Marx's lies about class

[reagan lives]

Since we seem to be arguing...no, let me be honest.

Since I seem to be arguing the same thing in many different threads, and peacenick is crying desperately in every one that it's not true, I decided to consolidate the threads so I don't have to keep typing the same thing thrice.

Peacenick, here are the central points of my argument:
1) Marx operated from the presupposition that capitalist systems were based on the owners of the means of production exploiting everyone else.
2) This is patently false, as proven by the emergence of the middle class, which is entirely and undeniably an invention of capitalism. Members of the middle class do not own any means of production, yet they are affluent enough to not be subjugated by those that do. Therefore they are more independent than Marx's working class, yet in no position to exploit anyone.
3) While Marx's great lie is enumerated above, the great lie of his followers is that Marxist systems eliminate class structure by making everyone "middle class." Entirely untrue. In Marxist systems everyone is both dependent and unable to improve their station. Ironically, the same people of advocate these systems criticize capitalism on the grounds that it imposes exactly these conditions on its lower class (another untruthitude, but you all already know this). In other words, in Marxist systems everyone is lower class, according to the definition of "lower class" used by Marxists.

Now, I imagine you'll just tell me that I'm lying. Typical.

[peaccenicked]

Now I am shocked. You say such untrue things how I am to tell your intentions.
Quite honestly you do not make any sense to me.

Marx did say things about the middle class they are not new.
'No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
I think you have to modify your views from this quote alone.
Your next point is so incredulous . How do you propose mass production is carried out.
No where in Marx or those who where influened by him that includes Einstein says anything like ). everyone is lower class, according to the definition of "lower class" used by Marxists.
It is simply untrue.
From the communist manifesto again . Now I am quoting someone you are attacking not for any other reason.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character .

Marx envisages a classless society which is universally rich. Nobody ever tell ya!
If you are saying Marx was mistaken about the middle class Show me where. I dont want to put words into your mouth as you do with marx.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:21 pm on Jan. 25, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production

This is simply supply and demand. If there is demand for a certain type of work, workers will follow. If there is not they find new ways of doing things to remain competitive.

[peaccenicked]

yes but what is simple is not necessarily wrong.
I can not see your point.

[AgustoSandino]

(Edited by AgustoSandino at 5:36 pm on Jan. 24, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

What the hell is that all about?
My guess is you dont like arguments.
It is pointless to argue with someone who has nothing to say.

[reagan lives]

Peacenick, please...you'll have to do a much better job of framing your arguments if you want me to respond to them. Please distinguish between what you're quoting and your own ideas. Your posts are incredibly hard to read.

From what I can tell, you quoted Marx:
"No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

You quoted this in an attempt to refute my points about Marx disregarding the formation of the middle class in capitalist systems. In your quote Marx is saying that capitalism dissolves the middle class. So it seems that this point supports my assertion that Marx disregarded the middle class in capitalist systems.

Next you wrote this (I did not edit this at all):
"Your next point is so incredulous . How do you propose mass production is carried out.
No where in Marx or those who where influened by him that includes Einstein says anything like ). everyone is lower class, according to the definition of "lower class" used by Marxists.
It is simply untrue."

Can you see how I might not understand this? Please make your points a little clearer. Or at least write them when you're not stoned.

Then you quote a lengthy pointless quote from the Manifesto about the conversion of private property to common property. Then you act as if this quote disproves my assertion that in Marxist systems, everyone becomes dependent. Then you ask me to show you "where" in Marx this is, as if Marx would admit that his plan would subjugate all of society. I'll point you to a quote from your own post:
"Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion."

Can you see how this makes everyone dependent, and thus lower class? Just because everyone is equivalent in their lower-classness doesn't make them rich.

[vox]

Reagan, you fool.

How absurd of you to quote Marx in support of your silly and, as far as I can tell, unsubstantiated point.

You quote,

"Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion."

However, nowhere do you mention that this is true of CAPITALISM, not socialism, yes? Marx was speaking of capitalist society. Now, it may well hold true for a socialist society, as well, for I fail to see, and you did not show (and you can't), how capital could be anything other than a collective product in an industrialized society. Are you somehow suggesting that capital is only the product of the owner, that is, of the capitalist, and not of the workers who actually produced it? The absurdity of that should be evident even to someone like you!

As for your assertion that Marx argued that everyone should be "lower class," you are, of course and eternally wrong. Marx argued for a classless society, one in which the social relations of production would not reward the exploitation of human beings, so to talk about class, using capitalist definitions, in a socialist society is folly beyond compare.

It seems you've an extra letter in your handle. It should read Reagan Lies.

Love,

vox