Can I Be Burgeosie And Still Be Communist?

[Samael]

This may be a simple/question but I want to know. I'm 20 and live with my mom but I'm going to school to study Psychology and will go to grad school for Clinical Psychology. My point being, I wouldn't be working class and depending what I chose when I'm out of grad school (either work for myself, join a firm or work in a hospital) I may not even be Proletariat. And since Communism is all about the Proletariat rising up over the burgeosie would I be able to be a communist? I know this may be a stupid question but I'm asking it anyways. I have just started the Communist Manifesto, so my question may be answered with more reading but I just figured I'd put this here. But as a member of the burgeosie (well if I lived with my dad) I'd give up almost everything so that others can have a fair share and that is why I like communism, everybody gets a share.

[LSD]

As a psychologist, you wouldn't be in the bourgeoisie because you won't control the means of production. According to strict Marxist analysis you'd probably be a petite-bourgeois.

Regardless, you can still be a communist so long as you advocate the abolishion of wage-slavery and the creation of a communist society.

Remember, Engles owned a factory. It doesn't get more bourgeouis than that!

[workersunity]

remember as long as you take the proletarian movement in a strictly proletarian leaving all the petty bourgeois reactionary customs out and fully embracing proletariat strive for communism

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2005, 08:07 PM
As a psychologist, you wouldn't be in the bourgeoisie because you won't control the means of production. According to strict Marxist analysis you'd probably be a petite-bourgeois.

Regardless, you can still be a communist so long as you advocate the abolishion of wage-slavery and the creation of a communist society.

Remember, Engles owned a factory. It doesn't get more bourgeouis than that!
Did he treat his workers well?

[codyvo]

I believe that you can be whatever class level and still fight for the ideals of whatever you believe in. I also think that some of what Marx said is outdated, so going by his definitions probably wouldn't be the smartest decision, I really don't care if you make a lot of money, as long as you give back to the cause and to the community.

[CommieCowboy]

I'm an aspiring engineer and think that Leung Kwok-hung is the most perfect example of socialism to have ever lived. :D

[LSD]

I'm an aspiring engineer and think that Leung Kwok-hung is the most perfect example of socialism to have ever lived.

How is that at all relevent to this thread? <_<

[apathy maybe]

(How is that question relevent?)

In my own humble opinion, anyone can be a communist (not Marxist), so long as they meet the standards of wanting to abolish capitalism and establish and egalitarian society with out hierarchy or state. (Plus a bit of other stuff.)

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:34 AM

Did he treat his workers well?
he didnt own the factory his father did and i think most of his life he worked as a clark...but at that time capitalism was progressive so even if they did embrasse it(they didnt) i would be ok with that.

[Hiero]

You would be considered a professional intellectual assiting the workers cause.

Although it is rightfull to be suspicious of your reactionay petty- Burgeosie ideas you will pick up at Univerisity.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Most socialist, communist and anarchist thinkers were not proletarian. People who work full time don&#39;t exactly have the time or energy to philosophize. ;)

I second what &#39;workersunity&#39; was saying.

[Organic Revolution]

yes you could still be a communist because you are not exploiting anyone.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, being well paid doesn&#39;t amek you a beugoirse, a beugoirse is someone who wons the means of production.

[cph_shawarma]

Originally posted by RedSkinheadUltra+Jun 13 2005, 07:04 AM--> (RedSkinheadUltra &#064; Jun 13 2005, 07:04 AM)Most socialist, communist and anarchist thinkers were not proletarian. People who work full time don&#39;t exactly have the time or energy to philosophize. ;)[/b]
This is not quite true... Many of modern communist theorists, like Gilles Dauvé, Karl Nesic and the rest of the group Troploin, are wage-labourers or retired wage-labourers. Gilles Dauvé (aka Jean Barrot) produced much during late 60s and 70s, while he was still working and the group had a paper circulating amongst the workers at Renault.

In Sweden the most prominent theoretical group, Riff-raff, mainly consists of proles (or students who are coming to be proles, like me).

Almost all of the &#39;autonomist&#39; theorists consists of wage-labourers: Glaberman, Tronti et.c. They are in the shadows of the pseudo-intellectuals Negri & Hardt, which (while being active in the communist movement in the 70s) have now become capitalist apologetics...

I find both the time and energy to "philosophize" since I find great pleasure in theoretical understanding of my own practice.


Karl Marx: Preface to the French Edition of Capital Vol. 1 in 1872
There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.

[julianer]

You don&#39;t sound very bourgeois to me.

What Marx meant by the bourgoeisie is the class of people who &#39;own the means of production&#39; that is the owners of factories, offices, mines, shipping companies etc, etc. All in all this is a small section of society and if you were bourgeois there would probably be no mistaking it&#33;

However, no shame in the class you are born into, only shame in actions and words.

[the fury]

I am a petit burgois and I am still a Marxist.

