Political Crossfire Forums

[robcataus]

Why do some Marxists say that capitalist states are the instruments of the bourgeoisie?

[Red Flag]

Because only the upper and sometimes upper middle classes survive in capitalist states.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Because only the upper and sometimes upper middle classes survive in capitalist states.

The upper class (in Marxist terminology) isn't supposed to exist in a capitalist state. In Marxist terminology the capitalist state is the bourgoise state (bourgoise meaning middle class).

[Kindred]

Reason wrote: Quote: Because only the upper and sometimes upper middle classes survive in capitalist states.

The upper class (in Marxist terminology) isn't supposed to exist in a capitalist state. In Marxist terminology the capitalist state is the bourgoise state (bourgoise meaning middle class).

The class that Marx reffered to was the bourgeois, which refers not to a middle or upper class per se (as there was not a distinct middle and upper class at the times of Marx's writings), but is rather characterised by the ownership of the means of production i.e a capitalist. The capitalist is hence the bourgeois, and the bourgeois the capitalist. It should not be thought of in terms of modern class distinction i.e. middle verses upper class.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: It should not be thought of in terms of modern class distinction i.e. middle verses upper class.

I agree, I was a little hasty with my reply. I should have said that, in Marxist terminology, there can be only capitalist (bourgoise) and worker (proletariat) in capitalism. In other words there iwould be no middle class, of course this has been made to look ridiculous by history, but it presents a powerfull image nonetheless.

[social]

You are forgetting the term petty bourgeoisie, which describes, in a classical Marxist sense, those members of the middle classes with limited ownership of the means of production and (thus) capital.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: You are forgetting the term petty bourgeoisie, which describes, in a classical Marxist sense, those members of the middle classes with limited ownership of the means of production and (thus) capital.

Which he justifies by saying that they move between the two classes depending on the state of the country, eventually ceasing to exist when capitalism is fully developed.

[social]

Reason wrote: Quote: You are forgetting the term petty bourgeoisie, which describes, in a classical Marxist sense, those members of the middle classes with limited ownership of the means of production and (thus) capital.

Which he justifies by saying that they move between the two classes depending on the state of the country, eventually ceasing to exist when capitalism is fully developed.

Ceasing to exist as in becoming the bourgiouse?

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Ceasing to exist as in becoming the bourgiouse?

No, I think he means that they become proletariat

[No-Name]

Reason wrote: Quote: Ceasing to exist as in becoming the bourgiouse?

No, I think he means that they become proletariat


no bourgiouse, but marx states that once this happens, power will corrupt, society will fall apart and a new super society will form with proletariot dominating.

[cap'n queasy]

Red Flag wrote: Because only the upper and sometimes upper middle classes survive in capitalist states.

Then why is the proletariat so large in those countries?

[Kalu]

cap'n queasy wrote: Then why is the proletariat so large in those countries?

By "survive" he probably means "live decent lives". The proletariat is large, yes, and most of them are also leading miserable lives due to lack of food, educational opportunities, adequate access to healthcare, etc.

[Demonic Spoon]

Bullcrap. The free market is far, FAR better of an economic system as far as pure wealth goes. No socialist country will match the economy of a capitalist one.

And while the wealth will be concentrated, yes, two things happen

1) there is a motive to work harder, and there is none in a socialist state

2) The more money the individual nation has, the easier and easier it is for lower classes to support themselves.

Today, the US is one of the most economically unregulated nations in the world. Interestingly enough, even lower-middle class can live decent lives.

With even less regulation, business will flourish further, and the people will be even wealthier.

Capitalism is unequal, yes. But so is socialism. The only thing "Equal" or "fair" about socialism is that everyone is equally poor.

[Kalu]

Demon Monkey wrote: The free market is far, FAR better of an economic system as far as pure wealth goes.

It really doesn't matter how much wealth "society" gains if it is gained by a whole 2% of it, and if it as at the cost of the destruction and degradation of the global environment.

Demon Monkey wrote: No socialist country will match the economy of a capitalist one.

