Bourgeoisie Communists

[NovelGentry]

Vladimir_ inspired me to write this after we had another seemingly endless debate last night. From which he extolled that a house under communism is "his." It stemmed up after I said that his statement of "your house" was a fallacy.

In short, this paper addresses what I consider to be bourgeoisie communists, that is people who claim to follow the communist ideals but are so stuck in a bourgeoisie line of thought that they're confusing two types of equality. I brand the incorrect form of equality as "parallelism" -- which I consider to be the idea that material equality must be upheld between everyone. As the paper says that "everyone must have the same products within the same amount." This goes against the obvious "to each according to their need." Anyway, it's explained a lot more clearly in the paper I think.

Tell me what you guys think:

The Bourgeoisie Communist (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITER=writing&TEXT=The%20Bourgeois%20Communist)

[NovelGentry]

Vladimir_ inspired me to write this after we had another seemingly endless debate last night. From which he extolled that a house under communism is "his." It stemmed up after I said that his statement of "your house" was a fallacy.

In short, this paper addresses what I consider to be bourgeoisie communists, that is people who claim to follow the communist ideals but are so stuck in a bourgeoisie line of thought that they're confusing two types of equality. I brand the incorrect form of equality as "parallelism" -- which I consider to be the idea that material equality must be upheld between everyone. As the paper says that "everyone must have the same products within the same amount." This goes against the obvious "to each according to their need." Anyway, it's explained a lot more clearly in the paper I think.

Tell me what you guys think:

The Bourgeoisie Communist (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITER=writing&TEXT=The%20Bourgeois%20Communist)

[NovelGentry]

Vladimir_ inspired me to write this after we had another seemingly endless debate last night. From which he extolled that a house under communism is "his." It stemmed up after I said that his statement of "your house" was a fallacy.

In short, this paper addresses what I consider to be bourgeoisie communists, that is people who claim to follow the communist ideals but are so stuck in a bourgeoisie line of thought that they're confusing two types of equality. I brand the incorrect form of equality as "parallelism" -- which I consider to be the idea that material equality must be upheld between everyone. As the paper says that "everyone must have the same products within the same amount." This goes against the obvious "to each according to their need." Anyway, it's explained a lot more clearly in the paper I think.

Tell me what you guys think:

The Bourgeoisie Communist (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITER=writing&TEXT=The%20Bourgeois%20Communist)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know a lot of "communists" who still have a bourgeois mentality. Normally these folks are much more subtly 'bourgeois' than what you're illustrating here.
Somebody according to that article's definition of 'bourgeois communist', I wouldn't even call a communist.

Your friend, however, is right in some respects. I see nothing wrong with "owning" a house to live in. We're not going to get hung up with considering necessary supplies, like the food in your fridge and the toilet paper in your bathroom "community items", so why would we do that with the house you live in? Obviously you can't own two or more houses.

What does actually "owning" your own house mean? It means that you have the right to do whatever you want to it, right? So what's wrong with that? As long as it doesn't infringe upon any else's rights, what the fuck's the problem?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know a lot of "communists" who still have a bourgeois mentality. Normally these folks are much more subtly 'bourgeois' than what you're illustrating here.
Somebody according to that article's definition of 'bourgeois communist', I wouldn't even call a communist.

Your friend, however, is right in some respects. I see nothing wrong with "owning" a house to live in. We're not going to get hung up with considering necessary supplies, like the food in your fridge and the toilet paper in your bathroom "community items", so why would we do that with the house you live in? Obviously you can't own two or more houses.

What does actually "owning" your own house mean? It means that you have the right to do whatever you want to it, right? So what's wrong with that? As long as it doesn't infringe upon any else's rights, what the fuck's the problem?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know a lot of "communists" who still have a bourgeois mentality. Normally these folks are much more subtly 'bourgeois' than what you're illustrating here.
Somebody according to that article's definition of 'bourgeois communist', I wouldn't even call a communist.

Your friend, however, is right in some respects. I see nothing wrong with "owning" a house to live in. We're not going to get hung up with considering necessary supplies, like the food in your fridge and the toilet paper in your bathroom "community items", so why would we do that with the house you live in? Obviously you can't own two or more houses.

What does actually "owning" your own house mean? It means that you have the right to do whatever you want to it, right? So what's wrong with that? As long as it doesn't infringe upon any else's rights, what the fuck's the problem?

[NovelGentry]

I know a lot of "communists" who still have a bourgeois mentality. Normally these folks are much more subtly 'bourgeois' than what you're illustrating here.
Somebody according to that article's definition of 'bourgeois communist', I wouldn't even call a communist.

Maybe you missed one of the key points of this article... the fact is that they are "subtle" in their bourgeoisie thinking, in fact they are SO subtle I felt the need to write an essay to call them out on it. The fact is that the bourgeoisie communist does not realize the implications of what they are saying. They do not see what they are saying as wrong because they are unwilling to accept that social equality does not have to mean material equality.

