@jeabo0adhd "The working class takes the place of the bourgeoisie but fail in the job." In the job of what? The job of taking place or the job of appropriating the means of production?
"If they would succeed, they would be bourgeoisie themselves." You mean they own the social means of production as their Private Property. Incorrect, if they succeed they would only do so BY abolishing Private Property.
The american Bourgeoisie have very important jobs in the economy, as well as do the middle and low classes. If the bourgeoisie was eliminated, out of necessity, people from the lower classes would fill the positions.
Like the "managers" in communist Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, they will receive higher wages.
"Very important jobs in the economy," explain this point. The Bourgeoisie own the means of production and extract surplus value from the labour of the Proletariat for their own profit. They rarely expand actual value these days in the US, but prefer to spend their days speculating on fictitious capital causing the rest of us to pay for their gambling blunders.
"If the bourgeoisie was eliminated, out of necessity, people from the lower classes would fill the positions." Why would this occur? What is so necessary about owning means of production? All possess labour power, no need to expropriate others who are equal in nature to you.
@TheCommunard I think what that guy was trying to say was if the bourgeois was eliminated, everyone else would take their position so everyone is both part of the bourgeois and proletariat. Bourgeois as in they own the land collectively. Proletariat as in they also work for the production so that the economic order prospers.
@ImAznnn Yes, but there are still differences between a bourgeoisie and proletariat which doesn't necessarily make a socialist proletariat the same as the bourgeoisie. That's mainly that the bourgeoisie extract surplus value from the production process and pay the proletariat wages based upon labour time or in a piecemeal fashion.
In socialism, there is no surplus value extracted, and those who own the means of production also work it, and they decide what to do with the value created together.
"Like the "managers" in communist Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, they will receive higher wages."
Firstly, we can establish that all those states were set up by the soviet Bolshevik model except North Korea which is based on Juche, a non-Marxist ideology.
Secondly, where did the soviet model ever claim to be socialism or communism? Where did Lenin say that he set up a socialist country? He did not, he purposefully set up a capitalist state for a specific reason.
Continued... That reason is that the means of production need to be fully developed before the transition to socialism. This is why they waited until the German revolution was complete to find out if they could rely on Germany's developed economy - of course Germany didn't have a successful revolution but descended into the Wiemar Republic.
In China, Deng Xiaopeng set up the State-Capitalist model for this reason. China IS self admittedly capitalist.
Continued.... Cuba is a poor example. Anyone knowledgeable in Socialist theory will be able to tell you that Socialism needs to be international or not at all. Cuba is unable to sustain a Socialist economy and it would be wise to switch to a Leninist-Capitalist or Chinese style economy. Then again, this is based upon the premise that we are still trying to follow a Soviet style of Marxism which most actual Marxists - myself included - do not believe is very efficient.
2. In the United States, very few large companies are owned by a single person or family. Most are owned by stockholders which include most of the working class. I see the multi-million dollar(US) income class in the US as the bourgeoisie. The attitude of success, hard work, and inovation are their traits. They are the "High Class" here.
The working class continually grows, it is the natural order. As you say, the billionaires are the bourgeoisie, the means of production dwindle into fewer hands. Stocks actually allow these companies to gain more control over themselves by diluting the ownership amongst thousands of workers while extracting a large amount of capital from the stock holders for further investment. A bank need only own 10 or 15% of a company to manipulate it greatly, while the rest is owned by many.
Continued... that many are thousands and tens of thousands of different people, people who do not have the time to attend shareholder meetings and are not united and unorganized on how to exert control over the company.
1. The working class takes over management of all industry. They may not own it, but they control it, like the archy they removed. The similarities between the two types of managers is close enough to be the same in my opinion.
@jeabo0adhd "The similarities between the two types of managers is close enough to be the same in my opinion." A fundamental flaw in your understanding of Marxism is evident here. The ownership of the means of production is what makes one the bourgeoisie, if they don't own it, but merely use it, they are not bourgeoisie. What are the similarities between the two types of managers? Think in terms of labour.
@jeabo0adhd "This is especially true in the USA." What is especially true? The contradiction that by being those who abolish private property they own private property? This is mere ideology. Please use logic and rationality which relates to reality when commenting on my channel.
The working class takes the place of the bourgeoisie but fail in the job. If they would succeed, they would be bourgeoisie themselves.
This is especially true in the USA.
jeabo0adhd 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd "The working class takes the place of the bourgeoisie but fail in the job." In the job of what? The job of taking place or the job of appropriating the means of production?
