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, 05:13
Quote:
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).


I reply to what's posted, it's what I've always done. If I know my position well enough it doesn't take me long, and it helps when it's about something as simple as the definition of proletarian and what defines class in general. You shouldn't be editing in the other 3/4 of your post, it completely destroys the flow of the conversation.

Such strong words...deny, attack, getting you 'offguard'. Why do you think I'm out to get you?
Image
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, 05:15
AldoBrasil wrote:
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).

In the Marxist sense, the sense the term "proletarian" has any relevance in, it means selling your labor for a living. That's where it's rooted. That it requires someone to be sold to is neither here nor there, because that someone will exist absent catastrophic civilization collapse. And if your argument hinges on zombie apocalypse, then...

Quote:
Nope, its nitpicking when instead of trying to understand the concept exposed you start to dig and look for venues to attack.

Persecution complex much? We respond to the "concepts exposed"; which aren't really "exposed" by the way, we've heard them before, they're not exactly ground-breaking. If you think our counterarguments are "attacks," I don't really know what to say. We just disagree with you.

Quote:
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.

Or, instead of plotting against you, maybe he's just not used to having people add huge swathes of their posts after posting? I'm a serial post-editor too, but I have to admit, on that scale it can get pretty grating. And he does reply to your edits too, from everything I've seen.
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, 05:19
You dont need to plot. All that is needed is ill-will. I wont argue that many people dont like my argumetation style (even worse when done in a language that is not my native tonge). But i usually dont like to make posts like this one that i am doing, because it detracts from the topic at hand. I fell constrained by such. Its pointless. When i hit the dust, those things will be forgotten, we can very well pass without them to start with.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 Jul 2014, 08:10
You guys really aren't being very nice to our new member, but he isn't really trying to be all that nice either, let's all try to be a little nicer (myself included).

Aldo you do really need to understand that the context of these labels is not a matter of qualifying that labeled-individual's political stance/loyalty. The small bourgeoisie get exploited pretty hard themselves and as a result have some pretty wide ranging political loyalties often finding themselves allies of, or becoming themselves, communists. They also form the bulwark of reaction and are usually pretty supportive of fascism historically. However none of this fundamentally changes that the interests between a big and small bourgeoisie is infinitesimal compared to the difference between the interests of the bourgeoisie (of any size) and the proletariat.

Let's of course not forget that many proletarians are hardly anything of the sort. While the CEO trades his labor for a salary, that labor being his ability to extract surplus value from those below, he is in fact holding his hands damn near directly onto the MoP. For example the driver of the car, during the process of driving, has the only actual material control over that car. It is irrelevant that he does not actually own the vehicle (except insofar as he cannot be too reckless) because by operating it he becomes the Driver. In the same sense these high-level, powerful, proletarians are functionally bourgeoisie to the degree that their interests are inseparable from the bourgeoisie. This is probably aided by the fact that getting to a CEO position of relevance means you are already actually bourgeoisie anyways.

That's pretty rambly but I'm really high so I don't really care.
Image
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, 16:54
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Let's of course not forget that many proletarians are hardly anything of the sort. While the CEO trades his labor for a salary, that labor being his ability to extract surplus value from those below, he is in fact holding his hands damn near directly onto the MoP. For example the driver of the car, during the process of driving, has the only actual material control over that car. It is irrelevant that he does not actually own the vehicle (except insofar as he cannot be too reckless) because by operating it he becomes the Driver. In the same sense these high-level, powerful, proletarians are functionally bourgeoisie to the degree that their interests are inseparable from the bourgeoisie. This is probably aided by the fact that getting to a CEO position of relevance means you are already actually bourgeoisie anyways.

Yeah, I thought the CEO example was a little iffy honestly. A CEO's job might make them technically proletarian, but most major CEOs are also big owners of capital and do own a large share in some company (not necessarily their own). The vast majority definitely fit as "bourgeoisie," and even ones who aren't are the absolute most glaring example of labor aristocracy out there. Since they're extremely well-paid and their job absolutely depends on exploitation of many other workers below them. The exception is small-business CEOs I guess, but then those are usually the sole owner or co-owner of the company itself, and thus petit-bourgeois.

Engineers, doctors, and lawyers are better examples. They usually aren't major capital-owners, they're just well-paid workers and are still exploited in their dreary mind-numbing white-collar jobs. But that well-paid status means they'd be split in a revolutionary context, like the petit-bourgeois, but based in an entirely different set of underlying class interests. Instead of preserving a system of ownership versus striking back at the haute-bourgeoisie (and no longer having to struggle to make ends meet if they're very "petit"), their conflict is between preserving their relative prosperity and ending their direct exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisie (and no longer having to deal with the threat of unemployment). So, labor aristocrats. Many see their interests as bound up in the current system, as it lent them wealth they enjoy; so they can be some of the biggest reactionaries. On the other hand, their class interest in the long-term is still to overturn a system that exploits and alienates them, and that can take their prosperity all away in a heartbeat since they're not the owners of it; Lenin and Castro were lawyers too, and Che was a doctor.

A cop is another pretty good case; they aren't quite as well-paid (though they make pretty good money), but their interests are still split. Because on the one hand they're exploited workers, but on the other hand their very job does depend on repressing enemies of a state that exists to preserve exploitation.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.