Question on bourgeois

[Dharma]

What makes someone a bourgeois? How do they control a nation?

[Brother No. 1]

Bourgoesois are people that care only for them selfs will exploit people and will not care for their well being and they can do the same thing when in power of a nation differecnce is they exploit not only the people but the entrie nation

[revolution inaction]

the bourgeois own the means of production and employ the workers to operate it.
the workers have to work for the bourgeois because they don't own the means of production, so they are not able to obtain the things they need to live a reasonable/any kind of life otherwise.
When the workers work they produce more than what they are paid. the difference between what the workers produce and what they are paid is called the profit.
the bourgeois have control over the government because they own nearly everything.

[Dharma]

the bourgeois own the means of production and employ the workers to operate it.
the workers have to work for the bourgeois because they don't own the means of production, so they are not able to obtain the things they need to live a reasonable/any kind of life otherwise.
When the workers work they produce more than what they are paid. the difference between what the workers produce and what they are paid is called the profit.
the bourgeois have control over the government because they own nearly everything.

Thank you two for posting. I have gotten into a debate with a cappie. Your post was especially helpful. His argument is "The elite class deserves to be there because they worked harder to get there"

[Brother No. 1]

Well Radicalgraffiti you are right 100%

[ZeroNowhere]

Thank you two for posting. I have gotten into a debate with a cappie. Your post was especially helpful. His argument is "The elite class deserves to be there because they worked harder to get there"
Actually, others worked to get them there.
Of course, nowadays there seems to be an attempt, largely successful, to make class refer to higher and lower incomes. Hell, my school certainly drilled it into us. This implies that us commies see the problem in income differences, and thus want to give everybody an equal wage or something, leading to stuff like the 'Doctor and Janitor' thing. Also where the human nature argument comes in, because it's generally based on some people wanting more stuff than others, and stuff. It's a very effective tactic, it would appear. It also takes focus on how people get their wealth, so that many people are more susceptible to a few tales of people becoming well off from working. Hell, perhaps it's even more effective than 'free will'.

[mikelepore]

His argument is "The elite class deserves to be there because they worked harder to get there"

I often give the following data to people after they make that dopey "they worked harder" argument. Just a few facts about the U.S. population. How hard did a newborn baby work, just to be born and be an instant billionaire?

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance
W. C. Ford, $1.4 billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance
R. A. Hearst, $1.4 billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance
O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance
J. C. Walton, $6.5 billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

-- Source: Forbes magazine, December 1997

[#FF0000]

Thank you two for posting. I have gotten into a debate with a cappie. Your post was especially helpful. His argument is "The elite class deserves to be there because they worked harder to get there"

Sure, bosses might work hard, but as ZeroNowhere said, they get rich off of the workers working for them.

Consider this. You work at a factory and produce widgets. In a day you produce five boxes of widgets which sells for $50 total. You put all the work into that product, so you should get the reward, right?

Well, the capitalist doesn't think so. As a worker, you are paid a wage that is only a fraction of the wealth you create. Also as a worker, you own no property (meaning factories, farms, workshops...etc) so you MUST work for a capitalist who does. Indeed, the ownership of factories, farms, machines (the means of production) is what separates proletarian from bourgeois. Workers must sell their labor, and bosses buy it from you for less than it is worth. This is what we call exploitation.

Any questions, OP? :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

What makes someone a bourgeois? How do they control a nation?

Going by marx's definition of Bourgeosie, they're the owners of the means of production. They employ the proletariat to produce things for them so they can profit while the proletariat gets almost nothing in return.

Apperently i'm late in answering this. Oh well.

[SocialRealist]

Bourgeois refers to a social class which obtains income from ownership or trade in capital assets, or from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares and services.

[BlackCapital]

I've been putting a lot of thought into if this is applicable exactly the same way today. A few quick questions, if somebody who has a good idea what the answer is wouldn't mind letting me know:

1. Who is definitely a member of the bourgeois today (specific people)?

2.Is a CEO considered bourgeois, or are they really just a steward for the owner? How do whomever is controlling the majority of the stock (controlling stake) play into this?

3.What are members of top tiers of governments relationship with the bourgeois? Specifically a prime minister or president.

Been pondering these things for a while, thanks.

[mikelepore]

Generally, people in the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) are identified by getting their income from owning something, so their income takes such forms as dividends, interest, and capital gains.

Generally, people in the working class (proletariat) are identified by getting their income from selling their ability to work on the labor market, so their income takes the form of wage, salaries, tips, and work contract commissions.

Crossovers from the working class to the capitalist class generally occur when relatively high paid workers, such as certain corporate executives or celebrities, are paid enough so that their savings increases to the point where they can now live on the dividends paid by those savings. They're not capitalists as long as their primary source of income is a paycheck, even if it's very large. But eventually the CEO in a large company will usually accumulate so much income-producing savings that the paycheck becomes supplemental, and the return from assets is primary -- and then the person has become a capitalist.

