I'm the Bourgeoisie.....

[CXR]

Ever since I was born I've been part of the bourgeoisie. Even now, living on my own I am part of the bourgeoisie by means of my income.

I think. Am I part of the bourgeoisie simply by my income or only if I mean to oppress the proletariat? I am now an anarcho-communist- I only realized this recently.

How do I support the revolution? Do I give up most of my income for revolutionary causes? What do I do?

[spartan]

Do you employ people who's work creates the wealth that is your main source of income?

[CXR]

Do you employ people who's work creates the wealth that is your main source of income?

Nope. Perhaps I missed the point of the bourgeoisie?


Am I in the clear?


So the bourgeoisie is the controlling class in that they employ people for crap wages and oppress the proletariat? I am employed and paid ridiculous wages but employ no one.

[el_chavista]

Really? Do you own factories or other means of production or have you sharings?

[gla22]

If you own a factories or stock you are bourgeoisies or if you rent out houses or land.
You are probably just a upper class proletariat.

[spartan]

Nope. Perhaps I missed the point of the bourgeoisie?

Maybe so?

You see lets take a common example of a Footballer who is paid one hundred thousand pounds a week for his job.

Now even though he is making a shit load of money he is still being employed by the football clubs owner and is earning a wage (Albeit a bloody good one) which means that he isnt a member of the Bourgeoisie (Even though he can live the same comfortable lifestyle as them due to the ridiculous amount of money he earns).

Indeed if the Football player is "wise" with his money he could invest it or maybe even start up a business that will employ other people, which would then make him a member of the Bourgeoisie.

All in all high wages doesnt make you a member of the Bourgeoisie it just means that you are a lucky bastard.

[CXR]

Well, I have my money invested in stocks- I presume I should pull it out, right? (No innuendo intended)

However, even a lot of the lower-middle working class have at least some amount of stock they've invested in. Would that make them Bourgeoisie instead of proletarians?

[Q]

In general your economic position (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat) determines your class position but this is not an absolutist way of determining whether you're revolutionary or a reactionary. Pro-working class or pro-bourgeoisie. Famous revolutionaries like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were either bourgeois in the economic meaning of the word or came from a bourgeois intellectual background.

[Dean]

Ever since I was born I've been part of the bourgeoisie. Even now, living on my own I am part of the bourgeoisie by means of my income.

I think. Am I part of the bourgeoisie simply by my income or only if I mean to oppress the proletariat? I am now an anarcho-communist- I only realized this recently.

How do I support the revolution? Do I give up most of my income for revolutionary causes? What do I do?

You're probably lower class. Don't forget what a disparity there is between the wealthy, the hyper-capitalists and the working class.

Really, I used to think I was middle class. Then I started to think about it. Even when I lived at home I was lower class, and now I am way below the poverty line. A lot more of us are workign class than we know, and thats part of the problem.

[Zurdito]

If you own a factories or stock you are bourgeoisies or if you rent out houses or land.
You are probably just a upper class proletariat.


There is no upper-class proletariat. Company executives living in large homes who send their kids to school aren't part of the proletariat jsut because they don't own the companies they work for.

[aussiestalinist]

Really? Do you own factories or other means of production or have you sharings?


Don't forget distribution and exchange.

[Led Zeppelin]

Famous revolutionaries like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were either bourgeois in the economic meaning of the word or came from a bourgeois intellectual background.

Erm, no they weren't, and they came from a petty-bourgeois background, which isn't really relevant because they broke with those class relations long before they became revolutionaries.

[aussiestalinist]

If my dad is a trade union official and I am a student geting a youth allowance off the government, am I in the proletariat?

[Niccolò Rossi]

If my dad is a trade union official and I am a student geting a youth allowance off the government, am I in the proletariat?

Your a student and are dependant on your parents. Students are not in themselves proletarians, however, if like many students you work for a wage you are a member of the proletariat.

But you should know all this since your the General Secretary of the Stalinist League of Australia, right? :lol:

[Q]

Erm, no they weren't, and they came from a petty-bourgeois background, which isn't really relevant because they broke with those class relations long before they became revolutionaries.
My point exactly.

[gla22]

Well, I have my money invested in stocks- I presume I should pull it out, right? (No innuendo intended)

However, even a lot of the lower-middle working class have at least some amount of stock they've invested in. Would that make them Bourgeoisie instead of proletarians?

