Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Was the French Revolution a bourgeois revolution?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:24
The one part I understood from that:

Quote:
So what happens when the petit-burgeoise of shop owners have their income controled by the haute-bugeoise who owns the means of distribution ?


Their existence is still derived from the ownership of capital and the sale of commodities produced by labor, just in this case they exploit their own labor, essentially, to create the surplus value for capital accumulation. They do not have their income 'controlled' by the haute-bourgeoisie, it is directly derived from the exchange value of commodities produced by the petit-bourgeoise through the market. The income of a prole, on the other hand, is controlled by the bourgeoisie as he himself is the commodity and sells his labor-power to the property owner, it is not the fruits of the shop owner's own labor and capital (whatever commodity that is). The shop-owner, being essentially an independent unit within the market, does not have his income controlled in such as manner as he does not sell his ability to work for a living out of being propertyless.

I suggest you forget about this 'distribution' crap. It's an interesting thing to point out, but by no means defines class in the Marxist sense.

Quote:
You cannot produce more surplus value than you are paid. You can produce more VALUE than you are paid. Thats the exactly definition of surplus value, give more than you receive. You need surplus value to have a proletariat. What happens when you receive the same value as you work, but you are still not the owner of the means of production ? Where is the capitalist going to get a profit ? And if he doesnt get a profit, how does he becomes the owner of the means of production ? How capitalism then reproduces itself ?

You need both ! Surplus value and wage ! Because they are parts of the same relationship you said was in the base of capitalism, and nowhere did i say anything against this !


No, you don't. You derive your existence from wage-labor, you are a proletarian, end of story. There is no arguing this.

You are essentially saying if the capitalist isn't profiting from the labor there aren't any proles involved. It's completely irrelevant. Capital and labor's relationship remains the same.

What happens when you receive the same value as you work in capitalism? There is no growth. That's literally all it means.

Again shamelessly stolen from marxists.org:

Quote:
The pre-condition for wage labour is a class of people who have no other way of living, and a class of people who own the means of production as their Private Property. The capitalist who buys the labour power, and pays for it at its value, own the labour process and the product of labour, and can sell the product in order to realise a profit. The worker, on the other hand is alienated from her own labour.
Last edited by Conscript on 30 Jul 2014, 03:31, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:31
Quote:
You are essentially saying if the capitalist isn't profiting from the labor there aren't any proles involved. It's completely irrelevant. Capital and labor's relationship remains the same.


No, i am not saying, because i proposed such as a question. Its impossible for the capitalist to not profit from labour. Else he would not be a capitalist. You need WAGE to have a profit over labour. Is that hard to understand ? You need the category WAGE, to have the categody PROFIT. They are both sides of the same thing (Dialetics huh ?). Different momments of the same force !

PS.: Time to amend something. Surplus value is not profit yet. The capitalist needs to pay his costs, then it becomes profit. (But this is done already away from the proletariat, its a intra-burgeoise affair).

So first we split between wage and surplus-value then we split between cost and profit.

You cannot have wage without surplus-value, neither cost without profit. And we cannot have cost and profit without having first surplus-value.

So it boils down to if you are reading history from top to bottom or from bottom to top. From production or from distribution. Because you are reading something that exists and works, something that is happening right now. You are merely describing an event. You take a place where you start to start and everything falls into their place.
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 30 Jul 2014, 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:37
Quote:
Its impossible for the capitalist to not profit from labour. Else he would not be a capitalist.


So when the rate of profit falls, as Marx notes a tendency for, everyone involved in production of that commodity ceases to be capitalists and laborers. As soon as that point when your day's pay becomes afforded by what you produce some time before your shift is over, extends to the end of such shift or beyond it (i.e. a net loss), you are no longer a proletarian. Great.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:43
Conscript wrote:
So when the rate of profit falls, as Marx notes a tendency for, everyone involved in production of that commodity ceases to be capitalists and laborers. As soon as that point when your day's pay is already afforded by what you produce some time before your shift is over, reaches the end of such shift or never, you are no longer a proletarian. Great.


Nope, when the rate of profit falls to the point where we have no more profit, you go bankrupt. So we can say that at that factory that goes bankrupt, you have no more capitalist and proletarian, thats exacly why the factory goes bankrupt. Does a factory closed and left to rot have a capitalist and a proletariat ? Nope.

The factory can be left to rot (and i have one nearby to attest this) or you can be bought by a bigger factory.

When this happens in a sector of the economy (being left to rot), we have that section closed (Who wants an analog cell phone ? I have one to sell). And when this happens in a whole country we get one of the ciclical capitalist crisis.

