NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that while Marxists have a name for the lower class - the proletariat - and a name for the middle class - the bourgeoisie - there's no name that I've ever heard for the upper class. Why is there no such name? If there is, what is it, and why isn't it as commonly known? Are the middle and upper classes lumped together?

I've noticed that while Marxists have a name for the lower class - the proletariat - and a name for the middle class - the bourgeoisie - there's no name that I've ever heard for the upper class. Why is there no such name? If there is, what is it, and why isn't it as commonly known? Are the middle and upper classes lumped together?
I had thought the term "bourgeoisie" referred to the upper class even more than it did the lower, because it meant those people who make their money off of capital such as buying and selling things, charging rent on property, etc. Then again, I've never read Marx, so all I'm going on is what I've heard people apply the term to.

The bourgeoise are those that own the means of production. Those who own the land are called aristocrats, I believe.

in a capitalist society the bourgeoisie is the upperclas(those who make their money from capital not labor), the middle class are the petty bourgeoisie(professionals, managers and small business owners).

in a protocapitalist society you would have a landed quasimilitary aristocrasy that was the highest class, but as capitalism reaches full bloom the bourgeoisie absorbs and supplants this class .

Interesting - thanks.

The bourgeoisie are the upper class, the middle class is normally left out of communism, I guess they could be considered part of the proletariat.

A simple answer is that you are viewing class in the non-marxist sense of the word. Most people these days base class on income, while we base it on the relationship of the person to the means of production

As other posters have said, but I'll add that the middle class is usually called the petite bourgeoisie, whereas the upper middle class (the new elite) is called the bourgeoisie. The normal name for the upper class as you refer to it is aristocracy or nobility.

OK, so here's another question: what pisses off communists so badly about anyone above the lower class?

OK, so here's another question: what pisses off communists so badly about anyone above the lower class?
I guess, since many of them are in the upper class, they feel guilty that so many are less fortunate than them :rolleyes: There is a book entitled something along the lines "If you're communist why are you so rich?" or something.

OK, so here's another question: what pisses off communists so badly about anyone above the lower class?
I think you're still interpreting "class" differently than they are. They don't mean that lower class vs. middle class are better when they say 'class war', as somebody could fall into the middle-class brackets only through selling their labour, I suppose.
They're all about 'proletariat vs. bourgeoisie'. The bourgeoisie, they say, control the means of production, and the workers are the ones who should be controlling it. That's what seems to get them angry.
Again, this is just my take on it though, I might have misunderstood what they say.

I think you're still interpreting "class" differently than they are. They don't mean that lower class vs. middle class are better when they say 'class war', as somebody could fall into the middle-class brackets only through selling their labour, I suppose.
They're all about 'proletariat vs. bourgeoisie'. The bourgeoisie, they say, control the means of production, and the workers are the ones who should be controlling it. That's what seems to get them angry.
Again, this is just my take on it though, I might have misunderstood what they say.
Maybe since the bourgeoisie is the one who provides fund for the work, they should be the one who controls it? :rolleyes:

OK, so here's another question: what pisses off communists so badly about anyone above the lower class?

I cant be arsed to get into a massive debate now but essentially the proleteriate do the actual labour and produce capital, they only recieve a small amount of this capital with the rest funding the bourgeoisie.

So...what makes the "laboring group" any better suited to "control the means of production" than the ones who do now? Wouldn't this supposed revolution just switch the roles? And even if everyone controls the means of production, doesn't that make everyone the bourgeoisie? [confusion]

Maybe since the bourgeoisie is the one who provides fund for the work, they should be the one who controls it? :rolleyes:

That's what makes sense to me, but then again, the minds of Marxists seem to work in a completely different manner...

So...what makes the "laboring group" any better suited to "control the means of production" than the ones who do now? Wouldn't this supposed revolution just switch the roles? And even if everyone controls the means of production, doesn't that make everyone the bourgeoisie? [confusion]
They would in effect be one class...but this system would not work.

OK, so here's another question: what pisses off communists so badly about anyone above the lower class?

While i do not profess to be an expert, it is largely as they are reactionary. The middle class and especially the upper class (the bougoise) have there own finacial and political interests to protect; they are counter-revolutionary. This interests conflict with the inerest of the masses (the proleeriat). The proleteiat, on the other hand has nothing to lose apart form their chains. Thus he has the good af "all" in mind and is truely revolutionary.

Secondly, the bourgoise and to a lesser extent the middle classes, operate a system based on institutionalised expolitation of the proletariat, ie. theft.

Seeing as in most developed countries the service sector is dominant, is there even much of a proletariat anymore? :rolleyes:

Secondly, the bourgoise and to a lesser extent the middle classes, operate a system based on institutionalised expolitation of the proletariat, ie. theft.
Would they even have jobs though if the middle class didn't provide them with work?

Maybe since the bourgeoisie is the one who provides fund for the work, they should be the one who controls it? :rolleyes:

I like the way you think. I'll make you an offer you can't refuse...

Would they even have jobs though if the middle class didn't provide them with work?

Damn straight. This is just yet another variant of "the man is keeping me down". Bullshit. "The man" did more work in one day of his rise to the top than you'll do in five years, and because of the value he gained from that, he's capable of providing you with a job so that you aren't starving on the street. Quit whining.