I wouldn't sell your stocks. Trying to live a communist lifestyle within a capitalist country is pointless. I think class structures have changed alot since marx's time.

[aussiestalinist]

If you want to live a socialist or a communist life style you could always buy some land and start a socialist mini state like I did in my bed room. It is really fun today.

[Module]

There is no upper-class proletariat. Company executives living in large homes who send their kids to school aren't part of the proletariat jsut because they don't own the companies they work for.
And somebody isn't part of the bourgeoisie simply because they earn a lot of money, either.
'Upper class' refers to people with the highest income, it doesn't mean bourgeoisie.

[Red October]

What do you do for a living? Are you employed, or do you just receive money from investments?

[Grunt]

As long as you don't exploit people (directly ot indirectly) I see no
problem.

The indirect exploitation is very tricky: Buying stuff from
multinationals who in their turn exploit people etc.

It takes much effort to make sure that you contribute as
little as possible to 'indirect exploitation'.

And: I would sell the stocks !

[dirtycommiebastard]

As long as you don't exploit people (directly ot indirectly) I see no
problem.

The indirect exploitation is very tricky: Buying stuff from
multinationals who in their turn exploit people etc.

It takes much effort to make sure that you contribute as
little as possible to 'indirect exploitation'.

And: I would sell the stocks !

I would have to disagree with this.
Every business is exploits people for their labour value.

If you meant we shouldn't shop at places like Wal-Mart, I will still have to disagree with you. Even though Wal-Mart uses cheap-labour to produce, the fact of the matter is, the cost of living is on the rise and the working class needs cheap commodities. We will never reach the working class by campaigning to boycott these companies.

We can only eliminate capitalist exploitation by abolishing it completely, not boycotting companies. Who is going to listen when they have to feed their children and put clothes on their backs.

[Grunt]

I would have to disagree with this.
Every business is exploits people for their labour value.
Except the non-profit businesses. But basically you are right.



If you meant we shouldn't shop at places like Wal-Mart, I will still have to disagree with you. Even though Wal-Mart uses cheap-labour to produce, the fact of the matter is, the cost of living is on the rise and the working class needs cheap commodities. We will never reach the working class by campaigning to boycott these companies.
This is true: The exploited need cheap commodities.
Still there a are exploited (like myself) who can made the decision
not (or as little as possible) buy from multinational svine.

And as it turns out: It is not always much more expensive.

That doesn't mean I'm rich. On the contrary. But I am not taking
part in the 'rat-race' that the capitalist system makes us and
needs us to 'run'.

For example: I know quite many exploited - who despite barely
having enough money for food and stuff - still have the latest
cell-phone. But its not their fault.

So what is needed is the insight that the whole 'fashion' thing
and the total focus on material posessions is the result of
centuries of brain-washing.



We can only eliminate capitalist exploitation by abolishing it completely, not boycotting companies. Who is going to listen when they have to feed their children and put clothes on their backs.
Those who can afford it should boycott the multinationals - because
they are the worst of the worst.

Otherwise I agree with you that exploitation must be abolished
completely.

[Sam_b]

Except the non-profit businesses.

Not-for-profit ventures aren't immune from exploiting their workforce.

[Grunt]

Not-for-profit ventures aren't immune from exploiting their workforce.
True! But if they are not-for-profit, then why do they exploit
their workforce ? It sounds inconsequent to me.

[Sam_b]

But if they are not-for-profit, then why do they exploit
their workforce?

I wish I knew.

[dirtycommiebastard]

True! But if they are not-for-profit, then why do they exploit
their workforce ? It sounds inconsequent to me.

It has to do with Marx's labour theory of value.

Even if the non-profit organization is not making any profit from their services, the work force is probably not being compensated fully for their labour value.

[Holden Caulfield]

the more money you have the less money there is for me, and the rest of the population

you should take your wage keep enough to live a good standard standard of living and use the rest for good causes, this is ideolistic but a new plasma screen for you is fun but that money could feed poor people for months in many places across the globe,

as a member of the ruling class you are opressing the proles albiet indirectly, make changes yourself rather than wait for them to come,

im not saying give all your money away, just use a good percent of it for something worthwhile,

off topic it makes me sick that footballers can earn in a week playing a game what my dad can earn in about 10 years working shifts

[Grunt]

you should take your wage keep enough to live a good standard standard of living and use the rest for good causes, this is ideolistic but a new plasma screen for you is fun but that money could feed poor people for months in many places across the globe,
Yes ! Thats why I don't have a plasma screen, no car, no
private cell-phone etc.

