are you a proletarian?

[danyboy27]

how much people here consider themselves proletarian?

i was thinking about that when my sister came up with the fiscal critera to be considered officialy poor, rich, at ease, below the level of povrety etc.

considering that i get like 20 000 dollar per year, that i dont have any parents able to help me etc etc i am in the bracket of urban povrety. i dont feel like i am poor, i own a big fat tv, a playstation, a computer, i got the cable with over 100 channel.

am i a proletarian? seriously, i fdont feel like it at all.

the only real proletartian i know is my sister, who is officialy in the rural povrety bracket, mainly beccause winter suck to find a comptability job but anyway, social programs are helping her to find a job

[KC]

jkjklulz

[Forward Union]

I've explained my background before, but my dad was a factory worker, my mum is a school cook, and I've done odd jobs on a building site, worked in shops and a hospital. I'm working for an agency now and studying. I intend to join the fire brigade when i finish...

I think this makes me working class but I have 3 sugars in my tea and like philosophy so maybe not.

[butterfly]

Is a student working class or lumpen-proletariat?:confused:

[synthesis]

spetznaz: What is your definition of proletarian?

[PigmerikanMao]

There are few members of the proletariat remaining in the first world. One could argue migrant workers and illegal immigrants who are employed by the industrial sector are proletariat, as they are exploited. Most workers, however, are paid more than the value of units they produce. They are members of a labour aristocracy and a revolution cannot be based on them. They are bought off, so to say, by the bourgeois class.

Rule of thumb- if you own a computer, you probably aren't a member of the international proletariat- but this doesn't mean you are bourgeoisie either.

[RGacky3]

Most workers, however, are paid more than the value of units they produce.

If thats really the case then their bosses would'nt make any profit from them.

I work for a wage, I have a boss, I don't have control over my workplace, thus I"m working class.

Although this is for another discussion (I might bring it up), I don't buy the notion of labor aristocracy, if you work for a wage, and you don't have a say in your work enviroment your working class, trying to devide up the working class into different sections and define them using specific definitions like maoists do only divides and splits hairs, and it misses the point.

I say just give up proletariat and bourgeois, its workers, bosses, Capitalists, everyday terms.

[Junius]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Most workers, however, are paid more than the value of units they produce. In which case, capitalists would sustain a loss by hiring workers!


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
One could argue migrant workers and illegal immigrants who are employed by the industrial sector are proletariat, as they are exploited. All proletarians are by definition exploited. But here you are using 'exploitation' in a moral manner, not the definition employed by Marxists. This is not surprising; Maoists are as far away from Marxism as it is possible to be. Marx defined the rate of exploitation as the amount of unpaid surplus labor a worker performs compared with the value of their wage. Funnily enough, some Western workers are more exploited by this definition since they produce more unpaid value relative to their wage than other 'third world' workers.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Rule of thumb- if you own a computer, you probably aren't a member of the international proletariat- but this doesn't mean you are bourgeoisie either. Owning a computer has never precluded someone from being proletariat. What utter nonsense.

As for what Marx actually defined, loosely, as proletariat:


Originally written by Marx
For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the owner of money must meet in the market with the free labourer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale, is short of everything necessary for the realisation of his labour-power. Essentially, someone whom sells her labor power in order to live.

[Random Precision]

Is a student working class or lumpen-proletariat?:confused:

What class do you come from? And do you work to put yourself through school (to make tuition or whatever)?

[PigmerikanMao]

In which case, capitalists would sustain a loss by hiring workers!
This could be further from the truth, but this will be fine. Its easy how employers make money, they make the price of a commodity more than its worth, which is summed up by the labour it takes to make it. The world's GDP divided evenly among the world's population means a yearly salary of about 5000USD, but first world workers are paid more than this. The bourgeoisie gain money through international subjugation of third and fourth world workers. The first world collectively turns profit off of suppression of the third and fourth worlds, the difference is that the "proletariat" in the first world gain less of this profit than the bourgeois upper classes do.


All proletarians are by definition exploited. But here you are using 'exploitation' in a moral manner, not the definition employed by Marxists. This is not surprising; Maoists are as far away from Marxism as it is possible to be. Marx defined the rate of exploitation as the amount of unpaid surplus labor a worker performs compared with the value of their wage. Funnily enough, some Western workers are more exploited by this definition since they produce more unpaid value relative to their wage than other 'third world' workers.
I'm sorry but could you go further into this? Nike shoes bringing in more than 100USD in the states are made for pennies on the hour in nations like Indonesia, Myanmar, etc. Furthermore, their working conditions are far more squalid than the first and second worlds. Meanwhile in the first world, many factory jobs are made easier through automation (not saying factory work is easy; I've done it before) so the labour they must put into a product (say a car) is less even though the car may be worth more money in the market.


Owning a computer has never precluded someone from being proletariat. What utter nonsense.
I wasn't saying owning a computer makes you a bourgeois, I was saying that if you have enough monetary funds to purchase a computer and pay for an internet line- you probably are one of the bought off first world workers.


As for what Marx actually defined, loosely, as proletariat (is) essentially, someone whom sells her labor power in order to live.
By this definition you could call almost anyone in the world a proletariat, even a CEO because they must put forth their labour to run a company to maintain the inflow of capital from it. Paris Hilton has to act (or lack thereof) and make all of those porn movies to maintain her stardom and be given huge sums of money to work even more in commercials to endorse consumer goods to be paid money. Everyone works, even the bourgeois- the difference is that the wealth of the first world workers hinges on the perpetual exploitation of the third world workers- making them members of the labour aristocracy.
I'm not saying workers of the first world aren't exploited in any means, but their conditions are far more favourable than those elsewhere and shouldn't be the primary concern of any international movement at this time. Furthermore, one could always argue that the bourgeoisie are themselves enslaved by the totality of the system? When are we going to free them?
:rolleyes:

[rednordman]

I work as a glorified labourer in a wharehouse in the uk, and am proletarian, simple as. I cannot really believe that any one of us who works there gets paid more than the value that they produce. This would only happen if we simply did very little work, which for the main part is not the case. Also when we reach a certain percentage, we do not get paid any extra. The real disturbing thing is that our warehouse pays very slightly more than other wharehouses in the district. Mabey the "west" isnt actually as wealthy as it thinks it is (Even though it is wealthier than the rest of the planet). And yes, we are still getting exploited.

[Junius]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Its easy how employers make money, they make the price of a commodity more than its worth, which is summed up by the labour it takes to make it. What a contradiction this sentence is - and completely opposite to what Marx said!


Originally written by Marx
We have shown that surplus-value cannot be created by circulation, and, therefore, that in its formation, something must take place in the background, which is not apparent in the circulation itself. But can surplus-value possibly originate anywhere else than in circulation, which is the sum total of all the mutual relations of commodity-owners, as far as they are determined by their commodities? Apart from circulation, the commodity-owner is in relation only with his own commodity. So far as regards value, that relation is limited to this, that the commodity contains a quantity of his own labour, that quantity being measured by a definite social standard. This quantity is expressed by the value of the commodity, and since the value is reckoned in money of account, this quantity is also expressed by the price, which we will suppose to be £10. But his labour is not represented both by the value of the commodity, and by a surplus over that value, not by a price of 10 that is also a price of 11, not by a value that is greater than itself. The commodity owner can, by his labour, create value, but not self-expanding value. He can increase the value of his commodity, by adding fresh labour, and therefore more value to the value in hand, by making, for instance, leather into boots. The same material has now more value, because it contains a greater quantity of labour. The boots have therefore more value than the leather, but the value of the leather remains what it was; it has not expanded itself, has not, during the making of the boots, annexed surplus-value. It is therefore impossible that outside the sphere of circulation, a producer of commodities can, without coming into contact with other commodity-owners, expand value, and consequently convert money or commodities into capital. In other words, capital doesn't simply derive from capitalists 'raising' prices above value. If that was the case then there would be no such thing as exploitation - which perfectly suits Maoists.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
The world's GDP divided evenly among the world's population means a yearly salary of about 5000USD, but first world workers are paid more than this. What a joke of an analysis. Some 'third world' countries have higher GDPs than their western counter parts. Why? Because there is an extreme difference in wealth which raises the GDP - i.e. it is a class society. Are, therefore, first world countries exploited because of it? The main enemy is at home - as was said 90 years ago - and it applies today; the main enemy for the Western workers is their respective bourgeoisie, the main enemy for Indonesian workers is their respective bourgeoisie. Your analysis seeks to pit nations against nations and foster class collaboration; i.e. the Indonesian workers uniting with their masters to attack their Western 'enemy.' Your argument is a complete rejection of internationalism and is anti-working class.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
The bourgeoisie gain money through international subjugation of third and fourth world workers. Funny, I have never heard of the fourth world. Nevertheless, I understand how various companies move to the 'third world' in order to purchase cheaper labor power. But that doesn't preclude Western workers being exploited. Nor does it mean they are 'bought off.' In plenty of cases it is detrimental to the worker - they lose their job and are forced into a lower means of employment. So much for privilege!


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
I'm sorry but could you go further into this? Just say an American workers creates $500,000 value and is paid a $50,000 wage. Just say a Russian worker creates $20,000 value but is paid a $10,000 wage. The rate of exploitation is higher with the American worker. Simple maths for a simple mind.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Nike shoes bringing in more than 100USD in the states are made for pennies on the hour in nations like Indonesia, Myanmar, etc.
So are you trying to refute the LTV?


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Furthermore, their working conditions are far more squalid than the first and second worlds. Yet it seems if they manage to raise their working conditions - (apparently) like in the 'Western world' they no longer are proletarian!


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Meanwhile in the first world, many factory jobs are made easier through automation (not saying factory work is easy; I've done it before) so the labour they must put into a product (say a car) is less even though the car may be worth more money in the market. What a joke - and telling since you haven't read any Marx. Pray, where do machines come from? Labor? Don't you remember Marx saying something about capitalists only using machines if they reduce the amount of labor embedded in a product - something which not all machines do?! Clearly you haven't even read past the first seven chapters of Capital. Your economics aren't much different to bourgeoisie economics.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
I wasn't saying owning a computer makes you a bourgeois, I was saying that if you have enough monetary funds to purchase a computer and pay for an internet line- you probably are one of the bought off first world workers. Funny - I have lived in the 'third world' (or maybe you would call it the fourth world) and I had the Internet. So did a lot of people - according to statistics, around 25% of families - a great deal of the population, and rising. I think you have a very ignorant and chauvinistic view of the so-called 'third world.'


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
By this definition you could call almost anyone in the world a proletariat, even a CEO because they must put forth their labour to run a company to maintain the inflow of capital from it. Wrong - labor power is different to labor. Read some Marx.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Everyone works, even the bourgeois- the difference is that the wealth of the first world workers hinges on the perpetual exploitation of the third world workers- making them members of the labour aristocracy. No, the bourgeoisie do not sell their labor-power. What asine garbage. And yeah, capitalism is a global system - no one denies this. In fact, this is what makes solidarity between all workers so fundamental - in contrast to your ideas.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
I'm not saying workers of the first world aren't exploited in any means, but their conditions are far more favourable than those elsewhere and shouldn't be the primary concern of any international movement at this time. The end of capitalism is the main concern of all workers at all times - it is in their objective interests.


Originally posted by PigmerikanMao
Furthermore, one could always argue that the bourgeoisie are themselves enslaved by the totality of the system? When are we going to free them? Another cultural revolution, perhaps?

I would like to see you give me some sort of method to determine what defines the labor aristorcracy. Give me a wage level, or some sort of criteria to which to define it. Otherwise it is little more than hot air.

[synthesis]

Funny, I have never heard of the fourth world.

Doesn't exist. Doesn't even make any sense given the original (chauvinist) system of classification:

First World: The capitalist world
Second World: The Soviet bloc
Third World: Everyone else

Yes, Third World originally meant "everything else."

[Bud Struggle]

Anyway, I'm a Proletarian. My father was a refugee from Poland before WWII he came here at 18 and got a job at US Rubber--the company that made Keds sneekers. (Now they are made in China--a different company.) He ground the rubber for the toecaps. He worked there for 36 years. He was a member of the United Rubber Uorkers of America. My mom was a hausfrau that sometimes worked in the local drug store as a checkout person.

My dad build a 1200sf house for us after work. He did it a couple of hours a day and it took him three years. He dug the foundation by hand, poured the concrete, and framed and built the house. He and my mom lived there all their lives and they never had a mortage. And so did their four kids--my two sisters and my brother and myself. My father made extra money working as a security guard in a closed factory on weekends. He never owned a new car (till his kids start buying them for him later on).

My mom and dad also put all four of us kids (with our help) through college. We all did well.

It was a great life for us all--my dad and mom lived the American Dream.

[Invincible Summer]

Well, my father is a researcher at a nuclear physics place, and my mom doesn't work. I go to university (paid for by my parents' savings) and work whenever possible (mostly service-sector jobs b/c no one else hires me).

I know I live a pretty cushy life, but I think technically, I'm still a prole. Seems weird though.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm a prole, at the moment.

[RGacky3]

Anyway, I'm a Proletarian.

Your father was, your mother was, YOU are not.

[Bud Struggle]

Your father was, your mother was, YOU are not.

I am what I am--these are nothing but pseudo classifications. A man shouldn't be classified by what he owns--but by what he is. That's the fallacy of this whole system. It's too superficial and that's been noted by history quite nicely.

[RGacky3]

I am what I am--these are nothing but pseudo classifications. A man shouldn't be classified by what he owns--but by what he is. That's the fallacy of this whole system. It's too superficial and that's been noted by history quite nicely.

THATS THE WHOLE GODDAMN POINT OF THE CLASS DISTINCTION, its based on what you own dumbass, I'm sorry to get rude but seriously, thats like saying I'm black, my skin color has nothing to do with what I classify my skin color to be.

Working class, Capitalist class, THAT HAS TO DO WITH ONES ECONOMIC/SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!!

You can classify yourself however the hell you want, but your a business owner and your hire workers which you pay a wage, your a Capitalist by definition.

[Bud Struggle]

THATS THE WHOLE GODDAMN POINT OF THE CLASS DISTINCTION, its based on what you own dumbass, I'm sorry to get rude but seriously, thats like saying I'm black, my skin color has nothing to do with what I classify my skin color to be.

Working class, Capitalist class, THAT HAS TO DO WITH ONES ECONOMIC/SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!!

You can classify yourself however the hell you want, but your a business owner and your hire workers which you pay a wage, your a Capitalist by definition.

It's a bad way to distinguish people from one another. OK, all kidding aside, I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid. I identify with myself as a kid. I find it problematical that you would change me into something I'm not. Just because things have changed in my life doesn't mean that I HAVE CHANGED. My values haven't changed, by beliefs haven't changed (I'm stll as Catholic and still as married [and faithfully so] to the same woman I married when I was poor.)

Yea, I just have more crap--more problems, more deals, more stuff. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. That's me 9-5 for a living, just like everyone else making a living. It's not ME.

I'm not Proletarian or Bourgeois or Capitalists. I'm TomK son of EdK.

Nothing more, but nothing less.

[RGacky3]

I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid. I identify with myself as a kid.

Your calss has nothing to do with your values, it has nothing to do with who you are, it has nothing to do with your personality, the same way your race has nothign to do with those things, your class has to do with, ehem: your relationship to the means of production.

That classification is not to judge you as a person, its not to discribe who you are, its to explain modern Capitalist power structures. Plain and simple. Thats what class is.

[Bud Struggle]

Your calss has nothing to do with your values, it has nothing to do with who you are, it has nothing to do with your personality, the same way your race has nothign to do with those things, your class has to do with, ehem: your relationship to the means of production.

That classification is not to judge you as a person, its not to discribe who you are, its to explain modern Capitalist power structures. Plain and simple. Thats what class is.

Then the system is flawed and needs to be rewrtten. But that's become pretty self evident.

We need a new Marx.

[PigmerikanMao]

We need a new Marx.
People have been saying this ever sense Marx died. It won't happen anytime soon. :lol:

[danyboy27]

It's a bad way to distinguish people from one another. OK, all kidding aside, I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid. I identify with myself as a kid. I find it problematical that you would change me into something I'm not. Just because things have changed in my life doesn't mean that I HAVE CHANGED. My values haven't changed, by beliefs haven't changed (I'm stll as Catholic and still as married [and faithfully so] to the same woman I married when I was poor.)

Yea, I just have more crap--more problems, more deals, more stuff. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. That's me 9-5 for a living, just like everyone else making a living. It's not ME.

I'm not Proletarian or Bourgeois or Capitalists. I'm TomK son of EdK.

Nothing more, but nothing less.

great post tom.

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Then the system is flawed and needs to be rewrtten.

That was Marx's exact point, and what we're all hopefully working towards :)

[RGacky3]

Then the system is flawed and needs to be rewrtten. But that's become pretty self evident.

We need a new Marx.

The class classification is'nt a system, and its not flawed because it gets its job done, which is classify peoples relation to the means of production, which is the purpose of the class classification.

I don't think we need a new Marx, We did'nt need marx really :P, what I think we need is people take things into their own hands and to recognise adn fight against unjust authority.

[Killfacer]

We need a new Marx.

Ahem...

[Pogue]

It's a bad way to distinguish people from one another. OK, all kidding aside, I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid. I identify with myself as a kid. I find it problematical that you would change me into something I'm not. Just because things have changed in my life doesn't mean that I HAVE CHANGED. My values haven't changed, by beliefs haven't changed (I'm stll as Catholic and still as married [and faithfully so] to the same woman I married when I was poor.)

Yea, I just have more crap--more problems, more deals, more stuff. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. That's me 9-5 for a living, just like everyone else making a living. It's not ME.

I'm not Proletarian or Bourgeois or Capitalists. I'm TomK son of EdK.

Nothing more, but nothing less.

You're a capitalist. Its part of who you are. Your subjective description of yourself is wrong, and your objective one tells me you're a capitalist.

[Pogue]

Then the system is flawed and needs to be rewrtten. But that's become pretty self evident.

We need a new Marx.

Ok, so you're a communist?

[Bud Struggle]

You're a capitalist. Its part of who you are. Your subjective description of yourself is wrong, and your objective one tells me you're a capitalist.

Nope. Politics is the house we live our lives in--but it isn't our lives. That's the mistake here. Being Bourgeoise or Proletarian is no different than being a Chevy owner or a Ford owner--one has to go deeper into the human experience that that to make a real difference in the world.


Ok, so you're a communist?

In the same way I'm a Ford owner.

[RGacky3]

In the same way I'm a Ford owner.

No, because owning a ford has nothing to do with what you believe in.


Being Bourgeoise or Proletarian is no different than being a Chevy owner or a Ford owner--one has to go deeper into the human experience that that to make a real difference in the world.

Owning a ford or Chevy does'nt determine whether you have to give orders or take them and whether or not you get a piece of the pie.

[Bud Struggle]

No, because the freakin' analysis of me--bourgeoise or proletariat--doesn't define me.

Not in the least--as I said--they tell me about my house--they don't define me. It's a poor analysis--and if of me--of the billions and billioions Marxism isn't working for.

Jesus on the other hand, works pretty good. He defines people to their core.

[Pero's Pen]

A man shouldn't be classified by what he owns--but by what he is.

But that is part of what he is.


I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid

Foolishness; a person constantly changes no matter how much you choose not to believe it. I think were a business owner, so, if you are now than you have changed classes from when you were a child.


I'm TomK son of EdK.

If this is what you reduce yourself to and only identify yourself as this, it tells me nothing.


it has nothing to do with who you are

Wrong; your class has quite a bit to do with who you are.

Then the system is flawed and needs to be rewrtten. But that's become pretty self evident.
What are the "self-evident" flaws? I can't find any.
How you have proposed class definitions a a large leap backwards.

We need a new Marx.
Was there something wrong with the old one?

Aside; waiting around for some "great man" to change everything himself won't happen.


Politics is the house we live our lives in--but it isn't our lives
It is not the whole of our lives, but it is a part.

Being Bourgeoise or Proletarian is no different than being a Chevy owner or a Ford owner--one has to go deeper into the human experience that that to make a real difference in the world.
Wrong; a Ford-owner and a Chevy-owner are not opposites. A bourgeois and a proletarian are. One seeks to cut as much wages as possible, the other seeks to gain as much as possible. No such antagonism exists for a Ford or Chevy-owner and the question of which brand of car is not as fundamental to you, it is rather very superficial.

Anyways, for the thread, I am a proletarian.

[RGacky3]

No, because the freakin' analysis of me--bourgeoise or proletariat--doesn't define me.

No ones defining you as a person, no ones trying too, this is'nt a forum about personalities and who you are as a person, thats for you and your friends.


Jesus on the other hand, works pretty good. He defines people to their core.

We arn't claiming to be religious leaders either.

Quite frankly, when it comes to power-relations and control over the means of production, no one gives a rats ass about who you are as a person, thats irrelivent.

[Bud Struggle]

But that is part of what he is.[quot]

Zero.

[quote]Foolishness; a person constantly changes no matter how much you choose not to believe it. I think were a business owner, so, if you are now than you have changed classes from when you were a child. So your saying I should have worn a tuxedo to my graduation?


If this is what you reduce yourself to and only identify yourself as this, it tells me nothing. As if I have an OBLIGATION to tell you something about myself?


Wrong; your class has quite a bit to do with who you are. Maybe, maybe not--that's what makes Marx so dull and life so interesting.


What are the "self-evident" flaws? I can't find any.
How you have proposed class definitions a a large leap backwards. Well class definitions is no more wrong than "Disney Magic" is wrong. Both come from a fantasy. Nothing wrong in that.


Aside; waiting around for some "great man" to change everything himself won't happen. They always came along in history and changed things before--why not now?



It is not the whole of our lives, but it is a part. Finally some substance--no, the house is the SHELL we live in--it isn't us.


Wrong; a Ford-owner and a Chevy-owner are not opposites. A bourgeois and a proletarian are. But you haven't discussed life with a Chevy owner and a Ford owner--they have little cartoons of little kids pissing on each others logos. Can Marxists even come close to such an understanding of their enemy?


One seeks to cut as much wages as possible, the other seeks to gain as much as possible. No such antagonism exists for a Ford or Chevy-owner and the question of which brand of car is not as fundamental to you, it is rather very superficial. Yet they have logos on their trucks and nobody even heard of Trotsky.


Anyways, for the thread, I am a proletarian. No more so than am I.

:)

[Forward Union]

It's a bad way to distinguish people from one another. OK, all kidding aside, I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid. I identify with myself as a kid. I find it problematical that you would change me into something I'm not. Just because things have changed in my life doesn't mean that I HAVE CHANGED. My values haven't changed, by beliefs haven't changed (I'm stll as Catholic and still as married [and faithfully so] to the same woman I married when I was poor.)

Yea, I just have more crap--more problems, more deals, more stuff. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. That's me 9-5 for a living, just like everyone else making a living. It's not ME.

I'm not Proletarian or Bourgeois or Capitalists. I'm TomK son of EdK.

Nothing more, but nothing less.


You misunderstand. When we call you middle class (which you are) we're not making a statement about your personality, your mind, what music you like, how you think etc, We are simply makling a statement about what your role in the economy is.

You're right, you are TomK, and you would be regardless of your class. But being TomK, and being of a particular class are not mutually exclusive qualities. And so the statement can be made "TomK is middle class"

When you say "bourgeoise or proletariat--doesn't define me. " no. It doesn't defien you entirely. But it does define your role in the economy. Which is what we're talking about when we say you need to have your bussiness taken away from you, and you ought to be told to fuck off. We're not doing it because we think you're appreciation of Nickleback is misplaced.

The thing is tom, we're all individuals. But some of us individuals, a minority infact, fuck the others over. And keep this state of affairs intact by force. Your kind of people, people whos economic interests are to the detriment of mine, have really fucked my family and firnds over by makign money for their little bussiness. And while you are not personally responsable for everthing that your class has done, you're responsable for part of it.

While idiots with nazi badges are pretty fucking stupid, they're largely just stupid. You however, are actually responsable for more damage and actually our our enemy. I'd love to unionise you're workplace and kick you the hell out.

Comprede?

[Bud Struggle]

You misunderstand. When we call you middle class (which you are) we're not making a statement about your personality, your mind, what music you like, how you think etc, We are simply makling a statement about what your role in the economy is.

You're right, you are TomK, and you would be regardless of your class. But being TomK, and being of a particular class are not mutually exclusive qualities. And so the statement can be made "TomK is middle class"

Comprede?

It is so incidental that it doesn't matter. And now all this Marxist stuff doesn't matter.

OK, now let's forget about all this Communismt nonsense and build a better world.

[RGacky3]

It is so incidental that it doesn't matter. And now all this Marxist stuff doesn't matter.

OK, now let's forget about all this Communismt nonsense and build a better world.

Thats like a king saying "Being a kind does'nt define who I am, my personality, my mind and son on, so lets forget this democracy stuff and build a better world."

Because it does matter, because Capitalists ahve the money/control/power and workers do not. We arn't talking about personality here, no one cares about your personality, we're not making friends here, we are talking about power-relations.

[Post-Something]

It's a bad way to distinguish people from one another. OK, all kidding aside, I'M NOT a different person than I was when I was a kid. I identify with myself as a kid. I find it problematical that you would change me into something I'm not. Just because things have changed in my life doesn't mean that I HAVE CHANGED. My values haven't changed, by beliefs haven't changed (I'm stll as Catholic and still as married [and faithfully so] to the same woman I married when I was poor.)

Yea, I just have more crap--more problems, more deals, more stuff. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. That's me 9-5 for a living, just like everyone else making a living. It's not ME.

I'm not Proletarian or Bourgeois or Capitalists. I'm TomK son of EdK.

Nothing more, but nothing less.

This is all very good and well, but you're ignoring a few things.

Who you are is defined by your actions, and how those actions are interpreted by other people. Even to simply exist, you need others; you need others to define yourself.

On a more practical level, you need others to keep yourself alive. Everything you do, from eating food, to walking on roads is done with the assistance of other people. We're interested in looking at how these resources get to you and in what way they are distributed. That is the aspect which is most relevant to class. Of course you are TomK, nobody is denying that in any way, but you still earn your living in a certain way, and that certain way is comparable to a large section of society (which you probably have more in common with than any othersection of society). We aren't interested in analysing you Tom, because quite simply, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, and the programmes you watch on TV don't have an impact on how other people earn their sustenance. By all means analyse people "at their core" but whether or not this has anything to do with class relations isn't even debatable. Why? Because class relations can be observed without you. Looking at an individual is useless when you are trying to look at a whole system based on economic relationships between individuals.

So, basically, we're not offering some sort of theory which explains all of humanity, it's simply an analysis of the economic relations that exist and the effects these have on society; considering that they are by far the most instrumental in defining you as a person. Simply because there are other aspects to you as a person does not mean that these class stratifications are by any means not true. Nor does it mean that because it does not encompass you as a whole that they are not valid, more that you in your entirety do not affect the system.

[Bud Struggle]

Because it does matter, because Capitalists ahve the money/control/power and workers do not. We arn't talking about personality here, no one cares about your personality, we're not making friends here, we are talking about power-relations.

I will tell you this as a Capitalists--truly and deeply: all power relationships are about personality. All my business relationships are with my friends. Business is about deals and friendships. Trusts and relationships.

There is NOTHING more to it than that. Keep ignoring those facts and you will continually fall into the abyss of the missed point as Communinists have been doing for the last 150 years.

[Pero's Pen]

So your saying I should have worn a tuxedo to my graduation?

????????

Are you saying that you are static and that you are fundamentally bourgeois (I mean that you are unchangeably bourgeois)? If this is the case then the answer is no.



As if I have an OBLIGATION to tell you something about myself?

I think you misunderstand me. I don't care at all about your personal life (friends, family, etc.). But the fact that you are a mamber of the capitalist class can lead to certain predictions and anticipations that are more accurate than departing from "I am merely TomK." E.g. you are currently a bourgeois hence you reject Marxism wholeheartedly.

that's what makes Marx so dull and life so interesting.
Words of a philistine...

They always came along in history and changed things before--why not now?
Expecting someone to drastically change everything by their mere personal qualities is fantastical. Never happened before.

no, the house is the SHELL we live in--it isn't us.
This stinks of Kantism. In other words-- a subjective-idealist philosphy - a dead-end. But it is no surprise.

Take a ripe apple and over time it will change to a rotten one. When it is rotten it was ripe but is no longer. The apple was not static as you are trying to claim you are. It was ripe but is not now. The apple is not the same. You are not the same person you were when you were born. The apple is not unchangeably ripe nor rotten.

they have little cartoons of little kids pissing on each others logos
Merely childish humor. The two people are not fundamentally antagonistic.

Yet they have logos on their trucks

How does infantile humor compare with with class warfare?


nobody even heard of Trotsky.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?


No more so than am I.

No TomK, we are not of the same class.

[PigmerikanMao]

TomK, nobody is saying that all bourgeois are evil, cruel, mean, etc. Well I'm not anyways. As some people have already stated, the difference between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is their relationship to the means of production, whether they control it or not. Frederick Engels owned a factory didn't he? He turned out to be a fine person. There are such people as cooperative bourgeois who can be a part of people's movements- just because of ones social standing doesn't make them of poor moral character.

[Post-Something]

I will tell you this as a Capitalists--truly and deeply: all power relationships are about personality. All my business relationships are with my friends. Business is about deals and friendships. Trusts and relationships.

There is NOTHING more to it than that. Keep ignoring those facts and you will continually fall into the abyss of the missed point as Communinists have been doing for the last 150 years.

Hahahahahahahahaha! :lol::lol::lol:


There is NOTHING more to it than that

Yeah, sure. Because it's obvious that it's not directly in every capitalists interest to expand their business. It's obvious that it's not directly in every capitalists interest to pay their worker less. I mean, it's just so God damn obvious that capitalists don't have to compete! They just love to over produce because that's just a game they play with their friends!

Ok, for real. It doesn't matter who you're making the deal with. The fact of the matter is that the way the system itself is built, is that it will produce certain antagonistic interests. I don't give a damn who you do deals with, what's important is why those deals are made, and who benefits from them.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, nobody is saying that all bourgeois are evil, cruel, mean, etc. Well I'm not anyways. As some people have already stated, the difference between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is their relationship to the means of production, whether they control it or not. Frederick Engels owned a factory didn't he? He turned out to be a fine person. There are such people as cooperative bourgeois who can be a part of people's movements- just because of ones social standing doesn't make them of poor moral character.

Nope, I see that there's a distinct moral point around here that being bourgeois is evil.

When in reality the only REAL evil is the Vanguard.

[Post-Something]

Nope, I see that there's a distinct moral point around here that being bourgeois is evil.

Err, well, lets see here. An inherent part of the Bourgeoisie is the need, for them to survive in that class, to exploit the working class. That is part of the definition of being in the ruling class. Exploitation is inherently immoral, therefor inherently evil.

Simply because you may not transpose the same nature into your personal life does not change the fact that you are acting in an evil way when you make your money.


When in reality the only REAL evil is the Vanguard.

...what? Those who have the highest level of class consciousness are evil?

[Bud Struggle]

Err, well, lets see here. An inherent part of the Bourgeoisie is the need, for them to survive in that class, to exploit the working class. That is part of the definition of being in the ruling class. Exploitation is inherently immoral, therefor inherently evil.

Simply because you may not transpose the same nature into your personal life does not change the fact that you are acting in an evil way when you make your money. As if there is something as "evil" in the world? there is no good or bad, wrong or right--just what works and what doesn't. And Capitalisism seems to be the idea in charge for the longest time.




...what? Those who have the highest level of class consciousness are evil?

The Bourgeois have the highest level of class consciousness. The Vanguard are dictators of socialistic taste--nothing more.

[Post-Something]

As if there is something as "evil" in the world? there is no good or bad, wrong or right--just what works and what doesn't. And Capitalisism seems to be the idea in charge for the longest time.

Yeah, but the sad thing is is that capitalism doesn't work. It's an unstable system. It produces mountains of grain and rivers of milk, but still can't feed the poor. A system based on need is a far more efficient system than one based on profit. We have more than enough to feed the world for the next 25 years right now, but still 90% of the worlds population is in poverty. so, although it might work for the top 10% of people, it certainly doesn't work for the majority.

Also, as a Christian, surely you believe in good and evil? Don't you? And on a further note, how do you reconcile your religious views with your political ones?

Greed is a sin,

Capitalism promotes greed,

Therefor supporting Capitalism is a sinful action.


The Bourgeois have the highest level of class consciousness. The Vanguard are dictators of socialistic taste--nothing more.

You're talking about the vanguard party...which is a totally different topic. That happens when a revolution degenerates. There are reasons why this comes about, and why it has happened in the past.

[Pogue]

TomK, how does Jesus define people? Theres not even evidence he existed.

I think you misunderstand Marxism. Its not about giving people social identities, its about changing the world.

[RGacky3]

I will tell you this as a Capitalists--truly and deeply: all power relationships are about personality. All my business relationships are with my friends. Business is about deals and friendships. Trusts and relationships.

There is NOTHING more to it than that. Keep ignoring those facts and you will continually fall into the abyss of the missed point as Communinists have been doing for the last 150 years.

I'm sorry thats just bull, 100%, its not personality, its the property Laws, backed up by guns.

What makes a boss a boss is'nt his personality, its teh fact hes owns the buisiness and is in control.


Nope, I see that there's a distinct moral point around here that being bourgeois is evil.

When in reality the only REAL evil is the Vanguard.

No one calss the bourgeois evil, any more than we'll call a King evil, what we will say about both, is that their authority is unjustified and should be done away with.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sorry thats just bull, 100%, its not personality, its the property Laws, backed up by guns.What makes a boss a boss is'nt his personality, its teh fact hes owns the buisiness and is in control. You miss the point of business--people don't just suddenly "own" factories. They build them bit by bit over time. They make money and spend money, carefully, to create something for themselves--and the MAIN tool they use to create wealth--is their ability to work with people and their ideas.

Each factory you see, each business you see is a carefull crafted invention of a mind of a group of minds to create wealth. Businesses are quite marvelous things.




No one calss the bourgeois evil, any more than we'll call a King evil, what we will say about both, is that their authority is unjustified and should be done away with. Not without a fight. :)

[RGacky3]

You miss the point of business--people don't just suddenly "own" factories. They build them bit by bit over time. They make money and spend money, carefully, to create something for themselves--and the MAIN tool they use to create wealth--is their ability to work with people and their ideas.

Each factory you see, each business you see is a carefull crafted invention of a mind of a group of minds to create wealth. Businesses are quite marvelous things.


That MAY or may not be the case, a lot of people simply 'buy companies. But what you said did'nt disproove anything I said before about what class is and the power structures that class is based on.


Not without a fight. http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-prolaterian-t96874/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Excactly, which is why social-democracy does'nt work, only revolutionary action does.

[Bud Struggle]

That MAY or may not be the case, a lot of people simply 'buy companies. But what you said did'nt disproove anything I said before about what class is and the power structures that class is based on. My aim wasn't to disprove anything--just to show how out of date and pointless all those Marxian distinctions between classes are.

Now there ARE distinctions out there between people and they can be used as a political basis for changing society--but using a 19th century model leaves you with a bushel basked full of failed Communist societies and really nothing in the pipeling for effecting real change in the world.




Excactly, which is why social-democracy does'nt work, only revolutionary action does.Trying to convice people that they have some relationship to a hundred fifty year old "worker-owner" model of society seem like a recipe for failure to me. Do you seriously believe that even in the cases where p[eople are rioting--like in Greece, that they are rioting for Communism?

But maybe I'm wrong--how's the Revolution going so far? ;)

It best to use what's good about Communism and Marxism to better the world in the short run (Social-Democracy) and to forget about the coming Rapture. It just may not be in the cards.