Some socialists say that the corporate executives are in a separate group that they call the coordinator class. I don't recommend their terminology. I think the source of income, which has two main categories, return on investment and paychecks, determines one's social class.

What I said isn't exactly right. More accurately, one's relationship to the means of production (industries and services), that is, either having or not having the relationship of owning them, and either having or not having the relationship of being hired to operate them, is what determines a person's economic class. But that immediately translates into the two main sources of income, profit from assets versus payment for work time, so I find it most enlightening to refer to the source of income as the definition of class.

So you asked about the leader of a country. Well, is the primary source of that individual's income the salary that goes with the office, or profits derived from property that the person owns? What will answer the question.

Small business owners who perform their own work and don't have any employees are entirely outside of this class system. Their incomes aren't profits because their incomes doesn't come simply by owning something, and their incomes aren't wages because their incomes don't come from selling their labor power on the labor market. This puts them outside of the social dynamic that occurs between the working class and the capitalist class.

[GPDP]

Some socialists say that the corporate executives are in a separate group that they call the coordinator class.

The way I've encountered the "coordinator class", it has been used to describe a professional-managerial class with a monopoly on empowering labor, as described in parecon theory. I don't know if this is what you're referring to, though.

[Black Sheep]

Bourgoesois are people that care only for them selfs will exploit people and will not care for their well being and they can do the same thing when in power of a nation differecnce is they exploit not only the people but the entrie nation

Please, do not be such a moral judge of the bourgeoisie..just stick to the materialistic definition.
The bourgeoisie do what benefits them.They have the potential to earn a shitload of money at the expense of the majority,and they do so.
Is it 'immoral'? Yeah it is,but defining them as such makes the whole revolution thing like a fairy tale hollywood movie (which is not a coincidence sadly).

The bourgeoisie have their interests, we have ours, and those two contradict themselves.Si in the end,t is us or them, with the help of the fence-sitters..

[mikelepore]

The way I've encountered the "coordinator class", it has been used to describe a professional-managerial class with a monopoly on empowering labor, as described in parecon theory. I don't know if this is what you're referring to, though.

That is what I mean, but more people around here, besides parecon, have also started using the term. Jacob Richter has been using that term. I've seen some anarchists and wobblies using it in recent years. I think it's based on a misconception.

[Brother No. 1]

ok comrade bulksheep I wont be such a "moral jugde" on the bourgeoisie.

[mikelepore]

When capitalists work hard, the task that they work hard at is accumulating money without having to perform any socially necessary and productive work. They work hard in the same sense as hardworking robbers.

[benhur]

When capitalists work hard, the task that they work hard at is accumulating money without having to perform any socially necessary and productive work. They work hard in the same sense as hardworking robbers.

I understand, but usually people point to rags to riches stories (and there are many), and say if you work hard, you too can reach the top. And if you can't make it, it means there's someone better than you. So their argument is based on meritocracy, which appeals to most people.

[GPDP]

I understand, but usually people point to rags to riches stories (and there are many), and say if you work hard, you too can reach the top. And if you can't make it, it means there's someone better than you. So their argument is based on meritocracy, which appeals to most people.

Except there's really not that many rags-to-riches stories, especially nowadays, but even in the olden days it was not THAT common. And also, there's no way in hell we live in a meritocracy, not when most rich people today inherited their wealth. It's akin to starting a race from the beginning, while your opponent may be as near as the finish line by the time the race starts

But even IF we were to all start with the same opportunity, in the context of capitalism, well, I think Chomsky said it best. Even if you both start the race at the same place, the winner gets whatever he wants, while the loser starves to death.

I say, if we're to have a meritocracy that is as fair as can be, everyone should start at the same place, AND get a reward based on how much effort they expended in finishing the race.

[Drace]

Except there's really not that many rags-to-riches stories, especially nowadays, but even in the olden days it was not THAT common. And also, there's no way in hell we live in a meritocracy, not when most rich people today inherited their wealth. It's akin to starting a race from the beginning, while your opponent may be as near as the finish line by the time the race starts

But even IF we were to all start with the same opportunity, in the context of capitalism, well, I think Chomsky said it best. Even if you both start the race at the same place, the winner gets whatever he wants, while the loser starves to death.

I say, if we're to have a meritocracy that is as fair as can be, everyone should start at the same place, AND get a reward based on how much effort they expended in finishing the race.

Great stuff.

Also to note that the rags to richest stories should not be suprising at all. There's quite a lot of them but if we look at the total population of the world, the percentage of those that are able to become rich is like 0.0005%

I believe about half the world is living in under $3 a day.

Saying that the rich actually earned their money is ridiculous. But evwn if we accwpt it, we have to understand that there is not an infinite amount of wealth. When the rich get richer, it is because the poor are getting poorer!

[mikelepore]

A society gets to choose a system based on what can do for them. I also believe in classical conditioning in psychology, the principle that humans or any other animals will tend to repeat a type of behavior that consistently gets rewarded.

