What should be done with the bourgeois

[UndergroundConnexion]

What should we do with the bourgeois, after the revolution has taken place?
exile? put against a wall? re-educate?

[RedStruggle]

In the communist manifesto, Marx noted that when the proletariat overthrows the Capitalist Class, or indeed, when any form of Class Struggle emerges from the passive and hidden into the active transformation of the mode of production, there will be a section of the bourgeoisie which will not defend its class interests, but will instead side with the revolutionary movement. So - firstly, make sure not to define classes in terms of absolutes, because one's relationship to other classes in terms of the ownership of the means of production in the relations of produciton in any given mode of production does not necessarily determine one's class alleigances! I am sure this is true of many of the more wealthy members of this board.

But in terms of the non-revolutionary bourgeoisie, if they fail to surrender ownership of the means of production to the workers, they will be seized by force and the bourgeois in question will be eliminated if it is decided that he represents a threat to worker's power. If a bourgeois recognizes the new power structures that have taken the place of Capitalism, and is willing to fulfill a non-exploiting role in the new society, then they will most likely not be harmed.

However, note that this may depend on the circumstances of the revolution. Following the 1917 revolution in Russia, the Supreme Economic Council of the Bolshevik Party actually used Bourgeois Factory managers in place of the soviets to manage production during War Communism, such was the inexperience and, with respect, utter foolishness of the worker's soviets.

[apathy maybe]

It depends on what sort of revolution takes place. If we see a "repeat" of the French Revolution, then quite probably they will all be executed, at least those that don't flee. Along with thousands of other (mostly innocent) people. Another option, as has been pointed out, we could just put them back in power again.

In my opinion what should happen, after a (almost) universal uprising against capitalism and the oppression inherent in the state apparatus, two things will happen. One, many of the ruling class will attempt to fight, and will die. Two, those who do not fight will be offered a choice, leave or integrate. Most will integrate in my opinion. Because the ruling class is such a small minority, once their power has been taken from them, they will not be a threat.

[UndergroundConnexion]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14 2006, 11:00 AM
It depends on what sort of revolution takes place. If we see a "repeat" of the French Revolution, then quite probably they will all be executed, at least those that don't flee. Along with thousands of other (mostly innocent) people. Another option, as has been pointed out, we could just put them back in power again.

In my opinion what should happen, after a (almost) universal uprising against capitalism and the oppression inherent in the state apparatus, two things will happen. One, many of the ruling class will attempt to fight, and will die. Two, those who do not fight will be offered a choice, leave or integrate. Most will integrate in my opinion. Because the ruling class is such a small minority, once their power has been taken from them, they will not be a threat.
I think that this is good idea, I believe that the once who choose are not going to fight, should be made into integrating after a "re-education". The once who choose to fight and are taken prisonners, we shoud look into "re-educating" them aswell, and after having done this, look wether they would go on fighting, or would integrate , after understand how the things are going to go now...

[apathy maybe]

NO! "Re-education" has a really bad name in my books. It is virtually another name for brainwashing. What I meant by integrate, was simple. Become a worker.

I am an anarchist, I have a fundamental distrust of those people who would claim to know best. I don't believe in any state system, whether the ruling class is the rich, or those who claim to represent the workers. For any "re-education" to work, you would need a centralised power structure, which I completely disagree with.

Those currently in the ruling class (or potentially in the ruling class) will not have any power, they will not be a threat to anyone. They will not need "re-educating". They will see what is going on, and will either accept it, die or leave. It will be their choice but, no one will be forcing them to integrate.

Of course, it is perfectly possible that a world wide revolution will happen. In such a case there will be no where for the ex-ruling classes to go. In these circumstances, they have fewer choices. But again, such a small minority will not be able to stand against a vigilant community who have just thrown off the shackles of capitalism and the state.

[RedCommieBear]

As apathy_maybe stated, they will either intergrate within the new society, or they will leave.


Originally posted by Leon Trotsky in "If America should go Communist"
It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please.

