Question about the bourgeoisie

[FidelCastro]

Are hated becasue their rich or because they exploit the workers. A worker could save his money all of his and become a millionare but is he beourgeoisie?

[cbm989]

i dont quite understand this question. i think your asking: if a worker just saved up his money and became rich, would that make him beorgeoisie?

the answer is...a common worker does not have the luxury of 'saving up' for he lives on a day to day basis on his meager income. he must spend all his money on simply surviving.

[FidelCastro]

I don't think it is quite that serious anymore. I know factory workers and construction workers that do pretty well.

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:50 PM
Are hated becasue their rich or because they exploit the workers. A worker could save his money all of his and become a millionare but is he beourgeoisie?
Communism means, equality and we communists are supposed to fight against suppression and bring equality by all means. It doesn’t matter if a person is rich or poor; if a person acts as a huddle for equality then naturally he will and should be hated.

[Abood]

Are hated becasue their rich or because they exploit the workers. A worker could save his money all of his and become a millionare but is he beourgeoisie?
The bourgeoisie are hated because they make more money than they deserve by exploiting the workers. there should be no bourgeoisie, since it is the product of a capitalistic world where people dont wanna work, but only "supervise" and "command" others working and gain most of the profit. So therefore, a bourgeoisie is rich BECAUSE he exploits the workers.
and its very hard, sometimes impossible, for a proletarian to save money and become a millionaire. say someone gets $7 an hour.
7x8= $56per day
56x5= $280 per week
280x52= $14560 per year
1 000 000 / 14560 = 68.68 years.
that means that a proletarian with a wage of $7 an hour would need to work for over 68years to be a millionaire, not counting all the money he would have to pay to survive, which technically means that a proletarian would die bankrupt.

[FidelCastro]

i don't know why people think that the proletariet is the guy who makes shit for a living. My dad has worked hard all of his life at his company. He started off low but he worked harder than anybody else and got promoted now he some guys boss but he makes pretty much the same as those under him and I don't live a lavish life.

[LSD]

A worker could save his money all of his and become a millionare but is he beourgeoisie?

That's a flawed question. It's predicated on an assertion that is patently false.

If "a worker" could so easily "become a millionaire", why on earth don't more of them do so?

Clearly, the reality of the situation is that, savings included, the vast majority of workers have absolutely no shot of accumulating anything approaching a million dollars/pounds/euros.

Unfortunately, class is far less transitory than mainstream economics would have you believe.


I know factory workers and construction workers that do pretty well.

"Pretty well" is a relative term.

Compared to their counterparts in the third world, they do indeed live comfortably; compared to their bosses, however, they live like shit.

The problem with the bourgeoisie is not that it is "evil" or "immoral", it's that it is exploitative. As a class, it exists solely to live off the labour of those it abuses. As such it is a corrosive and destructive force in society that must be eliminated.

It's not about "hatred", it's about rational nescessity.


i don't know why people think that the proletariet is the guy who makes shit for a living.

Because, for the most part, "shit" is a very apt description of their "living". :angry:


My dad has worked hard all of his life at his company. He started off low but he worked harder than anybody else and got promoted now he some guys boss but he makes pretty much the same as those under him and I don't live a lavish life.

Personal annectodes aside, the statistical evidence speaks pretty overwlelmingly for itself.

Not knowing more about your specific case, I can't address into which class your father falls, but it's worth noting that neither the bourgeoisie nor its members are "evil".

There are plenty of bourgeois individuals who are quite personable and nice. Just like how, in slave times, there were plenty of slave-owners who were, to those who knew them, quite kind and decent. Being a part of an oppressive class does not make one "bad", it just makes one part of an oppressive class.

Accordingly, in the 18th century, there were millions of decent slave-owners, and today there are millions of geuinely nice capitalists.

And your father may well be one of them.

If so, we don't want to "kill" or "exterminate" him, we just want to remove his ability to exploit others; even if he doesn't recognize that that's what he's doing.

Look, you're probably right, he probably isn't "bad", but he's part of a bad system.

And that system needs to die.

