Capitalism as a Class Society

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

[Jingles]

Well, before this thread gets trolled within an inch of its life, I'd like to say a couple of things:

1. Is there another part of this video?

2. He describes dialectical materialism fairly well, but he kind of misses out alot of the stuff on class antagonisms (although I'm sure he probably got to that part later). And he used the "c" word, which won't win him any favours on this site...

"I'll try to say it without sounding like I'm talking about some kind of conspiracy theory."

lol, story of my life. At least in Marx's day socialism wasn't lampooned as some kind of joke the way it is now.

[xcorps]

lol, story of my life. At least in Marx's day socialism wasn't lampooned as some kind of joke the way it is now.

That's because Marx was less understood then.

(you know you love me JB)

[justicar5]

That's because Marx was less understood then.

(you know you love me JB)

that and you had Bukanin and co in political philosophy as well, and htey make orthodox marxism seem mild and reasonable ;p

[xcorps]

that and you had Bukanin and co in political philosophy as well, and htey make orthodox marxism seem mild and reasonable ;p

*sigh*

I've never heard of Bukanin, so I read up on him. Now I have to shower.

[Enemy of the State]

that and you had Bukanin and co in political philosophy as well, and htey make orthodox marxism seem mild and reasonable ;p

Do you mean Bakunin? He was a lot better than Marx, he still believed in wage labor, and at least he didn't justify dictatorship. Left wing Anarchists I have some sympathies with, the state socialists however... uggh.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Well, before this thread gets trolled within an inch of its life, I'd like to say a couple of things:

1. Is there another part of this video?

2. He describes dialectical materialism fairly well, but he kind of misses out alot of the stuff on class antagonisms (although I'm sure he probably got to that part later). And he used the "c" word, which won't win him any favours on this site...

"I'll try to say it without sounding like I'm talking about some kind of conspiracy theory."

lol, story of my life. At least in Marx's day socialism wasn't lampooned as some kind of joke the way it is now.

There is actually a ton of footage, this is from a radio show which my comrades and I do, I merely tried to cut down a small piece so that it would fit on youtube - soon I plan to do more.

Do you mean Bakunin? He was a lot better than Marx, he still believed in wage labor, and at least he didn't justify dictatorship. Left wing Anarchists I have some sympathies with, the state socialists however... uggh.

Better than Marx? The guy was a nut job who believed in abandoning parliament and leaving the workers to illusions, he was also under the delusion that the ideal makes the world go around and is independent of matter, There is the simple fact that Marx never "justified dictatorship"

[Jom]

Well, before this thread gets trolled within an inch of its life

In order to troll it I would have to listen to that whole thing but I lost the will to live after about 30 seconds. This guy won't be inciting any heaving masses to revolution any time soon.

[Jingles]

Oh, behave!

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Part 2

[removeduser_052420]

Hm, very interesting videos

[Phillieas_Caesar]

So i was researching the Communist manifesto and saw this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

10 point program of Communism

1. Abolition of property in land and of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capitalmonopoly. and an exclusive
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]

In America we already have point: 10. And sorta points: 2 and 5.

Now my problem is that if this is the things communists strive for its a tad bit messed up.
3. So if I want to leave my kids my estate i worked hard for all my life I can't
4. Take away all emigrants properties.
6. A state run media. Sounds like the abolishment of the First Admendment.

Could someone explain that again for me? In a way that doesn't sound bad. Step 4 and 6 are things some socialsist [so they claim.] people at my school claim the US Goverment [read REPUBLICANS] are doing right now but isn't that a pillar of Communism. The step that comes after Socialism?

[Jingles]

Could someone explain that again for me? In a way that doesn't sound bad.

I'll try.

Now my problem is that if this is the things communists strive for its a tad bit messed up.
3. So if I want to leave my kids my estate i worked hard for all my life I can't

Correct. Your kids should have to work for their rewards, not have them given to them on a silver platter. That way you have more equality of opportunity, and it benefits society more as a whole.

4. Take away all emigrants properties.

I'm assuming that it here refers to bourgeois emigrants, but tbh, I'm not really sure on this. I'll get back to you on it. Seems unfair at first, but with the abolishment of private property, it would almost happen by default.

6. A state run media. Sounds like the abolishment of the First Admendment.

The BBC is state funded, and as impartial as any other news outlet, if not more.

isn't that a pillar of Communism. The step that comes after Socialism?

Not really, no. The list title is a little misleading anyway - it only provides guidelines for the formation of a socialist society. A Communist one (that comes after the socialist one) is quite different.

What's also worth bearing in mind is that some of the things on the list are temporary only. For example, the state run press; media outlets would initially need to be under state control, so that the bourgeoisie can be effectively squashed. Once the influence of capitalism and bourgeois ideas are gone, then the people are free to create their own news outlets, with or without grants from the state.

