Possible for one to become proletarianized?

[drain.you]

This is a thread based on the idea CompanerDeLibertad raised in this History thread,


Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
Well, firstly we have to ask if it's possible for one to become proletarianized -- to give up everything that goes along with being bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie. I think it is.

I agree that this can happen in capitalist society. Social mobility, a direct effect of meritocracy, allows people to change which class they belong to. A working class person can go on to become President of United States and an middle-class capitalist can become a socialist.
Does everyone else agree with this?
I've heard people say that meritocracy is a myth but I find that hard to agree with. I can understand how the system keeps some people down, but surely most people can rise and fall. The majority of poverty in the USA goes to the African American population of , they are fairly suppressed economically but there are African Americans in high positions also. :huh:

What are your opinions on social mobility and meritocrtacy?

[ComradeOm]

Just off hand I seem to recall that Marx mentioned, somewhere, that it was quite possible for a member of the petty bourgeoisie to slip into wage slavery and join the proletariat. Since it all depends on material conditions I don't see why not.

[drain.you]

Heres another question for you guys, Is social mobility a good thing?

[STI]

Social mobility, a direct effect of meritocracy, allows people to change which class they belong to. A working class person can go on to become President of United States

I think you have a very warped perception of the way capitalism actually works in the real world, especially for a leftist.


surely most people can rise and fall.

If they "can", then why don't they? Do you really believe that most people are just "too lazy" or "too stupid" to "make it", or is it that capitalism absolutely requires the majority of people to be proletarians and produce the wealth enjoyed by the ruling class?


there are African Americans in high positions also

In proportion to the population? Nah.

And look at the ones who do "make it". Condy is a sellout.

[tunes]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Oct 18 2005, 09:03 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Oct 18 2005, 09:03 AM)Just off hand I seem to recall that Marx mentioned, somewhere, that it was quite possible for a member of the petty bourgeoisie to slip into wage slavery and join the proletariat. [/b]
Yeah, The Communist Manifesto.


Marx & Engels
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

[Severian]

People are involuntarily proletarianized all the time. This is part of the workings of capitalism. It's also possible, though far less common, for people to voluntarily become working-class.

Drain.you is right that there is a certain amount of social mobility between classes. There's less than a lot of people think, and less than there used to be.

STI, capitalism requires that most people be exploited....but it doesn't require that it be 100% hereditary!

[enigma2517]

Just because you can move up and down the hierarchy doesn't justify its existance

:)

[redstar2000]

A healthy, vigorous, expanding capitalism creates more room "at the top"...giving the illusion of the possibility of "bettering oneself" -- moving "up the ladder".

This "American" vision of the possibilities of capitalism depends on the on-going success of the American Empire.

Is that a reasonable expectation?

Or was Marx right? Will the "glory years" become no more than a memory as American imperialism spirals downwards in catastrophic defeat?

The last three decades have resulted in a sharp decrease in "upward mobility" in the United States...as admitted by The Economist. Is this the real "wave of the future"?

American ideologues argue that the reason for this decline is that American capitalism "really is meritocratic"...those at the bottom of the "social pyramid" really "are" genetically inferior.

Of course, this is a argument that has been made by every social elite in recorded history...and refuted by the progress of history itself. Is there any reason to believe it this time?

Because it sounds "scientific"?

Granted the obvious point that humans are born with differing capabilities, talents, etc., is there any inherent justification for differing access to all of life's "goodies"? Capitalists, like all authoritarians, argue that there is.

Some "do more" and therefore "deserve" to "benefit more".

I confess that this has always struck me as a bullshit argument. We have no say in the outcome of our conception...it is entirely beyond our control. We are "stuck" with the genetic cards that are dealt to us. To withhold a fair share of life's "goodies" from us because of the bad cards we were dealt has always seemed to me to be a plain and obvious injustice.

It is as if one were to say that only those who can design and build a generator should be allowed to have electricity connected to their homes.