[Hiero]

LSD clearly showed that the bourgeoisie are not hated for being evil or something similair, but because the are the opposite of the proletariat. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie come into contradiction over production and wages.

What he doesn't explain and alot of people this forum are afraid to admit is that alot of factory workers and other workers in the 1st world do infact do pretty well. The reason for this is not because they have the ability to save, or workers can naturally get good wages. The reason this happens is due to imperialism. Companies with their large monopolies can invest heavily in the 3rd world and make the maxium profity available from exploiting cheap labor and cheap resources. With this super profits they are able to spread some of this wealth around their home factories and some of the wealth goes to making up the wages of workers in the 1st world.

The idea that the workers are explioted is based on the fact that workers do not get paid their full labour time. That the profits the capitalist make are taken from the wages not paid to workers. But if workers in the 1st world are receiving wages pushed up by profits made from the expliotation of the proletariat in the 3rd world, then they receive a wage that pays for their complete labour time.

This is called labor aristocracy, Lenin mentions it in his book "Imperialism the highest stage of Capitalism". However the labor artistocracy has grown in recent times.

So this pushes the contradiction from the workers in the first world between the bourgeoisie in the first world, to the workers in the 3rd world between their local bourgeoisie and also the imperialist bourgeoisie in the 1st world.

[LSD]

It's amazing how whenever I read "superprofits", I know I'm about to be deluged with crap. :angry:


The reason for this is not because they have the ability to save, or workers can naturally get good wages. The reason this happens is due to imperialism.

No, actually the reason this happens is due to uneven development.

Third world countries have no history of local capitalist development and are so are able to be entirely dominated by foreign capital.

The first world, by contrast, has a substantive history of labour action and political reform. This tradition of limited labour rights has lead to an economic climate in which both legally and culturally, capitalists are unable to fully exploit their workers to the degree they are in the third world.

But this is not "by choice"!

Do you really think that if they could, companies would not pay first world workers what they pay third world ones? That they are "deciding" to be "nice" to their local proletariat?

The reason that they are "outsourcing" so much labour is precisely to escape from the advanced economies of their home countries. If this were all a "choice", why not make the cheaper one and stay at home?

The idea that it "all comes down" to empire is ludicrous. Think about it, if the US were to raise the minimum wage by one dollar tomorrow, millions of American workers would make one more dollar an hour, regardless of the size of the American empire.

Economic imperialism allows capitalism to expand, yes, but it is not the "cause" of improved labour conditions in the first world. Labour conditions consistantly improve in countries as they technologically and economically advance. Their relationship to the expeditionary ventures of local capitalists is marginal if not nonexistant.

A good example of this is the situation in western Europe as compared with the United States.

The Swedish proletariat has a much higher living standard than its American counterpart, despite the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Sweden remains a subserviant state.

Certainly the "economic empire" of the Swedish bourgeoisie cannot compare to that of the American, and yet the average worker in America does not live as well as the average one in Sweden.

Both the American and Swedish bourgeoisie aim to increase profits, yet one of them pays its workers more than the other. Why is this?

According to your hypothesis, we could only conclude that the Swedish capitalists just "decided" to "share" a "bigger slice" of their "superprofits".

Parhaps Swedish capitalists are "nicer" than their American counterparts? :lol:

Sorry, but that makes no sense. We cannot base an economic model on the "kindness of strangers"!

If your paradigm is at all true, it nescessitates a direct correlation between size of empire and local wages. Since that correlation clearly does not exist, your theory is obviously false.


With this super profits they are able to spread some of this wealth around their home factories and some of the wealth goes to making up the wages of workers in the 1st world.

The problem with that is that it assumes a degree of organization and pseudo-Marxist thinking on behalf of the bourgeoisie which is simply not there.

First world capitalists do not think in terms of "class struggle" or "proletarian aristocracy". They think in terms of profit and loss.

This is capitalism 101; companies try to maximize profits and workers are paid as little as possible. In the first world, that happens to be more than in the third world, but that is because of the influence of external forces.

This paradigm of yours seems to assume that the capitalists "have all the power" which is not only ludicrous on face, but is also insulting to the millions of workers who have died in the first world to better their conditions.