If else the factory is bought by a larger one, you get a monopoly. And when whole sections of the economy are owned by a single group you get something like a zaibatsu.

We've never seen someone own the whole country, but looks like the objective of current capitalism thought. Maybe we can call that a hyper-monopoly.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:48
Quote:
Nope, when the rate of profit falls to the point where we have no more profit, you go bankrupt. So we can say that at that factory that goes bankrupt, you have no more capitalist and proletarian, thats exacly why the factory goes bankrupt. Does a factory closed and left to rot have a capitalist and a proletariat ? Nope. When this happens in a sector of the economy, we have that section closed (Who wants an analog cell phone ? I have one to sell). And when this happens in a whole country we get one of the ciclical capitalist crisis.


You are not arguing this, about bankruptcy. You are arguing if that factory continued the people involved aren't capitalists and laborers.

This is a stupid fragging discussion. No, you cannot say this:

Quote:
at that factory that goes bankrupt, you have no more capitalist and proletarian, thats exacly why the factory goes bankrupt.


There just isn't any arguing it, this isn't the Marxist view.

I mean, holy shit, this is sig-worthy. You actually think that's why the factory goes bankrupt? Because the capitalists and the proletarians 'disappear', and they do so because the capitalist isn't profiting (which could be for so many reasons, all irrelevant to the fact that the worker is being paid a wage reflective of his status as a commodity, supply and demand, not according to what he produces)
Last edited by Conscript on 30 Jul 2014, 03:56, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:56
It can go bankrupt due to mismanagement. But if the margin of profit falls (the tendendy to profit fall, i dont know how to translate) this means that all factories are going to go bankrupt, and this is where you get a economic crisis like the one in 1929.

Thread is again getting derailled.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 30 Jul 2014, 03:58
But don't you see? How the hell can everyone a proletarian in 1928 working the same job in 1929 cease to be so, in the short time they are still employed before being laid off? It's completely absurd.

You are exposing how capitalism is unsustainable, comrade, not how we cease to be proles when it enters a crisis.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:05
You cease to be proles when you are fired. Thats called unemployment.

You said earlier that being wage labour is what defines someone as proletariat, but if you are unemployed because your factory closed, how can them you be a proletariat ? You are now part of the reserve work-force. Can you be considered proletariat yet ? Well, i believe yes, because probably you will get employed again at the same capacity. Or you can very well start robbing and become lumpen.

Is the capitalist still a capitalist during a crisis ? Some still are. But lets say you happen to have a factory of analog cell phones and no money to buy capital goods to switch to digital ones. Are all those machines - only usefull for analog phones - still capital goods ?
You might very well become proletarized yourself (concentration of capital).

(of course, analog cell phones versus digital cell phones is a made up example to explain a point).
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 30 Jul 2014, 04:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:07
AldoBrasil wrote:
You cease to be proles when you are fired. Thats called unemployment.


False. Also, sigged, ignored, I'm out. It's called the reserve army of labor by Marx for a reason.

Why does the unemployed man starve? Because his life depends on the sale of his labor-power.
Last edited by Conscript on 30 Jul 2014, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:09
Quote:
You are now part of the reserve work-force.


Nitpicking at its best. You are forcefully trying to show defects into my arguments beyond reasoning, and while doing so you are derailing the thread from its original course.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:12
I don't understand how you can say this

AldoBrasil wrote:
You cease to be proles when you are fired. Thats called unemployment.


And then immediately say

AldoBrasil wrote:
ou are now part of the reserve work-force. Can you be considered proletariat yet ? Well, i believe yes, because probably you will get employed again at the same capacity


So you are either acknowledging that unemployment doesn't change your class character, or you've skipped some sort of intermediate step between the two.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:13
Or i am just simplifying because this is not the topic and Conscript is, like, applying a marxism exam on me in order to say "he does not know marxism !" and walk out of the thread feeling superior ?
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 30 Jul 2014, 04:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:14
AldoBrasil wrote:
Nitpicking at its best. You are forcefully trying to show defects into my arguments beyond reasoning, and while doing so you are derailing the thread from its original course.

It doesn't seem to me that Conscript is the one who keeps trailing threads off into tangents, so seriously, don't put on this air that you really care about derailing at this stage in the game. My guess is, since you accuse others so often of it, you don't have a response.