Damn straight. This is just yet another variant of "the man is keeping me down". Bullshit. "The man" did more work in one day of his rise to the top than you'll do in five years, and because of the value he gained from that, he's capable of providing you with a job so that you aren't starving on the street. Quit whining.
no he didn't do more work, he just acquired more wealth by exploiting others. the proletariat creates the wealth by their productive labor, the capitalist does create anything he juast manipulates the wealthby his control of the means of production, his job could be done by a single worker in a managerial position and is therefore of no more inherent value than the labor of any other worker within his company he is just grotesquely overcompensated for it.

Please. To get to his position, he had to be a worker at a lower level. He showed himself to be exceptional and was promoted to a higher position. People are different; everyone is not suited to leadership. Everyone (few people, actually) is not suited to mental/intellectual or organizational, rather than manual, labor.

Also, if you think that the person who operates heavy machinery could design it, guess again. The "means of production" are controlled by those who create them, or the agents of those who create them; the workers merely operate them, and couldn't design the next generation of machinery, or come up with and implement/execute a brilliant new idea, process, etc. if their lives depended on it.

As much as communists try to deny it, people are different, and every prole can't seat himself in the position of an executive or knowledge worker and be just as successful at it as someone who is actually suited to that position and earned it.

Dammit, I hadn't meant to start a debate. Oh well. At least this one is from a different initial subtopic.

Would they even have jobs though if the middle class didn't provide them with work?

assuming that they had 'owned' the "means of production" then they would have jobs- jobs that allowed them to retain the full fruits of their labour.

Please. To get to his position, he had to be a worker at a lower level. He showed himself to be exceptional and was promoted to a higher position.

OR... they inherited the means of production from their parents (land, business). Look at Rupert Murdoch. Born rich. Stays rich. Passes it onto his son. How far do you think Bill Gates would have gotten without his million dollar trust fund?

Do you really think the head of Nike started working in a sweatshop? Do you really think a child working in a Nike sweatshot has any means to change their position? Can the the proletariat really improve their situation without access to education and capital?

While it is accepted that people are different in Marxism, why do many CEOs in the US get paid over 411 times that of their workers? Marxism merely seeks to equalise all people, thus doing away with the distinction between Proletariat and Bourgeoise. So in order to do this, the bourgeoise are going to have to give up some of their power/wealth. They're obviously not going to do this freely, so a revolution takes place.

Note also that Communism only pops up in countries where there are great inequalities, ie. Russia, where the 14% of the population controlled more than 90% of the wealth.

By the mid-C19th, when Marx was actually writing, the upper-classes (aristocracy) no longer played any meaningful part in the economy, hence they don't feature strongly in his writings.

You should put Marx on yhe right historical context. When marx was active there wasnt much of a middle class. Burgoise can not be translated to modern upper class.

A modern marxist would probably want everyone to be in the middle class.

You should put Marx on yhe right historical context. When marx was active there wasnt much of a middle class. Burgoise can not be translated to modern upper class.

A modern marxist would probably want everyone to be in the middle class.

Finally, someone who leaves Marx where he was (time wise) in order to explain it. When he wrote there were owners of factories (rich, bourgeoisie ), and there was the workers (poor, proletariat). The middle class of the time were mostly in the proletariat, as they worked, and didn't live off of other's work.

Free Mercantile States, i know it was stated before, but the majority of companies are owned by people who didn't so much work for it as inherited it. There is the occasional exception, but by and large, they did not start at the bottom, they started as a member of the board.

But skipping any more of a debate, essencially when he was writing the middle class consisted of either workers, thus proletariat, or self employed small busnesses where they work and own, thus falling outside of his arguments.

Finally, someone who leaves Marx where he was (time wise) in order to explain it. That's true, which is why the classes need to be redefined. The simplest way is to define them as the IWW does - there is the working class, and there is the employing class. There is almost never any overlap between them.

assuming that they had 'owned' the "means of production" then they would have jobs- jobs that allowed them to retain the full fruits of their labour.
Someone still has to create the means of production. If the bourgeois entrepreneur is the one doing so, then it is well within his or her right to set the terms for employment.

Now, I noticed many of you make mention of inheritance. I will concede that this may indeed be unfair. Yet this is a matter of inheritance itself, rather than the creation of means of production. Whatever the case may be, the heir of the wealth is still the one providing the means of production, is still the one taking the risks involved in capitalism and is still the one financing the operation. Many entrepreneurs, like Oprah or Bill Gates, did rise from nothing to massive wealth. So lets not devalue the role of the entrepreneur.

Many entrepreneurs, like Oprah or Bill Gates, did rise from nothing to massive wealth. So lets not devalue the role of the entrepreneur.

Ur... Bill Gates was born with a million dollar trust fund, he went to prestigious (expensive) schools, his parents bought his high-school time on a computer (rare at the time) so that he could play with it.

Oprah? Yes, she was from a very poor family. However, "Many entrepreneurs"?.. Even if you can list thousands, what percent of the population is that?

Ur... Bill Gates was born with a million dollar trust fund, he went to prestigious (expensive) schools, his parents bought his high-school time on a computer (rare at the time) so that he could play with it.

Oprah? Yes, she was from a very poor family. However, "Many entrepreneurs"?.. Even if you can list thousands, what percent of the population is that?
I always thought that Bill Gates was middle class. In any case, then the issue stems at inheritance, not at the actual role of involvement of the entrepreneur. Nevertheless, inherited money or not, the entrepreneur actually creates the means of production, so the argument stands.

OR... they inherited the means of production from their parents (land, business). Look at Rupert Murdoch. Born rich. Stays rich. Passes it onto his son. How far do you think Bill Gates would have gotten without his million dollar trust fund?

