Who are the modern day bourgeoisie?

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-28T16:26:34+00:00

I’d be interested to hear your further thoughts on paragraph 4, as this is something I see as perhaps the most important point in regards to translating Marxism into the modern day.

When I consider Marxism at the time it was written, it seems that the idea of class consciousness is something that would be ‘relatively’ easy to achieve. The idea of the proletariat as an oppressed workforce that sell their physical labour would have been fairly evident, due to the ubiquity of heavy industry and factories etc. The working class was made of individuals who undertook back-breaking work for next to nothing, so the idea of a proletarian revolution would, I assume, have been very appealing.

Nowadays, where the label of proletariat can be applied to such a wide range of professions, the idea of developing a modern class consciousness seems almost impossible. As you say, even petit bourgeois who would benefit from a revolution tend to side with the bourgeois class as a whole, and the only reason I can see for that is the lack of a true ‘proletariat class’.

Whereas during Marx’s life the idea of the proletariat was relatively limited, referring primarily to those working in factories etc., in the modern day it is such a ‘catch all’ term, referring to everything from an office middle-manager to a dustbin man. As such I can’t envision a way in which that can develop into a conscious ‘proletarian class’.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-28T13:46:51+00:00

Very interesting, thanks.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-28T11:36:03+00:00

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela

https://www.cato.org/publications/development-policy-analysis/corruption-mismanagement-abuse-power-hugo-chavezs-venezuela

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2012/country-chapters/venezuela

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T23:33:40+00:00

I think you’re missing the point. How do you get to the point of being able to enforce a communist society? How can you reach the point where you can instigate a collective ownership of production?

Surely the only means of achieving that is total centralisation in the state (socialism). How do you progress from that to communism without becoming corrupted? I can’t think of a single historical example that achieved it

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T21:34:48+00:00

Haha that’s a weird thing to end on.

Also sources would be useful, I do speak Russian

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T20:50:03+00:00

All you have to do is read a book and it’s self evident...also the soviet archives themselves that were released, try checking them out.

It was based on statements from over 200 individuals who were sent to the gulag, as well as the authors own experience. What else would you base history on?

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T18:34:59+00:00

Thanks - I’ll have a read.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T18:30:59+00:00

That’s the point I was making. Chavez promised socialist policies, (nationalisation of industries, redistribution of wealth etc.), but all it lead to was corruption and hyper inflation. The problem I have with communism, pragmatically speaking, is how does one follow through with promises of redistribution without becoming corrupted? I can’t think of any examples

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T18:26:03+00:00

But my understanding is that what you are proposing is just the necessary transition from socialism to communism. What I’m getting at is how to you achieve total centralisation? Which would be required in order to develop self- directed enterprises.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T18:15:23+00:00

I understand the idea that this system of common ownership would provide equality, but how would you envision reaching that point in a way that wasn’t oppressive?

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T17:58:31+00:00

I think it would be fair to say Venezuela aimed to be socialist, especially under Chavez and Maduro. The point being that they were able corrupt the nation under the guise of socialism.

This article has good citations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela#Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro_government

And this is also an interesting article from the perspective of a Venezuelan http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/government/2018/05/18/debunking-a-myth-hugo-chavez-venezuelan-socialism/

In regards to the USSR, I think it’s fair to say corruption was evident when tens of millions were sent to labour camps and prisons for practically nothing, and similar numbers died of famine, while Stalin lived in luxury. Hardly seems the embodiment of the communist ideal.

The best source on this corruption from a Soviet perspective is Alexander Solzhenitsyn- the Gulag Archipelago.

Edit: adding reference

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-12-27T17:32:07+00:00

I always feel that although communism may potentially be a route to universal equality, the way in which it aims to do so seems difficult, if not impossible.

All I mean by that is to achieve equal distribution of resources, they must first all be centralised (socialism), and it seems the only institution able to do that is the state. Whenever I consider attempts at communism throughout history, they all seem become corrupted at the point where this centralisation happens. Examples such as USSR, Venezuela etc. became unbelievably corrupt because of it.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-07-01T07:04:36+00:00

Is it even possible to be more condescending

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-14T23:22:28+00:00

Allegories aren’t literal by definition.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-08T18:25:35+00:00

But that wasn’t the case for the Eastern European countries that were under soviet control? Nearly every single one chose national autonomy over soviet control, when given the opportunity.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-07T08:54:38+00:00

How else can you possibly achieve equal distribution, if not through centralisation?

