My essay opener: Marxist class analysis. PLEASE COMMENT.

[Dejavu]

Classical Liberal roots of Marxian Class Struggle ( Condensed)

Two concepts that are considered closest associated with Marxism are the concepts of class and class struggle. It would be virtually impossible to imagine a revolutionary theory of Marxism without these concepts. However, as so apparent in the general ideas of Marxism , these concepts are at best ambiguous or contradictory.

Marxist theory attempts to link class struggle in the method of production yet the Communist Manifesto in its first opening line asserts:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

From the onset, we see the concepts of class and class struggle not linked to economic reasons but actually legal ones.

Marx nor Engles ever addressed the contradictions and mysteries of their theories in this area. In the last chapter of the final volume of Capital, titled 'Classes' Marx asserts : "The first question to be answered is this: What constitutes a class?" "At first glance" it would seem to be "the identity of revenue and sources of revenue." That, however, Marx finds not convincing, since "from this standpoint, physicians and officials, e.g., would also constitute two classes…" Distinct classes would also be yielded by

the infinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labor splits laborers as well as capitalists and landlords — the latter, e.g., into owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries.

Now there is a note by Engels: "Here the manuscript breaks off." This was not on account of Marx's sudden demise. The chapter dates from a first draft composed by Marx between 1863 and 1867, about 20 years before his death.

Engels's explanation is that "Marx used to leave such concluding summaries until the final editing, just before going to press, when the latest historical developments furnished him with unfailing regularity with proofs of the most laudable timeliness for his theoretical propositions." This explanation would be more persuasive if Marx, in the years before his death, had provided a clear definition of classes consistent with other parts of his theory.

Of all the errors in the Marxist concept of class and class conflict, its a fact that Marxist theory identifies with them. However, something that is not always mentioned is that the ideas about class conflict existed long before Marx began giving his interpretation of them. In fact, right before the rise of Marxist theory, there existed a well constructed theory of class conflict which would strongly influence Marx's own ideas. This earlier theory of class conflict was part of the Classical Liberal Doctrine.

Alolphe Blanqui, a student of the great liberal scholar-economist Jean Baptiste Say, followed Say to become the chair of political economy at the Coservatoire des Arts et Metiers. Blanqui, in his Histoire de l'Economie Politique en Europe depuis les anciens jusqu'à nos jours, in 1837 writes:

In all the revolutions, there have always been but two parties opposing each other; that of the people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others…. Patricians and plebeians, slaves and freemen, guelphs and ghibellines, red roses and white roses, cavaliers and roundheads, liberals and serviles, are only varieties of the same species.

This was written before the Communist Manifesto and looks strikingly similar to the opener of the Communist Manifesto, again compare :

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

Blanqui then elaborates on what he thinks to have been the central issue in the class struggles:

So, in one country, it is through taxes that the fruit of the laborer's toil is wrested from him, under pretense of the good of the state; in another, it is by privileges, declaring labor a royal concession, and making one pay dearly for the right to devote himself to it. The same abuse is reproduced under more indirect, but no less oppressive, forms, when, by means of custom-duties, the state shares with the privileged industries the benefits of the taxes imposed on all those who are not privileged.

Blanqui didn't devise these ideas of class struggle by himself. His ideas were reflective on already well established liberal perspectives about class struggle in the early 19th century.

The class struggle conceived by the classical liberals basically spelled out the true history of class struggle and that was always between the productive classes and the plundering classes. In the sense the classical liberals identified it, the productive classes always produced things by transforming land,labor, and capital into commodities to serve mankind. The plundering classes were usually the state and state authorities that would coercively extract , mostly through taxes, the wealth of the producers. As Marx couldn't explain in his own contradictions. The class struggle didn't exist through differences of income between the producers, because Marx in the final volume of Capital admits as much, but rather always pitted producers of any income against plunderers, i.e., those who seek to exploit and redistribute the wealth of the productive classes.

*This is the introductory to my essay in my attempt to show that Marxist class analysis is a sham and an idea robbed from the classical liberals. Marx couldn't fully explain how on one hand he acknowledges that class struggle isn't about difference income or even an economic issue, rather, he defines it as a legal issue as per the introduction to the Communist Manifesto.

Marx himself admits that he didn't discover class conflict through ' historical materialism' but rather hijacked the ideas of the classical liberals and distorted them in such a way where he can't help to contradict himself. In a 1852 letter to his follower in the U.S., Joseph Weydemeyer, Marx concedes:

no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.

