other classes might join in(peasantry, possibly some of the lower strata of the petty bourgeoisie or class suicidal bourgeoisie), either because they agree with the revolutionary ideals or for self-preservation. However, unlike the workers, as a class their livelihood depends on extracting rent from workers. Their interests are often opposed to the workers, even incompatible. Replacing asshole bourgeois bosses with "nicer" bourgeois bosses will not be a revolution.They cannot continue as a class if socialism is to succeed.
Well, the ideal I had in mind was to replace them with boss defectors who would be dismantling the capitalist system from the inside....people who have no personal interest in their class interests and in fact have personal interests in destroying their class. Make no mistake, life in this class is cozy but far from perfect. I imagine a world where no one is really judged on anything but merit; where people can dress how they want and pursue their interests to the fullest without monetary or social constraints; where the pressure of maintaining status and appearance in front of others is eradicated; where I don't hear about friends who are struggling in college because their families are too poor and they have to work and go to school, or even drop out
. Point being we are all individuals and I do think personal interests can persevere over class interests (Marx and Engels as above).

I might be naiive to think that there wouldn't be fake defectors or double defectors galore.


Americans are less than 5% of the world. True, there's false consciousness, where for one reason or another support capitalism. But the US isn't the whole world and IME it's more "I'm going to hit the lotto", "There's nothing we can do" or some religious or racist things.


Much of what I was getting at was intended to be a way to counteract that American thinking.


I wouldn't have a problem with someone betraying their class interests. Good for them. However, this does happen. And the anti-socialists just say they're a hypocrite if they keep their wealth, or they're dumb if they throw it all away to try to be real. Fuck it, there's no communist heaven for lifestylism.


Not familiar with lifestylism


Would welcome that, but workers actually run all the capitalist's shit. We're not stupid.That won't happen the way you think unless the proletariat forces their hand and their demise is near. And they're already suspicious of each other. Otherwise there would be no rival businesses or wars.I would love some money. But paper alone doesn't win revolutions. Those things can be appropriated.Sounds good.
I've considered the idea of financing a commune in the distant future. The premise would be that revolutionaries could live off of whichever revolutionaries happened to have talents (such as mathematics) that lead to producing a disproportional amount of wealth, enabling those revolutionaries to be full time...revolutionaries....in ways that having a job doesn't allow.




I'd hate to use Godwin's law, but this is what liberals were saying right before the rise of fascism. A more powerful petty-bourgeoisie doesn't lead to socialism. The gains they have are from imperialist exploitation of workers, in their own country and other undeveloped countries that are more like colonies. They have no interest as a class in a communist revolution, in fact they've often been very reactionary.
My idea was to try to fuse the proletariat with the petite bourgoise. That is, stuff like worker cooperatives and workers owning their own businesses. In the 21st century, intellectual property is increasingly becoming valued and one's brain could be seen as a means of production, and one the proletariat owns (well, I hope we own our own brain, it makes me wonder).




The Scandinavian countries are imperialist, and they're moving towards neo-liberalism and away from a social democratic capitalism(which isn't socialist).

No comment, I haven't studied them as much as I should.

[theblitz6794]

I might add that I never said it was impossible to achieve your goals with help from the upperclass. I said that as a practical measure it would be highly beneficial and accelerate the process