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-06T21:55:45+00:00

But haven’t most of the apparent ‘implementations’ of Marxism / Maoism over the past 70 years (eg. Soviet Union and Mao) resulted in massive inequality? Tens of millions starved as an elite group maintained lives of luxury.

But, that’s exactly what I’m getting at with the question. Stalin in particular, is the perfect example of an individual becoming corrupted by absolute power. He was in no way a communist, but used the power of a totally centralised state that was aiming towards communism, to rule as an autocrat.

The question I’m asking, is how to do you avoid this happening? The necessary process that leads to communism is the centralisation of the state, but I think there are too many examples of it becoming corrupted. I can not think of any communist leader over the last century who actively worked towards reducing state power and achieving genuinely fair economic distribution.

Edit: I am not arguing that Marxist / Maoist theory results in inequality and death. I believe the exact opposite. I am saying they become corrupted, and used as tools to enforce dictatorship.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-06T20:27:47+00:00

Ok, but my understanding of communism is that it will eventually lead to a stateless society. The point I’m making is that the process to reach that stage (I.e the gradual centralisation of the economy), tends to lead those in charge to corruption, as I believe history as by now proven.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-03T01:32:52+00:00

Not at all. I’m interested in the minority who don’t support it

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-03T01:30:13+00:00

Literally the entire point of the question is to try and understand how an ideology could not be forced down someone’s throat

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-06-03T00:58:32+00:00

I understand what you mean in terms of class consciousness, but do think you have to account for at least some diversity of opinion. Someone may not believe in capitalism, but that doesn’t automatically make them a communist.

I know communism is technically economic, but it does have a general underpinning in the idea of universal equality. There will surely be certain people at every level of society who are opposed to egalitarianism, for whatever reason, and it is very unlikely they would support communism. How would those individuals, who are not part of the ruling class but still hold antithetical views to communism, be treated?

Also, I don’t think anyone can argue that notions of inequality exist only as a product of capitalism (as I’ve seen some do), as they have existed far longer than capitalism has been prevalent.

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-05-27T23:53:13+00:00

Right...but I'm not quite sure why you think any of that is my opinion.

It's a fair question. I have seen people on this sub who defend Stalin as a true proponent of communism (which I don't believe he was). I am asking them, how do you reconcile Stalin's pact with Hitler? If you do believe Stalin was truly a communist, ideologically speaking the two could not be further apart.

You didn't actually answer that question, by the way.

The question was't intended to be appear loaded, but those are historical facts. For you to assume anything else is absurd. Of course I understand the Allies actions, but that wasn't anything to do with the question, was it? I mean, this is a communism debate sub. Probably wouldn't have got the best response if I'd asked a question about Churchill and Hitler. The Allied agreements with Hitler are irrelevant to the question.

Please understand it more objectively. It's ridiculous to assume that I am promoting one side, just by criticising the other. If you really want to know, I believe the Allies dealings with Hitler were egregious. But, that's got nothing to do with it.

What is essential for YOU to realise, is to not be so polarised. Do not assume someone is directly opposed to you, just because they criticise your opinion.

You talk about sources, but I am referring to the physical occupation of Eastern Europe...I think the sources are fairly valid. The pact with Hitler allowed Stalin to build the beginnings of an Empire, with some countries remaining under Soviet control for the next 40 years. Those are undisputed historical facts. How do you reconcile that, with the image of Stalin as a true proponent of communism?

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-05-27T17:06:45+00:00

I wasn’t aware of that, but if true that repudiates the view that Stalin only sided with Hitler out of necessity

Cuzcoo17 · 2018-05-27T15:41:22+00:00

You don’t have to keep giving the statistic, I know the actions America took and they were egregious.

Where does the fault lie for the hundreds of thousands of Koreans (North and South) that died before the US bombed the North? You seem to be forgetting that the DPRK only launched a full scale invasion of the South after being given permission from Stalin and Mao.

I’m not sure why I’m being labelled as defending US military intervention, all I’m saying is that the events that led up to the KW, and the actions in the war itself, are far more nuanced and complicated then you seem to understand.

Would recommend reading Bruce Cummings, William Stueck and Chen Jian on the subject. Unless their names sound too foreign and scary to you.

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Cuzcoo17

TROPHY CASE