Class Dynamics

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Dialectical thinking, whether true or not, seems to have us focus on class interests. However, communism is about achieving a society that maximizes efficiency, as I see it. Consequently, could leftists reforms not benefit the rich? What is the justification for the fact that the bourgeoisies is fundamentally opposed to the interests of the proletariat.

Not saying that it isn't. Just looking to get some views to broaden my knowledge base/further develop my ideas.

[Everyday Anarchy]

I believe revolutions (especially a communist revolution!) are supposed to improve the life of everyone. I think the bourgeoisie have just as much to gain as the proletariat from a revolution. They are not free either.
The proletariat are chained to capitalism with work and wages. The bourgeoisie are chained to capitalism by the tyranny of the majority.

While the proles have to sell their labor to survive, the bourgeoisie have to sell their dignity, individuality, and desires in fear of being ostracized.




Hell, I bet I'll either be restricted or flamed for this post but whatever. All I've done is stepped outside of the classist mentality.

[black magick hustla]

Communism would benefit everyone, regardless of class.

Alot of the bourgeosie sacrifices their lives to boring shit-work, and make out of work itself their only idenitity.

The middle class is basically the same, a big percentage of it actually hates their job, however they keep working in such job to be "economically comfortable".

However, this doesn't disproves the fact that those two classes are reactionary--and the real revolutionary class is the proletariat.

The proletariat is the productive class.

The proletariat is the most opressed class.

Individuals of non-proletarian classes may be revolutionary, but seeing the big picture, there are revolutionary and reactionary classes.

Class war-like feelings are only inherent in the proletariat. They are the ones that get disgrunted at their bosses, they are the ones that get "jealous" about the bourgeosie's power--they are the ones turned down by bankrupt moralists crying "violence and jealousy is bad!"

They are the ones that have less, and thus, they are the ones that have less to lose.

A communist revolution needs to be of proletarian character.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 23 2006, 02:03 AM
Dialectical thinking, whether true or not, seems to have us focus on class interests. However, communism is about achieving a society that maximizes efficiency, as I see it. Consequently, could leftists reforms not benefit the rich? What is the justification for the fact that the bourgeoisies is fundamentally opposed to the interests of the proletariat.

Not saying that it isn't. Just looking to get some views to broaden my knowledge base/further develop my ideas.
Firstly, communism is less about efficiency and more about equality. That is the guiding principle. We're not fighting for greater efficiency.

Secondly, the bourgeoisie is completely at odds with the interests of a self-emancipated proletariat and will rain bullets and fire on workers to prevent them achieving their freedom.

Thirdly, the only way the bourgeosie would benefit from a communist revolution would be to voluntarily liquidate themselves as a class. Otherwise, we'd be forced to shoot and imprison them.

[rouchambeau]

No, but their privilege would certainly cloud their judgment.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:07 PM
Communism would benefit everyone, regardless of class.
In what ways? Certainly the ruling classes would lose quite a bit.


Alot of the bourgeosie sacrifices their lives to boring shit-work, and make out of work itself their only idenitity.

What sort of boring shit-work are you referring to? I guess trading stocks from your penthouse isn't very exciting, but I wouldn't call it "shit-work."


The middle class is basically the same, a big percentage of it actually hates their job, however they keep working in such job to be "economically comfortable".

What is "the middle class?" Do you mean the petit-bourgeois, or something else? "Middle class" is a social class distinction, not a Marxist one.

----


However, communism is about achieving a society that maximizes efficiency, as I see it. Consequently, could leftists reforms not benefit the rich?

More efficiency would only benefit them individually if they still owned the means of production. Since they wouldn't, no they wouldn't benefit from them, at least not any more than anyone else. It certainly wouldn't be in their class interests, as they'd lose property, prestige, etc.


What is the justification for the fact that the bourgeoisies is fundamentally opposed to the interests of the proletariat.

Uh, that those with political and economic power and control tend to want to hold on to those things and not give them up for everyone to use and enjoy?

[encephalon]

Class interest dictates personal interest.

The bourgeoisie youth generally fall in love with leftism because they don't have the same class interests as their parents; they are a sub-class of the bourgeoisie, in a sense, and don't have any of the control that the rest of the bourgeoisie has. This is also why once they're out of college, the great majority of them go become their yuppie parents.

Some of them, of course, might choose to become wage-laborers instead of rejoining the bourgeoisie before their ruling class interests develop; so too can their parents be cast out of the bourgeoisie and into the proletariat. In these cases, perhaps I can see a change in personal interests due to class interests.

The same can be said of a proletarian who gets inducted into the ranks of the bourgeoisie; his or her class interests will surely change.