So I feel I should issue an ultimatum to Marxists of all brands. Marxist theory is a sham and has nothing to do with 'historical materialism' but rather a cheap knock off the true class conflict observed by the liberals. You all should abandon this hallow philosophy and engage your minds into ideas that actually amount to something of value. Its not about bourgeoisie vs proletariat since Marx already contradicted himself by clearly stating its not a difference in income ( Vol 3 Capital) but rather the true class struggle is between the producers (everyone in the division of labor) vs the plunderers ( the state and those who seek to coercively redistribute wealth.) Failure to embrace this truth well only pit you against the working classes of all nations. Time to wake up guys.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Sorry, but I ain't biting, Austrian (and I am well acquainted with this argument, having read the Lew Rockwell website extensively before). :p


As Marx couldn't explain in his own contradictions. The class struggle didn't exist through differences of income between the producers, because Marx in the final volume of Capital admits as much... Its not about bourgeoisie vs proletariat since Marx already contradicted himself by clearly stating its not a difference in income

Since when the hell was Marxist analysis of class based on bloody f****** income??? :glare:

The mainstream view of class (rich, "middle-class," poor, etc.) is based on something akin to an income statement, while the Marxist view is based on something akin to a balance sheet (Accounting 101). :)

Besides, the "state classes" (bureaucrats) are on the payroll (lobby $$$) of the corporate bourgeoisie.


From the onset, we see the concepts of class and class struggle not linked to economic reasons but actually legal ones.

These laws you speak of pertain to economic relations pertaining to asset ownership, and merely "legalize" them. :glare:


In the sense the classical liberals identified it, the productive classes always produced things by transforming land, labor, and capital into commodities to serve mankind. The plundering classes were usually the state and state authorities that would coercively extract, mostly through taxes, the wealth of the producers.

While the bourgeoisie do indeed help advance the development of society's labour power and its capabilities:

A) They don't produce themselves (in agriculture, manufacturing, retail, and even research and development these days, among other areas); and
B) Surplus value is extracted by them from the down-to-earth producers, the working class. So in a sense the bourgeoisie are part advancers and part "plunderers."



BTW, you need to get away from your equally binary analysis (relative to "Communist Manifesto" Marxists who base their "materialist" class analysis just on that one work).

[Matty_UK]

The class struggle conceived by the classical liberals basically spelled out the true history of class struggle and that was always between the productive classes and the plundering classes. In the sense the classical liberals identified it, the productive classes always produced things by transforming land,labor, and capital into commodities to serve mankind. The plundering classes were usually the state and state authorities that would coercively extract , mostly through taxes, the wealth of the producers. As Marx couldn't explain in his own contradictions. The class struggle didn't exist through differences of income between the producers, because Marx in the final volume of Capital admits as much, but rather always pitted producers of any income against plunderers, i.e., those who seek to exploit and redistribute the wealth of the productive classes.

Come on, this is just retarded.

In a feudal state, the state was made up of propertied landowners and aristocrats, who accumulated wealth by taxing regular peasants in their dominions and were occasionally required to give money to the central state (the king/queen) for the sake of wars or whatnot.

In a bourgeois state, the economic elite are seperate to the state, although they wield considerable influence over it. It's really really dumb to think that people in government are the economic ruling class who exploit everyone through taxes. You think that people get jobs in the state out of a desire to tax everyone and steal their money? If that's the case, why aren't there any government workers in the Forbes 500? True that (part) of their wages is paid through taxes, but increasing taxes doesn't increase their wages.
It's a fact that the bourgeoisie were the class who led the reforms to abolish or gradually disintegrate the feudal state; (and also a fact the bourgeois states are hundreds of times bigger than feudal states; yes, capitalism=big government!) the only reason the state is seperate to the bourgeoisie, rather than being directly made up on them, is because as they are a competitive class (unlike feudal landowners) reaching consensus is harder, so it was necassary for them to vote for a representative government to find a harmony of interests. And most notably, in ALL early bourgeois states, ONLY the bourgeoisie had the right to vote; ownership of certain amounts of money was always a prerequisite. Universal suffrage is something that came about as a consequence of class struggle, but even so, the bourgeoisie as a class still wield massive influence over the state, with not only people from their class making up most members of political parties with the others being on their payroll through campaign donations, but they also fill up the unelected executive and legislative positions, giving them unique power to push political programmes that no-one else voted for.

Quite clearly, they are the "plunderers," and the state is just their tool. However, capitalists exploit in ways less direct than taxes, because the people they exploit are seperated from means of production. Imagine if feudal peasants didn't have their own pieces of land, but instead went off to work several hours a day on some aristocrats land in return for a wage. (as opposed to working on a rented piece of land and being taxed by the lord every so often) The aristocrat continues to be able to accumulate wealth, while the peasant continues to work away for the same weekly wage. Has exploitation really magically disappeared, or is it just done in a more subtle way? Seriously, if you reply to any part of my post reply to this.

Oh, and:

"The class struggle didn't exist through differences of income between the producers, because Marx in the final volume of Capital admits as much, but rather always pitted producers of any income against plunderers, i.e., those who seek to exploit and redistribute the wealth of the productive classes."

Marx "admitted as much," because Marxists have never said difference of income defines class. And Marx would agree that class struggle is producers vs plunderers; class is based on relationship to production, and it is ALWAYS those with property who are the exploiting class. Slaveowners have land that their slaves work on in return for the bare minimum to survive, allowing the slaveowner to accumulate wealth as the cost of the slave is less than the value he creates. Aristocrats own huge swathes of land, and rent it out to peasants who they exploit through taxation. And capitalists own diverse means of production, and proletarians work for the capitalist in return for a wage, allowing the capitalist to accumulate wealth as the price of labour is always cheaper than the benefits it brings for the capitalist.