It is not someone "trying to destroy communism"... but if such an idea is popular enough, it could. It is simply a misunderstanding they have, because they cannot shed that bourgeoisie thinking, thus they assume the only way to truly be equal is parallelism. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in parallelism that they do not realize.


We're not going to get hung up with considering necessary supplies, like the food in your fridge and the toilet paper in your bathroom "community items"

Why not? Can I borrow a cup of sugar? "Sorry, we ran out of toilet paper and my boyfriend is stuck on the toilet, can we have a roll of yours?" -- The bourgeoisie communist feels NO obligation in such a situation, or I should say no strictly material obligation, but possibly a moral obligation (because they asked politely or whatever). Thus it is possible for that same bourgeoisie communist to deny such a demand, and such a denial should be downright criminal.

It is simply making an assumption that his toilet paper belongs to no one but him and saying, "They've had their fair share." This isn't to say he's not going to give it to them out of pity, but realize this would be the ONLY reason he's going to give it to them.

[NovelGentry]

I know a lot of "communists" who still have a bourgeois mentality. Normally these folks are much more subtly 'bourgeois' than what you're illustrating here.
Somebody according to that article's definition of 'bourgeois communist', I wouldn't even call a communist.

Maybe you missed one of the key points of this article... the fact is that they are "subtle" in their bourgeoisie thinking, in fact they are SO subtle I felt the need to write an essay to call them out on it. The fact is that the bourgeoisie communist does not realize the implications of what they are saying. They do not see what they are saying as wrong because they are unwilling to accept that social equality does not have to mean material equality.

It is not someone "trying to destroy communism"... but if such an idea is popular enough, it could. It is simply a misunderstanding they have, because they cannot shed that bourgeoisie thinking, thus they assume the only way to truly be equal is parallelism. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in parallelism that they do not realize.


We're not going to get hung up with considering necessary supplies, like the food in your fridge and the toilet paper in your bathroom "community items"

Why not? Can I borrow a cup of sugar? "Sorry, we ran out of toilet paper and my boyfriend is stuck on the toilet, can we have a roll of yours?" -- The bourgeoisie communist feels NO obligation in such a situation, or I should say no strictly material obligation, but possibly a moral obligation (because they asked politely or whatever). Thus it is possible for that same bourgeoisie communist to deny such a demand, and such a denial should be downright criminal.

It is simply making an assumption that his toilet paper belongs to no one but him and saying, "They've had their fair share." This isn't to say he's not going to give it to them out of pity, but realize this would be the ONLY reason he's going to give it to them.

[NovelGentry]

I know a lot of "communists" who still have a bourgeois mentality. Normally these folks are much more subtly 'bourgeois' than what you're illustrating here.
Somebody according to that article's definition of 'bourgeois communist', I wouldn't even call a communist.

Maybe you missed one of the key points of this article... the fact is that they are "subtle" in their bourgeoisie thinking, in fact they are SO subtle I felt the need to write an essay to call them out on it. The fact is that the bourgeoisie communist does not realize the implications of what they are saying. They do not see what they are saying as wrong because they are unwilling to accept that social equality does not have to mean material equality.

It is not someone "trying to destroy communism"... but if such an idea is popular enough, it could. It is simply a misunderstanding they have, because they cannot shed that bourgeoisie thinking, thus they assume the only way to truly be equal is parallelism. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in parallelism that they do not realize.


We're not going to get hung up with considering necessary supplies, like the food in your fridge and the toilet paper in your bathroom "community items"

Why not? Can I borrow a cup of sugar? "Sorry, we ran out of toilet paper and my boyfriend is stuck on the toilet, can we have a roll of yours?" -- The bourgeoisie communist feels NO obligation in such a situation, or I should say no strictly material obligation, but possibly a moral obligation (because they asked politely or whatever). Thus it is possible for that same bourgeoisie communist to deny such a demand, and such a denial should be downright criminal.

It is simply making an assumption that his toilet paper belongs to no one but him and saying, "They've had their fair share." This isn't to say he's not going to give it to them out of pity, but realize this would be the ONLY reason he's going to give it to them.

[NovelGentry]

I'd just like to say that I updated this paper, clarified a lot (hopefully) and maybe got some points across last time that I didn't. It has a new subtitle. In general I'd like some more feedback, tell me what you think if it's good, bad, if I'm off my rocker etc...etc...

Read it Here: The Bourgeois Communist (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITER=writing&TEXT=The%20Bourgeois%20Communist)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

such a denial should be downright criminal.

Why?

Folks can make their own decisions regarding that.

I assume that most people will be generous enough and loan their neighbor a cup of sugar or a toilet paper roll. Making a law that forces people to share their possessions is silly, however. The only time an actual law fro that would be needed is if people are in a terribly lack of necessary goods. In socialism, people will have necessary supplies. That's one of the jobs of the government. If they don't have that and have to go use the "community toilet paper", then something is obviously the matter.

A house is the same thing.

[NovelGentry]

It's not a law... and that doesn't address the greater issue, that greater issue being that an assumption is made that you have somehow bought the goods of the community with your labor. This is simply not the case... why do people assume that communism means trading money for labor and equalizing the pay rate?