I don't need those things. Giving away - yes. But its difficult
to know to whom. I don't trust many of the big charity
organizations - so I give to the local ones whom I know.

I am spending money on political and scientific education - thats
true.

Is that wrong ? What do you think ?



as a member of the ruling class you are opressing the proles albiet indirectly, make changes yourself rather than wait for them to come,

I am most certainly not a member of the ruling class, far from it.



off topic it makes me sick that footballers can earn in a week playing a game what my dad can earn in about 10 years working shifts
I agree.

[Grunt]

Even if the non-profit organization is not making any profit from their services, the work force is probably not being compensated fully for their labour value.
Probably - but not necessarilly.

[Holden Caulfield]

"when i have money i buy books, if there is any left after that i buy food and clothes"

i paraphrase some old dead wise person i forget who,

anyhoo i agree fully with Grunt who speaks much sense,

[Grunt]

"when i have money i buy books, if there is any left after that i buy food and clothes"
i paraphrase some old dead wise person i forget who,
Exactly ! :) My friends always wonder why I spend so much money
on books....

Books come before food and clothes. (not to mention all the needless
things that the capitalists want us to buy...)



anyhoo i agree fully with Grunt who speaks much sense,
Thanks comrade ! :) But I am not smart like you guys. I am just
a grunt.

All I want is to be a good comrade. There will always be a difference
in opinion and beliefs - but I still believe and hope that we are
working together towards a common goal ! :)

[Holden Caulfield]

you are just as good as anybody else mate,
the high minded intellectuals are nothing without support from the workers keep that in mind,

in solidarity

[CXR]

To explain what I do-

I'm the Head of HR at a large pharmaceutical company. I have started donating a larger portion of my salary to various charities among other things. I don't believe in marriage so I don't have any kind of family to support, so more to the charities I guess.


The only guilty pleasure I have is biking.


I have a VERY large collection of bikes thats value ranges into the tens of thousands of dollars, accrued before I became a leftist.... I don't know how I can give something up when it's basically the only thing I love to do.


Uhh, it's bad becuase most bike companies, even the very high-end ones like Pinarello, use cheap asian labor.....

[Grunt]

you are just as good as anybody else mate,
the high minded intellectuals are nothing without support from the workers keep that in mind,

in solidarity
Thanks comrade ! :)

I think we need both: Smart, high minded intelectuals - and
grunts. (At least I hope so - otherwise I am useless..)

I am learning, yes ! But I know my limitations. I also know
what I'am good at - and thats why I am proud to be a
grunt.

But I admire all the smart, high minded intellectual
comrades here !

They give me education - for free ! :)


P.S.: I replied to your request. I am honoured.

[Grunt]

The only guilty pleasure I have is biking.


I have a VERY large collection of bikes thats value ranges into the tens of thousands of dollars, accrued before I became a leftist.... I don't know how I can give something up when it's basically the only thing I love to do.


Uhh, it's bad becuase most bike companies, even the very high-end ones like Pinarello, use cheap asian labor.....

I wouldn't say 'guilty', mate ! Its a hobby - and the fact that you
are aware of the exploited asian worker is enough.

If you are guilty, then I am guilty too. Guilty of posessing too
many books and movies.

And guilty of posessing a computer, when other people don't
have food nor shelter. :(

You know what helps me when I am thinking about it ?

I am thinking: When I die - I can't take my books with me,
nor my movies.

So in a way that makes me less attached ! Because I know for
a fact that I will loose them in the end.

[chicanorojo]

Maybe so?

You see lets take a common example of a Footballer who is paid one hundred thousand pounds a week for his job.
[..]

All in all high wages doesnt make you a member of the Bourgeoisie it just means that you are a lucky bastard.

...and following on your example, if the footballer has good luck. Not all footballer are equal in pay. Not all football players have long careers, i.e., 10 years or more. The career of an aveg. professional football player is usually short and really not all 'em get paid millions. The lucky ones, at least in Mexico, that had a 10 year career and got paid in the $100,000 dollars a year usually open a small business and go on to become the petit boogies. Usually, though, the professional sports industry is full of players with very short careers (due to injury, etc.), just with a high school diploma, work like all of us, and make up their wages doing odd "semi-pro sports" jobs.

[chicanorojo]

However, even a lot of the lower-middle working class have at least some amount of stock they've invested in. Would that make them Bourgeoisie instead of proletarians?