[JazzRemington]

Is this even your written work? Because it looks like it was all paraphrased from the opening section of The Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes by Ralph Raico.

http://www.mises.org/story/2217

[Dejavu]

Is this even your written work? Because it looks like it was all paraphrased from the opening section of The Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes by Ralph Raico.

http://www.mises.org/story/2217

I borrowed heavily from Raico's essay for the beginning part of my own. I marked him down as a source on the original since thats required anyway. I'm combining different work about the topic.

And don't worry. ;) I've met Professor Raico and he loves it when students borrow his stuff. I'm sure he'd be flattered. :)

[RedStarOverChina]

Well, you did copy entire paragraphs with only minor changes and made no reference to the original source--until you were exposed. If I handed in something like that for my university paper, I'd expect to get my ass busted for plagiarism.

And the argument is really shitty, I can;t believe people would publish stuff like that. It's entirely based on misinterpreting Marx, and he did a bad job at that, too.

[Zurdito]

I borrowed heavily from Raico's essay for the beginning part of my own. I marked him down as a source on the original since thats required anyway. I'm combining different work about the topic.

And don't worry. ;) I've met Professor Raico and he loves it when students borrow his stuff. I'm sure he'd be flattered. :)

lol, nice try. that was complete plagiarism, even down to the order of the paragraphs.

[Matty_UK]

Yeah seriously, you better re-write that and give it a bibliography or you'll get zero marks for that essay.

[careyprice31]

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

From the onset, we see the concepts of class and class struggle not linked to economic reasons but actually legal ones."

Duhh!:)

we know that class isn't entirely linked to economy. Its also social and legal as well, the way humans interact with each other.

Really, I dont see how this is proving anything. Its really saying nothing.

this is basically things already known. Marx borrowed from earlier philosophers. we know that. People knew about class struggles before Marx.

I dont know who first observed it though. was it a liberal? who knows.

In some cases it is true that producers have struggled against the state. But that is not what most class struggles are about. That is the anarchist side of you coming out.

Id love to know btw who was the very first human or humans to recognize the class part of human interactions with each other.

we know it wasnt Marx. He was not the first to observe it. Id love to know who was.

[Dejavu]

Aww, now we're all upset about plagiarism? Someone even said if you turned that in with a bibliography it would be DISCREDITED??:confused:


Am I always one step ahead of you guys? :laugh:
I mean if we want to complain about plagiarism and considering that grounds for discrediting authors, lets look at at the master of plagiarism :

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

Compare to earlier writing from a different author:

In all the revolutions, there have always been but two parties opposing each other; that of the people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others…. Patricians and plebeians, slaves and freemen, guelphs and ghibellines, red roses and white roses, cavaliers and roundheads, liberals and serviles, are only varieties of the same species.


And you can't use the excuse that Marx came up with his class analysis ( let alone the intro to the CM) on his own ( with Engels) because Marx himself admits :

no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes.


;)


So guys, if you wish to be logically consistent and accuse me of plagiarism and discredit me at the same time, you have to do so for your hero Karl Marx.


Toodles.

[Dejavu]

Lets look at some of the comments flung my way about plagiarism and lets compare it to Marx and see if the same applies :

I mean if we want to complain about plagiarism and considering that grounds for discrediting authors, lets look at at the master of plagiarism :

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

Compare to earlier writing from a different author:

In all the revolutions, there have always been but two parties opposing each other; that of the people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others…. Patricians and plebeians, slaves and freemen, guelphs and ghibellines, red roses and white roses, cavaliers and roundheads, liberals and serviles, are only varieties of the same species.


Comments :

MattyUK: Yeah seriously, you better re-write that and give it a bibliography or you'll get zero marks for that essay.

Zurdito: lol, nice try. that was complete plagiarism, even down to the order of the paragraphs.

Vaginal Residue: Well, you did copy entire paragraphs with only minor changes and made no reference to the original source--until you were exposed. If I handed in something like that for my university paper, I'd expect to get my ass busted for plagiarism.


JazzRemington: Is this even your written work? Because it looks like it was all paraphrased from the opening section of ....



Don't worry guys , If Marx were alive still I'd ask him the same questions and give him the same comments. :)

[Zurdito]

Marx wrote volumes, and he built his ideas on those of previous writers, who he regularly credited, in order to develop their ideas and synhtesise to form new ones.

you just copied an essay and posted it on here as your own.

stop digging, you got exposed as a pseudo intellectual in front of everyone, and lashing out at Karl Marx isn't a very dignified response. for shame Dejavu, for shame. :(

[Dejavu]

Marx wrote volumes, and he built his ideas on those of previous writers, who he regularly credited, in order to develop their ideas and synhtesise to form new ones.

you just copied an essay and posted it on here as your own.

stop digging, you got exposed as a pseudo intellectual in front of everyone, and lashing out at Karl Marx isn't a very dignified response. for shame Dejavu, for shame. :(


Sorry I planted a logic trap for you guys and you guys fell into it. Oh well I guess. I'm not talking about just borrowing ideas. I'm talking about straight plagiarism which was done in the very opening line of the Communist Manifesto. Marx knew where he was copying literature from, he even admitted he did. It doesn't stand to reason I get criticized for basically paraphrasing someone else but Marx can get away with it and even have his plagiarized work adored by ' the masses.'