Yet in both of those cases, the men you mentioned had the skills and vision to take their money and turn it into more. Both were commercial (and in Bill Gates' case, otherwise) geniuses. Sure, they got about it quicker and easier with the legup of their parents' money, but you have to admit that where they are today, they got themselves.

That's in addition to the fact that someone had to create, pay for, etc. the "means of production" - it was someone's idea, someone's project, it was funded with someone's money - and those people, or their agents or descendants, are the ones that own it. Why should the proletariat be allowed to take control of what they didn't create or fund? What exactly is the problem with those who built it, owning it?

Do you really think the head of Nike started working in a sweatshop? Do you really think a child working in a Nike sweatshot has any means to change their position?

Hold on a second - that's a completely different issue. I have no argument with you on Nike sweatshops and child labor in China and India. That's a perversion of capitalism. But think about where that comes from for a moment - does America allow things like that? No. Who does? China.

That capitalist-communist bastard hybrid not only allows the billions of people turned into poor, miserable urban peasants by communism to be turned into effective slaves by their transition to a sort of twisted pseudo-capitalism, but has consistently used currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, among other things, to attract outsourcing and then encouraged siad outsourced companies to use this enslaved child labor.

That isn't the U.S. fault, or the fault of capitalism - it's the fault of authoritarian postcommunists who institute a twisted form of capitalism without democracy to catapult the "important" bits of their nation to equal footing with the real capitalist nations of the West, who got their standing through the natural progression of true communism, not this child-sacrificing, suspiciously 5-year-plan-like jump to a perversion of capitalism.

Can the the proletariat really improve their situation without access to education and capital?

Everyone gets an education (in America at least) - in my opinion, it's a fundamental requirement of capitalism. As far as capital goes - not necessarily. You point to two of the absolute pinnacles of corporate success...but ignore the fact that most managers and lots of middle-level administrator positions rose from the ranks of normal employees. There's a guy I heard about on the radio just the other day who started out as a car mechanic and is now an aerospace engineer at NASA. All on his own initiative.

Not to mention that your whole model seems to apply only to blue-collar jobs...

But skipping any more of a debate, essencially when he was writing the middle class consisted of either workers, thus proletariat, or self employed small busnesses where they work and own, thus falling outside of his arguments.

But that "small business" category is BIG one, and those people who start them and own them often employ others, own the "means of production", may or may not do work within Marx's narrow definition of such, and are entrepreneurs who probably started from all but nothing. That's half or more of the modern upper middle class. Where exactly do they fall?

That's true, which is why the classes need to be redefined. The simplest way is to define them as the IWW does - there is the working class, and there is the employing class. There is almost never any overlap between them.

Completely incorrect. The assumption that if you're not on the absolute bottom tier, or don't operate machinery for a living, or have anyone under you at all, you do no work - it's ludicrous. All of those software engineers who design programs? They have programmers working under them to turn their plans and schemas into raw code. There are other forms of labor besides that with your muscles, and creating and/or directing a project or system is at least as much work as implemeting one small part of it.

So...what makes the "laboring group" any better suited to "control the means of production" than the ones who do now? Wouldn't this supposed revolution just switch the roles? And even if everyone controls the means of production, doesn't that make everyone the bourgeoisie? [confusion]

I believe that is the point.

Slightly off topic but a question I've laways wondered about Marxism.

Supposidly the theory goes that in communism you have many different jobs and its the evil capitalism that makes you specialise in a feild. He quotes something along the lines "you could be a fisherman in the morning, cleaner in the afternoon and a critic at night".

Also all jobs have to benefit the community, so what I've always wanted to know. In Marxism is someone able to specialise in say "Brain surgery" that needs lots of training/education and if so are they free to become a street cleaner if they recieve this education or must they stick to the job they've been trained to do (if thats even allowed).

I would assume a job in sport or comedian wouldn't be possible as it doesn't benefit society in a practical way, or is entertainment a path you can follow. In which case how many people do we let be entertainers before forcing people to clean the streets.

And would a Marxist allow free journalism or even a writer to write books as a job.

Cheers to any replies.

I've noticed that while Marxists have a name for the lower class - the proletariat - and a name for the middle class - the bourgeoisie - there's no name that I've ever heard for the upper class. Why is there no such name? If there is, what is it, and why isn't it as commonly known? Are the middle and upper classes lumped together?

The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, is the upper-class. The aristocrats (as someone said) are people with title of nobility. Both those terms are french in their origin, coming mostly from the Revolution (1789) and the time just before it.

The bourgeoisie are those who live on the interest of the capital they own (be it by renting land/houses, bank interests, or by owning means of production (companies) and taking the profits). The artistocrats are those who used to be the upper class in feodal society, but who were kicked by the bourgeoisie during the transition from feodalism to capitalism (during the french Revolution, in France).

At Marx' time (middle-end of the XIXest century), the middle class was nearly inexistant. The few that existed are considered to be between proletariat and bourgeoisie. But many of people who are called "middle class" nowadays are mostly proletariat under Marx' defintion (they earn most, if not all, of their money through their work).

The lowest class, those even below the proletariat (mostly people who can't even sell their workforce, unemployed people living in misery), were called "lumpen proletariat" by Marx (which, this time, comes from german).

Many entrepreneurs, like Oprah or Bill Gates, did rise from nothing to massive wealth. So lets not devalue the role of the entrepreneur.

