Bourgeousie and Proletariat

[Right_is_right]

These days, it is possible for a proletariat class family to become a bourgeousie class family. Does the concept that a family may be exploited proletariat for one generation and prosperous bourgeousie the next not register? I don't think you can call these classes anymore since they are so dynamic. So what if your parents are exploited. You have the chance to break out because of their sacrifices. So stop blaming others for your troubles, that will only break your motivation to work hard. These are my thoughts because i know a lot of families who have broken out of this so called "proletariat class". Im sure a lot of you have your reasons, please... tell me why you disagree.

[RedLenin]

First it is very hard, maybey impossible for a proletariat to become bourgeousie. I doubt very much that a factory worker is going to become a full capitalist. More than likely these proletariats will stay proletariat, or become "middle class". However, the middle class is only defined based on living conditions and money and therfore is not a real class. There are three classes. Proletariat (workers and people who do not employ, do not own means of production, and they work for a wage). The bourgeousie (capitalists who employ, own the means of production, and force others to work for a wage while exploiting them). And the techno-managerial class. They meet the proletariat definition, but have different interests. They basically open the door for their boss to exploit the workers and do not think highly of the boss or the workers. Middle management. Overall, I'd say that a proletariat has a VERY low change of becoming bourgeousie or even techno-managerial. If, however, you can prove me wrong please do.

Also, the notion that, under capitalism, anyone can achieve economic success is absurd. It actually requires property, and or univeristy education, that most proletariats cannot afford. Therfore, they are stuck. Another example. A homeless person cannot get ANY job because he or she does not have a place to live. This is one of many examples of having to own, or be paying for, property in order to make it under capitalism.

So your arguments are basically wrong. Ocassionaly a worker may, in some bizare circumstance become a capitalist, but this is very, very, very unlikely.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Right_is_right
So stop blaming others for your troubles, that will only break your motivation to work hard.

Just wrap your troubles in dreams,
And dream your troubles away.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

So every capitalist was already a capitalist? And he's the absurd one?

So basically, what you're saying is, it's difficult to become a capitalist? But if it was easy, everyone would become a capitalist and everyone would own a factory and none would work and society would break down. You just stated the obvious. If you're ideas are good enough, you will become a capitalist. If they aren't, you won't.

[STI]

So every capitalist was already a capitalist? And he's the absurd one?

Uh, yeah, actually. Sometimes I wonder if you just ask questions you already know the answers to.

Most rich people were born rich.


So basically, what you're saying is, it's difficult to become a capitalist? But if it was easy, everyone would become a capitalist and everyone would own a factory and none would work and society would break down. You just stated the obvious. If you're ideas are good enough, you will become a capitalist. If they aren't, you won't.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how good everyone's ideas, there have to be a vast majority of people producing the wealth (the proletariat).

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:17 PM
So basically, what you're saying is, it's difficult to become a capitalist? But if it was easy, everyone would become a capitalist and everyone would own a factory and none would work and society would break down. You just stated the obvious.
Blatant contradiction with:


If you're ideas are good enough, you will become a capitalist. If they aren't, you won't.

Make up your mind; either it is difficult to "become capitalist" because everyone can't become one or society would break down; or people just don't have "good enough" ideas.

Tell me Mr. Super capitalist; what are your great ideas? Help only yourself? Fuck everyone else?
If you have such great ideas, shouldn't you be busy implementing them in your great meritocratic capitalist system?

I see three possibilities:

1) Perhaps you are a farce and your mere existence here is proof that your rhetoric is hollow.

2) Maybe you are bursting with proof that you are a “successful capitalist,” and you prefer the pretence of having no credibility, rather than living your perfect life.

3) Quite Possibly you are as yet a failure to your glorified system because you do not have "good enough" ideas to market in your magical *good ideas = great success* economy. You just come here to talk about what a “loser,” you are and how pathetic your existence is.
All you have is a dream of one day not being one of “those people,” that you see fit to shit on.

[Sirion]

So Publius, you basically deny that material resources most notably money and property) is important if you want to become a capitalist. And how about credibility? Would you rather think that a man in a suit has the better idea? Or the homeless man? Would you ever think that the homeless man's ideas might be just as good, but he didn't have the resources and connections to make them reality?

As you see, those two conditions (there are a lot more, of course) are closely intertwined, and makes it really hard to aquire one if you aven't got the other. It happens, but it is not like you say, that anyone can get where they want if they have great ideas and work hard enough.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:13 AM



Uh, yeah, actually. Sometimes I wonder if you just ask questions you already know the answers to.