To quote Noam Chomsky: "doctrinal doublespeak". The "socialist" countries you speak of have not only had to deal with starting off on the road to economic and communal development at a lower base compared to the "capitalist" countries, they have also had to suffer constant sabotage by these "capitalist" countries. In reality, we know there is no "capitalist" country, only mercantilist and imperialist ones, albeit the forceful imperialism of the last century has been replaced by a quiet plan of subjugation through "privatization" schemes that benefit the corporate elite in these "capitalist" countries.

Demon Monkey wrote: 1) there is a motive to work harder, and there is none in a socialist state

The problem with the "socialist" state is that the people are still compelled to work through a bureaucratic hierarchy. The "capitalist" state succeeds in this respect because some of the laborers work under the delusion they can get ahead; and because they are forced to work and engage in wage slavery lest they starve.

Demon Monkey wrote: 2) The more money the individual nation has, the easier and easier it is for lower classes to support themselves.

bulls**t. If this was the case, the blacks in inner city ghettoes would have no problem getting out of the poverty cycle. It is not their failure, however, it is "capitalist" society's failure that rewards those who are born into privilege, whether that be white privilege, economic privilege and so on.

Demon Monkey wrote: Today, the US is one of the most economically unregulated nations in the world. Interestingly enough, even lower-middle class can live decent lives.

The US has also exploited and continues to exploit the developing countries on the periphery of the global "capitalist" system, condemning billions to lives of desperation and poverty along with the rest of the G8. You seem to think the US, with 5% of the population, has worked for 50% of the world's wealth, but this is clearly not the case. It was formerly dependent on direct exploitation through the use of military force, but that has evolved into enslaving debt and foreign "aid" and the use of muscling in corporate projects to recolonize countries. Also, the US has exploited the labor of the blacks and many other minorities for centuries. It's like Belgium claiming they earned all "their" wealth on their own, while ignoring the exploitation and rape of the Congo.

Also, the US is far from having an "unregulated" economy. Government intervention in corporate economic life is pervasive. Many of the technologies we see today would not have been created had it not been for government subsidies and grants to corporations to develop them for "defense" or "homeland security" or whatever. For example, the first digital electronic computer, ENIAC, was subsidised by Army Ordnance. The result, tens of years later is the laptop PC or desktop PC which can then be marketed to the consumer. In a true "free market" there would be no such innovation that requires investing money over tens of years in research for a technology that might not bear out. Given our current system, this is extremely clear. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that the reason the UK and US are succeeding in agriculture because of the industrious attitude of their farmers needs to get their head checked. The US and UK have poured billions of dollars in subsidies into capital intensive agriculture and tariffs. To quote Bob Geldof, the average cow in the UK is subsidised $2.50 a day while the average African farmer earns less than a $1 a day. Yes, a truly "free market".

Demon Monkey wrote: Capitalism is unequal, yes.

Acceptance of the problem, failure to fully acknowledge it's pervasiveness in society and it's impact on the lives of billions of people.

Demon Monkey wrote: The only thing "Equal" or "fair" about socialism is that everyone is equally poor.

Again, doctrinal doublespeak. You have little clue what socialism is. You seem to think the USSR represents socialism; this is not the case, and also you must remember the USSR began it's period of "socialism" at a far lower level than when Western Europe was going about it's business. It's a far more adequate and just comparison to talk about the economic development of Central America vs. Eastern Europe rather than try and compare Western Europe (with it's imperialistic past) to that of Eastern Europe.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
It really doesn't matter how much wealth "society" gains if it is gained by a whole 2% of it, and if it as at the cost of the destruction and degradation of the global environment.

The top percent also worked the hardest to get it. Either way, a wealthy nation, everyone who works benefits.

Quote: To quote Noam Chomsky: "doctrinal doublespeak". The "socialist" countries you speak of have not only had to deal with starting off on the road to economic and communal development at a lower base compared to the "capitalist" countries, they have also had to suffer constant sabotage by these "capitalist" countries. In reality, we know there is no "capitalist" country, only mercantilist and imperialist ones, albeit the forceful imperialism of the last century has been replaced by a quiet plan of subjugation through "privatization" schemes that benefit the corporate elite in these "capitalist" countries.