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

[drain.you]

They think its cause they are Genetically inferior? Does that mean they believe African-Americans aren't as biologically as good as European Americans?

Sounds pretty racist to me.

What did Marx say about these 'glory years' of meritocracy, by the way?

[redstar2000]

I suppose, in the spirit of "fairness", that one should observe the distinction between capitalist ideologues who still embrace one or another form of "scientific" racism and those who bluntly repudiate it.

The latter would say something like this: "There are people of color who are just as genetically superior as any white people...and the virtue of American capitalism is that they too can rise to the top and remain there."

If such people are still rare, that's just a legacy of old-style racism. In the future, people of color will be found thought the meritocratic elite in roughly the same proportion as the general population.

Overall, genetic superiority "prevails".

The main empirical critique of this analysis falls, I think, into the area of demonstrated incompetence. If the people who run things are so "superior" to the rest of us, how is it that they fuck up so badly?

But as I noted earlier, I think it manifestly unjust to allocate life's "goodies" on the basis of even demonstrated genetic superiority.

As to Marx's views, it was his contention that capitalism would destroy itself by the very operation of the mechanisms that had made it so successful in his own time. During the 1930s, many people thought the "final collapse" of capitalism was "at hand".

This turned out to be a premature conclusion. One important theoretical question that faces us now is how long can capitalism as it exists now continue? My personal opinion is that a major crisis is within five or so decades and that it will first appear in western Europe. I am speaking of a depression far more severe than that of the 1930s.

But others have different opinions, of course.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:41 PM
They think its cause they are Genetically inferior? Does that mean they believe African-Americans aren't as biologically as good as European Americans?
Some do. "The Bell Curve" book by Murray and Hernstein is a good example.

But even more, they argue that rich people are smarter than poor people, because, they claim, intelligence rises to the top and intelligence is hereditary. That's really what "The Bell Curve" was about, class. Though its claims about race got more attention.

The argument basically goes:
We're rich because we're smart. We deserve to be rich, because we're smart. You can tell we're smart, because we're rich.

Redstar's pointed out one of the many problems with this argument.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:11 PM
We're rich because we're smart. We deserve to be rich, because we're smart. You can tell we're smart, because we're rich.

Sounds like "Social Darwinism"? Am I correct?

Lets tie bricks to these peoples' feet and see if they evolve gills fast enough.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:39 AM
I suppose, in the spirit of "fairness", that one should observe the distinction between capitalist ideologues who still embrace one or another form of "scientific" racism and those who bluntly repudiate it.

The latter would say something like this: "There are people of color who are just as genetically superior as any white people...and the virtue of American capitalism is that they too can rise to the top and remain there."

If such people are still rare, that's just a legacy of old-style racism. In the future, people of color will be found thought the meritocratic elite in roughly the same proportion as the general population.

Overall, genetic superiority "prevails".

The main empirical critique of this analysis falls, I think, into the area of demonstrated incompetence. If the people who run things are so "superior" to the rest of us, how is it that they fuck up so badly?

But as I noted earlier, I think it manifestly unjust to allocate life's "goodies" on the basis of even demonstrated genetic superiority.

As to Marx's views, it was his contention that capitalism would destroy itself by the very operation of the mechanisms that had made it so successful in his own time. During the 1930s, many people thought the "final collapse" of capitalism was "at hand".

This turned out to be a premature conclusion. One important theoretical question that faces us now is how long can capitalism as it exists now continue? My personal opinion is that a major crisis is within five or so decades and that it will first appear in western Europe. I am speaking of a depression far more severe than that of the 1930s.

But others have different opinions, of course.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I do not disagree that it may be possible for a severe depression to occur within the next 50 years. But in Western Europe? Not likely. As the economies of the first world deplete their national manufacturing jobs, the chances of revolution and the 'end of capitalism' go drastically down.