Most rich people were born rich.

It took someone moving up at some point.


The fact of the matter is that, no matter how good everyone's ideas, there have to be a vast majority of people producing the wealth (the proletariat).

But that's obvious. You can't have everyone owning a toaster making company or none would be employeed, making toasters. That's simple logic. Communisms answer to "BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN BE RICH!" is "NONE CAN BE RICH!". It doesn't solve the problem of inequality; it pretends it doesn't exist.

[Publius]

Make up your mind; either it is difficult to "become capitalist" because everyone can't become one or society would break down; or people just don't have "good enough" ideas.


Non-contradiction.

It is difficult because most people don't have good enough ideas.


Tell me Mr. Super capitalist; what are your great ideas? Help only yourself? Fuck everyone else?
If you have such great ideas, shouldn't you be busy implementing them in your great meritocratic capitalist system?

If it isn't a meritocracy, what is it?



1) Perhaps you are a farce and your mere existence here is proof that your rhetoric is hollow.

I'm sure that's it.


2) Maybe you are bursting with proof that you are a “successful capitalist,” and you prefer the pretence of having no credibility, rather than living your perfect life.


2 for 2!



3) Quite Possibly you are as yet a failure to your glorified system because you do not have "good enough" ideas to market in your magical *good ideas = great success* economy. You just come here to talk about what a “loser,” you are and how pathetic your existence is.

You must be a mind reader!



All you have is a dream of one day not being one of “those people,” that you see fit to shit on.

Stop with the psychology. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:54 AM



So Publius, you basically deny that material resources most notably money and property) is important if you want to become a capitalist. And how about credibility? Would you rather think that a man in a suit has the better idea? Or the homeless man? Would you ever think that the homeless man's ideas might be just as good, but he didn't have the resources and connections to make them reality?

Of course they're important, you just have to earn them.

What you stated sounds good, but it isn't how things work. For example, the founder of Under Armour, just a regular poor guy who had a good idea. He invested in it and succeeded. It doesn't take a whole lot of capital depending on what your idea is, it just has to be good enough. If someone will buy it, you will succeed.


As you see, those two conditions (there are a lot more, of course) are closely intertwined, and makes it really hard to aquire one if you aven't got the other. It happens, but it is not like you say, that anyone can get where they want if they have great ideas and work hard enough.

Do you know any poor people with revolutionary ideas?

[Right_is_right]

Bourgeousie is defined as people who have capital investments, right? Is it not possible for any proletariat to temporarily work at a factory or whatever, build up assets, get a loan, start a business, ie. a capital investment, and be successful (most businesses fail though, i think roughly 2/3 in Canada, often due to bad accounting)?

[Kaan]

Can a Philoppino child living in a box grow up to be the owner of a multinational corporation? Are classes really that dynamic? Be sensible here guys.

[Right_is_right]

If every proletariat can reach this elevated status of "middle class", why would they need communism?


Also, the notion that, under capitalism, anyone can achieve economic success is absurd. It actually requires property, and or univeristy education, that most proletariats cannot afford.

This is not true. Have you ever watch The Apprentice season 3? Well, half of the candidates only have a highschool education and went directly into business while the other half have Harvard MBAs, but guess what, the highschoolers are much richers and are better at business than the highly educated group. Guess who won the previous Apprentice seasons? Thats right, people who went straight into business without a college education. All im trying to say is, you don't need a university education to do extremely well in business.
Oh and property can be obtained through loans. I know tons of proletariats who were able to start a business this way. Tons and tons.

[Right_is_right]

Can a Philoppino child living in a box grow up to be the owner of a multinational corporation? Are classes really that dynamic? Be sensible here guys.

No he can't. But if he plans for the long term, his children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren may be able to.

[New Tolerance]

If social mobility is actually an issue for you:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560 (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

[praxus]

This isn't Rome, there is no such thing as a propertyless Proletariat "class". Class implies that it is somehow imposed by force.


Can a Philoppino child living in a box grow up to be the owner of a multinational corporation? Are classes really that dynamic? Be sensible here guys.

Context dropping, the Philippines is not Capitalist, in the sense we Capitalists(Someone who supports capitalism) use the word.

[CommieBastard]

No, you infer that it is somehow imposed by force.

[praxus]

Nope, I was right the first time.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:11 PM
Can a Philoppino child living in a box grow up to be the owner of a multinational corporation? Are classes really that dynamic? Be sensible here guys.
Not everyone has full equality, nor has anyone claimed it. Rather there is far less social stratification than previously, there is less of a divide between "classes", and even the lowest classes now are experiencing "enbourgeousment". Be sensible here guy.