You're setting a double standard based on your preference of ideology and you're still caught in the logic trap.

PS: Dunno if you guys figured it out by now but of course I'm not going to turn this in for an assignment. :laugh: ;)

[Matty_UK]

Sorry I planted a logic trap for you guys and you guys fell into it. Oh well I guess. I'm not talking about just borrowing ideas. I'm talking about straight plagiarism which was done in the very opening line of the Communist Manifesto. Marx knew where he was copying literature from, he even admitted he did. It doesn't stand to reason I get criticized for basically paraphrasing someone else but Marx can get away with it and even have his plagiarized work adored by ' the masses.'

You're setting a double standard based on your preference of ideology and you're still caught in the logic trap.

PS: Dunno if you guys figured it out by now but of course I'm not going to turn this in for an assignment. :laugh: ;)

Perhaps you'll like to reply to my original response, which you seem to have neatly avoided.

[Zurdito]

[quote]Sorry I planted a logic trap for you guys and you guys fell into it.

wait...what logic trap? the chances of JazzRemmington finding the article were pretty small, of all the people who replied he was the only one who noticed. Unless you were planting thoughts in his mind Derren Brown style, I think you have to admit that you intended to get credit for someone else's work, and got found out.


Oh well I guess. I'm not talking about just borrowing ideas. I'm talking about straight plagiarism which was done in the very opening line of the Communist Manifesto. Marx knew where he was copying literature from, he even admitted he did.

if he "admitted" it, then it's not plagiarism, dickhead. Plagiarism is when you claim credit fr someone else's work as your own. Acknowledging sources is no plagiarism.


It doesn't stand to reason I get criticized for basically paraphrasing someone else but Marx can get away with it and even have his plagiarized work adored by ' the masses.'

Obviously all great writers and philosophers build extensively on the work of great writers and philosophers before them. There is nothing at all wrong with that. In fact it would be ridiculous not to do that: any notion of progress entails building on and synthesising what has been written before, making omissions and additions based on your own vision, and then coming up with your own understanding and theory. None of Marx's serious critics deny that he did this. Just like no-one could possibly claim that you did any of those things.

Rather, you just copied a few lines practically word for word, to which you addednothing, which you synthesised with no-one else's work, and which you did not acknowledge. there owuld be nothing wrong with you saying: "here are mediocre proffessor's views in my own words, what do you think of them", but you didn't do that.


You're setting a double standard based on your preference of ideology and you're still caught in the logic trap.

There's no double standard, and what the fuck is a "logic trap"?


PS: Dunno if you guys figured it out by now but of course I'm not going to turn this in for an assignment. :laugh: ;)

Who cares? You tried online to pass off that trash as your own work and got exposed. That in itself is the joke.

[JazzRemington]

wait...what logic trap? the chances of JazzRemmington finding the article were pretty small, of all the people who replied he was the only one who noticed. Unless you were planting thoughts in his mind Derren Brown style, I think you have to admit that you intended to get credit for someone else's work, and got found out.

I was actually aware fo the article before hand from an aborted research project I was doing on the Marxian class analysis. The title of the OP's just happened to ring a bell.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wow; for someone who champions individual rights, you should know better than to plagiarize another person's work.

I think it's absolutely hilarious you don't know what plagiarism is - and now you're trying to play it off as some DOUBLE WHAMMY on us stupid communists. If Marx admitted to using another's work, he wasn't plagiarizing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

He didn't even address the very first response to his shitty essay, my "balance sheet" remark. :rolleyes:

[Matty_UK]

He didn't even address the very first response to his shitty essay, my "balance sheet" remark. :rolleyes:

Nor did he respond to my reply, he seems to have realised how indefensible the premise of that article is.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah seriously, you better re-write that and give it a bibliography or you'll get zero marks for that essay.

And in my university, possibly expelled from the department.

[Luís Henrique]

Am I always one step ahead of you guys? :laugh:

So it seems - you are already expropriating the bourgeois while we are still just talking about it... :lol:

Luís Henrique

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Dejavu, you can call Marx a plagiarist all you want but the fact is that plagiarism will get you a big fat fail in any university-level essay. Most universities could even kick you out for it. So you can take our advice or you can leave it.

[Luís Henrique]

Two concepts that are considered closest associated with Marxism are the concepts of class and class struggle. It would be virtually impossible to imagine a revolutionary theory of Marxism without these concepts.

You should read Robert Kurz.


Marxist theory attempts to link class struggle in the method of production yet the Communist Manifesto in its first opening line asserts:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

From the onset, we see the concepts of class and class struggle not linked to economic reasons but actually legal ones.The strict separation between "economics" and "politics" is a feature of modern, capitalist societies. Before that, they were always intertwined, not only in material reality, but also in the minds of people. To think about feudal or slaverist societies in split cathegories of "economics" and "politics" is, if not done with great care, running the risk of blatant anachronism.