But this really isn't "beyond reason" or "nitpicking" in the slightest; it goes to show your understanding of class relations is faulty, painful as that may be for you to admit. The proletariat are a class. The unemployed's whole lives depend on sale of their labor. So, they belong to the class that sells their labor. That's the proletariat, and they're the most suffering members of that class.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 30 Jul 2014, 04:16, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:16
Quote:
Can you be considered proletariat yet ? Well, i believe yes, because probably you will get employed again at the same capacity.


User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:17
AldoBrasil wrote:
Can you be considered proletariat yet ? Well, i believe yes, because probably you will get employed again at the same capacity.

And yet:

AldoBrasil wrote:
You cease to be proles when you are fired. Thats called unemployment.

So, which is it?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:18
So thats your whole contention ?

Ok :

You dont cease to be part of the proletariat, but you cease to engage in the relationship that defines your class as it is ?

But now what does this changes the whole thread ? Or is this just a tangent created by Conscript nitpicking ?

Quote:
Or i am just simplifying because this is not the topic and Conscript is, like, applying a marxism exam on me in order to say "he does not know marxism !" and walk out of the thread feeling superior ?
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 30 Jul 2014, 04:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:19
AldoBrasil wrote:
You dont cease to be part of the proletariat, but you cease to engage in the relationship that defines your class as it is ?

What?
The relationship that defines your class... defines your class. One of those classes is the proletariat.

The unemployed do not cease to depend on sale of their labor. That's what makes them proletarian. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
But now what does this changes the whole thread ? Or is this just a tangent created by Conscript nitpicking ?

I agree this is all pretty off-topic, but Conscript by no means started the tangent, or the tangent that led to this thread being split in the first place. So your whole air of indignation isn't appreciated. And it's relevant in this sense: you're questioning whether or not the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The bourgeoisie are a Marxist class. If your interpretation of Marxist classes is off, then that says where you may have come to that conclusion.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:24
The unenployment of a single person doesnt cease the class.
Quote:
Because probably he will get again employed in the same capacity.


But lets suppose that the whole proletariat becomes unenployed do we still have a proletariat ? Nope. Why ?

You need the relationship between wage labour and capitalist to have a proletariat to start with. But to have wage labour and capitalist, you need wage and surplus-value. And then to have wage and surplus-value you need that what you buy with your wage be less than what you produce, and so on.

I dont understand why so much nitpicking.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:29
AldoBrasil wrote:
But lets suppose that the whole proletariat becomes unenployed do we still have a proletariat ? Nope. Why ?

Awesome, some off-the-wall hypothetical with absolutely no basis in reality. The whole proletariat wouldn't become unemployed unless civilization outright collapsed so there was no more sale of labor to be had. And then we have way bigger things to worry about than class relations. Like bears.

Quote:
I dont understand why so much nitpicking.

Disagreeing with you isn't nitpicking. Your interpretation of class just isn't something we think makes sense. "If everyone magically became unemployed tomorrow your argument is invalid," on the other hand... yeah, that seems pretty nitpicky to me.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 04:59
MissStrangelove wrote:
Awesome, some off-the-wall hypothetical with absolutely no basis in reality. The whole proletariat wouldn't become unemployed unless civilization outright collapsed so there was no more sale of labor to be had. And then we have way bigger things to worry about than class relations. Like bears.


1st - This is a rethorical question. I remove employment from all proletariat to show that to become a proletariat, to start with, you need something - not only the class label - that makes proletariat proletariat. That "class label" must be rooted somewhere. Were is it rooted ? In surplus-value and wage (in the end of the day they are the same thing in two different momments).
2nd - So we cant have a state where the whole proletariat becomes unemployed ? What happens then if the whole economic chain is replaced by machines ? Not only producing, but repairing (its possible to devise machines that can self-reapair). Leaving only the capital owner and the machine designer in office and having the rest of mankind in unemployemnt. That question, even if used as a rethorical tool, can be replaced by something similar, like, what happens if the whole serfdom becomes laid-off ?

Quote:
Disagreeing with you isn't nitpicking. Your interpretation of class just isn't something we think makes sense. "If everyone magically became unemployed tomorrow your argument is invalid," on the other hand... yeah, that seems pretty nitpicky to me.


Nope, its nitpicking when instead of trying to understand the concept exposed you start to dig and look for venues to attack. As much as having conscript hit the submit button seconds from the momment i posted my text, as if he was trying to deny me the possibility to correct my posts (like i usually do). Kind of looking for a way to get me offguard. This only happens between you and conscript. Other forumners ignore or respond to my topics as everything was normal (and they usually do in a very high level manner).
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.