The case of Bill Gates is a wonderful example. While there are many genious in the CS field, the one who did succeed is a very bad programmer, who was only good at lying, stealing, tricking, exploiting others, and betraying partners. Remember Bill Gates didn't even write MS-DOS. He bought a _copy_ from someone, then licensed it illegally it to IBM, and when the original author claimed something, IBM bought his silence, because a scandal would hurt IBM.

All the history of Bill Gates is like that. For the "desktop friendly" idea, he stole most of them from Apple and Xerox. And most other ideas were taken the Unix world.

Bill Gates is perfect example on how capitalism allows the less ethical and more manipulative persons to succeed, while some genius can be left in misery.

So...what makes the "laboring group" any better suited to "control the means of production" than the ones who do now? Wouldn't this supposed revolution just switch the roles? And even if everyone controls the means of production, doesn't that make everyone the bourgeoisie? [confusion]

Because the "laboring group" are the ones creating the wealth.

But you forget something. What makes bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie is the fact they own and control means of production. If private control of means of production is suppressed, they stop being bourgeoisie. So they become proletariat too, and participate in the taking of decisions with other laborers.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" becomes true democracy once the economical system becomes socialism, that is, one everyone belongs to the proletariat... The goal of communism is the creation of a classless society, not to switch roles.

Comrade have you decided to join the UDCP yet?

Someone still has to create the means of production. If the bourgeois entrepreneur is the one doing so, then it is well within his or her right to set the terms for employment.

Yes it is well within their rights- within a capiatalist system. The question we should be asking is it within their ethical rights? My answer would be no. This is because the terms of employment are inhernatly unequal. The proletariat MUST sell their labour in order to make a wage for baisc survival (They do not have direct acess to the means of production so are "free" to sell their labour). This means that they will almost always sell their labour for less than it is actually worth. You may argue, as you have done, that this is within the capiatalists (economic) rights, but surely the proletariat has rights too? I would count among these the retention of the FULL fruits of their labour. This, I believe, can only be accomplished by direct acess to, and control over, the means of production. The capitalist setting the terms for employment destroys the exsistance of this principle.

Because the "laboring group" are the ones creating the wealth.

But you forget something. What makes bourgeoisie the bourgeoisie is the fact they own and control means of production. If private control of means of production is suppressed, they stop being bourgeoisie. So they become proletariat too, and participate in the taking of decisions with other laborers.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" becomes true democracy once the economical system becomes socialism, that is, one everyone belongs to the proletariat... The goal of communism is the creation of a classless society, not to switch roles.
How utterly dull...so what does one strive for then? A system where everyone is not only equal, but also the same. I prefer capitalism any day.

In any case, this has an underlying weakness. It requires a state to exist to provide the means of production. This state will replace the vacuum of the bourgeois entrepreneur, and in a way will be comprised of individuals who assume greater power than their fellow people. If you mean that existing business are converted into this proletarian ones, well that's fine. What happens when new businesses are required though? Wealth cannot be generated without coordination. Creating an enterprise is a massive undertaking, one that is underestimated. In addition, this system would be faced with all the typical problems facing communism wherein a State exists as the ultimate arbiter of the economy. Honestly, capitalism is preferrable to this. Capitalism is ideally the exchange of goods and services between individuals based on mutually agreed terms. Its more democratic than a system where the government regulates each and every aspect of the economy. Personally, I am in favour of mixed economies, though definitely nothing near communism.

The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, is the upper-class. The aristocrats (as someone said) are people with title of nobility. Both those terms are french in their origin, coming mostly from the Revolution (1789) and the time just before it.
Aristocracy means that the best rule, and is a greek term. Noblesse was the French one for nobility. I don't think Marx stuck to a particular term, though if I recall it might have been aristocrats.

Yes it is well within their rights- within a capiatalist system. The question we should be asking is it within their ethical rights? My answer would be no. This is because the terms of employment are inhernatly unequal. The proletariat MUST sell their labour in order to make a wage for baisc survival (They do not have direct acess to the means of production so are "free" to sell their labour). This means that they will almost always sell their labour for less than it is actually worth. You may argue, as you have done, that this is within the capiatalists (economic) rights, but surely the proletariat has rights too? I would count among these the retention of the FULL fruits of their labour. This, I believe, can only be accomplished by direct acess to, and control over, the means of production. The capitalist setting the terms for employment destroys the exsistance of this principle.

This doesn't make any sense - of course the proletariat have rights. They have the same rights the bourgeoisie do. They have full control over their labor and its fruits, and can choose to sell, trade, and buy value and their ability to create value as they choose.

To say that their rights are restricted because they either do something with said value which may involve a trade that benefits someone else, or starve, doesn't make sense. Are communists advocating "freedom" from responsibility for yourself, or work, or economic interactions with other people? The liberty to be lazy? "If I don't want to have a job, I shouldn't have to not get money"? It's illogical. If you don't want to work, you don't have to - but that doesn't give you the right to free handouts from the people who do.

Now, the processes specific to a job, employer, or industry that interact with a person's labor to produce a certain type and amount of value (what seems to be the "means of production") are created, built, and paid for by individuals; these individuals are the ones who therefore justly control said processes. What gives every random shmo the right to demand control of something they didn't build or pay for, and couldn't create if they used 100% of their brain mass? This so-called "classless society" seems to be a sort of anti-justice, anti-motivational, inefficient/ineffective anarchy that doesn't make any sense at all. The end of value exchange and dynamic energy flow.

Yet in both of those cases, the men you mentioned had the skills and vision to take their money and turn it into more. Both were commercial (and in Bill Gates' case, otherwise) geniuses. Sure, they got about it quicker and easier with the legup of their parents' money, but you have to admit that where they are today, they got themselves.