Marx nor Engles ever addressed the contradictions and mysteries of their theories in this area. (...) if Marx, in the years before his death, had provided a clear definition of classes consistent with other parts of his theory.It is quite clear, to anyone who effectively read Marx, that such theory in fact exists; classes are defined by their relationship to means of production. Evidently, however, Marx was not the reductionist that anti-Marxists often paint; he knew quite clearly that other issues, besides class, were important in conjunctural politics, so that class fractions, and poli-classist social layers must be taken into account when politically analysing a given political situation.


In fact, right before the rise of Marxist theory, there existed a well constructed theory of class conflict which would strongly influence Marx's own ideas. This earlier theory of class conflict was part of the Classical Liberal Doctrine.Sure. Marx never claimed to have invented the concept of class.


In all the revolutions, there have always been but two parties opposing each other; that of the people who wish to live by their own labor, and that of those who would live by the labor of others…. Patricians and plebeians, slaves and freemen, guelphs and ghibellines, red roses and white roses, cavaliers and roundheads, liberals and serviles, are only varieties of the same species.

Which seems to point that at least Adolphe Blanqui made the confusion you point, as it is clear that "guelphs and ghibellines", "red roses and white roses", or "cavaliers and roundheads", cannot possibly be construed as those who toil against those who live on others' labour.


This was written before the Communist Manifesto and looks strikingly similar to the opener of the Communist Manifesto, again compare :

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…This would be impressive, if the following lines and paragraphs, from here down to the bottom line of the Manifesto, did in any way resemble anything written by Adolphe Blanqui...


Blanqui then elaborates on what he thinks to have been the central issue in the class struggles:

So, in one country, it is through taxes that the fruit of the laborer's toil is wrested from him, under pretense of the good of the state; in another, it is by privileges, declaring labor a royal concession, and making one pay dearly for the right to devote himself to it. The same abuse is reproduced under more indirect, but no less oppressive, forms, when, by means of custom-duties, the state shares with the privileged industries the benefits of the taxes imposed on all those who are not privileged.From what it is made clear that Adolphe Blanqui's own conceptions of "class" and "class struggle" have nothing to do with Marx or Marxism. His reasoning is about taxes and their distribution, which to him are the kernel of what he calls "oppression" - while to Marx, this would be at most be a perypherical issue.


The class struggle conceived by the classical liberals basically spelled out the true history of class struggle and that was always between the productive classes and the plundering classes.Or, to put it clearly, that they are not the key for human history, because they are a-historical in themselves.


The class struggle didn't exist through differences of income between the producers, because Marx in the final volume of Capital admits as much, but rather always pitted producers of any income against plunderers, i.e., those who seek to exploit and redistribute the wealth of the productive classes.You are confusing Marxism with the most vulgar sociology. Evidently social classes aren't defined by "differences of income"; that is simply ridiculous, and is the kind of scaremongering that American professors throw over their students, in the justified hope that they will swallow it because they have read even less Marx than those professors themselves...


So I feel I should issue an ultimatum to Marxists of all brands.Shall we make you an equestrian statue, o mighty discoverer of gunpowder?


Marxist theory is a sham and has nothing to do with 'historical materialism' but rather a cheap knock off the true class conflict observed by the liberals.Yup. Just like Lavoisier "stole" Priestley's ideas, and put them over their feet...


You all should abandon this hallow philosophy and engage your minds into ideas that actually amount to something of value.Go pick your nose, kid.


Its not about bourgeoisie vs proletariat since Marx already contradicted himself by clearly stating its not a difference in income ( Vol 3 Capital)Your ignorance is staggering.

Evidently it has nothing to do with differences in income; this is just a "liberal" (in the American, perverted, sence of the word) misreading of both Marx and reality.


but rather the true class struggle is between the producers (everyone in the division of labor) vs the plunderers ( the state and those who seek to coercively redistribute wealth.) Yeah, between labourers who actually produce things, and capitalists who coercively redistribute such wealth, via the political privilege of private property... :lol:


Failure to embrace this truth well only pit you against the working classes of all nations. Time to wake up guys.Ok, Jeremiah. Go preach in the desert, to see if the grasshoppers follow you...

Luís Henrique

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Having to hear about a liberal class struggle between the bourgeoisie and politicians is enough to expel milk from my nostril. Thankfully I finished my bowl of cereal a few hours ago. :laugh: Did you ever stop to think the president and Congress sure make shitty pay for running a country of 300+ million? All the favors come from business lobbyists (what? I thought capitalism threw a wedge between itself and the government?) and allocating money back into their own company's piggy banks through uncompetitive contracts. It's no coincidence that Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton (through his mother's second marriage), George H.W. bush, and George Dubya are capitalists - although the latter is quite terrible at it.

