Am I a member of the bougoise?

[Orion999]

Six years ago my Father suffered a horrific brain hemmorrage that left him mentally hadicapped and paralyzed on the right side of his body. My Father was bipolar and was on some serious medication. He got the Flu one day and called his normal doctor for a prescription. Well, his normal doctor was out of town and the doctor filling in for him did'nt check his chart and prescribed him something that interacted with his bipolar meds and caused the brain hemmorrage.

Anyway my family sued the doctors and the pharmacists for around 10 million. My father recently passed away and I inherited a little over 2 million. Since I would now be considered wealthy does this make me a capitalist pig and enemy of the proletariat? Will I be targeted for execution following the revolution?

Also, under communism would my family have recieved any compensation for our loss? In what way would the asshole doctor be held accountable for this?

[Comrade Phil]

I send my sympathies to your loss. My father drowned several years ago, so I can relate to what a shitty time that must have been.

As for your class status... it would depend on whether your family owns any capital. To be a capitalist pig you need to privately own capital (factories, farms, banks, etc). If not, well I'm not sure if you would fit into a marxist class analysis. A multimillionaire proletariat seems like a contradiction in terms. Petty-Bourgeois perhaps?

Under communism, the doctor would be held accountable and would face the punishment decided by the community. You wouldn't recieve any compensation in the form of currency or goods because you wouldn't need to recieve these things under communism (currency wouldn't exist and the goods would already be available to you). The community would most likely allow a period of time in which your family could take leave from work.

[BobKKKindle$]

Techinically the bourgeoisie consists of those who have ownership over the means of production, and provided the money that you have inherited is not transformed into capital, you will technicaly not be bourgeois- capital being the money with which one purchases the means of production, either through investement in an existing corporation in the form of intangible shares, or through purchasing tangible assets which one will use, in conjunction with labour, to produce goods and services.

However, note that the suppossed class antagonism between labour and capital is not absolute - indeed Some wage labourers are in fact very rich and earn high incomes and have great decision-making power, even if they technically sell their labour power as a commodity to survive (that being the definition of proletarian). I am of course referring to the managerial and educated members of society.

In a revolutionary situation, if any potentially counter revolutionary elements of society refused to hand over control over the means of production to the workers, and oppossed the revolution in any way and refused to integrate into a post-revolutionary society, all necessary steps would be taken to ensure the safety of workers power. What these steps are is at the discretion of the revolutionary movement. In terms of non-capital wealth and property - a socialist society would try to ensure that property is distributed in a manner wherby everyone's basic needs are satisfied. So mansions would be taken from their owners and distributed to the homeless (the homeless being the lumpenproletariat in a capitalist society)

I hope that answered your question.

In a communist society, there would be no money, and so the only way you could be compensated is through goods and services or a lessened obligation to contribute to the community for a period of time. However, it is hard to reconcile what you are describing with 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' given it is unfair that one person should be allowed to accumulate so much wealth, no matter how great their loss and no matter how great the incompetence of the doctor, whilst other people have no money at all (monetary wealth basically representing the level of access to goods and services)

In terms of accountability, I presume that, as under capitalist society, if someone is not suited to a form of labour, and if that person engaging in that labour harms someone else through incompetence, that person would be deemed unable to carry on with their occupation.

I am really sorry about what happened though man.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 17, 2006 06:04 am
To be a capitalist pig you need to privately own capital (factories, farms, banks, etc).
Did you know that a majority of Americans own capital?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 05:15 am
Six years ago my Father suffered a horrific brain hemmorrage that left him mentally hadicapped and paralyzed on the right side of his body. My Father was bipolar and was on some serious medication. He got the Flu one day and called his normal doctor for a prescription. Well, his normal doctor was out of town and the doctor filling in for him did'nt check his chart and prescribed him something that interacted with his bipolar meds and caused the brain hemmorrage.

Anyway my family sued the doctors and the pharmacists for around 10 million. My father recently passed away and I inherited a little over 2 million. Since I would now be considered wealthy does this make me a capitalist pig and enemy of the proletariat? Will I be targeted for execution following the revolution?

Also, under communism would my family have recieved any compensation for our loss? In what way would the asshole doctor be held accountable for this?
Your class is determined not by how wealthy you are per se, but by what your role in society is. That is to say- Do you own land, factories or any other means by which you can exploit the labour of other people?

In regards to your father, id like to think that socialism would herald better medical care free from the constraints of market economics that could possibly have saved his life in the first place.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 17, 2006 12:27 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 17, 2006 12:27 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 17, 2006 06:04 am
To be a capitalist pig you need to privately own capital (factories, farms, banks, etc).
Did you know that a majority of Americans own capital? [/b]
By capital you mean, land or money? I own money but it doesnt elevate my class.