No. 99% of the reason they got there was because of the security and infrastructure provided by governed society. How would they have fared without currency? How would they have fared without an established system of law? How would they have fared without copyright or corporate law?

In particular, Bill Gates has all this money because governments decide that he can charge for this software and people can't copy it. He just exploited that aspect of the capitalist market.

That's in addition to the fact that someone had to create, pay for, etc. the "means of production" - it was someone's idea, someone's project, it was funded with someone's money - and those people, or their agents or descendants, are the ones that own it. Why should the proletariat be allowed to take control of what they didn't create or fund? What exactly is the problem with those who built it, owning it?

Say we were talking about landowners (you need somewhere to live/work to produce anything). Public land in the UK is called "Crown Land" because it is owned (nominally) by the royal family. Sure, someone did something in the past to get that land, but did they do it alone? Do they really have more of a stake to it than anyone else now? Do children born into today's society have no rights to anything because it's already taken?

Hold on a second - that's a completely different issue. I have no argument with you on Nike sweatshops and child labor in China and India. That's a perversion of capitalism. But think about where that comes from for a moment - does America allow things like that? No. Who does? China.

It was just in response to your assertian that somone in the bourgouise had to be a worker at a lower level. The example of inherited wealth disproves this assertion. I mentioned sweatshop workers as a (weak) counter-example because they are low level workers who clearly have no facility to improve their situation.

That isn't the U.S. fault, or the fault of capitalism - it's the fault of authoritarian postcommunists who institute a twisted form of capitalism without democracy to catapult the "important" bits of their nation to equal footing with the real capitalist nations of the West, who got their standing through the natural progression of true communism, not this child-sacrificing, suspiciously 5-year-plan-like jump to a perversion of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system completely separate from democracy. Pure capitalism "lets the market decide". If there is a market for cheap clothes manufactured by children, pure capitalism says let it happen. It also lends itself to monopolies. Most countries, such as the US, put restraints on capitalism to prevent things such as monopolistic practise and exploitation of workers (in their own country at least). However, these regulations have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism aside from admitting the problems with pure capitalism.

Everyone gets an education (in America at least) - in my opinion, it's a fundamental requirement of capitalism.

Without going into literacy rates, you get the level of education you can afford. The government provides public education, and the quality significantly decreases after the high-school level. Again this has nothing to do with capitalism. In a purely capitalist economy, education would be priced as a commodity and sold to maximise profit. The government regulates this area because there is little incentive for profit-driven corporations to educate the general population.

As far as capital goes - not necessarily. You point to two of the absolute pinnacles of corporate success...but ignore the fact that most managers and lots of middle-level administrator positions rose from the ranks of normal employees.

Again, this was in response to your assertion that "he had to be a worker at a lower level". I just presented two examples to prove that false. I wasn't ignoring anything; You were arguing for all of the bourgeois not most of the bourgeois.

This doesn't make any sense - of course the proletariat have rights. They have the same rights the bourgeoisie do.

They have the same theoretical rights, yes, but not the same substantive rights. Just as in the wage bargining they have the same theoretical leverage but not the same substantive leverage. How else do you explain the selling of labour power for less than its value?

They have full control over their labor and its fruits, and can choose to sell, trade, and buy value and their ability to create value as they choose.

To say that their rights are restricted because they either do something with said value which may involve a trade that benefits someone else, or starve, doesn't make sense.

(While i don't fully understand the first bit i'l try to respond anyway) I guess this point, as far as i can tell, comes down to a purely definitional question surrounding 'choice'. I would argue that to have actual subsatntive, as opposed to theortical, choice there needs to be a number of viable options. The only two i can see under capitalism are either sell your labour power for less than it's value or become bourgoise and exploit others. Either exploit or be exploited. Ethically this does not seem to be a real choice. Thus, for me at least, there is no 'real' freedom of choice. I would assume that we both agree that freedom is a right and when only given two morally repungent paths that is no 'real' freedom.


Are communists advocating "freedom" from responsibility for yourself, or work, or economic interactions with other people? The liberty to be lazy? "If I don't want to have a job, I shouldn't have to not get money"? It's illogical. If you don't want to work, you don't have to - but that doesn't give you the right to free handouts from the people who do.

I am not in the position to speak for "communists" as though they are a unified group. While i am unsure my actual position on this one, i think the liberty to be lazy argument is defensible. Quickly; murder is bad, there is discernable difernce between killing someone by action or ommision- we have an obligation to care for, or at least feed, those who choose to be lazy. Although i don't see what it adds in this context.

Now, the processes specific to a job, employer, or industry that interact with a person's labor to produce a certain type and amount of value (what seems to be the "means of production") are created, built, and paid for by individuals; these individuals are the ones who therefore justly control said processes. What gives every random shmo the right to demand control of something they didn't build or pay for, and couldn't create if they used 100% of their brain mass? This so-called "classless society" seems to be a sort of anti-justice, anti-motivational, inefficient/ineffective anarchy that doesn't make any sense at all. The end of value exchange and dynamic energy flow.

I begin to tire, and fear i am repeating myself, but is not justice equality ie. equal acess to the means of production? and an end to the (capitalist) motivation ie. profit is good.

Sentiency: I think the two major problems between us are matters of definition and semantics. One is my fault; I didn't mean that anyone above basic employee had to have been such a normal worker previously; sorry, semantic error.