Capitalists want a state. Anarcho-capitalism is a void concept not only to Leftists. :D

[Bud Struggle]

Having to hear about a liberal class struggle between the bourgeoisie and politicians is enough to expel milk from my nostril. Thankfully I finished my bowl of cereal a few hours ago. :laugh: The president and Congress sure make shitty pay for running a country of 300+ million. All the favors come from business lobbyists and allocating money back into their own company's piggy banks. It's no coincidence that Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton (through his mother's second marriage), George H.W. bush, and George Dubya are capitalists - although the latter is quite terrible at it.



And I'm a Capitalist too. A son of a immigrant laborer and member of the United Rubber Workers of America that made the toe caps for Keds at UniRoyal.

All it took was a bit of effort. :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And I'm a Capitalist too. A son of a immigrant laborer and member of the United Rubber Workers of America that made the toe caps for Keds at UniRoyal.

All it took was a bit of effort. :)

I have a hunch that you're part of the petit-bourgeoisie.

"Just a bit of effort," and luck. I'm sorry to tell you but everyone beneath you isn't lazier than you. That's just plain narcissism. Furthermore, what you don't seem to understand is that humans should never have to bend their knee to another human being, whether it be in life or from 8-5. Even if social mobility was rampant (which it's not), if a few people born into poverty had to become wage slaves due to enforced property relations, it's exploitation.

The proletariat are quite similar to indentured servants in that regard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He is petit-bourgeois, given my past conversations with him. :D

[Luís Henrique]

All it took was a bit of effort. :)

Yours or your father's?

I suppose that, for the benefit of your children, you won't allow them to inherit your wealth, thus sparing them that "little effort", will you?

Luís Henrique

[luxemburg89]

I borrowed heavily from Raico's essay for the beginning part of my own. I marked him down as a source on the original since thats required anyway. I'm combining different work about the topic.

And don't worry. ;) I've met Professor Raico and he loves it when students borrow his stuff. I'm sure he'd be flattered. :)

Yeah, Lenin said that same thing to me when I met him.:glare:


It doesn't stand to reason I get criticized for basically paraphrasing someone else but Marx can get away with it and even have his plagiarized work adored by ' the masses.'

Well, Marx wrote under the heading 'The Communist Manifesto' and was thus writing on behalf of other left-wing theorists and others that went before etc. Written with eloquent and poetic prose that appears as soulful as it does realistic. You, however, claimed that this piece of writing was 'My essay opener' when really it was someone elses ideas, not that you should use other people's ideas of course. The difference between you and Marx is that his work was 'adored by 'the masses'' - yours, I'm afraid, will not be.

[Zurdito]

Dejavu hasn't been back. how strange. :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He has only responded to the plagiarism stuff, not bothering with the various "balance sheet" rebuttals of his BS. On a sidenote, TomK hasn't rebutted our "petit-bourgeois" assertions (mine and Gene's), and several years ago I was on very good terms with an ACTUAL bourgeois before he hit the ground.

[Dejavu]

I haven't forgot about you guys. I have a very important test to study for and some personal business to take care of. Its that time of season again, what can I say?
I've seen the replies. As always I will answer them in a way which in engages your minds and makes you think.
I'll try to get around to all or most of the rebuttals today or, at the latest, tomorrow or Friday.

[Dejavu]

Since when the hell was Marxist analysis of class based on bloody f****** income???

Why does Marx demand a progressive and graduated income tax in the CM if not for the redistribution of wealth? Why did Marx make the distinction of income for both proletarian and bourgeoisie in Volume 3 Capital?


Besides, the "state classes" (bureaucrats) are on the payroll (lobby $$$) of the corporate bourgeoisie.

This is only possible with the state. Government is corrupt, I never said differently.


While the bourgeoisie do indeed help advance the development of society's labour power and its capabilities:

A) They don't produce themselves (in agriculture, manufacturing, retail, and even research and development these days, among other areas); and

How do they not produce? They invest the capital ( i.e. their own savings) into a project and ensure labor are paid on time and all the other relevant factors of production are taken care of. The entrepreneur specifically takes the risk of sustaining a loss for the product and since labor is paid in advance they need not worry about loosing pay as a consequence of bad entrepreneurship.


B) Surplus value is extracted by them from the down-to-earth producers, the working class. So in a sense the bourgeoisie are part advancers and part "plunderers."

Nope because you ignore the simple concept of time. You can't forget that labor is advanced payment through wages ( weekly,bi-weekly, salary). The entrepreneurs and capitalist have to wait until all of production is done to make a profit and there is no guarantee they will turn a profit once the product is put out on the market. I know a lot of people in Airplane manufacturing for example. I know a lot of labor that works there and I can't think of one that would be willing to work and wait seven years for the airplanes to finally be finished from drawing board to fruition to finally make a profit. Labor gets paid in advance because they prefer it that way since they prefer to consume in the present. In the real world, only a select few people compared to a large labor force would be willing to save now, invest, and profit much later at a risk. The interest returned to a capitalist/entrepreneur is the deficit he incurred while paying the laborer in advance through wages ( time preference, think of payday loans places). The profit the capitalist gets later is never guaranteed ( unless the government goes to war and forges a contract but thats another problem) as any investment is always risky and can actually create a loss. Of course since labor is advanced payment they are not effected by a loss and can actually stand to profit more from production than the capitalist making a poor investment.