Suppose we want to reward people for "working hard." First, I would modify that goal a bit -- society shouldn't reward people for being workaholics and neglecting their spouses and children, but we should reward those who work nominally compared to those who goof off, and I also think we should again reward those who volunteer for the exceptionally strenuous work. Whatever the plan is, let's say society adopts some formula for identifying the kinds of behavior that it wants a good probability of having repeated.

Choosing the magnitude of the reward is a separate issue. I suppose that we could get all the necessary conditioning effects by paying the highest rewarded person about three or four times what we pay the least rewarded person. But capitalism has no conscious controls, and it runs wildly at everything it does. Even if capitalism did reward the right people for performing the right tasks, it also makes an entirely unnecessary thousand-to-one ratio, and, in modern times, a million-to-one ratio, between the reward given to the highest paid person and the reward given to the lowest paid person.

If the system is incapable of maintaining reasonable magnitudes in the way it rewards people for various behaviors, that's a clue that the system might also be incapable of rewarding the right people also.

Checking for that, we do indeed find that the system rewards the wrong people. The system treats the lucky gambler as worthy and treats the kindergarten teacher as unworthy. It rewards people for using advertising slogans that lie to people, it reward people for boosting their profits by polluting the air and water, and then the system considers the people who perform highly essential labor to be the expendable ones. Capitalism calls the trickster the hero and the useful producer the bum.

So capitalism fails in several ways. When it does reward people, the magnitudes of the rewards go astronomically out of control, and then we also find it rewards the wrong people anyway.

So much for "meritocracy."

[benhur]

Checking for that, we do indeed find that the system rewards the wrong people. The system treats the lucky gambler as worthy and treats the kindergarten teacher as unworthy. It rewards people for using advertising slogans that lie to people, it reward people for boosting their profits by polluting the air and water, and then the system considers the people who perform highly essential labor to be the expendable ones. Capitalism calls the trickster the hero and the useful producer the bum.

So capitalism fails in several ways. When it does reward people, the magnitudes of the rewards go astronomically out of control, and then we also find it rewards the wrong people anyway.

So much for "meritocracy."

Agreed, but most people will counter this by saying this is subjective, that demand-supply determines the whole thing.

For instance, if one says that a movie star gets paid millions even if he appears for just a few minutes, whereas a mechanic who works hard 24/7 earns little, they'll argue that since there are few who have the looks and talent to become stars, they're in short supply, and therefore more valuable. Whereas, mechanics are plenty, so supply isn't a problem.

Also, another argument is, millions are willing to pay to watch these movie stars, so they bring in high ROI, whereas mechanics don't. Such arguments pertaining to demand and supply go in their favor.

[mikelepore]

I consider signals of "supply and demand" to be random noise that have no social usefulness except to do evil. Whenever these signals dominate anything, morality goes out the window. Insteading of paying an amount that represents the actual difficulty to make something, you pay an amount that represent how much you would suffer if you were to decide not to buy it. Here's little plastic tube that goes into a home appliance. How much would you suffer if you didn't buy it? About an amount represented by $2, so the price is $2. Same plastic tube, but now it gets installed into your heart to keep it beating. Gauging how much you would suffer if you didn't get it, the price of the same plastic product is now $10,000. Supply and demand is nothing but a way of saying: taking advantage of the misfortunes of others. Each financial business has its terms to highlight this truth, for example, real estate agents refer to the "desperate widow effect." In the 1980s there was one day of outrage in the newspapers after a bad hurricane, during which the going rate in the "free market" to spend a night in a hotel suddenly became $500 per person for the opportunity to lie on the floor in a crowd. Free market, supply and demand, and similar terms, are nothing but euphemistic ways of saying: if you see someone who already down, go over and kick them.

[GPDP]

I consider signals of "supply and demand" to be random noise that have no social usefulness except to do evil. Whenever these signals dominate anything, morality goes out the window. Insteading of paying an amount that represents the actual difficulty to make something, you pay an amount that represent how much you would suffer if you were to decide not to buy it. Here's little plastic tube that goes into a home appliance. How much would you suffer if you didn't buy it? About an amount represented by $2, so the price is $2. Same plastic tube, but now it gets installed into your heart to keep it beating. Gauging how much you would suffer if you didn't get it, the price of the same plastic product is now $10,000. Supply and demand is nothing but a way of saying: taking advantage of the misfortunes of others. Each financial business has its terms to highlight this truth, for example, real estate agents refer to the "desperate widow effect." In the 1980s there was one day of outrage in the newspapers after a bad hurricane, during which the going rate in the "free market" to spend a night in a hotel suddenly became $500 per person for the opportunity to lie on the floor in a crowd. Free market, supply and demand, and similar terms, are nothing but euphemistic ways of saying: if you see someone who already down, go over and kick them.

And then you rationalize this behavior by saying "it's what the free market god would want!"

[Dharma]

Thank you so much for all the replies! All of you have really helped on evolving my understanding of the horrors of capitalism.