[UndergroundConnexion]

Originally posted by Red Tendency+Oct 14 2006, 02:59 PM--> (Red Tendency @ Oct 14 2006, 02:59 PM) As apathy_maybe stated, they will either intergrate within the new society, or they will leave.


Leon Trotsky in "If America should go Communist"
It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please. [/b]
making them leave is a relatively good option, yet the danger does exist that from abroad they would try to organise a counter revolution, or be involved in such activities.
For doing this they could get the support of the country in which their in, if this is a capitalist country

[YSR]

If one takes away their wealth and power, than they are not a threat. Expropirating lands and taking the means of production into our own hands is the simplest and most effective solution to the post-revolution bourgeoisie problem.

[Demogorgon]

The Bourgoisie for the most part do not believe that they are exploiting the workforce, rather they believe they are entering a free and mutually beneficial contract with the workers. I am fairly confident the majority will see the error of their ways and become part of the new society fairly quickly, leaving their old ways behind and presenting no further problem.

As for the minority who won't renounce their ways. The only thing that can be done without doing more harm than they can cause is to isolate and margonalize them. Nobody lives forever and their ideas will die out in a couple of generations. In the meantime it is simply a question of tolerating them and making sure they do no firther harm.

[UndergroundConnexion]

yep re-educating i didnt mean brainwash them, but just explain them the wrong of their ways, how they were wrong, and what is now expected of them. This should be done because it might not be completely clear/logical for them.

[Janus]

After the revolution, there is no longer a bourgeois in that the former bourgeois no longer own the means of production. These people may still be counter-revolutionaries in that they would like to revert to a capitalist society but their success depends on the people themselves. That is people will only listen to them depending on their dissatisfaction with their conditions. History shows that it is somewhat counterproductive to actively repress ex-bourgeois, rather one should leave it to the people who have already had a taste of capitalism to denounce and ignore capitalists and their ideas.

[LSD]

Nothing needs to be "done" with the former bourgeoisie. Once they are stripped of their economic power, they're basicaly impotent. Sure, they may not like the idea of integrating into communist society, but they'll be very little that they can do about it.

Besides, most of the opposition to communist society won't come from former capitalists, there just won't be enough of them. Rather it will come from the disenfranchised and remnant ideologues of all class position.

Remember, the KKK wasn't made up of former slave-owners, most of them transitioned rather nicely into their new roles as "captains of industry". It was the poor whites, the people who had never actually bennefitted from slavery at all who fought the hardest against its abolition.


After the revolution, there is no longer a bourgeois in that the former bourgeois no longer own the means of production.

Exactly.

Class is only relevent in pre-revolutionary and revolution situations. In postrevolutionary society, classes as they are presently structured will not exist.

People here seem to be approaching class as if it were ethnicity, something that is pased down from generation to generation to generation.

Obviously class perpetuates itself -- that's the whole point of the "traditional family" -- but only to a point. If material circumstances intervene, one's class can radically vary from the class of one's parents.

When the child of a bourgeois father is unable to attain control over the means of production, he ceases to be bourgeois. If he is then forced to take a job wherein which he sells his labour power to survive, he becomes, by any definition, a worker.

Following a successful workers' revolution, that will be the situation for every bourgeois son. Despite the best wishes of reactionary parents, there will simply be no material opportunities for bourgeois propagation.

After the workers have sized control over production and have kicked out the bosses and their parasitic "managerial clique", there will be no room for capitalist survival.

In less than a generation the class will be extinct.

Accordingly, any society that still has a thriving bourgeoisie is, by definition, not a workers' one.

This applies, in a slightly more diluted way, to the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie as well. In an advanced majority proletarian country, the proletarianization of the remainder is inevitable and surprisingly rapid.

That's why revolution is workable in such states. It also explains why communism has been such an abysmal failure everywhere else. In places in which class cannot be immediately eliminated, the natural divisions of class society rapidly overcome any postrevolutionary "democracy".

It's the "dictatorship of the proletariat" problem all over again. Majoritarian "dictatorship" can be democratic but only if its genuinly majoritarian.

In a backwards feudal state, however, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would mean 2% of the population (or more accurately, the "representatives" of 2% of the population) siezing absolute power and enact their will upon the general majority.

