i think Marx "hit the nail in the coffin"

[R_P_A_S]

The Communist Manifesto
-Communist & Proletariat section

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois , "abolition of individuality and freedom!?" And rightly so! The abolition OF..
BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALITY!
BOURGEOIS INDEPENDENCE!
AND BOURGEOIS FREEDOM is undoubtedly aimed at!

I think this complete sums up what I was trying to say before. how we are taught to believe that we are free. but in reality with out money we can't really do much. We can't travel, we can't enjoy lots of food we can't go see a doctor, we cant go to the college we want to and pursuit the career we want to. indeed we are limited! un like our rich-millionaires who have no problem enjoying all this freedoms.. FINANCIAL FREEDOM!

[Aurora]

Your my favourite member RPAS :)

[Raúl Duke]

"In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality"

Hmm, I wonder if the situationalist concpet of the spectacle comes from this?(so it would mean they defined the charachter of this "independent individual capital"?)

Either way, I agree; money is what dictates in this society. People can't cultivate their indivduality in a society controled by capital. Nor can there be freedom, for the reasons mentioned.

[Clarksist]

And rightly so! The abolition OF..
BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALITY!
BOURGEOIS INDEPENDENCE!
AND BOURGEOIS FREEDOM is undoubtedly aimed at!

Meh, after a communist revolution you aren't taking away the individuality, independence, or freedom of the bourgeois... but the economic model which creates the class structure leading to the bourgeoisie and proletarian classes.

I think that it would be entirely to unfair to just punish anyone of bourgeois origins after revolution. By that same rule, Engels, Kropotkin, and Che would all be punished!

Enemies of the revolution should be swept away (I would prefer less violent versions of this, but there are different paths which have their own merit) but those who participate in the emancipation of workers should be allowed to flourish in the society which thrives on freedom. I can't imagine a communist society where people still wear chains for playing the role of a capitalist whilst under a capitalist regime.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:36 am

And rightly so! The abolition OF..
BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALITY!
BOURGEOIS INDEPENDENCE!
AND BOURGEOIS FREEDOM is undoubtedly aimed at!

Meh, after a communist revolution you aren't taking away the individuality, independence, or freedom of the bourgeois... but the economic model which creates the class structure leading to the bourgeoisie and proletarian classes.

I think that it would be entirely to unfair to just punish anyone of bourgeois origins after revolution. By that same rule, Engels, Kropotkin, and Che would all be punished!

Enemies of the revolution should be swept away (I would prefer less violent versions of this, but there are different paths which have their own merit) but those who participate in the emancipation of workers should be allowed to flourish in the society which thrives on freedom. I can't imagine a communist society where people still wear chains for playing the role of a capitalist whilst under a capitalist regime.
i agree with you on that. post revolution what should be done with the bourgeois? I believe some might end up just siding with us. BUT what of the rest? aren't we supposed to protect our selves from counter revolution?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:36 pm

And rightly so! The abolition OF..
BOURGEOIS INDIVIDUALITY!
BOURGEOIS INDEPENDENCE!
AND BOURGEOIS FREEDOM is undoubtedly aimed at!

Meh, after a communist revolution you aren't taking away the individuality, independence, or freedom of the bourgeois... but the economic model which creates the class structure leading to the bourgeoisie and proletarian classes.

I think that it would be entirely to unfair to just punish anyone of bourgeois origins after revolution. By that same rule, Engels, Kropotkin, and Che would all be punished!

Enemies of the revolution should be swept away (I would prefer less violent versions of this, but there are different paths which have their own merit) but those who participate in the emancipation of workers should be allowed to flourish in the society which thrives on freedom. I can't imagine a communist society where people still wear chains for playing the role of a capitalist whilst under a capitalist regime.
You don't understand. Marx's proposal wasn't for depriving the former bourgeoisie of their human rights, deny them basic freedoms, incarcerate them. No.
He meant that proletarian revolution sought to end bourgeois freedom. The freedom found in capitalist society for the bourgeoisie to exist and function as the ruling class.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:24 pm
Your my favourite member RPAS :)
I second that. :)

[ComradeR]

I think this complete sums up what I was trying to say before. how we are taught to believe that we are free. but in reality with out money we can't really do much. We can't travel, we can't enjoy lots of food we can't go see a doctor, we cant go to the college we want to and pursuit the career we want to. indeed we are limited! un like our rich-millionaires who have no problem enjoying all this freedoms.. FINANCIAL FREEDOM!
It&#39;s called plutocratic democracy isn&#39;t it wonderful? <_<


i agree with you on that. post revolution what should be done with the bourgeois? I believe some might end up just siding with us. BUT what of the rest? aren&#39;t we supposed to protect our selves from counter revolution?
What should be done about them? nothing unless they take up arms against or otherwise try to derail the revolution, then appropriate actions need to be taken against them.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Spirit of Spartacus+February 16, 2007 11:29 am--> (Spirit of Spartacus @ February 16, 2007 11:29 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:24 pm
Your my favourite member RPAS :)
I second that. :) [/b]
I third it

[Clarksist]

He meant that proletarian revolution sought to end bourgeois freedom. The freedom found in capitalist society for the bourgeoisie to exist and function as the ruling class.

I think that is the precise reason his statement is incorrect.

It isn&#39;t about ending bourgeois freedom, but extending freedom to everybody.

The statement may mean essentially the "same thing", but it definitely is wrapped in an attitude which is inappropriate for a scientific socialist.

[R_P_A_S]

im glad i found this thread! =)

[La Comédie Noire]

i agree with you on that. post revolution what should be done with the bourgeois? I believe some might end up just siding with us. BUT what of the rest? aren't we supposed to protect our selves from counter revolution?

Depends how fast we, the workers, seize the means of production. Marx said every class had a material base to it, so if you take away their material base fast enough the bourgeoise won't exist as a real class anymore or be able to react.

Sure the remainder could use the state to hide behind, but when we own all the munitions factories and have all the soldiers on our side what are they going to do? It will be our state then.

Good quote!!

[kromando33]

I think that is the precise reason his statement is incorrect.

It isn't about ending bourgeois freedom, but extending freedom to everybody.

The statement may mean essentially the "same thing", but it definitely is wrapped in an attitude which is inappropriate for a scientific socialist.
This is actually specifically the kinda anti-Marxist position which pervades this board, you want to give the bourgeois freedom to organize against the proletarian state!?! That's no better than siding with the bourgeois yourself!

Marx said it himself, the industrial proletariat is the only revolutionary class, all others are reactionary, and while some may come over to the proletariat fundamentally our only job is to support the classocracy of the proletariat, nothing else. Their can only be the dictatorship of the bourgeois and dictatorship of the proletarians at the same time, because the interests of both classes are diametrically opposed (thus inevitable class struggle).

Your position is not Marxist, but more anarchist liberalism.