In any case its a moot point. Socialists only regard the international proletarian, we disregard national borders as merely another means of divide and control. I think its safe to say that the majority of the world dont own the capital youre referring to.

[Dimentio]

In the USSR, the doctor would have been shot

:D

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think only ~70 million Americans are homeowners. That's less a quarter of your population. Practically everyone who doesn't own a home also doesn't own capital. That means that at the very most a quarter of Americans own capital.

[colonelguppy]

you are if you invest it (which if you're smart you will)

[Ol' Dirty]

First of all, I appoligize for your loss. :( I've never lost anywone trully close to me, but if my father died, I would be very depressed. I understand the boat you are in.

Secondly, one must note that money does not equal capital. As has been said before, unless you own a significant amount of the means of the production, you aren't a capitalist.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 02:36 pm
I think only ~70 million Americans are homeowners. That's less a quarter of your population. Practically everyone who doesn't own a home also doesn't own capital. That means that at the very most a quarter of Americans own capital.
Not even close, ace. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr306/q306prss.pdf)

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied and of those, 75.6 million are occupied by owners and 34 million were occupied by renters. That would suggest that your 25% statistic, which I'm sure was purely your own invention, is nowhere close to being reality.

Good try, but learn from this.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist
By capital you mean, land or money? I own money but it doesnt elevate my class.

This question indicates that you don’t even know what capital is.

I mean stock in a company, which is ownership of that company and therefore the means of production. A majority of Americans today own stock in publicly traded companies and therefore are part owners of the means of production.

Do you seriously envision a capitalist as just a rich person who personally owns the company? You folks seem to have an awfully outdated idea of what capital is.



In any case its a moot point. Socialists only regard the international proletarian, we disregard national borders as merely another means of divide and control. I think its safe to say that the majority of the world dont own the capital youre referring to.

In that regard you are probably right, however I wish you luck in eliminating national borders. Nationalism, or at the very least ethnicity/clan membership is of far greater importance to most people worldwide than is class status.


Your class is determined not by how wealthy you are per se, but by what your role in society is. That is to say- Do you own land, factories or any other means by which you can exploit the labour of other people?

What about people who work their own land and barely eke out an existence doing so? Are they capitalists or labor?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 17, 2006 03:04 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 17, 2006 03:04 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 02:36 pm
I think only ~70 million Americans are homeowners. That's less a quarter of your population. Practically everyone who doesn't own a home also doesn't own capital. That means that at the very most a quarter of Americans own capital.
Not even close, ace. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr306/q306prss.pdf)

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied and of those, 75.6 million are occupied by owners and 34 million were occupied by renters. That would suggest that your 25% statistic, which I'm sure was purely your own invention, is nowhere close to being reality.

Good try, but learn from this. [/b]
actually 75.6 is pretty close to ~70. not that i agree that you have to be a home owner to be a capital owner, thats absurd.

[chimx]

banks own most of the homes that "home owners" own. its called a mortgage.

[colonelguppy]

no you still legally own your house regardless if you've payed off your loan. homes are about to cheaper though, the real estate booms already over.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+November 17, 2006 08:25 pm--> (colonelguppy @ November 17, 2006 08:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 03:04 pm

Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 02:36 pm
I think only ~70 million Americans are homeowners. That's less a quarter of your population. Practically everyone who doesn't own a home also doesn't own capital. That means that at the very most a quarter of Americans own capital.
Not even close, ace. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr306/q306prss.pdf)

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied and of those, 75.6 million are occupied by owners and 34 million were occupied by renters. That would suggest that your 25% statistic, which I'm sure was purely your own invention, is nowhere close to being reality.

Good try, but learn from this.
actually 75.6 is pretty close to ~70. not that i agree that you have to be a home owner to be a capital owner, thats absurd. [/b]
Uh, there are probably more than 70 million people living in 76.5 million homes. Say an average of 3 people per home, how many people is that?

[MKS]

You should not keep such great wealth, it is an insult to all the starving and exploited people of this world. You should re-distribute it to the poor and suffering or give it to the greater cause. But to keep any amount of wealth beyond your needs is in my opinion pure greed.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 17, 2006 05:50 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 17, 2006 05:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 08:25 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 03:04 pm

Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 02:36 pm
I think only ~70 million Americans are homeowners. That's less a quarter of your population. Practically everyone who doesn't own a home also doesn't own capital. That means that at the very most a quarter of Americans own capital.
Not even close, ace. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr306/q306prss.pdf)

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied and of those, 75.6 million are occupied by owners and 34 million were occupied by renters. That would suggest that your 25% statistic, which I'm sure was purely your own invention, is nowhere close to being reality.