These jobs continue to drift southward, and so I argue that any revolution will neccesarily begin there. Perhaps it will even be this revolution (if significantly broad) that will lead to this 'depression' of which you speak. Of course, as you point out, predicting the future with any degree of accuracy is rather difficult, so this is only an opinion I present.

[wet blanket]

Redstar, why do you predict that western europe will be first to experience a massive depression? I'm not arguing with you, but I've seen you mention this on your site(there you were more specific and mentioned France) and I'd like to know your reasoning. Is there something specific about the EU's economy that points to a dead-end?

[redstar2000]

I think that a "final economic crisis" of capitalism is most likely in western Europe because modern capitalism is oldest there.

The ruling class in western Europe is "encrusted" with ancient prejudices and least likely to meet the challenges of global competition.

I frankly admit that this is pure speculation on my part. It's only "virtue" is that it is speculation that's very much "in line" with Marx's outlook.

I appreciate the views of those who look to the "third world" for revolutionary impetus. But I think the error that they make is assuming an identity between anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism.

Anti-imperialists in the "third world" often resort to anti-capitalist rhetoric to strengthen the resolve of their followers. And few people would question the hypothesis that every defeat for the old imperialist powers weakens capitalism (at least temporarily) as an international system.

Communism requires a very advanced working class in order to function. Even though the proletarian sectors of "third world" economies are growing at a rapid pace, you cannot "do communism" with a proletariat still laboring under the burdens of superstition, patriarchy, racism, etc. A "working class" revolution in such a context simply replicates class society in a new form...the "revolutionary party" in one way or another transforms itself into a new and vigorous capitalist class.

Those in the "west" who embrace the "third world" perspective risk finding themselves reduced to the level of "cheer-leading". And then comes the disillusionment; the "third world revolutionary party" takes the first steps to openly restore capitalism.

Inviting the cynical conclusion that genuine revolution is "impossible" and "always" turns to shit.

This "trajectory" is so common in the "west" as to have become a banality. It comes, in my opinion, from a complete failure to grasp Marx's understanding of material reality in determining the nature of class society.

We know that Marx was wrong about some things...so it's not "impossible" that he was wrong about the material determinants of class (and classless) societies. The proof is not hard to imagine: let there be a "third world" revolution that actually constructs a viable communist society.

When that happens, I will cheerfully eat all my words on this subject and apologize to everyone for my self-evident stupidity.

I've just never heard, up to this point, any convincing argument on why Marx's analysis should be abandoned. Indeed, it seems to be that the history of "third world" revolutions (Russia, China, etc.) proves Marx's analysis to be entirely accurate.

And I will accordingly continue to "go with a winner".

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

[DisIllusion]

Communism requires a very advanced working class in order to function. Even though the proletarian sectors of "third world" economies are growing at a rapid pace, you cannot "do communism" with a proletariat still laboring under the burdens of superstition, patriarchy, racism, etc. A "working class" revolution in such a context simply replicates class society in a new form...the "revolutionary party" in one way or another transforms itself into a new and vigorous capitalist class.

Communism does require a very advanced worker class, plus a lot of hard work and the willingness to work for everybody, not just yourself. Which is the main reason why capitalists hate us, because we actually think of others when we try to make a living.

[idealisticcommie]

I believe there will ultimately be a world-wide cataclysmic implosion of the capitalist system. I think that this will occur once imperialistic capitalism has aggregated every person in the world into its system of hierarchical relations.

I take this Mathusian view because you can't produce consumers af quickly as you can stuff.

However, if the crisis of oil depletion occurs first, we could see the collapse then.

Regardless, I see no reason not to anticipate a collapse of the system for WHATEVER REASON.

Back to the original question: Yes, I believe it is possible for people to become "proletarianized". Take a middle level technocrat in the U.S., and force him into working 2 full-time menial jobs, where 1 cush desk gig used to pay the bills, and he will become proletarianized in a heartbeat! :P

The erosion of the middle-class in the US, (predicted by Marx), is a great opportunity for us :) , though I feel for the angst of the people who have to suffer through it. :(