Obviously that's not conducive to democratic "transition".

[rouchambeau]

Probably nothing. There are so few of them that it wouldn't even matter.

[which doctor]

Well,one of the key points of the class revolution is to abandon class. If we abandon class there can be no bourgeois class. Surely there will still be reactionary ideas, but these will come from all the classes. They will be dealt with accordingly. If death is the only viable option, then death will be given to the holder of these reactionary ideas.

[JazzRemington]

I'm in favor of the theory that once they are stripped of their economic powers, they will be more or less harmless. They, without their previous power, will have no choice but to become just another worker.

Besides, I like the irony here.

[BreadBros]

If we look at another massive class revolution, the bourgeois ones (as in France), we can see some general patterns. Those that actively use their power to oppose the revolution will be countered with force. Once the revolution has taken place however, and a new society is created, the majority of the previous class will become irrelevant and not much has to be done. Once the new classless order has been established, going backwards will become a futile conception for the most part.

[LoneRed]

It all depends, If they as ComradeRed said do switch sides so to say, and dont impede workers control, I don't see killing them as an option, but the elements that try to actively fight against the revolution, try to bring back the capitalist institutions of capital and profit, to the wall with them

[KC]

This is a ridiculous question to ask without any material basis. This should either be moved to learning or trashed.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Democratic socialists like myself have no problem in letting them stick around, perhaps even have their own interests represented. However, it's unlikely that the masses will ever again support the rule of a few over many so their chances of substantiating counter-revolutionary efforts are slim to none.

Those who suggest executing or eliminating them are no better than Joseph Stalin.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:17 PM
yep re-educating i didnt mean brainwash them, but just explain them the wrong of their ways, how they were wrong, and what is now expected of them. This should be done because it might not be completely clear/logical for them.
So instead of using the word "re-educate" why not use the word "educate" instead? :D It may seem like just a matter in semantics to some, but think about it: what we are really doing here and really proposing as I understand it, is educating the (former?)bourgeois on the merits of socialism and opening their eyes to a condition they probably did not understand or had a faulty understanding of in the first place.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2006, 03:31 PM
Democratic socialists like myself have no problem in letting them stick around, perhaps even have their own interests represented. However, it's unlikely that the masses will ever again support the rule of a few over many so their chances of substantiating counter-revolutionary efforts are slim to none.

Those who suggest executing or eliminating them are no better than Joseph Stalin.
I guess Im no better than Stalin :lol: :lol:

[izquierda80]

In my opinion, if the revolution comes to pass, purges and executions shouldn't be carried out merely on the basis of class membership (real or perceived, because in practice the exact lines can be hard to draw in some instances), but based on three main factors: a)their degree of resistance to change and whether it actually is counter-revolutionary b)whether or not relatively peaceful alternatives are applicable. c)the existance of serious class crimes that cannot be otherwise prosecuted and reversed.

As said before, many bourgeois will be willing to integrate into the new society, if they are not unnecessarily harassed and are instead actually rationally convinced that change will be better for all of those involved, in the long run. Some will even voluntarily give up all their privileges without any second thoughts, if asked strictly but decently.

Creating unnecessary enemies should be avoided as much as possible, IMHO. Obviously, if they are faced with the prospect of "immediately surrender or die" then they'll be more willing to resist and to harbor strong counter-revolutionary passions. The revolution may need a degree of violence, arguably (though not desirably) so, but it doesn't need to be grossly, indiscriminately violent against all the burgoise.

If they do not accept the new status quo, then they should be made harmless to the revolution, but not necessarily by deadly force, if their resistance is irrelevant and not dangerous to the process as a whole. Revolutionary change should be protected at a high cost, but paranoia and fingerpointing should not get out of control, because it will tend to pervert the process in the long run, leading to internal fragmentation.

[cb9's_unity]

as long as they don't control us anymore than they don't really matter. hell take there buisnesses and don't take all of there money and prices will go down so significantly then they'll really have no reason to rebel. plus any violent actions against them will probably be looked down upon.