In a feudal state, the state was made up of propertied landowners and aristocrats, who accumulated wealth by taxing regular peasants in their dominions and were occasionally required to give money to the central state (the king/queen) for the sake of wars or whatnot.

Usually heavier taxes were levied on Serfs when the Kings themselves demanded more tribute. This is why feudal lords were rigid about outlined contracts with the kings. While the W.European feudal system was far from the notion of freedom it tended to benefit the serfs in W.Europe better than lower classes in other parts of the world which were mostly directly ruled by all-powerful despots. Its only comparatively speaking but this is , of course, why feudalism was overthrown in favor of an economic system that served the common man the most.


. You think that people get jobs in the state out of a desire to tax everyone and steal their money?

Yes but it usually isn't a direct tax. If the government didn't spend by inflating the money supply then revenues would be collected through direct taxation and tariffs. We know tariffs led to the 'Civil War' and direct taxation was a major reason for the Revolutionary War. Inflation is a much more brutal tax and well hidden plus the blame can be thrown around much easier shielding the government from direct criticism.




If that's the case, why aren't there any government workers in the Forbes 500? True that (part) of their wages is paid through taxes, but increasing taxes doesn't increase their wages.

I never said increasing taxes increases wages.


It's a fact that the bourgeoisie were the class who led the reforms to abolish or gradually disintegrate the feudal state; (and also a fact the bourgeois states are hundreds of times bigger than feudal states; yes, capitalism=big government!) the only reason the state is seperate to the bourgeoisie, rather than being directly made up on them, is because as they are a competitive class (unlike feudal landowners) reaching consensus is harder, so it was necassary for them to vote for a representative government to find a harmony of interests.

Well the French government at the time turned into the largest bureaucracy in the world. It was mostly the laissez fair advocates calling for its downsizing. The laissez fair intellectuals wanted to dismantle the state apparatus but the revolutionaries in France merely seized the state apparatus and used it for their own power. They looked favorably on Mercantilist policies which is something Free Market advocates have always been against. The capitalists that rely on state favors can hardly be called competitive. They fear market competition or else they wouldn't be paying off the over-sized state to protect them.


ONLY the bourgeoisie had the right to vote; ownership of certain amounts of money was always a prerequisite. Universal suffrage is something that came about as a consequence of class struggle, but even so, the bourgeoisie as a class still wield massive influence over the state, with not only people from their class making up most members of political parties with the others being on their payroll through campaign donations, but they also fill up the unelected executive and legislative positions, giving them unique power to push political programmes that no-one else voted for.

I'm not a fan of a representative or democratic state, I don't like any state at all. The representative problem is much for the reasons you stated. The democratic state is mob rule.



Quite clearly, they are the "plunderers," and the state is just their tool. However, capitalists exploit in ways less direct than taxes, because the people they exploit are seperated from means of production. Imagine if feudal peasants didn't have their own pieces of land, but instead went off to work several hours a day on some aristocrats land in return for a wage. (as opposed to working on a rented piece of land and being taxed by the lord every so often) The aristocrat continues to be able to accumulate wealth, while the peasant continues to work away for the same weekly wage. Has exploitation really magically disappeared, or is it just done in a more subtle way? Seriously, if you reply to any part of my post reply to this.

Most of the capitalists that use the state to their advantage are merely opportunists. Remember, all the power of the state is in the hands of the politicians. Normally a state expands for Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Market reasons such as tougher regulations, trust busting, price caps, higher taxes, etc. The capitalists that would be effected by such measures are basically put into a position of either we play the game or we'll get screwed anyway. The expanded state creates more bureaucrats to bribe and usually the capitalists will bribe the state to protect them from the very measures against business the state is promoting. Its not hard to see why politicians know they'll get rich if they propose a pot shot against business. Other failing entrepreneurs will use the state to crack down on competition that does better in the market. The only reason any of this is possible is because the coercive power of the state is there in the first place. How about the Sherman Antitrust Act? Large successful businesses would have no choice but to sleep with the government in order to get concessions. They would all plea to the government and government sponsored cartels would follow. The government figured that as long as the monopolization of businesses is under their thumb its permissible.



Marx "admitted as much," because Marxists have never said difference of income defines class. And Marx would agree that class struggle is producers vs plunderers; class is based on relationship to production, and it is ALWAYS those with property who are the exploiting class. Slaveowners have land that their slaves work on in return for the bare minimum to survive, allowing the slaveowner to accumulate wealth as the cost of the slave is less than the value he creates. Aristocrats own huge swathes of land, and rent it out to peasants who they exploit through taxation. And capitalists own diverse means of production, and proletarians work for the capitalist in return for a wage, allowing the capitalist to accumulate wealth as the price of labour is always cheaper than the benefits it brings for the capitalist.

