Progressive role in History

[Tupac-Amaru]

Hello everyone! I have a question for all the Marxisit experts on this forum:

I think i read somwhere that Marx says that the Bourgeoisie played a progressive role in hisotry. What does he mean by this? In what sense?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Hello everyone! I have a question for all the Marxisit experts on this forum:

I'm no expert, but I'll try to give you a decent answer. :)


I think i read somwhere that Marx says that the Bourgeoisie played a progressive role in hisotry. What does he mean by this? In what sense?

The bourgeois played a progressive role because they destroyed the previous feudal system and replaced it with some thing better, Capitalism. The same way the proletariat will play a progressive role by destroying the Capitalist system and replacing it with something better, Communism.

[YKTMX]

That's about it. Marx recognised that capitalist production was incredibly dynamic. It produced more goods, foods etc. than at any other time in history. This meant that capitalism was historically progressive, at that stage. I think there could be a debate as to whether it is any longer progressive. It's more probably wholly economically regressive and reactionery - being, as it is, a barrier to the classless and even more abundant socialist society.

Also, I should just add that Marx recognised that bourgeois democracy, however flawed and undemocratic capitalist society is, was still an improvement on the political and social structures under fuedalism. So, we still recognise the French Revolution as a great democratic breakthrough, even though we admit its bourgeois character.

[red_che]

I'm no expert of Marxism too. But I want to share this little knowledge that I knew.

The bourgeoisie were progressive when they led the revolution to overthrow feudalism and replace it with a more advanced society, Capitalism. However, their being progressive/revolutionary ended since the day they assumed control over society. They became reactionaries since then.

[enigma2517]

That's about it. Marx recognised that capitalist production was incredibly dynamic. It produced more goods, foods etc. than at any other time in history. This meant that capitalism was historically progressive, at that stage. I think there could be a debate as to whether it is any longer progressive. It's more probably wholly economically regressive and reactionery - being, as it is, a barrier to the classless and even more abundant socialist society.

Also, I should just add that Marx recognised that bourgeois democracy, however flawed and undemocratic capitalist society is, was still an improvement on the political and social structures under fuedalism. So, we still recognise the French Revolution as a great democratic breakthrough, even though we admit its bourgeois character.

I couldn't have phrased it more concisely and accurately myself. Good job comrade

[drain.you]

Out of curiosity, are there any bits of capitalism that were done better under feudalism. I mean good things not the nasty stuff that it was infamous for.

[TheComrade]

History has a cycle - The bourgeois brought down the feudal empire only to replace it with another, capitalist empire - many argue (along with me) that history states capitalism will fall to be replaced by.....well what ever you believe.

[chilcru]

I'm also no expert in Marxism but I would like to add the following cents to what has already been said so far:

Marx's statement that the bourgeoisie played a revolutionary role in history actually contains the following senses:

1. as mentioned by previous posters, it was the bourgeoisie which brought down the feudal lords that paved the way for the complete ascendancy of capitalism in the world historical stage. This is the progressive role of the bourgeoisie which Marx had mentioned in The Communist Manifesto.

2. but there is another sense in which Marx posited the bourgeiosie's progressive role in history. The capitalists class' mad quest for profits through a periodic cycle of "boom and busts" pits capitalists in a dog-eat-dog competition among themselves. This "war of all against all" among capitalists is what leads capitalists to constantly revolutionize the means of production ("battle of innovations" or "battle of blueprints") that caused the unprecedented development in machines, equipment, and technology.

But the other side of this unheard of development in industry and technology is the worsening accumulation of misery of the working masses. It is in this way that the proletarian revolution is inevitable.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Thanks a lot for your contribution comrades!! ;) I appreciate it :)