I don&#39;t refer myself as a communist because I am no longer politically active, but still harbor Marxist Ideas and persue them.

[Abstrakt]

I was thinking about this. Since we are all on computers, I&#39;m guessing a high percentage of those that post here either own these computers, or family does...Aren&#39;t we all non-proletariet?

[Enragé]

those who do not make their living out of selling the labour of others, are proletarian in one way or another.

correct?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

those who do not make their living out of selling the labour of others, are proletarian in one way or another.

The capitalist class does not sell the labor power of the workers. They buy the workers labor power, for a period of time. Hour for hour. But, because they buy labor power, where does this labor power come from? From the workers.

Because of that, we have now two classes.

One who buys labor power and own means of production (shops, factories etc).

And the other who sell their labor power to the capitalist class, who (like described earlier) buy labor power and own means of production.

These are two different classes. They are together: The exploiter, and the exploited.


We can put it another way. It&#39;s a simple generalization really.

Those who sell their labor power for wages are proletarian. Those who does not, are not proletarian. But that&#39;s a generalization.

[Abstrakt]

Oh okay. That helps more.

[Enragé]

they do sell the labour power because:

Raw Materials (bought by Bourgeois, yes it was mined by proletarians but thats besides the point)---&#62;labourers make shit----&#62;Bourgeois sells it.

Thus the bourgeois gets the value which is added to the raw materials (while he doesnt do anything), while the labourers get only like a tenth of that.

Therefore: 9/10 of the value the LABOURERS added to the Raw Material goes to the Bourgeois, just because he is the one who sells the product

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 07:21 PM
those who do not make their living out of selling the labour of others, are proletarian in one way or another.

correct?
The bourgeoisie buy labour-power, since it is a commodity. They use this commodity to create other commodities, which they sell on the market, thus increasing their capital. Proletarians are those who must sell their labour-power (their only useful commodity) in order to live. This is where the term wage-slavery comes into play.

And now for the thread creators question. You aren&#39;t a bourgeois unless you own the means of production; and if you&#39;re some sort of manager controlling other proletariats, you would be a petty-bourgeois. You can still be a communist regardless of your class position, however, it is highly unlikely that a bourgeois would be a communist, considering their current status in present capitalist society.

[Batman]

So basicially a member of the working class is someone who sells their labour-power to someone else?

What about people who work for the state, teachers etc would they be classed petite-bourgeoise?

[Batman]

Also what of tradesmen, people who do a trade. Are they classed as &#39;working class&#39;? Skilled labourers.

[bezdomni]

You aren&#39;t considered bourgeois until you own and control the means of production.

Anyway, the bourgeois are doing their part in the revolution too. Without capitalism, communism cannot evolve from it, also, by businesses giving in to trade unions and the creation of worker&#39;s rights groups and the passing of worker&#39;s rights legislation, we are giving a rise to socialism. Marx said that capitalism has to be ripe for socialism to come out of it, even some industries might be "socialized" before the revolution happens.

So the bourgeois are as important to the revolution as the proletarian. The big business owners oppress us and turn us into a militant body while the bourgeois and peteit-bourgeois advocates of the proletarian class give us some rights under capitalism and pave the way for revolution.

[Batman]

Anyway, the bourgeois are doing their part in the revolution too. Without capitalism, communism cannot evolve from it, also, by businesses giving in to trade unions and the creation of worker&#39;s rights groups and the passing of worker&#39;s rights legislation, we are giving a rise to socialism. Marx said that capitalism has to be ripe for socialism to come out of it, even some industries might be "socialized" before the revolution happens.


If you look at all the previous attempts at Socialism, they were all in feudal or feudalistic countries that werent economicially developed. Was that a reason for their down fall?

[Enragé]

perhaps. Though i dont think so. The reason was i believe that there a new elite arose out of the ranks of the revolutionary vanguard (this happened in the USSR, Vietnam, China, North Korea, arguably Cuba, probably all of those kind of states).

The key to a succesful revolution is:
The liberation of the proletariat (or in underdeveloped countries perhaps the peasantry etc) must always be the work of the proletariat itself

[Batman]

The liberation of the proletariat (or in underdeveloped countries perhaps the peasantry etc) must always be the work of the proletariat itself


That&#39;s why the Vanguard is a load of pish.

[OleMarxco]

A truly burgerouise would be a counter-revolutionary one, atleast if they stayed so, and even if they called themselves "communistic" and "attempted" to be with the proletars - even doin&#39; half-assed sabotage actions against their own machinery - they would still, in the end, not be a real one but in WORD. And &#39;rat&#39;s all, even if that hardly counts.........meh, what does it matter, who cares? All nows that a &#39;bourg is not a &#39;prole, and if they try not to be, they&#39;re lyin&#39; to be fancy ;)

[Anarcho-Communist]

As Karl Marx stated, the bourgeois are the capitalists. Read about it further here at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie