Re: social classes

[trivas7]

While conflict bt different economic groups of society going back to the Greeks had been understood as politically important, to see this conflict as of overwhelming influence in any society has never been bourne out by history (nor by any future history). Likewise the supernal role of the industrial proletariat as history's chosen has been, to say the least, unproven. I'm thinking in terms of the disastrous results of the Bolshevik war on the peasantry, forced collectivization and the ensuing 1932-3 famine effecting as many as 5-7 million deaths.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While conflict bt different economic groups of society going back to the Greeks had been understood as politically important, to see this conflict as of overwhelming influence in any society has never been bourne out by history (nor by any future history).

So why, Austrian, did the feudal form emerge? Why, then, did the capitalist form emerge? :rolleyes:


Likewise the supernal role of the industrial proletariat as history's chosen has been, to say the least, unproven. I'm thinking in terms of the disastrous results of the Bolshevik war on the peasantry, forced collectivization and the ensuing 1932-3 famine effecting as many as 5-7 million deaths.

Depends on how you define the term "industrial proletariat" :rolleyes:

[trivas7]

So why, Austrian, did the feudal form emerge? Why, then, did the capitalist form emerge?

Yes, let's not the historical facts get in the way of a shopworn theory.

[Robert]

Point of order to OP: your thread title refers to "social classes," and your post refers to "economic groups." Are these synonymous for you? One of the reasons the arguments here never go anywhere is that there is some mobility among economic classes in the states. There are zillions of cases of people working their way out of poverty and into millionaire status, not to mention those who become "merely" very affluent.

Social classes are different here: no matter how much money I may make, I'll never be admitted to certain old money country clubs.

Anyway, if your point is that class struggle is not "overwhelmingly influential" in history, I'd have to agree insofar as the USA is concerned. Of course, it influences some things, like attitudes. To labor union leaders, and some members, I am sure class struggle means everything.

[RGacky3]

There are zillions of cases of people working their way out of poverty and into millionaire status, not to mention those who become "merely" very affluent.


percentage wise its insegnificant, and there being mobility does'nt change the power structure or defend it at all. So really the slight mobility is irrelivent.



Social classes are different here: no matter how much money I may make, I'll never be admitted to certain old money country clubs.


That has nothing to do with Social Classes that we are talking about, i.e. the one that really counts as power is concerned.


Anyway, if your point is that class struggle is not "overwhelmingly influential" in history, I'd have to agree insofar as the USA is concerned. Of course, it influences some things, like attitudes. To labor union leaders, and some members, I am sure class struggle means everything.

Class struggle is extreamly important to Capitalists, they may not call it class struggle, but its there.

[revolution inaction]

There are zillions of cases of people working their way out of poverty and into millionaire status, not to mention those who become "merely" very affluent.


so a zillion's about 10? i always wondered :)

[Robert]

I think you can easily verify that I'm talking substantially more than "10."

And Gack, it's not irrelevant to those who work their way up. Or down. It's only irrelevant if you insist that there's no mobility in the first place. But now we're going in a circle. I say there is, you say there isn't. Understood.

I would list alcoholism, abandonment of education, and
obesity as greater threats to individual prosperity as class warfare. Again, that's in the USA, where we're mostly overfed, lazy pigs.

The Chinese are eating our lunch and we can't even see it.

[nuisance]

I love how Trivas' ideas changed so rapidly in such a relatively short time.

[RGacky3]

And Gack, it's not irrelevant to those who work their way up. Or down. It's only irrelevant if you insist that there's no mobility in the first place. But now we're going in a circle. I say there is, you say there isn't. Understood.

I don't insist there is no mobility, hell, in the USSR you had a chance at becoming a high up beurocrat, that does'nt justify anything, and it is irrelevant to the validity of the class system, or the party system.


I would list alcoholism, abandonment of education, and
obesity as greater threats to individual prosperity as class warfare. Again, that's in the USA, where we're mostly overfed, lazy pigs.

You are 100% out of touch, I don't know about where your from, but where I'm from, the poorest, be it hispanic immigrants, blue color workers, migrant farm workers, or whatever are the ones that work the most. Capitalism is a wage-slave system, it is dependant on wage slavery, so sure you can sometimes make it to where your the master, but its still dependant on wage slavery, and socially thats what we want to end.

Class warfare is'nt only about individual prosperity, its about ending oppression and having the dignity of human beings.

Its the difference between a slave sucking up and then being the slave that gets more privilages and gets to whip the other slaves, and the slaves comming to gether and ending the oppression. The latter, thats what we want, and the fact that the former is possible does'nt change that.


The Chinese are eating our lunch and we can't even see it.

For the poor in both countries, stupid blind nationalism should'nt even be an issue. the Fact is the rich, in both countries, are eating the poors lunch in both countries. The fact that the rich in one country is doing it better than the other does'nt matter.

The Chineese are eating our lunch, but they are doing it on the backs of the Chineese people.


I think you can easily verify that I'm talking substantially more than "10."

Well percentage wise I'd be suprised if it was .1%.

[mikelepore]

While conflict bt different economic groups of society going back to the Greeks had been understood as politically important, to see this conflict as of overwhelming influence in any society has never been bourne out by history (nor by any future history). Likewise the supernal role of the industrial proletariat as history's chosen has been, to say the least, unproven.

It's not just a matter of conflict between classes, but the fact that a class of increasing importance finds that institutional changes are needed so that it can fulfill its potential, and it also has the power to bring this about. For example, in medieval times the landowner class was happy with monarchy and aristocracy, but gradually the rising capitalist class realized that it would do better if monarchy were replaced by republican forms of government. It's this relationship that we see duplicated in the modern proletariat. Production is a matter of social cooperation, and the formality of private ownership imposes unnecessary constraints. The working class also has the power to do something about it.


I'm thinking in terms of the disastrous results of the Bolshevik war on the peasantry, forced collectivization and the ensuing 1932-3 famine effecting as many as 5-7 million deaths.

I don't know what that has to do with the preceeding. It sounds to me like a change of the subject.

[Plagueround]

I love how Trivas' ideas changed so rapidly in such a relatively short time.

What's even more interesting is he's falling back on the old "USSR was evil" strawman. You would think with all he did here he would have more to critique socialism than just that. Personally, I'm thinking this is what happens to people who are more interested in this stuff as some sort of intellectual exercise and not something they every actually cared about. Eventually they'll get bored and move on to a new ideal, just for the sake of something new.

[GPDP]

What happened, anyway? Last I saw trivias, he was a commie like the rest of us. Did the Austrians kidnap him and brainwash him? :D

in before he claims we're the ones being brainwashed

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Thank God for social mobility.

Fuck that Three Estates with no escape bullshit.

I agree with a lot of what Rob is saying. The western US was built on a policy of giving 120-acres of land to anyone who sat on it for 5 years (of course, that land was conquered but so's everywhere else). The idea of equal political rights to every citizen coupled with a right to own property is nice, but there should be limits.

[Robert]

it is irrelevant to the validity of the class system

You make reasonable points, but we're talking past each other. I do not accept a priori that there is a "class system" of the kind or degree you appear to be describing. If there were, then NOBODY would escape the conditions of their birth.

To the extent you are arguing that there are very wealthy people who were luckily born into their wealth, never did any kind of work at all, and therefore do not deserve it, I have no argument.

[RGacky3]

I do not accept a priori that there is a "class system" of the kind or degree you appear to be describing. If there were, then NOBODY would escape the conditions of their birth.

To the extent you are arguing that there are very wealthy people who were luckily born into their wealth, never did any kind of work at all, and therefore do not deserve it, I have no argument.

YOur right we are talking past each other, I am not saying there is no mobility, nor am I saying that wealthy people may (or may not) work hard.

What I am saying is that Capitalism is a class system similar to a slave system.

Like I said before, Even a slave can gain privilages and become the whipper, maybe even gain freedom and become a slave owner, BUT that does'nt mean that there is no slave system, that does'nt justify the system at all. Also, slave owners also work very hard, that does'nt justify it either.