The second problem is the use of the phrase "true capitalism": You see that as a system where the idea of capitalistic free trade partially or mostly subsumes the government as well, and whose principles extend into governance - hence the education bit. I don't see it as quite so extreme, and was thus misinterpreting your use of the phrase. Maybe "optimal capitalism" would be better....on the other hand, maybe not, since it allows a much wider range of possible policies that could deviate from anything approaching either of our definitions of true capitalism.

CY30-CY30B: A couple of things.

1. Capitalism guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of circumstances. - Irving Kristol

Is that not right? The first basic premise of capitalism is a level playing field - there's no exclusionary principle of a particular race or class, no hereditary, bloodline-based upper crust, no subsidy of one faction over another - it's your own wits and abilities. After that, it's anyone's race. Given the same rights, those with the greatest abilities and the best adaptation skills will advance further. Why should everyone be guaranteed identical circumstances and substantive rights, as you said? It doesn't make sense. People are different, and the system that functions best is the one that takes that into account and uses natural justice - the advancement of the fittest - as its guiding path. What exactly is fair about giving different people who do different things and produce different levels of value the same compensation? Inherent rights are consistent - what people do with those rights and get from them is not.

2. Justice is giving people what they deserve, treating people as their abilities, actions, and value dictate, and compensating people differently based upon different contributions. When a criminal kills someone - justice is punishing him. When a person does a good thing - justice is rewarding him. When a man creates greater value through his abilities and work - justice is paying him accordingly. I strongly reject your premise of justice==equality.

3. What exactly is so terrible about profit? Profit==net value. Money isn't the chains of the masses, or bits of paper - it's a physical metaphor for simple general value. Why is the inherently extropic act of obtaining maximal value for minimal input a bad thing? If your problem with it is that it advances one person or group of persons instead of all persons - again, what's the problem? You obtain value for yourself first - it's the most fundamental constant of a self-aware mind. Profit is maximizing value, and optimizing or maximizing the use of that value for your own advancement. If everyone does it, everyone gets an amount of value equal to what their abilities are up to producing. Why should you put other people ahead of yourself, just for the sake of doing it? Every act, even those apparently altruistic, in fact has an egoistic motivation.

CY30-CY30B: A couple of things.

1. Capitalism guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of circumstances. - Irving Kristol

Is that not right?

While i am not familar with the author or the context this seems blatently illogical. How is it that equlity of oppourtunity is not deeply tied to equality of circumsatnces?

Or is it that the equality of circumsatnces is not guareenteed as an outcome? In this case I ask again how is it that equlity of oppourtunity is not deeply tied to equality of circumsatnces?

The first basic premise of capitalism is a level playing field - there's no exclusionary principle of a particular race or class, no hereditary, bloodline-based upper crust, no subsidy of one faction over another - it's your own wits and abilities. After that, it's anyone's race. Given the same rights, those with the greatest abilities and the best adaptation skills will advance further. Why should everyone be guaranteed identical circumstances and substantive rights, as you said? It doesn't make sense.

In order to give everyone equal oppourtunity.


People are different, and the system that functions best is the one that takes that into account and uses natural justice - the advancement of the fittest - as its guiding path.

If people are differant how is their equality of oppourtunity? Surely differnace precipitates the exsistance of advantage and disadvantage and thus the elimnation of equal oppourtunity.


What exactly is fair about giving different people who do different things and produce different levels of value the same compensation?

The capialist produces no value; she just appropriates that of the proletariat. But I agree the capitalist should get no compensation.


Inherent rights are consistent - what people do with those rights and get from them is not.

what are these inherant rights? (e.g freedom ect.)

2. Justice is giving people what they deserve, treating people as their abilities, actions, and value dictate, and compensating people differently based upon different contributions. When a criminal kills someone - justice is punishing him. When a person does a good thing - justice is rewarding him. When a man creates greater value through his abilities and work - justice is paying him accordingly.

Mainly, I agree. But no doubt come to a differant conclusion. The only way you can retain the full value of your labour is to ahve direct acess to the means of production. Our equal value as humans demands equal treatment.

I strongly reject your premise of justice==equality.

How do you then justify capitalism on this equality of oppourtunity premise?

3. What exactly is so terrible about profit?

"The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a proft to its shareholders" Milton Friedman

If that is true then profit must come at the expense of the enviroment and people. To treat people as mere containers to be exploited does not seem to be treating people as "their value dictates". This is why it is bad.

Why should you put other people ahead of yourself, just for the sake of doing it? Every act, even those apparently altruistic, in fact has an egoistic motivation.

I do not ask that you put others ahead of youself but that treat others as their value dicatates. On the second point you go against the philisophical grain and anywho why does it matter?

just one last point;


The system that functions best is the one that takes that into account and uses natural justice - the advancement of the fittest - as its guiding path...

Justice is giving people what they deserve... When a criminal kills someone - justice is punishing him. When a person does a good thing - justice is rewarding him.

Firstly you seem to commit the naturalistic fallacy is your subscription to natural justice (ie the fittest ARE advanced = the fittest OUGHT to be advanced). But regardless of this, these two views seem to be mutually exclusive. If your natural justice premise IS true then murder is a 'good' thing (provided it advances the fittest, which i assume it does in the form of a least eliminating a competitor). So why would you punish in line with natural justice? However, If your murder is bad premise is right you MUST accept that your natural justice premise - the advancement of the fittest - is wrong, . What horn is it? Murder or Capitalism?

While i am not familar with the author or the context this seems blatently illogical. How is it that equlity of oppourtunity is not deeply tied to equality of circumsatnces?