[Monarchist]

The theory of capital (hypothetically) does not ascribe to classes. It is a system developed in good time and wisdom to allow of liberty for human beings. When we are given the choice to spend our money, invest, and live almost entirely as we choose, it is Capitalism. Capitalism is purely the respect paid by a limited Society to individuals' rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, so long as those actions taken in Liberty do not encroach upon the rights of others. The idea entails no such thing as class, because classes only exist in control-oriented societies. As Capitalism is, by its own merits and arguments, anti-control and anti-authority, there cannot possibly be classes in a capitalist society. The moment classes form in capital-oriented society, that society has become authoritarian or socialist, for it is a Third Way.

Marx's idea of classes works in places that ascribed to feudalism and aristocracy, but it cannot work in places such as America. The U.S.A. never developed from feudalism to liberty; it simply jumped to the latter, and remained that way for 120 years or so. Marxism can only dissolve societies with built-in classes, feeding on the sorrow of those who weren't born as nobles. The ideas of Marx cannot dissolve societies with no classes, for there is no-where to work from, according to his theory of chronological progression. America, for example, never really had classes, and the only classes which developed there were as a result of individual ingenuity or laziness.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The theory of capital (hypothetically) does not ascribe to classes. It is a system developed in good time and wisdom to allow of liberty for human beings. When we are given the choice to spend our money, invest, and live almost entirely as we choose, it is Capitalism. Capitalism is purely the respect paid by a limited Society to individuals' rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, so long as those actions taken in Liberty do not encroach upon the rights of others. The idea entails no such thing as class, because classes only exist in control-oriented societies. As Capitalism is, by its own merits and arguments, anti-control and anti-authority, there cannot possibly be classes in a capitalist society. The moment classes form in capital-oriented society, that society has become authoritarian or socialist, for it is a Third Way.

Marx's idea of classes works in places that ascribed to feudalism and aristocracy, but it cannot work in places such as America. The U.S.A. never developed from feudalism to liberty; it simply jumped to the latter, and remained that way for 120 years or so. Marxism can only dissolve societies with built-in classes, feeding on the sorrow of those who weren't born as nobles. The ideas of Marx cannot dissolve societies with no classes, for there is no-where to work from, according to his theory of chronological progression. America, for example, never really had classes, and the only classes which developed there were as a result of individual ingenuity or laziness.

What you are describing is essentially the flattening of all "class" and hierarchy divisions into a single burgeois "middle class", which is divided not by status, birth or symbolism, but by mere wealth; it's correct to affirm that everyone in the US is "middle class", from a perspective which only takes into account its essence and character.

The problem I see with this is the absence of classes is the absence of form and content. All by itself the "middle class" is pretty spiritually mediocre, so 'tis no wonder that its rise meant the death of strict metaphysics in religiosity and the transformation of all spheres of life and science into sheer ultra-rationalistic utilitarian machinery. It produces a system which is efficient in its narrow set of goals, namely the accumulation of wealth and technique, but which is pretty mediocre when dealing with the rest if it even cognizes it. Instead of contemplative philosophy, what do we have? "Social" philosophy which is purely materialistic through and through. Everything is transvalued so it fits the landscape that is most familiar to the money oriented mind, namely factory and office precincts... You get the drill.

That's also why America has been traditionally much matter-of-fact and poor in the "cultural" spectrum, namely the philosophical, the spiritual, the artistic and everything which is qualitative as opposed to quantitative. They simply lacked the classes which fostered this kind of knowledge, and since very early on their concerns had been mostly confined to purely practical, quantitative and mechanical applications, where the "artistic" and "ideal" side is only used insofar as it is the slave of some utilitarian interest, like money or fame. This is the foundation of all mass culture.

[Monarchist]

My dear Louis XI,

In my opinion, the salient fact of capitalism is its immaterial focus on liberty as a moral value. Faith in God's creation of the right to Liberty is what drives it. To say that it is classless, on my part, was merely to say that lacks official class-hierarchy in its economics. Obviously a rich man may so well invest and divide his fortune among his children that the wealth becomes a family legacy, and thus akin to a noble line, over time. This was not my point, though, as it's still only a nominally-middle class family. No special title of heredity is attached to the man or to his descendants when the notion by which they live is purely capitalist. Any classes that might be created are the fruits of laziness versus the fruits of industry. Capitalism allows all men the moral, religious Liberty to fail or to succeed by their own God-given merits.