REally? Links? Evidence?

Quote:
The problem with the "socialist" state is that the people are still compelled to work through a bureaucratic hierarchy. The "capitalist" state succeeds in this respect because some of the laborers work under the delusion they can get ahead; and because they are forced to work and engage in wage slavery lest they starve.

Wage slavery? So having to work is 'slavery'? As long as you work, you should have no problem getting a good living wage. If not, then you should find a new employer.

Quote:
bulls**t. If this was the case, the blacks in inner city ghettoes would have no problem getting out of the poverty cycle. It is not their failure, however, it is "capitalist" society's failure that rewards those who are born into privilege, whether that be white privilege, economic privilege and so on.

You just proved my point. The blacks in the inner city ghettos do not succeed BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRY! These ghetto people are not the hard-working people who are honestly committed to getting a good job. The problem with socialism-it would reward such behavior. While there is some benefit in being born into wealth, anyone can get out of poverty if they work.


Quote:

The US has also exploited and continues to exploit the developing countries on the periphery of the global "capitalist" system, condemning billions to lives of desperation and poverty along with the rest of the G8. You seem to think the US, with 5% of the population, has worked for 50% of the world's wealth, but this is clearly not the case. It was formerly dependent on direct exploitation through the use of military force, but that has evolved into enslaving debt and foreign "aid" and the use of muscling in corporate projects to recolonize countries. Also, the US has exploited the labor of the blacks and many other minorities for centuries. It's like Belgium claiming they earned all "their" wealth on their own, while ignoring the exploitation and rape of the Congo.


Once again: Links/evidence for this imperialism crap? And, i'm not sure if you've noticed, but Europe was just as imperialist as we were. The last time the US practiced imperialism was before the end of the Europien imperialism. In fact, Europe was far, FAR more imperialist than the US was. Why are they not wealthy? And blacks were the only minority used as slaves, and they were not used extensively. You seem to think they contributed heavily to the overall economy of the nation. They didn't. They contributed heavily to the economy of the SOUTH. The SOUTH was extremely underdeveloped at this time, and almost all of the US economy was up north. Sorry, but that BS doesn't fly.


Quote:
Also, the US is far from having an "unregulated" economy. Government intervention in corporate economic life is pervasive. Many of the technologies we see today would not have been created had it not been for government subsidies and grants to corporations to develop them for "defense" or "homeland security" or whatever. For example, the first digital electronic computer, ENIAC, was subsidised by Army Ordnance. The result, tens of years later is the laptop PC or desktop PC which can then be marketed to the consumer. In a true "free market" there would be no such innovation that requires investing money over tens of years in research for a technology that might not bear out. Given our current system, this is extremely clear. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that the reason the UK and US are succeeding in agriculture because of the industrious attitude of their farmers needs to get their head checked. The US and UK have poured billions of dollars in subsidies into capital intensive agriculture and tariffs. To quote Bob Geldof, the average cow in the UK is subsidised $2.50 a day while the average African farmer earns less than a $1 a day. Yes, a truly "free market".

The us is not nearly as unregulated as it should be, but it is still MORE unregulated than any other country.


Quote:
Acceptance of the problem, failure to fully acknowledge it's pervasiveness in society and it's impact on the lives of billions of people.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's a helluvalot closer to perfect than socialism.

Quote:
Again, doctrinal doublespeak. You have little clue what socialism is. You seem to think the USSR represents socialism; this is not the case, and also you must remember the USSR began it's period of "socialism" at a far lower level than when Western Europe was going about it's business. It's a far more adequate and just comparison to talk about the economic development of Central America vs. Eastern Europe rather than try and compare Western Europe (with it's imperialistic past) to that of Eastern Europe.