In Volume 3 Capital Marx suggested that class conflict is also do to differences in income between the bourgeoisie and proletarians and even within the classes themselves. Private property owners are usually the ones with the incentives to make available goods in services to society at large at the best prices because their own prosperity is linked to that of the consumer society. Comparing slavery to wage earners is a poor construct. Slaves were never advanced payment, they never got to keep anything they earned, and they had no choice but to work. Slave production was so poor that even proletarian freemen couldn't get much of anything even if they had a little bit of money. What are they going to get out in the market if the capitalist mode of production is non-existent and the much lower supply of goods are much more than they can afford? Were most of the factories in the Industrial Revolution producing goods for the limited upper strata? Expensive silk for the rich or cotton textiles for common man so he can afford more clothing? Europe had a population boom of tens of millions during the Industrial Revolution. Without the capitalist mode of production how could have this large population survived without envoking the Malthusian trap? If you wanted to see a place that had a large population boom without the capitalist mode of production one merely had to look at Calcutta,India. Because of market competition capitalist were usually made by market forces to pay around the market price for labor anyway. Real wages in the Industrial Revolution ( actually in England when Engels was there) went up around 40% and more stuff was out there to purchase at cheaper prices. Engels decided to ignore that pretty much I guess. The capitalist doesn't always benefit or profit. When he invests into production and pays labor in advance he is taking a risk. Nothing is promising the fruits of the production will yield a profit greater than the costs of production. If the capitalist looses on his investment and the whole production project the laborer still gets paid anyway.



The strict separation between "economics" and "politics" is a feature of modern, capitalist societies. Before that, they were always intertwined, not only in material reality, but also in the minds of people. To think about feudal or slaverist societies in split cathegories of "economics" and "politics" is, if not done with great care, running the risk of blatant anachronism.

But in practice politics is constantly involved in economics through government intervention in the economy. Classical liberals, most libertarians, and Market Anarchists always believed and do believe that more economic freedom always leads to more political freedom. Freer the market, freer the people as it goes.


Did you ever stop to think the president and Congress sure make shitty pay for running a country of 300+ million?

Do you know how many fringe benefits and separate payrolls most of Congress gets? You think the only money they see is that which they are officially paid?


All the favors come from business lobbyists (what? I thought capitalism threw a wedge between itself and the government?) and allocating money back into their own company's piggy banks through uncompetitive contracts. It's no coincidence that Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton (through his mother's second marriage), George H.W. bush, and George Dubya are capitalists - although the latter is quite terrible at it.

Why wouldn't the favors come from lobbyists? What would happen to those businesses that didn't want to sleep with the government? They would be subject to market forces which would punish failure, the state insulates them from that. The business lobbyists only have power because the fountain of power ( the state) is there in the first place to share it with them. Yeah, all those guys might be capitalists in the raw sense of the word but they are Anti-Market clearly. Anti-Market capitalists are no different to me than communists, fascists, etc.


Capitalists want a state. Anarcho-capitalism is a void concept not only to Leftists

Anti-Market forces desire a state, naturally. Anarcho-Capitalism is pro market.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why does Marx demand a progressive and graduated income tax in the CM if not for the redistribution of wealth?

Ever heard of "minimum demands"? :rolleyes: These are the types of demands to be sought from the system BEFORE the revolution. Notice he NEVER mentioned anything about "workers' rule" being one of the listed demands (progressive taxation, free education, nationalization, etc.).


Why did Marx make the distinction of income for both proletarian and bourgeoisie in Volume 3 Capital?

1) Care to cite?
2) Taken into greater context, that is incidental to the "balance sheet" stuff he made earlier and EVEN within Volume 3 itself ("functioning capitalists").


How do they not produce? They invest the capital (i.e. their own savings) into a project and ensure labor are paid on time and all the other relevant factors of production are taken care of. The entrepreneur specifically takes the risk of sustaining a loss for the product and since labor is paid in advance they need not worry about loosing pay as a consequence of bad entrepreneurship.

I don't think you got what I said. :confused:


Nope because you ignore the simple concept of time. You can't forget that labor is advanced payment through wages ( weekly,bi-weekly, salary).

You're an idiot. Wage compensation is made AFTER the labour is made. In the case of salaried people with banked time, the time value of money slowly decreased the buying power of that banked time. :rolleyes:


In Volume 3 Capital Marx suggested that class conflict is also do to differences in income between the bourgeoisie and proletarians and even within the classes themselves.

If you're referring to the labour aristocracy within the working class (high-profile pro athletes, for example) who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, then you have a point. If, on the other hand, you're referring to class conflict between classes on the basis of income, then your argument is bullocks. As for conflicts within the bourgeoisie, I believe that is called "the competitive environment" and "market share" in the business world. :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

Nope because you ignore the simple concept of time. You can't forget that labor is advanced payment through wages ( weekly,bi-weekly, salary). The entrepreneurs and capitalist have to wait until all of production is done to make a profit and there is no guarantee they will turn a profit once the product is put out on the market. I know a lot of people in Airplane manufacturing for example. I know a lot of labor that works there and I can't think of one that would be willing to work and wait seven years for the airplanes to finally be finished from drawing board to fruition to finally make a profit.

You must be living in a fantasy world if you think capitalists don't spend projected profit. what do you think the current credit crunch is based on?