Or is it that the equality of circumsatnces is not guareenteed as an outcome? In this case I ask again how is it that equlity of oppourtunity is not deeply tied to equality of circumsatnces?

Equality of opportunity is that everyone starts with the same environmental rights - the same playing field, I suppose. Banning black people from white-collar jobs or saying that to get an income above x, you have to have an aristocratic pedigree - that's inequality of opportunity. Opportunity is the same initial premise, the same opportunity in which to work, exert abilities, and create and manipulate value. Where you go from there and what you get from it - circumstance - depends upon you, the individual, how you use that opportunity, or don't, and how far your abilities can take you.

If people are differant how is their equality of oppourtunity? Surely differnace precipitates the exsistance of advantage and disadvantage and thus the elimnation of equal oppourtunity.

You're fusing opportunity and existence into a single concept, which they aren't. Just because everyone has the same rights and thus the same opportunity to suceed doesn't mean that all people are identical, and will therefore suceed identically. It's like....[searches for appropriate metaphor]....putting liquids of different densities into a beaker. They all are in the same beaker, with the same air and the same laws of physics, but they have different unique properties, and will thus settle out into a layered state.

The capialist produces no value; she just appropriates that of the proletariat.

That's completely nonsensical. The proletariat perform labor, which the person or person(s) employing them turn into value, part of which they then pay back to the proletariat based upon each prole's labor-contribution to that value, and the Darwinian push-pull of the market. In a free economy, workers can choose what company to be employed at, and the one that pays back more value will get more and better employees.

But the point is, that value's existence and creation requires the people who know how to derive it from labor and production. Each prole provides some small part of labor and value, which the person who knows what they're doing, has an idea, etc. turns into massively more value.

The "means of production" that turn labor into value are not the idea or creation of the proletariat; they neither built them nor paid for them. They therefore have no right to them. If one of them pays for something, comes up with something new, buys a production process/machine/etc., they own it. Simple as that. You control what is yours.

what are these inherant rights? (e.g freedom ect.)

In the context we're discussing in (economics, rather than politics), the fundamental rights are control of one's self and one's own value, inherent or derivative, the ability to do with that value what one wishes, the ability to interact economically with one's fellows, the full use of one's abilities, etc. etc. in that vein.

Mainly, I agree. But no doubt come to a differant conclusion. The only way you can retain the full value of your labour is to ahve direct acess to the means of production.

Exactly what proof do you have that manual laborers don't get the full value of their labor? Reality check: Their labor is worth very little. Anyone and everyone can operate a toothpaste-tube-filling machine or sweep a floor or wait tables or.....[fill the rest in] There's no limited supply, no special value. Each of those laborers could potentially be replaced by any of a thousand others, and each of their tasks, when taken into account in the actual total scheme for production of value, at almost any scale or level, is minute in importance. It's the people who take that basic labor and spin it into gold, who have uncommon, special, difficult, or high-level skills, who are valuable.

Our equal value as humans demands equal treatment.

We have equal treatment - not numerical equality, because that wouldn't make sense; a janitor doesn't provide the same value as a biomedical engineer; but equality of premises. Everyone has the same schema of rights, falls under the same framework of value-for-value, and gets monetart results accordingly.

Also, if by "equal value" you mean that rights aside, all human beings are equal, you're obviously wrong. While the core rights and worth of a human life is the same, the actual abilities and pragmatic intrinsic value of one person compared to the next varies widely. Fact: People are different.

To treat people as mere containers to be exploited does not seem to be treating people as "their value dictates".

People are trading partners in capitalism; sources and consumers of value. They are treated according to what they can do for you, you can do for them, your abilities compared to theirs, and the value they can produce, operating in the assumptions that a) the purpose of the trading activity is to maximize value, and b) they, like you, are aiming to advance themselves.

In Marxism is someone able to specialise in say "Brain surgery" that needs lots of training/education and if so are they free to become a street cleaner if they recieve this education or must they stick to the job they've been trained to do (if thats even allowed).

I would assume a job in sport or comedian wouldn't be possible as it doesn't benefit society in a practical way, or is entertainment a path you can follow. In which case how many people do we let be entertainers before forcing people to clean the streets.

And would a Marxist allow free journalism or even a writer to write books as a job.I can't answer for Marxists, but as an anarcho-communist, I would say that anyone could conceivably have any job that society is willing to have. I should think that society would want to have entertainers, so it's quite easy for someone to be an entertainer for a living.

In any case, this has an underlying weakness. It requires a state to exist to provide the means of production. This state will replace the vacuum of the bourgeois entrepreneur, and in a way will be comprised of individuals who assume greater power than their fellow people. If you mean that existing business are converted into this proletarian ones, well that's fine. What happens when new businesses are required though? Wealth cannot be generated without coordination. Creating an enterprise is a massive undertaking, one that is underestimated. In addition, this system would be faced with all the typical problems facing communism wherein a State exists as the ultimate arbiter of the economy. Honestly, capitalism is preferrable to this. Capitalism is ideally the exchange of goods and services between individuals based on mutually agreed terms. Its more democratic than a system where the government regulates each and every aspect of the economy. Personally, I am in favour of mixed economies, though definitely nothing near communism.No, it requires direct democracy to coordinate the creation of enterprises, just as it requires direct democracy to run those enterprises.

No. 99% of the reason they got there was because of the security and infrastructure provided by governed society. How would they have fared without currency? How would they have fared without an established system of law? How would they have fared without copyright or corporate law?Indeed. How would they have fared without a government systematically murdering the inhabitants of a certain piece of land and then giving and protecting the "right" to own land you don't use?