The US was just a colony when it was created. In 100 years, it was a Great Power. NO COUNTRY IN HISTORY has become a Great Power in 100 years after its founding.

[Kalu]

Demonic Spoon wrote: The top percent also worked the hardest to get it. Either way, a wealthy nation, everyone who works benefits.

And what evidence, may I ask, do you have to support this extraordinary claim that billionaires earned all their wealth without exploiting others? Don't give me bulls**t like "innovation" or whatever, I've already explained how economic inheritance, racial privilege and other factors combine to give others an unfair headstart in life that continues widening over the years as they are able to access more political and economic resources. There are a few people who make it out of poverty and into the "high life", but are you really going to try and convince us that everyone else is just stupid compared to the "supergenius" billionaires?

"Everyone who works benefits". Huh, nice little cliche there. I'd recommend driving through East Cleveland, South Central LA or any other ghetto and telling the people there, the single mothers who work two jobs and still don't have enough that, under this system, "Everyone who works benefits". I'd also like to see you go into Manila or Nairobi and tell the people there struggling to survive to "quit being lazy".

Demonic Spoon wrote: REally? Links? Evidence?

For evidence that the so-called "capitalist" countries are really imperialstic, read the rest of my post that you seemed to have ignored most of. Have you heard of Lumumba? Allende? Mossadegh? Arbenz? These are a few people you should look up if you want to see how "capitalist" countries will sabotage even the democratically-elected leaders of countries that pursue paths to development other than Western-dominated exploitation. For example, in Guatemala in 1954, the democratically-elected centre-left leader Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown in a CIA-organized coup. His crime? Land reform. He was willing to pay United Fruit Company (which had a monopoly on Guatemala's banana exports) a price for some of "their" land they said was "fair" but "not enough". They then worked to sabotage his rule because he was willing to try and give the Mayan peasantry a fair chance. Here are some links which I recommend you should browse:

Operation PBSUCCESS
United Fruit and the CIA

Demonic Spoon wrote: Wage slavery? So having to work is 'slavery'? As long as you work, you should have no problem getting a good living wage. If not, then you should find a new employer.

In a sense, the employers who most often have recieved an economic, social or whatever else inheritance are able to exploit the poor and desperate by forcing them into a cycle where they "accept" a contract but in reality are compelled to work at a low-paying job lest they starve. This "social contract" is the fundamental basis of liberalism, but the main problem with it is that a person's "consent" is false because they never really had a choice.

Let's be serious: do you really think working a minimum-wage job even a great minority of the poor are going to be able to get out of the poverty cycle? It's not that they're "lazy" (an easy ad hominem to use for those who refuse to accept that you can barely survive on $5.50 an hour).

This is called "wage slavery" because in effect they're forced to stay in this cycle of low-paying jobs; educational advancement is out of the question without adequate funds, and then you also have to deal with other major problems like paying for healthcare. This is what keeps people in America poor. Obviously in developing countries it's so much worse to the point that the poor there are starving to death while the lucky ones get jobs at sweatshop factories condemning them to a brutal and degrading existence.

Demonic Spoon wrote: You just proved my point. The blacks in the inner city ghettos do not succeed BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRY!

I don't think you get it: even the ones who do try continue to be trapped in the cycle of a materialstic but poverty-ridden existence. This leads to nihilism. White racism, of course, refuses to accept that degrading conditions lead to degraded standards of living and thus condemn blacks by calling them "lazy". Read a history text, it might hit you one day.

Demonic Spoon wrote: While there is some benefit in being born into wealth, anyone can get out of poverty if they work.

One of the main problems of liberalism is that it fails to remedy working and living conditions. It's basic insistence on "hard work" leading to "success" is a fallacy, and if you've read any of my post you'd understand that.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Once again: Links/evidence for this imperialism crap?

What now comprises the global North has been sucking the wealth out of developing nations for centuries. For example, when the Spanish came to the Andean city of Potosi, there was magnificent silver wealth. What did the Spaniards do? They exterminated the Native Indians through slave or forced labor and extracted all the silver out of Potosi within a hundred years. Today Potosi is surrounded by poverty belts and the illiteracy rate is 30%. This is one example.