Class war is not some theoretical "endgame", it is a living and current animal, and one which has been around for a very very long time.

Capitalism is the perpetual struggle between classes and while the bourgeoisie is powerful, it is not omnipotent. If it were, it would certainly cut wages well bellow their present levels.

Hundreds of years of class war have reduced the ability of the first world capitalist class to exert its will unconditionaly.

Ignoring this fact and claiming that every loss for the bourgeoisie is actually part of a "secret plan" of "class bribery" is verging on the paranoid.

It is simply not in the interest of the bourgeoisie to have a "well paid labour aristocracy". If it were, why didn't they come up with this "bribery" idea a hundred years ago? Why did they fight every single small reform tooth and nail?

Again, the bourgeosie simply does not think in the terms you think it does. Nor is it a coherent being capable of such advanced and vast conspiratorial schemes.

Capitalists want to make money, that's it.

And on the question of specific wages, it is utterly ludicrous to compare a first world and third world wage without contextualizing them. You need to remember that living costs and conditional expenses are entirely different.

A first world employer is paying into a very different pool than a third world one, and they know it.

Moreover, for the most part, the labour being done in the first world is different from the labour being done in the third. Basic Marxism tells us that an employer is willing to pay the cost of recreation, of getting another of the same type of worker.

The simple economic fact is that, for the most part, first world labour is more expensive pro se than third world, and therefore is more expensive for capitalists to procure.

It isn't about "bribery" or "superprofits", it's about economics.


But if workers in the 1st world are receiving wages pushed up by profits made from the expliotation of the proletariat in the 3rd world, then they receive a wage that pays for their complete labour time.

But what happens when we take this to its logical conclusion?

If first world workers are being "payed for their complete labour time" and "[exploitation] is based on the fact that workers do not get paid their full labour time", then doesn't it follow that first world workers are not exploited?

Furthermore, this "lack of exploitation" only follows from the present sociopolitical environment, meaning that it is in the interest of this "labour aristocracy" to perpetuate it. That means that first world workers will fight for capitalist imperialism, not against it.

So where does this leave us?

Basically, you are claiming that, firstly, advanced proletariats are not exploited and, secondly, they cannot be revolutionary!

Not exactly Marxist! :lol:

[Hiero]

It's amazing how whenever I read "superprofits", I know I'm about to be deluged with crap.

You don't believe in superprofits?

But most of what you say is right, except that proletariat in the 1st world are not being paid their full labour time and that 1st world workers are in the same type of struggle as the workes in the 3rd world.

1st world workers are of course going to fight for higher wages, and they have done this. In Sweden there is a greater history of social democracy, different ideas of what humans rights mean (including the right to health, education etc). So the Swedish workers are going to expect alot more. I never claimed the bourgeoisie gave these improvements and wages be their own choice, i never actually stated why this happens.

So the reason that some workers in the 1st world share in super profits is because of class conflict. When workers do receive more from imperialism they are recieving a bribe, this happens regardless if the workers and bourgeoisie are conscious of it.


It is simply not in the interest of the bourgeoisie to have a "well paid labour aristocracy". If it were, why didn't they come up with this "bribery" idea a hundred years ago? Why did they fight every single small reform tooth and nail?

Marx and Engels noted that this was happening over a hundred years ago. Then Lenin developed the theory in his book on imperialism.


Basically, you are claiming that, firstly, advanced proletariats are not exploited and, secondly, they cannot be revolutionary!

Im claiming that economics has changed alot since Marx, Engel and Lenin, and that there is a larger labor aristocracy. If this is the case, then most first world proletariat are really middle clas and are not explioted and can not be revolutionary. This is Marxist, the theory is based on Marxism, it is just not being dogmatic.

[boosh logic]

I think the middle class are still exploited, just not as much as the working class. If not, then there needs to be more categories than just middle, working and ruling. For example, my dad has a white collar job working for an insurance company, and makes an okay wage. We are a middles class family, but by no means rich, as we still have redundancy and debt and mortgages to pay, just like everyone else. While we may be better off than working class, middle class doesn't equal bourgoise. Recently one of his bosses got a pay off fee of 3 million pounds (around $5 million) to leave after a sexual harassment case went through. Why? Because the other members of the board know that if they treat other board members nice then when it comes time for them to leave, they'll get a six-figure sum too.