The class system does'nt rely on a static caste system, it does'nt imply immobility, what it does imply is that there are and will always be a large group of people that are part of an underclass nad a small group htat are part of a ruling class, will there be a couple that drop out of the ruling class? Yes, will there be a few that climb up to the ruling class? Yes, but that does'nt change the fact that the system is there, and one class rules over another.


The idea of equal political rights to every citizen coupled with a right to own property is nice, but there should be limits.

Why? If property rights are valid, then they are valid.

If Social mobility validates Capitalism, then it also validates Slavery.

[Robert]

If Social mobility validates Capitalism, then it also validates Slavery.

In what sense do slaves (real slaves, not "wage slaves") enjoy social mobility?

And I know you are not denying that the classes you describe are permeable in both directions. But that admission to me is irreconcilable with "class" as most understand the word to mean.

[RGacky3]

In what sense do slaves (real slaves, not "wage slaves") enjoy social mobility?


Well, in Greceian and Roman times, ancient mesopotamian times, as well as American slavery times (I'm actually not 100% sure about the American times, I'll have to check), in many cases a slave could earn his freedom, many times he could go from being a manual labor slave to being a slave driver, or ar house slave.


But that admission to me is irreconcilable with "class" as most understand the word to mean.

No, its not, thats not, nor was it ever, what class was, and that mobility does change the unjustification of the class system.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why? If property rights are valid, then they are valid.

And if a massive property tax which benefits those who are property-less is valid, then it is valid.


If Social mobility validates Capitalism, then it also validates Slavery.

How? Capitalism came about once the feudal system was destroyed, in which only a small % of society, the nobility, were able to own property.

The racial slavery we inherited had to be destroyed until only Capital determines the amount of property one can own, regardless of color and your parents. Unfortunately, Capital also determines the legal treatment one gets and that's something we have to change.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Class struggle is extreamly important to Capitalists, they may not call it class struggle, but its there.

Of course it's there. How else would Capitalists make their money? They hire those lower-class people to produce things for them and then the Capitalists sell them for high prices while paying those workers very little. Sounds like class struggle to me, but Capitalists don't want to think of it as that.

[RGacky3]

And if a massive property tax which benefits those who are property-less is valid, then it is valid.

Before thats valid, the State has to be valid and thats another issue, and those who have property who are getting taxed somehow have a right to it.


How? Capitalism came about once the feudal system was destroyed, in which only a small % of society, the nobility, were able to own property.


A peasant could still become a landowner under many forms of feudalism, very rare, but possible, that does'nt make a difference. Capitalism is just another form of class system, the justification for it is almost the same as it would be for feudalism.


The racial slavery we inherited had to be destroyed until only Capital determines the amount of property one can own, regardless of color and your parents. Unfortunately, Capital also determines the legal treatment one gets and that's something we have to change.

Most forms of ancient slavery in the past had nothing to do with race, it was pretty much a matter of luck.

Capital changes the treatement you get in the leagal system, and thats something thats impossible to change AS LONG AS you still have Capitalism, you forget, Money IS power.

In order to justify Capitalism you ahve to justify why some have a lot and some have none, saying they worked for it is'nt a justification, because thats not a prerequisite for ownership, generally speaking, that does'nt really come into play, the homestead theory (I forget the actual name), does'nt work either, because it does'nt actually explain what justifies the first come first serve concept.

The truth is, Capitalism cannot be justified, thats why it needs to be protected by a huge military-industrial complex, intense class struggle (from the upper classes) and vast imperialism.

You talk a lot about hte walfare state and tax breaks for the poor, but all that does is temporarily mask some of the sympoms, it ignores teh cause.

[Mister X]

The OP(since I found out that he is an ex-communist) is a classic example of a kid that changes ideologies just "for fun".
He is a pseudo-intellectual that uses big words in order to hide his own ignorance, use arguments that someone with no knowledge of socialism would come up with and tries to debate stuff on an online forum.
Another classical example of someone divorced from the actual working class struggle, probably a member of the petit-bourgeoisie. His economic status does not allow him to see what ideology is correct or not. It is just a game for him and any attempt to have an intelligent conversation would fail.

Just look at his Cuba post. How can someone with prior knowledge in socialism can believe in such poorly-written propaganda.
I just wanted to warn everyone to not waste their time with a loser.