[Right_is_right]

If social mobility is actually an issue for you:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=3518560


I agree with you on this one. The US has problems with equality of opportunity. In the US it is very hard for the people on the bottom of society's ladder to climb up due to things like unequal education. Perhaps the US needs to be more like Canada. Right now, the worst thing that the people at the bottom can do is lose hope and give up. Blaming the system does not get you anywhere. A person is destined to be unsuccessful in life if he has the habit of blaming others for his failures. If you want to know why I think this way, read "7 Habits of Highly Effective(oops) People". The things in this book do not just apply to being successful in capitalism, but anywhere.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:55 PM

Can a Philoppino child living in a box grow up to be the owner of a multinational corporation? Are classes really that dynamic? Be sensible here guys.

No he can't. But if he plans for the long term, his children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren may be able to.
Sounds like Christianity.
I'm fucking tired of being promised that after my corpse has rotted, things will be better.

[Publius]

So if there was a communist revolution everyone would a be a rich capitalist?

Oh wait.

Communism just solves the problem by robbing the rich, not enriching the poor. Great solution.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I honestly start to think that your visists to Revleft are part of some prank.

[Publius]

Perceptive...

But what would prevent this from happening?

Wouldn't all the "fun" professions have a bunch of workers?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 12 2005, 07:48 PM
Sounds like Christianity.
I'm fucking tired of being promised that after my corpse has rotted, things will be better.
They why are you advocating communism ?

[Right_is_right]

Sounds like Christianity.
I'm fucking tired of being promised that after my corpse has rotted, things will be better.
Stop spamming with useless comments cry baby! You seem like the honourless type who wouldn't jump in front of a car to save your own son or daughter so i don't care about your selfish complaints.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Owww, the Christian talks about honor and young children. Aren't you supposed to rape a child somewhere? I hear that it's very popular among Christians.

Ironicly, you support a system which greatly disadvantages billions of kids. But, I should probaly shut up and be glad that you consider jumping in front of a car.

[Right_is_right]

When did we begin talking about christianity? You can't judge everyone from a certain group just because of the actions of the few. Otherwise, it would be correct for me to call you communists a bunch of crazy, deceptive, power hungry murderers....


Ironicly, you support a system which greatly disadvantages billions of kids. But, I should probaly shut up and be glad that you consider jumping in front of a car.
I support the Canadian governments system. Can you see it above? The US does have a problem in its system in terms of equal opportunity within its own borders. But outside its borders, what you see as exploiting labour in a foreign country, others may see as investment and a chance to get the nation back on its feet. The worst countries in the world are not suffering because the US economic system is exploiting them, rather it is because it doesn't even come near them. The billions of children around the world are disadvantaged because their countries are being neglected. BTW..... that doesn't make me happy.

[Right_is_right]

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how good everyone's ideas, there have to be a vast majority of people producing the wealth (the proletariat).

What happens when automation takes over the jobs of the proletariat? Assume that the bourgeousie have droid armies to protect themselves. Does this mean that all the proletariat will starve to death and the class will die out leaving only bourgeousie? It is a possible theory just like communism right? Not something i hope for though. Are the bourgeousie heartless enough to let this happen?

[Right_is_right]

What i was trying to stress in the previous post is that communism may not be an inevitability.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:40 AM

Make up your mind; either it is difficult to "become capitalist" because everyone can't become one or society would break down; or people just don't have "good enough" ideas.


Non-contradiction.

It is difficult because most people don't have good enough ideas.
You should have stated it so before then. You have a very disgusting view of humanity. Do you think we would have survived with so many "bad ideas?"
Yes, obviously the poor woman has just as much opportunity as one who is born with all the means and assistance one needs to take advantage of others; you are full of shit.



Tell me Mr. Super capitalist; what are your great ideas? Help only yourself? Fuck everyone else?
If you have such great ideas, shouldn't you be busy implementing them in your great meritocratic capitalist system?

If it isn't a meritocracy, what is it?

Ah selectively answering questions? Just goes to show you cannot justify your rhetoric.
"It," is a plutocratic system of social domination.




I'm sure that's it.

2 for 2!

You must be a mind reader!

Stop with the psychology. You're embarrassing yourself.

So you cannot even deal with any questions that examine your motives; how very embarrassing for you. This is just a waste of time if you won't even address the issues.
You are a liar with no interest in discussion; so fuck you.