Most people on this board seem to lump middle class with the owners of the means, when in fact this is generally wrong (I realise there are exceptions), as the owners of the means, the bourgoise, are the ruling class and are doing much better than the middle class, who then do better than the working class. So while it is true that the MC has it better than the WC, they are still exploited.

[viva le revolution]

Booshlogic, there are characteristics of all classes and their relations to the means of production that determine where their class interests lie and how will they act and react to a revolutionary movement.
The working class, ie. the proletariat(industrial labour) and the peasantry act against capitalism when the revolution is near. It is in their material interest to do so. Because they occupy the lowest rank in capitalist society and because their labour is looted without compensation they seek to abolish this cruel and inhuman system. Because they lie diametrically opposite to the bourgeoisie and because they are the most populous, the revolution then brings in a government of the working class.
The bourgeosie seeks to continue enjoying the fruits of the labour of the proletariat. Therefore it is in their material interest to prop up capitalism. Therefore when a revolutionary movement starts, they are the principal target, therefore they seek to quell it always.
The middle class because it is not exploited to the extent of the working class, nor does it occupy the same position as the bourgeoisie. Therefore it seeks to supplant the bourgeoisie and replace the ruling class with themselves as the new ruling elite. Middle class movements have taken the form of fascism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism, social-democracy, liberalism, lifestyleism and anarchism. thesev are all basically movements of the middle class to raise their own social rank and prestige in rivalry with the bourgeosie. Thier main focus is not on the destruction of capitalism but for the actual continuance of the system sometimes dirctly through collaboration and sometimes by joining the ranks of the proletarian movements and sowing discord from within. weakening working class solidarity through factionalism etc etc. Not individually of course, but as a class in general.

[Abood]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:16 AM
i don't know why people think that the proletariet is the guy who makes shit for a living. My dad has worked hard all of his life at his company. He started off low but he worked harder than anybody else and got promoted now he some guys boss but he makes pretty much the same as those under him and I don't live a lavish life.
no one said that. the proletariat are the people who are exploited by the higher classes and are paid less than they deserve.
and ur dad being some guys boss doesnt make him a bourgeoisie - maybe he is, but not necessarily. a bourgeoisie is someone like a general manager, a chairman or a CEO or high ranks like that. they are the elites of the corrupted governtments.

[boosh logic]

Thanks for clearing that up Viva, that makes much more sense that it is as a class that the middle class supports capitalism, as opposed to individuals, as otherwise I'm sure that there would be a large amount of posters on this site absent, including myself. I guess that explains how the middle class are willing to put up with tedious 9-5 office jobs, as there is promise of reward in financial terms, whereas for the working class there is much less opportunity to escape from their oppression.

[enigma2517]

I never really saw it in those terms.

Middle-class is a pretty meaningless classifcation.

For me, it all comes down to the means of production. Many middle class people might live comfortably, but that doesn't mean they're still not selling their labor and feel the same alienation that other workers do.

True, the rich worker is less likely to rebel than the impoverished one, but I still think its fair, or beneficial, to classify all middle-class people as class-enemies.


Middle class movements have taken the form of fascism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism, social-democracy, liberalism, lifestyleism and anarchism. thesev are all basically movements of the middle class to raise their own social rank and prestige in rivalry with the bourgeosie.

Workers have supported all of those too. Who says that the ignorant worker won't try to replace the capitalist? Who says that the middle-class person wants to?

[Hiero]

For me, it all comes down to the means of production. Many middle class people might live comfortably, but that doesn't mean they're still not selling their labor and feel the same alienation that other workers do.

Middle class people receive higher wages, and recieve their complete wage. Thus they are not explioted. Just because the CEO's receice millions, doesn't mean that the middle class are explioted. Under socialism no worker is going to receive a pay like a capitalist, becauase the profits are explioted from worldwide workers.