No. The definition of "Proletarian" is not mechanistic. There are also other components. Power to fire, owner of means of production, etc. Being an employee in a company that gives you a share of said company's stock in by itself does not shift your economic-power w/i the company. If this was true, some of the Wal-Mart employees would be labeled boogies.

From PBS:


Full-time employees are eligible for benefits, but the health insurance package is so expensive (employees pay 35 percent - almost double the national average) that less than half opt to buy it. Another benefit for employees is the option to buy company stock at a discount. Wal-Mart matches 15 percent of the first $1800 in stocks purchased. Yet most workers can't afford to buy the stock. In fact, not one in 50 workers has amassed as much as $50,000 through the stock-ownership pension plan. Voting power for these stocks remains with Wal-Mart management.

So even if you do save enough $$$ to buy stock, it doesn't mean you can fire your store manager. :D;)

[Djehuti]

Ever since I was born I've been part of the bourgeoisie. Even now, living on my own I am part of the bourgeoisie by means of my income.

You are not bourgeoisie, but a very privileged wage-labourer. Most people in your position choses to align themselves with the bourgeoisie, but you have not.

I don't blame your for having one or two "guilty pleasures", I would too. But you should get organized if you wish to change stuff.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well so long as you're not 1. managing others in the workplace or 2. earning a large portion of your income from owning some form of production stocks, real estate, hedge funs etc. you're in the clear.

[CXR]

Uhh... Well, if my boss says someone has to go, I'm the one to tell them, but I don't call the shots.

Bourgeoisie yay or nay?

[Harrycombs]

Uhh... Well, if my boss says someone has to go, I'm the one to tell them, but I don't call the shots.

Bourgeoisie yay or nay?

Nay. If a mail man delivers a letter saying if someones fired, does that make him bourgeois? You have nothing to do with the person being fired.

[Dust Bunnies]

Hmmm thats difficult, I'm going to grab a question if I can.

Is it that bad if I buy stock? Wouldn't it be hard to live in a Capitalist society with a Communist life style?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Uhh... Well, if my boss says someone has to go, I'm the one to tell them, but I don't call the shots.

Bourgeoisie yay or nay?

Not if you're merely the messenger. Its all about power over others, either in the form of workplace hierarchy (being a boss) or economic control (owning production). If you have neither you are working class.

And don't worry about owning stock. Most workers have retirement plans and those all rely on buying small chunks of capital. Don't get hung up about living as an anti capitalist. We all have to buy and sell, what matters is that we take action to build a movement against it. Living a "communist lifestyle" means organizing with your fellow workers against the boss, fighting for a woman's right to choose, helping folk block evictions etc. Its about actions not purchasing choices.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In terms of workers owning stock and what not, I encourage posters to read my article on class relations to get a better picture on the modern definition of "proletarian":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

[Ghaile]

Ever since I was born I've been part of the bourgeoisie. Even now, living on my own I am part of the bourgeoisie by means of my income.

I think. Am I part of the bourgeoisie simply by my income or only if I mean to oppress the proletariat? I am now an anarcho-communist- I only realized this recently.

How do I support the revolution? Do I give up most of my income for revolutionary causes? What do I do?
Do you extract your income and profit through the exploitation of human capital? I assume not, you live off that profit from your parents I assume but you yourself are not a capitalist (bourgeois).

Also, is that last part a joke, I tend to notice alot of anarchists have petite-bourgeois parents.

[RedAnarchist]

Do you extract your income and profit through the exploitation of human capital? I assume not, you live off that profit from your parents I assume but you yourself are not a capitalist (bourgeois).

Also, is that last part a joke, I tend to notice alot of anarchists have petite-bourgeois parents.

Mine weren't. My dad has been a postal worker for over 30 years and my mother had various jobs including working in a cotton mill, a tongue factory and various cleaning jobs. She also helped out at the primary school we went to as kids.

[Bilan]

Haha, the title of this thread is hilarious, but more grammatically incorrect.
The bourgeoisie constitutes a class not an individual within that class.
Thus, one is "part of the bourgeoisie" - e.g. "I'm from the bourgeoisie". - not "the bourgeoisie. One can also be bourgeois, which generally means of bourgeois origin, but is sometimes used (idiotically) as a term to insult another of an opposing opinion - e.g. Anarchism is bourgeois.