By this definition, how can you call it empty materialism? Based in material acquisition though it may be, the central focus is in allowing men to strive for their personal happiness in whatever way they wish. When this holy urge is subordinated to the will of the collective good, it becomes perverted and chained to materialism. Communism is all the more materialistic, for it says the crops, tools, housing, and the like must all be shared by the community by moral obeisance to the masses. Of course, there's the possibility that I just haven't understood your post very well...

One consequence of this misunderstanding is the fact that I have to say this: what of noblemen who are stupid, and peasants who are genius? How does class exacerbate or improve this situation; nay, how can it do anything but act as a detriment to the wisdom-rich and money-poor citizen? A man must be permitted to rise up rather than to stay down. Charles II of Spain was surely ordained by God in his enlightened role of patronage to the glory of that nation, yet he was mentally retarded, and incapable of such things. It is a sad thing, but how does one avoid it? What does your post mean? Your clarity is unquestionable; it is more my fault than yours, I think!

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Monie,

Your comparison between a rich capitalistic family and a noble bloodline is a bit far-fetched, to say the least. Starting with the fact that all capitalistic property is essentially classed and devised as mobile, as opposed to more ancient and more traditional notions of property ownership. For instance, a rich man's house, luxuries, employees & all are all detached from him, and are all transferable: he might sell his stock, his assets & everything he has just to turn into a mere owner of a gigantic reserve of cash, and still be more or less the "same" because all his values are divisible by a single primary quanta of money, and money alone. That's what is popularly called as "net worth", be it of a person or a company.

Now aristocratic property is fundamentally different. It has no "money"; it is not "detached", but an integral part of whom the owner is and confers him a quite unique physiognomy. It cannot be "swapped" for other propriety and belongs to him as a matter primarily of well rooted hereditary tradition, as opposed to money entitlement. Quite simply, the way he has "legitimate" sway over it and the way he uses it and perceives it are fundamentally opposed to the modern notion of money-derived ownership.

Of course, it's a complicated story and all, but I'm just pointing out it's good not to blur these two. Everything you are conveying here as the intricate relationship of Capitalism and Property, as well as Capitalism and "Happiness", is not an "universal" defense of individuality but a "burgeois-capitalist" one, and as we know that's merely one side of the story. "Happiness" may not be quite simply the free and abundant accumulation of material wealth and comfort, just like mechanical craft-arts may not be the only worthy striving in a life.

One consequence of this misunderstanding is the fact that I have to say this: what of noblemen who are stupid, and peasants who are genius? How does class exacerbate or improve this situation; nay, how can it do anything but act as a detriment to the wisdom-rich and money-poor citizen? A man must be permitted to rise up rather than to stay down. Charles II of Spain was surely ordained by God in his enlightened role of patronage to the glory of that nation, yet he was mentally retarded, and incapable of such things. It is a sad thing, but how does one avoid it? What does your post mean? Your clarity is unquestionable; it is more my fault than yours, I think!

That's a complicated riddle. If you consider my framework of "property" and "legitimacy" as in the above, it is quite clear as to why different notions of property end up creating different problems; quite simply, if the State in itself is geared towards the acceptance and service of the whole as opposed to this or that class interest, then it's going to allow both meritocracy and aristocracy to prosper in equilibrium. This is not the case of the modern state, since it represents purely and simply the interests of the Middle Class, and to this it has merely abolished all otherwise felt or classified distinctions so that it became the only one remaining.

[Monarchist]

You're quite right, of course, my dear Louis! There is no contesting the greater nobility of established classes. Perhaps there is a large amount of it that I don't particularly grasp, being a mere prole, but I see the merit in your classification. Modern society is certainly degenerate in the sense that you have described. I have no right to challenge you on all the things; however, my intent was merely to offer up something that might allow us to defend ourselves against the usual Marxist rhetoric. We must transcend their wrongful, unjust characterisation of us and leave their petty ideas behind.

No matter how much of a capitalist I am, my sympathy is always and firmly with the upper classes. My betters are always the patrons of true art, not of modern middle-class garbage. It is the spiritual glory, beauty, joy, and innovation which are lacking in atheistic modernism. Hoh hum...

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Also what must be realized is that the "State" referred to isn't some giant all encompassing blob as it is now - the state in Socialism is run by the people until it is ready to "wither away"

[Denny Crane!]

I do enjoy the sheer vacuity of the idea of wage slavery. I do wonder how he expects it would be any different under communism. People are free now to start their own company, or move jobs or do more or less anything they want.

This man would take away the freedom to do this? Or what?

The great problem with Marxism is, the twisted psychotic killer logic that you gain more freedom by taking it all away.

1. Unite the people underneath the dictatorship of the formerly oppressed.
2. Take everything off the people including their property and land at the point of a gun
3. Mismanage it all, watch the economy slide and poverty spread
4. Start intentionally starving 6 million to death
5. .......?
6. Freedom!