If Middle Class are receiving higher wage, then they can have a better lifestyle in capitalism, so they have little reason to overthrow it.

[anomaly]

LSD, just a quick question here, based on this quote of yours:

"If so, we don't want to "kill" or "exterminate" him, we just want to remove his ability to exploit others; even if he doesn't recognize that that's what he's doing."

Now, are you stating that you'd never condone the killing of a capitalist, or simply that you wouldn't kill a capitalist if you didn't have to (under revolutionary circumstances)? Basically, are you a pacifist?

[FidelCastro]

I come from a middle class family. I've been told by my parents not to take the easy way out or expolit someone else. We're all humans at the end of the day. You can be a poor person in africa or Bill Gates and at the day, the money you have doesn't mean shit. Now I am aware that Bill Gates had more advantages than a poor person in Africa but then again, Bill Gates has been doing what he can to help them. I see the beorgeoisie as the asshole boss who dumps all of the work on his assistant and has a 6 figure salary and all he does all day is bone the secretary.

[LSD]

Now, are you stating that you'd never condone the killing of a capitalist, or simply that you wouldn't kill a capitalist if you didn't have to (under revolutionary circumstances)?

The latter.

Undoubtably, we will be required to kill a great many capitalists as they will certainly not be willing to cede their power peacefully.

My point, however, was that our objective is not the death of the bourgeoisie. And that, accordingly, we do not desire to "eradicate" or "exterminate" every singe capitalist alive.

Capitalists are naturally opportunists. For most of them, their allegiance is not ideological but practical; they support capitalism because it supports them. Now, while they will for the most part, certainly fight us at first, cnce the revolution appears to be winning, they will not be so eager to "die for their beliefs".

I seriously doubt that we will be required to kill any more than 10% of the present capitalist class. And that group will include the ideological capitalists and the most blatant exploiters and profiteers.

The "average" capitalist, such as the original poster's father, will almost certainly be invited to participate in the post-revolutionary society ...provided, of course, that they follow the new rules!


Basically, are you a pacifist?

Asolutely not.

I don't doubt for a second that violence will be required. Unfortunate as it may be, no great social change can occur painlessly.

Opressors will always defend their position. What choice do we have but to fight back?

[boosh logic]

Would there really be need for killings though? Obviously there would if it was up against the armed forces, but I doubt that the average millionaire/upper class person is the type to get in a fight. This may be stereotypical, but the working classes are generally stronger than the middle and upper, as their work normally uses manual labour.

Just because someone is a capitalist doesn't mean they are a bad person - most people don't realise how things are, so just try to better themselves as much as possible, as the idea of getting rich is drilled into society as being the best thing in life. So while these people may be unhappy/unsure about a revolution as the 'normal' way of life is disrupted, surely a lot of the middle classes would catch on and join, or is that too optimistic?

(edit spelling)

[LSD]

Would there really be need for killings though?

Yes.


ust because someone is a capitalist doesn't mean they are a bad person

That's absolutely true.

As I've already outlined, the majority of capitalist are not "bad people", they are merely part of a bad system. And because this system so bennefits them, they are willing to fight to preserve it.

Once the system appears to be beyond rescue, however, the vast majority of capitalists will not be willing to "die for their beliefs". Again, capitalists are ultimately pragmatists. It is not the "ideology" of capitalism that appeals to them, but it's practical usefulness to them.

Once that usefulness has expired, so will their fight.


So while these people may be unhappy/unsure about a revolution as the 'normal' way of life is disrupted, surely a lot of the middle classes would catch on and join, or is that too optimistic?

Not at all.

Again, I predict that no more than 10% of the bourgeoisie will need to be killed in order to secure the capitulation of the remaining capitalists.

The fact is, communist life is not enslavement or misery and once they realize that they are fully capable of living a comfortable life in communist society, very few of the former bourgeoisie will be motivated to fight for a capitalist restoration.

That doesn't mean that we should become complacent, however, because there will undoubtably be some "true believers" who survive, and they will almost certainly have to be dealt with in their time.

But there is no need to "exterminate" the entire class!