All over the global South, the deep scars of colonialism remain, compounded by today's neoliberal doctrine that rewards those countries with the political power to use their resources to support their industries while ruining the manufacturing industries of developing nations and asking them to keep their markets "free". This has been going on for the past couple of centuries; whether it's the British deliberately destroying India's textiles industry during the 1800s or the US maintaing plantations in Central American countries condemning these places to the fluctuations of the global raw export market, it's still the same imperialism.

Demonic Spoon wrote: The last time the US practiced imperialism was before the end of the Europien imperialism. In fact, Europe was far, FAR more imperialist than the US was. Why are they not wealthy?

This is a logical fallacy; the US continues to practice imperialism, it's just not as blunt. What killed the European countries was they were trying to maintain physical empires in these countries. It costs alot of money to put down rebellions and keep some semblance of "order". What the US does is it just "outsources" it's jobs to the poor and desperate who've already had to suffer centuries of European imperialism. For example in Cuba, one of the closer things to a colony the US once had, the US didn't maintain direct control over the place but used a subtle brand of neocolonialism. US companies controlled all the Sugar plantations but the Cuban government was "independent" since it maintained the infrastructure of exploitation.

European countries at their prime did gain alot from imperialism and in fact the only reason the industrial revolution occured in Britain was because of imperialist exploitation. Spain exploited the mineral resources of Latin America (as I mentioned before), but the silver passed through Spain as it bought British imports. The British were smarter in that they used protectionist policies to prevent Spanish manufactured imports from getting in; they then used the silver of Latin America to fund the industrial revolution. So yes, some parts of Europe did greatly benefit from imperialist exploitation, and even though they may not be at the top of their game now, we can still see how they benefited. How could Belgium, this tiny country, have so much wealth were it not for the sheer rape of the Congo and stealing of it's rubber and mineral resources?

Demonic Spoon wrote: The us is not nearly as unregulated as it should be, but it is still MORE unregulated than any other country.

Since you're going to dismiss what I wrote offhand without reading it, let me requote it for the benefit of those who do read:

Devaka wrote: Also, the US is far from having an "unregulated" economy. Government intervention in corporate economic life is pervasive. Many of the technologies we see today would not have been created had it not been for government subsidies and grants to corporations to develop them for "defense" or "homeland security" or whatever. For example, the first digital electronic computer, ENIAC, was subsidised by Army Ordnance. The result, tens of years later is the laptop PC or desktop PC which can then be marketed to the consumer. In a true "free market" there would be no such innovation that requires investing money over tens of years in research for a technology that might not bear out. Given our current system, this is extremely clear. Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that the reason the UK and US are succeeding in agriculture because of the industrious attitude of their farmers needs to get their head checked. The US and UK have poured billions of dollars in subsidies into capital intensive agriculture and tariffs. To quote Bob Geldof, the average cow in the UK is subsidised $2.50 a day while the average African farmer earns less than a $1 a day. Yes, a truly "free market".

Demonic Spoon wrote: Capitalism is not perfect, but it's a helluvalot closer to perfect than socialism.

Another myth without any support or real evidence.

Demonic Spoon wrote: The US was just a colony when it was created. In 100 years, it was a Great Power. NO COUNTRY IN HISTORY has become a Great Power in 100 years after its founding.

The US colonized the rest of the Americas and exterminated about 95% of the indigenous population of what now comprises the USA. It quickly learned from the British how to exploit the mineral and labor resources of other peoples and used that to then move onto the exploitation of Latin America. This is how it became such a "Great Power". Also, while it was under British jurisdiction, the white citizens of the colonies never experienced the outright subjugation and destruction of industries that other countries did. It'd be complete idiocy to try and compare the US to a developing country and say, "See! We did better 'cause we're just genetically smarter and harder working!" Unfortunately, I think you've already assumed that, in which case you're a dumbass and a racist. Cheers.