am i bourgeois?

[Red October]

im middle class, white, live in a nice neighborhood (but not the suburbs), and attend public school. my mother is a teacher a local women's college and my dad is the assistant director at the state art museum. i consider myself a socialist, but does my background make me bourgeois?

[Whitten]

technicly no

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Bourgeois = Own's the means of production and gains capital

Proletariat = Doesn't own the means of production but works for it

Intelligentsia? I'm not too sure of the specific definitions but certainly you are not bourgeois.

[Pawn Power]

Proletariat = Doesn't own the means of production but works for it

We work for capital not the means of production, that we must fight for!

[which doctor]

I'm guessing you don't work? And since you yourself has no relation to the means of production you are not bourgeois. But you are also not proletarian either.

[apathy maybe]

Red October 1922, unlike what some people around here might tell you, you can be a socialist and bourgeois. Though it is a bit hypocritical if you are.

Anyway, based on your description, no you are not bourgeois, neither are your family. But they aren't really proletariat either, as FoB said, no relationship to the means of production.

Your parents might be considered intelligentsia, but I don't think that the term is of any real value.

I just think that your case shows yet another flaw in the Marxian class analysis.

[Red October]

i know i cant be of the proletariate because im only 15 and have no job, so i was confused about my status. thanks for all the help everyone :)

[BreadBros]

No you are not. Its fairly clear-cut. Both your parents sell their labor to produce intellectual commodities, whether it be well-educated students or a museum display. Im assuming what FoB meant was that you yourself have no relation to the means of production because you are a student or don't work. However, you still rely on proletarian parents to survive, so I think its fair to classify you as that.

[Module]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2006 10:42 pm
Red October 1922, unlike what some people around here might tell you, you can be a socialist and bourgeois. Though it is a bit hypocritical if you are.

Anyway, based on your description, no you are not bourgeois, neither are your family. But they aren't really proletariat either, as FoB said, no relationship to the means of production.

Your parents might be considered intelligentsia, but I don't think that the term is of any real value.

I just think that your case shows yet another flaw in the Marxian class analysis.
But, from what I know so far, isn't being bourgeois and proletariat merely different ways to earn a living in this society, only one is exploited by the other of course, but if you were to have a choice in which one you would rather be, simply based on the standard of living you'd have, would the only way to be a non'hypocritical' socialist be to proletarianise (a word?) yourself as to be in the same situation as those you support, even though they would want to be in your position if they could?
Would your position in society really make any difference whatsoever?
Would it matter at all if a socialist was bourgeois?

*And wow, there's a picture of Che Guevara behind this text box thing... I was squinting and moving my head around for about 5 minutes to see if my eyes were just playing a trick on me. Insane.*

[RebelDog]

No you are not. Its fairly clear-cut. Both your parents sell their labor to produce intellectual commodities, whether it be well-educated students or a museum display. Im assuming what FoB meant was that you yourself have no relation to the means of production because you are a student or don't work. However, you still rely on proletarian parents to survive, so I think its fair to classify you as that.

This is the analysis that is correct in my view. You are a dependent of proletarian parents and so are proletarian. Your parents may be have a middle-class income but they sell their labour to survive like any worker. You call yourself a socialist and that is what helps gives you the foundation and ability to look at both the past and the future in a different way from the bourgeoise and act to change things.



But, from what I know so far, isn't being bourgeois and proletariat merely different ways to earn a living in this society, only one is exploited by the other of course

Pretty much, yes. We build, maintain, operate, etc, the means of production and they own it.


but if you were to have a choice in which one you would rather be, simply based on the standard of living you'd have, would the only way to be a non'hypocritical' socialist be to proletarianise (a word?) yourself as to be in the same situation as those you support, even though they would want to be in your position if they could?
Would your position in society really make any difference whatsoever?
Would it matter at all if a socialist was bourgeois?

I will never become bourgeoise, I detest the ideology. The mere thought makes me want to vomit up my insides. If a member of the bourgeois class was to call themselves "socialist" then it would be hypocracy. I not sure if this ever really happens. Liberal bourgeoise yes but not socialist/marxist.

[apathy maybe]

I guess there is some confusion over what the relation between "working class" and "proletariat" is. Two different systems make for confusion. The proletariat do not own the means of production (things that produce products, such as factories), they instead work for the bourgeoisie (who do own the means of production) actually producing stuff in these factories and the like.

Working class simply means selling labour, farm hands were never traditionally proletariat, neither are service workers (retail workers, hair dressers and the like). The reason service workers are not proletariat is because they do not actually produce anything.

Yet they are still working class.

I wish people would just stop using the terms proletariat and bourgeois, working class and capitalist are much more relevant in today's world.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

working class and capitalist are much more relevant in today's world.

Well many many people, even people on this board don't understand actual class in capitalist.

Many proletarian families will describe themselves as "lower middle class" or "middle class" and maybe even "upper middle class" and some "working class".

Working class can be used in the the liberal social class sense.

It is not a clear issue which is evident from looking at that political survey thread in OI. So many Revlefters put middle class. Yet i bet most of them cannot define it and just accept it because its what the state they live in tells them they are.

Proletarian and Bourgeoisie are very rarely used outside Marxist and (collectivist) anarchist circles. So its definitions remain clear.

We have concise and scientific definitions of class. Using liberal social classes and their terms don't help and just confuse things.

[blueeyedboy]

Even if someone has a capitalist background it doesn't mean that they have to sympathise with it does it. You can still be a socialist, in fact maybe a person would have an advantage being a socialist in this sort of background, as they have first-hand effects of what capitalism does.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 09:29 pm
Even if someone has a capitalist background it doesn't mean that they have to sympathise with it does it. You can still be a socialist, in fact maybe a person would have an advantage being a socialist in this sort of background, as they have first-hand effects of what capitalism does.
Every worker has experience of what capitalism does.