[boosh logic]

I agree with you on most of what you have said, but I still don't think that people would fight in the physical sense, as while there would be a lot of lobbying for government intervention, I doubt that there would be many willing to die for a cause, as we live in a relatively comfortable situation in terms of violence (assuming you live in the west as well).

While there is violence, it is nothing compared to the likes of civil wars in Africa and chaos in the middle east, the kind of thing that would unify people in a fight for a common cause. For communism to come about in Western 'civilisation' in my opinion there would need to be a significant awakening to the real world for the communists to gain enough support to take on the government.

Wouldn't it be too premature to attack the government before mass support was achieved? But I suppose that it is just dependant on your view of wether moral change will bring political change or vice versa.

[LSD]

I agree with you on most of what you have said, but I still don't think that people would fight in the physical sense

Tell that to the Spanish anarchists and the Chiliean social democrats.

The bourgeoisie gets very "physical" when it detects its privilage being attacked even slightly.

It's not that we "want" to fight them, it's that they need to fight us. It's the only way to ensure their continued dominance. Without the ability to excersize coercive control, they lose their economic power. And so when the wheels of capitalism stop turning, the bourgeoisie has a class obligation to start them turning again by any means.

Practically speaking, that means violence.


I doubt that there would be many willing to die for a cause, as we live in a relatively comfortable situation in terms of violence

Indeed we do, and yet despite this, over a hundred thousand "comfortable" Americans and several thousand "comfortable" brits decided to go risk their lives in Iraq.

Why? Because they were told to.

What do you think they'll be told when the revolution comes?

Communist sentiment will never be universal, not in a capitalist society. And there will always be those, such as the police, who are loyal to the state who see it as their "duty" to preserve its institutions.

Remember, even the French strike of '68 resulted in violence despite the fact that, in terms of revolutionary potential, it was largely impotent from the beginning.

Revolutionary times are not "comfortable" times, certainly not for the rulling classes.

The closer we get to revolutionary conditions, the more and more afraid the bourgeoisie becomes and the more preparations they put in place to secure their hold on power.

Inevitably, that means conflit ...the "physical" kind.


Wouldn't it be too premature to attack the government before mass support was achieved?

Now? Absolutley, but I am not proposing that we "attack the government" now.

I am merely saying that when the time comes, it will require real physical action to succede.

A radical and class-conscious proletariat is the first step, but even a fully awakened working class still needs to fight before emancipation can be achieved.

Most capitalists will not die for their ideology, but they will certainly fight for the preservation of their class. And they will not concede defeat until it the revolution is at their doorstep.

For those first few months, it's going to be pretty brutal going. Not that the bourgeoisie will fight for itself, of course, rather it will send out its agents and loyalists to, as usual, do its labour for it. Hopelessly outnumbered, the capitalists and statists will have no choice but to shield themselves behind their "employees" and "subordinates".

Tools of the enemy, however, are still the enemy and while we will certainly try to convert as many workers and soldiers as possible, for many, their allegiance is too deep-seated and their loyalty too great to renounce the system they defend.

It's unfortunate, but that's the nature of all great social changes; they always cost dearly in blood.

[boosh logic]

What do you think they'll be told when the revolution comes?


I'm not sure if that holds up though, because while soldiers may have gone to Iraq, there are many who refused to go, and condemn the situation out there. You are right on the whole, as most went there, but I doubt they would just as happily beat up children of their own country as they would of a foreign country, and if they did follow orders to stop the revolution, I'm sure there would be a lot of remorse amongst them. To kill Iraqi's, it may be easy, as it is an alien culture to most if not all of the troops, of people who are thousands of miles from home. But when you start fighting against the people of your own country, and start recognising the faces of teenagers and adults of your own life in the faces of those you have killed, there would no doubt be a lot of resent at the government, causing them to switch sides/mutiny.


Now?

No I didn't mean now I meant when it comes - but I was referring to something you wrote that I read wrong, so ignore that please ;). I was assuming that by bourgeoisie you meant all middle class and above (although I realise that the middle class would be reactionary to begin with), as I have found people use the term for many different definitions, but I assume you mean as in the exploiters of the employees?

If not, could you explain your definition please?