the bourgeois, the socialists, marx?

[danyboy27]

marx was against socialism and the bourgeois, and i see people here having verry harsh critics toward socialism and the bourgeois.

to me, the bourgeois are just a tool of the system, a tool that capitalism use to stay in power forever, conditionned by capitalism.

i think that despite all they do, they just want the same thing that we want; be free and have a nice live, have children take care of them, have fun etc.

But capitalism engineered a lot of thing in their head, make them fucked up, creating useless needs.

if you look at it, those people are the saddest in the world.

i heard a lot of communist told to crush them, kill them destroy them, but no one never told that we should help them.

at my job, i was talking from time to time with a guy that was reflecting the aspect of a hardcore capitalist but, when i took time to sit down with him and discuss, i realised, that he was progressive, and that he was really wanting what i want, what everyone here want.

helping this kind of folk take time, but seriously, its worthy i think.

[OI OI OI]

Marx was not against socialism he was against social-democracy probably (although it existed mainly in the form of utopian socialism in his age) .

As about the bourgeois they are not the tool of the system. They are the system. By bourgeois I don't mean some one who believes that capitalism is better than communism.
By bourgeois we mean someone that owns means of production ie a factory,land etc. and he directly profits out of them through exploiting workers.
Now a worker who is anti-communist and votes for the conseratives, he is not bourgeois , he is a proletariat and he belongs to the backwards layers of the proletariat.
Now about class collaborationism. Comrade, your talk reminds me of the utopian socialists who claimed that they could talk the bourgeois out of exploiting the proletariat and make them agree that socialism is the best for humanity, and together the proletariat and the bourgeois will build socialism. Well it did not work. Most utopian socialists when they said to the bourgeois" Hey it would be good if we nationalize your factoy, under workers control !" The bourgeois responded with a punch in the face.
Why? Because the bourgeois and the proletariat have different class interests and they cannot collaborate to build socialism. It is impossible.

Now another thing about social-democracy. Why did social - democracy collapse in Europe and everywhere else in the world only to revive a few years later and only to collapse once again? Because the essense of social-democracy is to "correct" the markets, give some concessions to the workers in difficult times or in times of a boom when the capitalists can afford to give concessions, or in order to save the bankrupsy of capitalism. Social-democracy merely prolongs the existence of capitalism and it kind of revives it.

Thus social democracy is the enemy of the proletariat. It cannot combat capitalism precisely because it does not attack its root.
Private property!
It is like having a bucket and throwing water out of a sinking ship:rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

hoo well, i didnt understand well then.

so that mean only big chief of corporation and buisness are boirgeois?
i somehow got what you mean now.

Still, some of those bourgeois have some verry usefull skil that could be used in a communist society. i dont say all of them are skilled, but some posses good leader quality and could become for exemple, controller of the factory he formerly owned, without owning it.

also, is linus torvald a bourgeois? he made some buck from his free source software, but is that mean he a bourgeois?

[OI OI OI]

so that mean only big chief of corporation and buisness are boirgeois?

Those who own business and employ labour. Ces qui appartient des entreprises et ont des empoyees. Les emloyers .

i somehow got what you mean now.

Still, some of those bourgeois have some verry usefull skil that could be used in a communist society. i dont say all of them are skilled, but some posses good leader quality and could become for exemple, controller of the factory he formerly owned, without owning it.

Si ils ont elu democraticament parmi les autres employes, ils peuvent etre des managers , si non, well too bad for them:)

The managers in a socialist society are democraticaly ellected by the workers and recallable at any time!
So a managers has to be ellected by the workers in the workplace in order to be a manager.

[gla22]

yes. Big business and corporations are bourgeoisie because they own the means of production. Things like factories, oil refineries, and any system that exploits the woprker's labor. Yes some of the bourgeosie that don't fight the revolution masy be elected by the workers to manage certain aspects of the collective however the workers will have control of everything still.

[danyboy27]

arf, then maybe i dont believr in a fully demcratic society at all!
i would handle this a verry pragmatic way:
who seem the best fitted to do the job?
who got the most knoledge of the thing?

i dont think there is need to cast a vote among worker for that kind of stuff, exept if the guy do a terrible job.

and if the factory worker appoint someone else he should past several test in order to do not appoint people just beccause they are popular or well known.

[OI OI OI]

the workers should elect their managers that has to be done in order to prevent bureaucrats from gaining power.
For example in the Soviet Union where the managers were appointed and not elected we had disastrous results.
So the more democracy the more socialism we have:)

[danyboy27]

the workers should elect their managers that has to be done in order to prevent bureaucrats from gaining power.
For example in the Soviet Union where the managers were appointed and not elected we had disastrous results.
So the more democracy the more socialism we have:)

i am sorry comrade but i dont think this is a good idea to lets worker appoint a factory manager, i consider efficiency something verry important in a society.
i think that if all factories would do that, the domestic production would be greatly affected in various domain.

in the ussr, the partt didnt necessarly apointed person with great skill but with great relation and good friend.

i think a state can do the process of selecting the best in order to give to appoint intelligents men for the proper task.

this is necessary, otherwise there would be scarcity of various items, lack of prepared food, medical furniture.

some of you will call it capitalism,revisionism etc. but i think that it has to be done in order to give to all worker a good and confortable life.

you cannot trust all men, you need a strong and wise men to lead them, often this will be someone that they will hate, so its verry unlikely they would choose the best, But if this is something necessary to give to the population essentials needs, then it must be done, maybe implement in the factory a system to be able to replace the head of factory in case of negilgence, racism, harsh treatements etc.

i dont think that principle must apply to the politicians, i think we should be able to choose our politician.