ideas bourgeoisie vs. proletariat

[Rascolnikova]

Out of the things that most of the proletariat believes, how does one differentiate between what ideas are bourgeoisie and what ideas are proletariat?

[Black Sheep]

Do you have an example in mind?Or can you specify what you mean?

There are no 'proletariat ideas' or 'bourgeoisie ideas'.There are ideas that serve the proletariat's or the bourgeoisie's interests.

[Rascolnikova]

I suppose that is the litmus test.

The thing is, people don't tend to believe things unless they think those things are in their interest. There's a certain amount of this--in terms of the proletariat believing bourgeoisie ideas--that's clearly a matter of superficiality. . . like the idea that the basic structure of capitalism is about freedom. However, there are other ideas, like the idea of families, that the proletariat is very attached to. While families as they are currently practiced are clearly an outgrowth of exploitative and inherently unequal property relations, at the moment they promise more convincingly than anything else to fill certain human needs. . . and as far as I'm aware, the left doesn't make a more convincing promise with regards to those particular needs.

Make sense?

[ernie]

at the moment they promise more convincingly than anything else to fill certain human needs. . . and as far as I'm aware, the left doesn't make a more convincing promise with regards to those particular needs.
What needs are you referring to here?

[Decolonize The Left]

I suppose that is the litmus test.

The thing is, people don't tend to believe things unless they think those things are in their interest. There's a certain amount of this--in terms of the proletariat believing bourgeoisie ideas--that's clearly a matter of superficiality. . . like the idea that the basic structure of capitalism is about freedom. However, there are other ideas, like the idea of families, that the proletariat is very attached to. While families as they are currently practiced are clearly an outgrowth of exploitative and inherently unequal property relations, at the moment they promise more convincingly than anything else to fill certain human needs. . . and as far as I'm aware, the left doesn't make a more convincing promise with regards to those particular needs.

Make sense?

It does, but I believe you are confusing your use of the word "interest" here. Ex:
I may be "interested" in capitalism, though it may not serve my "interests." A woman can be interested in being a housewife, though it may not serve her interests. Etc...

The proletariat can be interested in many things, but their interests as a class are simple and constant - namely, control of the means of production. The point is to return the conventional, rather superficial, interests of the proletariat to the material interests of the class. This is done through the raising of class consciousness.

- August

[Rascolnikova]

The needs I'm referring to are--sense of belonging, safe and stable environments for childrearing, emotional safety net, and lifelong relationships.

Does everyone want/need these things? No. But most people, yes, and I think they are reasonable things to want. Do families fulfill these needs? Not so well--but better, in the long run and on average, than anything else I've witnessed. If there's some proposed social convention or structure which would do a better job, I'm most interested to hear about it.

In the manifesto there's a section on how families are essentially a property relation, and how the bourgeoisie don't respect the boundaries they set on family life anyway. I'm not arguing that the case made there is wrong--though I do find it more amusing than right. . . of course, it's very amusing. :) In any case the nature of family life for the proletariat has changed quite a lot since the industrial revolution, and I believe it no longer applies the same way.


It does, but I believe you are confusing your use of the word "interest" here. Ex:
I may be "interested" in capitalism, though it may not serve my "interests." A woman can be interested in being a housewife, though it may not serve her interests. Etc...

The proletariat can be interested in many things, but their interests as a class are simple and constant - namely, control of the means of production. The point is to return the conventional, rather superficial, interests of the proletariat to the material interests of the class. This is done through the raising of class consciousness.

- August

I was using the term "interests" purely in the second sense. Material interests are vastly important, but they are not the only interests people have. There is nothing superficial about the needs I've described above.

One of the strongest cases I see for communism or socialism is the potential it has for reducing alienation in the most personal spheres. However, this potential alone doesn't answer the need for very long term stability and closeness in smallish groups, especially for childrearing.

I'm certainly not attached to traditional notions of family, but I as far as I can tell, keeping some version of it is very important.


When you say someone can be "interested" in something that doesn't serve their "interests," are you referring to purely material interests? I don't think you would have to be, to be right, but I wish to be clear.

[Tatarin]

Well, in any case, all interests do come out of material needs. At least now in capitalism. While family may seem important, one can not be created if there are no material base to stand on - where to live, eat, who's paying the rent, transportation, and so on. That in turn is of course dependant on what kind of society one lives in.

[Rascolnikova]

Well, in any case, all interests do come out of material needs.

If this were true, people would never sacrifice their material interests for other interests--which they sometimes do.

Material interests, as I said, are vastly important--but they aren't the only thing.