"If they would succeed, they would be bourgeoisie themselves." You mean they own the social means of production as their Private Property. Incorrect, if they succeed they would only do so BY abolishing Private Property.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
The american Bourgeoisie have very important jobs in the economy, as well as do the middle and low classes. If the bourgeoisie was eliminated, out of necessity, people from the lower classes would fill the positions.
Like the "managers" in communist Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, they will receive higher wages.
jeabo0adhd 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd
"Very important jobs in the economy," explain this point. The Bourgeoisie own the means of production and extract surplus value from the labour of the Proletariat for their own profit. They rarely expand actual value these days in the US, but prefer to spend their days speculating on fictitious capital causing the rest of us to pay for their gambling blunders.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd
"If the bourgeoisie was eliminated, out of necessity, people from the lower classes would fill the positions." Why would this occur? What is so necessary about owning means of production? All possess labour power, no need to expropriate others who are equal in nature to you.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
@TheCommunard I think what that guy was trying to say was if the bourgeois was eliminated, everyone else would take their position so everyone is both part of the bourgeois and proletariat. Bourgeois as in they own the land collectively. Proletariat as in they also work for the production so that the economic order prospers.
ImAznnn 1 year ago
@ImAznnn Yes, but there are still differences between a bourgeoisie and proletariat which doesn't necessarily make a socialist proletariat the same as the bourgeoisie. That's mainly that the bourgeoisie extract surplus value from the production process and pay the proletariat wages based upon labour time or in a piecemeal fashion.
In socialism, there is no surplus value extracted, and those who own the means of production also work it, and they decide what to do with the value created together.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd
"Like the "managers" in communist Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, they will receive higher wages."
Firstly, we can establish that all those states were set up by the soviet Bolshevik model except North Korea which is based on Juche, a non-Marxist ideology.
Secondly, where did the soviet model ever claim to be socialism or communism? Where did Lenin say that he set up a socialist country? He did not, he purposefully set up a capitalist state for a specific reason.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
Continued... That reason is that the means of production need to be fully developed before the transition to socialism. This is why they waited until the German revolution was complete to find out if they could rely on Germany's developed economy - of course Germany didn't have a successful revolution but descended into the Wiemar Republic.
In China, Deng Xiaopeng set up the State-Capitalist model for this reason. China IS self admittedly capitalist.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
Continued.... Cuba is a poor example. Anyone knowledgeable in Socialist theory will be able to tell you that Socialism needs to be international or not at all. Cuba is unable to sustain a Socialist economy and it would be wise to switch to a Leninist-Capitalist or Chinese style economy. Then again, this is based upon the premise that we are still trying to follow a Soviet style of Marxism which most actual Marxists - myself included - do not believe is very efficient.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
2. In the United States, very few large companies are owned by a single person or family. Most are owned by stockholders which include most of the working class. I see the multi-million dollar(US) income class in the US as the bourgeoisie. The attitude of success, hard work, and inovation are their traits. They are the "High Class" here.
jeabo0adhd 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd
The working class continually grows, it is the natural order. As you say, the billionaires are the bourgeoisie, the means of production dwindle into fewer hands. Stocks actually allow these companies to gain more control over themselves by diluting the ownership amongst thousands of workers while extracting a large amount of capital from the stock holders for further investment. A bank need only own 10 or 15% of a company to manipulate it greatly, while the rest is owned by many.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
Continued... that many are thousands and tens of thousands of different people, people who do not have the time to attend shareholder meetings and are not united and unorganized on how to exert control over the company.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd
"The attitude of success, hard work, and inovation are their traits."
In fact, it is the bourgeoisie who do little work but get all the pay, while those who do all the work, get nothing at all.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
@TheCommunard
1. The working class takes over management of all industry. They may not own it, but they control it, like the archy they removed. The similarities between the two types of managers is close enough to be the same in my opinion.
jeabo0adhd 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd "The similarities between the two types of managers is close enough to be the same in my opinion." A fundamental flaw in your understanding of Marxism is evident here. The ownership of the means of production is what makes one the bourgeoisie, if they don't own it, but merely use it, they are not bourgeoisie. What are the similarities between the two types of managers? Think in terms of labour.
TheCommunard 1 year ago
@jeabo0adhd "This is especially true in the USA." What is especially true? The contradiction that by being those who abolish private property they own private property? This is mere ideology. Please use logic and rationality which relates to reality when commenting on my channel.
TheCommunard 1 year ago