Good try, but learn from this.
actually 75.6 is pretty close to ~70. not that i agree that you have to be a home owner to be a capital owner, thats absurd.
Uh, there are probably more than 70 million people living in 76.5 million homes. Say an average of 3 people per home, how many people is that? [/b]
we were talking about homeowners, as in when i lived with my dad i didn't own the house, but i still lived with him.

[BobKKKindle$]

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied

That presumabely means that there are 16 million housing units that are unoccupied and avaliable for use. However, 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children. Would you describe this as an efficient use of scarce resources? After all, many economic text books describe the free market as a rapidly responding to meet everyone's economic demands. Note also, that whilst so many are homeless, the US is fighting an imperialist war for the control of resources and market overseas. Capitalism.

[Red October]

In the USSR, the doctor would have been shot

or put in charge of a government commission on health care :lol:

and sorry to hear about your loss. if you want to be equitable, donate it to homeless shelters or other good causes. maybe buy yourself a nice tv, but do you really need 2 million dollars? i geuss you should hide some of it away in a rainy day fund, but most of it should go to those who need it.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
Did you know that a majority of Americans own capital?
And the majority of Americans are bourgeois, despite what these "communists" here will tell you.

[Airbag]

Those who do not belong to the industrial working-class or the agricultural peasantry are class enemies. Class enemies include lawyers, university students real estate sellers, accountants, etc.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 09:56 pm

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied

That presumabely means that there are 16 million housing units that are unoccupied and avaliable for use. However, 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children. Would you describe this as an efficient use of scarce resources? After all, many economic text books describe the free market as a rapidly responding to meet everyone's economic demands. Note also, that whilst so many are homeless, the US is fighting an imperialist war for the control of resources and market overseas. Capitalism.
the thing about the homeless in the US is that their demand doens't match what they are capable of producing in society so obviously they won't recieve the same amount.

[BobKKKindle$]

the thing about the homeless in the US is that their demand doens't match what they are capable of producing in society so obviously they won't recieve the same amount.

What reactionary nonsense.

Firstly, it is an assertion to say that they are not capable of producing a value of goods and services equivalent to the value of a house, or renting a house. One can assume that if someone is homeless, they are also unemployed, or possibly underemployed .If you had read a little economics, you will know that one of the disadvantages of the free market economy (a disadvantage that even bourgeois economists admit) is that resources will only be utilised if it profitable to do so. This means that, in a free market economy, there will always be some resources that are not being used - including labour. And one of the key costs of unemployment is the oppurtunity cost (oppurtunity cost is what is given up by using resources for an alternative use, or no use at all) in terms of goods and services - what could have been produced if the unemployed had been enagaged in productive labour. So the judgement you made is completely without substantive argument,

Secondly - even if one assumed, for arguments sake, that the homeless were not capable of producing the same value as it takes to own/rent a house. So What? WHy should people's basic human needs be subordinated by the need to have adequate income? Doubtless the mentally and physically disabled probably could not afford health care or housing. Would you deny them these basic services as well? Your lack of ethical insight on this question is demonstrative of the way in which Capitalism operates; one only has acess to goods and services if one's labour (if one even has the oppurtunity to sell ones labour) is of sufficient value as a commodity. In other words, Capitalism is a system that fails to take into account people's relative abilities and needs.

Hence the communists say; From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!

[red team]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
the thing about the homeless in the US is that their demand doens't match what they are capable of producing in society so obviously they won't recieve the same amount.

Clothing that sells for over &#036;1000 dollars a piece. <_<

GTA San Andreas : Clothing (http://www.gtasanandreas.net/clothing/)

Tweed Jacket 25 25 &#036;5500
Red Jacket 23 25 &#036;4000
Blue Jacket 22 25 &#036;3000
Yellow Jacket 25 25 &#036;6000
Tuxedo 20 25 &#036;7000
Green Jacket 25 15 &#036;5500
Letterman Top 15 5 &#036;1525
Legs
Red Pants 9 10 &#036;2000
Blue Pants 9 10 &#036;2500
Yellow Pants 10 10 &#036;4000
Tweed Pants 10 10 &#036;3000
Tuxedo Pants 9 10 &#036;3000
Green Pants 10 6 &#036;1500
Shoes
Black Shoes 5 5 &#036;2500
Brown Shoes 4 5 &#036;1100
Spats 5 5 &#036;350


Need I say more? <_<

[colonelguppy]

considering you didn&#39;t really make a point that has anything to do with what i said then yeah maybe you should

[BobKKKindle$]

Deal with what I said then

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 08:50 pm
banks own most of the homes that "home owners" own. its called a mortgage.
Except that homeowners own the annual increase in value and whatever principal they pay off.