Completely incorrect. The assumption that if you're not on the absolute bottom tier, or don't operate machinery for a living, or have anyone under you at all, you do no work - it's ludicrous. All of those software engineers who design programs? They have programmers working under them to turn their plans and schemas into raw code. There are other forms of labor besides that with your muscles, and creating and/or directing a project or system is at least as much work as implemeting one small part of it.But nonetheless the manager's interests would coincide with the interests of the employing class, therefore the manager is an employer.

What exactly is fair about giving different people who do different things and produce different levels of value the same compensation?Value is subjective, so society could easily choose to value everyone's contribution equally. Unless of course, you're arguing that value is objective, which is a whole other idea entirely.

To say that their rights are restricted because they either do something with said value which may involve a trade that benefits someone else, or starve, doesn't make sense. Are communists advocating "freedom" from responsibility for yourself, or work, or economic interactions with other people?No, a person could conceivably choose not to work, and whenever hungry pick fruit or hunt for themselves in communism. This cannot happen in capitalism. Capitalism allows ownership of land that you don't use, which of course there's no actual inherent right to, but that's capitalism for you.

Equality of opportunity is that everyone starts with the same environmental rights - the same playing field, I suppose.Except that those with more money have more power, and those with more power have more opportunities. The only way to ensure equality of opportunity is to also ensure equality of income.

We all want the same thing. You can call it however you want but the abolishment of inheritance is what we need. Equal rights at birth and the improvement of the general living standards.

But nonetheless the manager's interests would coincide with the interests of the employing class, therefore the manager is an employer.

Which is, of course, the root of all evil....

You've failed to address my point: the people I referred to are managers (who employ people), and higher-level workers (who sometimes employ people and don't do your definition of "work"). These are the 'employing class'. What exactly is bad about these people? Prove to me that anyone who employs someone else or doesn't do low-level labor is bad.

Value is subjective, so society could easily choose to value everyone's contribution equally. Unless of course, you're arguing that value is objective, which is a whole other idea entirely.

...in a way. It is objective when taken as the sum of the subjective, and there is a reference frame or component of value which is objective: a gigawatt of energy has more value, objectively, then a single watt. And that about it which is subjective is limited: that is, the specific value of an item can be subjectively variable, but the fact of certain items having different objective values is an objective judgement, independent and in addition to the objective frame of reference taken from the "sum" of the subjectives.

No, a person could conceivably choose not to work, and whenever hungry pick fruit or hunt for themselves in communism.

[shrug] Same thing anywhere. There are still hermits who live in shacks and follow the equivalent of subsistence living. Ted Kazyncski, or however you spell his name, for one. :D

Except that those with more money have more power, and those with more power have more opportunities. The only way to ensure equality of opportunity is to also ensure equality of income.

Still the same basic environment playing field, in context of rights.

Which is, of course, the root of all evil....

You've failed to address my point: the people I referred to are managers (who employ people), and higher-level workers (who sometimes employ people and don't do your definition of "work"). These are the 'employing class'. What exactly is bad about these people? Prove to me that anyone who employs someone else or doesn't do low-level labor is bad. I didn't say that anyone who employs someone else or who doesn't do low-level labor is bad. But nonetheless their interests lie with the employing class, and the interests of the employing class are bad.

There is an IWW slogan: "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common." This isn't quite true. For instance, as a working class person, I want to make money off of my labor. My boss also wants to make money off of my labor. So we have that in common, at least.

...in a way. It is objective when taken as the sum of the subjective, and there is a reference frame or component of value which is objective: a gigawatt of energy has more value, objectively, then a single watt. Certainly, since the purpose of energy is to be used. Should the purpose of employment be to produce as much as you can?

[shrug] Same thing anywhere. There are still hermits who live in shacks and follow the equivalent of subsistence living. Ted Kazyncski, or however you spell his name, for one. :D On whose land?

Still the same basic environment playing field, in context of rights.Not at all. For instance, if going to college costs, say $100,000, the person who has $100,000 will have the opportunity to go to college, and the person without that money will not have the chance. While it is true that they both have the right to go to college, rights are useless without the ability to exercise them.

I've noticed that while Marxists have a name for the lower class - the proletariat - and a name for the middle class - the bourgeoisie - there's no name that I've ever heard for the upper class. Why is there no such name? If there is, what is it, and why isn't it as commonly known? Are the middle and upper classes lumped together?


Actually there's quite a few designations, the bourgoise get special treatment because they are a type of elite developed specifically by capitalism.

Previous to the bourgeoise you had fuedal lords and the like. Bourgoise specifically refers to those who do not fall into a class of landed aristocracy or the like, who have through the development of capitalism come to own the means of production.

There are also sub-designations, etc. petty-bourgoise, lumpenproltariate, etc.

Much more interesting by the way is max webber.

Communism Question (not a debate-starter)
Somehow, I don't think everything went according to plan... :D

according to marx's writings the prolit. was the lower classes of the workers. those who sold their work and didn't really (other than the essentials) own anything. the bourgeoise were the employers, those that were porn into wealth, and owned things other than what they needed to survive.

at the time the mannifesto was writen the concept of a middle class was just begining so they weren't considered. the modern upper middle class would b lumped into bourgeoise, and the lower middle classes would b prolit.

communism IS the perfect system...in theory...the problem that arrose is that humans aren't perfect. we have a natural desire to lead control and cohurs...u take the peple out of communism and it will succeed and does in many socially oriented animals:D