[Ghaile]

Mine weren't. My dad has been a postal worker for over 30 years and my mother had various jobs including working in a cotton mill, a tongue factory and various cleaning jobs. She also helped out at the primary school we went to as kids.
I am not generalizing, just giving an observation, as are you. I also tend to see anarchists as sectarian.

[Bilan]

I am not generalizing, just giving an observation, as are you. I also tend to see anarchists as sectarian.

Ha.

[Kami]

I am not generalizing, just giving an observation, as are you. I also tend to see anarchists as sectarian.
What, pray tell, do you think "generalizing" is, if not making observations. The problem comes when you take a small number of observations and apply it to a large group; for example, meeting some anarchists with petite-bourgeois parents and taking this to mean a lot of anarchists have petite-bourgeois parents. That's generalising, there.

[Grunt]

No. The definition of "Proletarian" is not mechanistic. There are also other components. Power to fire, owner of means of production, etc. Being an employee in a company that gives you a share of said company's stock in by itself does not shift your economic-power w/i the company. If this was true, some of the Wal-Mart employees would be labeled boogies.
Well said ! I am especially glad about your remark that:
"The definition of proletariat" isn't mechanistic.

I think that this is also true for the definition of 'bourgeois' !

[Grunt]

Uhh... Well, if my boss says someone has to go, I'm the one to tell them, but I don't call the shots.

Bourgeoisie yay or nay?
You said it yourself: You don't call the shots !

So IMO: Nay ! :)

[Wake Up]

Hypothetical situation.....

I run a small business selling turnips. (or anything for that matter) I emply 1 man to grow the turnips, I employ another to distribute the turnips and I employ another to run the turnip shop. I pay all 3 a fair wage and all three are happy in their job and income.

Is that exploitation?

[Harrycombs]

If you take more of the money that you deserve for organizing it then yes. If you pay yourself a modest wage based upon how much work you put into it, then no in my opinion.

For instance, there is this game called Puzzle Pirates, and in it I have a crew and I'm a captain. When I have other players aboard, I pay them based on how well they did. Sometimes they are much better than me, so I would subtract my pay if I don't think I did well, and give more to the others who are better than me. Thats not exploitation at all if I am giving most of the money away and not giving myself much. Now, this is a game, but I think you get the idea.

I don't see anything wrong with that, but in the real world thats not how it works (and in that game, lots of people are not like me, and some are thieves who kick you off the ship and remove you from the crew before you reach port, so they get 100% of the profit). The managers and owners give themselves much more than they deserve despite doing little work at all.

So, in the capitalist system, that would not be exploitation if you are giving everyone what they deserve, including yourself. Unfortunately, capitalism doesn't work in practice. The problem is when there are people making huge amounts of money and keeping it all for themselves.

[gla22]

Hypothetical situation.....

I run a small business selling turnips. (or anything for that matter) I emply 1 man to grow the turnips, I employ another to distribute the turnips and I employ another to run the turnip shop. I pay all 3 a fair wage and all three are happy in their job and income.

Is that exploitation?

Yes, unless you distribute the profits of their labor between yourselves.

[Wake Up]

Yes, unless you distribute the profits of their labor between yourselves.

excactly.

I have to give each man a quarter of the profits in wages leaving the 4th quarter to myself. With the cost of their time and labour factored in of course.
Leads to some hard sums...

[CXR]

Haha, the title of this thread is hilarious, but more grammatically incorrect.
The bourgeoisie constitutes a class not an individual within that class.
Thus, one is "part of the bourgeoisie" - e.g. "I'm from the bourgeoisie". - not "the bourgeoisie. One can also be bourgeois, which generally means of bourgeois origin, but is sometimes used (idiotically) as a term to insult another of an opposing opinion - e.g. Anarchism is bourgeois.

I understand that Bourgeoisie is a class.

It's a figure of speech. Or not. I don't know.

[gla22]

excactly.

I have to give each man a quarter of the profits in wages leaving the 4th quarter to myself. With the cost of their time and labour factored in of course.
Leads to some hard sums...
actually you can receive more than they do as long as decisions are reached democratically.

[Wake Up]

actually you can receive more than they do as long as decisions are reached democratically.

Obviously if the 3 workers agree to give me more than 25% then that is expectable.

[An archist]

Obviously if the 3 workers agree to give me more than 25% then that is expectable.
Why the hell would they do that?

[Wake Up]

Why the hell would they do that?

Because of my infinite charm and grace :laugh:

[Grunt]

Why the hell would they do that?
Thats the question !