Look up "equity".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 02:56 am

Of the 126 million housing units in the United States, 110 million are occupied

That presumabely means that there are 16 million housing units that are unoccupied and avaliable for use. However, 3.5 million people, 39% of them children, currently experience homelessness every year. 60% of all new homeless cases are single mothers with children. Would you describe this as an efficient use of scarce resources? After all, many economic text books describe the free market as a rapidly responding to meet everyone&#39;s economic demands. Note also, that whilst so many are homeless, the US is fighting an imperialist war for the control of resources and market overseas. Capitalism.
No, the current glut of vacant homes is not economically efficient at the moment. However with the burst of the bubble, home prices are now coming down, meaning still more people will be able to afford them. But the fact is there is always going to be a population of homeless people. Many of these folks are homeless only for a short period of time. Some (mostly the men) are homeless because they choose to be. Read "Rolling nowhere" by Ted Connover.

Even so, I&#39;m willing to bet it&#39;s more efficient than what your system would produce. There would either be a shortage because the unionized workers voted to produce only so many, or a centralized bureaucracy would "plan" to build more houses in an area than was necessary. Instead of scaling back production as the market has, bureaucratic inertia, the desire to meet quotas and the political need to keep people working would likely to lead to overproduction and waste.

There is also an argument, and it is plausible, that government interference in the low-income housing market reduces the market&#39;s incentive to provide low-income housing. This is definitely the case in places like New York City where rent controls mean builders cannot recover the cost of their developments.



A choice to go to war on the part of a government is political, not capitalistic. Capitalism does not require that countries go to war with anyone.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 03:36 am
Firstly, it is an assertion to say that they are not capable of producing a value of goods and services equivalent to the value of a house, or renting a house. One can assume that if someone is homeless, they are also unemployed, or possibly underemployed .If you had read a little economics, you will know that one of the disadvantages of the free market economy (a disadvantage that even bourgeois economists admit) is that resources will only be utilised if it profitable to do so.

uh yeah i know how it works (assuming things like charity efforts are discounted)


This means that, in a free market economy, there will always be some resources that are not being used - including labour. And one of the key costs of unemployment is the oppurtunity cost (oppurtunity cost is what is given up by using resources for an alternative use, or no use at all) in terms of goods and services - what could have been produced if the unemployed had been enagaged in productive labour. So the judgement you made is completely without substantive argument,

recources are only un utilized if the demand for them is low enough that its not worth working to produce. even if companies hired the unemployed it doesn&#39;t mean that suddenly people will start buying the formerly unwanted product thus making the new labor valuable.


Secondly - even if one assumed, for arguments sake, that the homeless were not capable of producing the same value as it takes to own/rent a house. So What? WHy should people&#39;s basic human needs be subordinated by the need to have adequate income?

because if we ignored human worth in pursuit of fullfilling some arbitrary notion of human needs then it would be difficult if not impossible to get anything done. are people to expect to live for free just because they&#39;re human? (this is all ignoring the basic problems of logistical distribution in leave of some kind of subjective value system)


Doubtless the mentally and physically disabled probably could not afford health care or housing. Would you deny them these basic services as well?

because they offer nothing in return, enless if poeple just feel good about helping them out (which is often the case)


Your lack of ethical insight on this question is demonstrative of the way in which Capitalism operates;

ethical insight? wtf?


one only has acess to goods and services if one&#39;s labour (if one even has the oppurtunity to sell ones labour) is of sufficient value as a commodity. In other words, Capitalism is a system that fails to take into account people&#39;s relative abilities and needs.

it fails because it is impossible to do so objectively anyways, besides i don&#39;t know why a system should have to do so in the first place.


Hence the communists say; From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs&#33;

ambiguous maxims for the win&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 03:36 am
This means that, in a free market economy, there will always be some resources that are not being used - including labour. And one of the key costs of unemployment is the oppurtunity cost (oppurtunity cost is what is given up by using resources for an alternative use, or no use at all) in terms of goods and services - what could have been produced if the unemployed had been enagaged in productive labour.

The alternative to that is to put people to work using up resources to do things or create things that people do not need or want.

How efficient would that be?