[Hate Is Art]

I've been called a Bourgeios Communist because I said I was a Trot. I'm not sure how though.

[commiecrusader]

That's one of the jobs of the government
I didn't think a communist society had a government?


that greater issue being that an assumption is made that you have somehow bought the goods of the community with your labor. This is simply not the case... why do people assume that communism means trading money for labor and equalizing the pay rate?
In communism people wouldn't get paid, since this would be pointless seeing as there is no economy in which to use the money. And I agree with RedZeppelin in that if people don't have enough of something, then the system isn't working properly. I see where you are coming from with people retaining a slightly selfish attitude potentially, but it shouldn't be an issue since there should never be a shortage, and people can still own a house surely, even if it's not in a 'it's mine and your not having it' sense. Otherwise how you gonna have friends round? 'Would you like to come round to the society owned house in which I reside?'. Doesn't really roll off the tongue lol. People are still going to own things in the sense that they can do what they like to their house in terms of decor etc, can eat what they want etc etc.

[NovelGentry]

And I agree with RedZeppelin in that if people don't have enough of something, then the system isn't working properly. I see where you are coming from with people retaining a slightly selfish attitude potentially, but it shouldn't be an issue since there should never be a shortage

I agree that if people don't have enough of something the system isn't working. People assume that what I'm saying is that we have to share things, this is not what I'm saying, ideally I don't think anything would be shared... we'd simply have enough of whatever we need. But just because we do not share it because we don't have to does not make it OURS.


and people can still own a house surely, even if it's not in a 'it's mine and your not having it' sense. Otherwise how you gonna have friends round? 'Would you like to come round to the society owned house in which I reside?'. Doesn't really roll off the tongue lol.

Ff it's not in a "it's mine and your not having it" sense then you can't really say you own it. This is flat out what ownership is... it is your right to tell someone else what right they have to something, assuming you own it. It doesn't mean you HAVE to tell themt his, but it means you can, and that simply is and should not be so in a proper communist society. If we're not willing to break the idea that a product made by the community is not ours, by the community, then what the hell are we basing our ideology on? What the hell gives us the right ot take it back from the bourgeoisie to begin with?

It's not designed to role off the tongue... we don't have to completely redefine language over it -- the issue is not what is said, it's what is thought. Which I should remind you that if you had any introduction to Vlad (who I argued said "your house") you would know exactly what he meant by it. And it would have everything to do with private property and the idea that something is his.


People are still going to own things in the sense that they can do what they like to their house in terms of decor etc, can eat what they want etc etc.

I don't argue this. I'm not talking about destroying individuality or even the right to create your own environment according to your desires and what you like. What I am talking about is this seemingly inherent idea in man that just because you are in a situation where you have such influence over your environment, people automatically assume it has to be owned... or it has to be privitized.

------------------------

Now, let me just ask, did anyone actually read the essay? I think I clarifiy the position of the bourgeois communist quite a bit within it. And I think a lot of these comments would disappear if you read and understood what I was talking about (not saying it's your fault, maybe I didn't explain quite clearly). But I've yet to see anyone actually argue anything from the essay.

I make very key points to the bourgeois communist's line of thought and it goes far beyond the idea of private property, in fact, this is a non issue when you compare it to their idea of equality, which is strictly material equality. The way I see it though, one just leads to another. If you're faced with the idea of private property you're faced with the idea that your labor is paying for the things you own, if you're faced with that idea you're faced with the idea that material equality can be derived from one mans labor being worth no more than another, in which case we must uphold parallelism (which I talk about in there) -- or else the bourgeois communists idea of equality does not exist. This isn't to say this is what real equality is, it is to say that this is the bourgeois communist's idea of it, and it is wrong. But it is furthermore impossible to uphold such parallelism, for logical reasons.

Just read the essay, tell me what you think.

[commiecrusader]

I don't argue this. I'm not talking about destroying individuality or even the right to create your own environment according to your desires and what you like. What I am talking about is this seemingly inherent idea in man that just because you are in a situation where you have such influence over your environment, people automatically assume it has to be owned... or it has to be privitized.
Oh I see. I guess what I'm trying to say is even if you live in a council house, you could still be said to own it sort of, not in a definitive way but just a personal way, in that it's their personal space. That's kind of what I mean...

[NovelGentry]

Yes, and I understand completely what you mean, but this is a far fetch from the implied "private property," which only brings us kicking back to capitalism. For example, under what you and I are proposing here, if someone dies that house would to back to the people, if it was private the only way to give it back to the people would be to have it used to pay a "tax," which would then imply a state/government body to collect that tax. If it's not private to begin with we don't have such problems and we don't face the ideas that bourgeois society currently represents.

Of course, if there were other people living in the house at the time, they would more than likely just be allowed to keep the house. This, however, must be seen quite differently from inheritance or any other such form. Because under such forms old rich women can leave their houses to their cats and kick everyone else out.