Ask a Red III

[ParkCungHee]

Since I already know both of your tastes, what is with Communists and Folk Music?

Incidently, do you believe there is such a thing as ideologically preferable music?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't know if there's an ideological relationship. Maybe because it's the music of the average person, talking about every day things? I know for a long time there were basically two kinds of music, classical and folk, and everything fell into one or the other. I guess you can say the dichotomy is like popular vs. peoples' history.

I like folk music primarily because I grew up with it (raised rurally, dad loves Neil Young, Allman Bros., etc), but also because it often tells a story, which makes the singer a bard, even if its not his story. I would say that this, combined with the historical part, is another reason why I like it.

But really, the biggest reason is just that I like the sound and feel of it.

 

[Richard Cribb]

The most common anti-communist argument I hear from people is

"if everyone is paid the same no matter what this will make them lazy"

What are your rebuttals against claims such as this?

Nothing to rebutt. In socialist societies there always was, and indeed should be, wage differences, under communism there are no such things as wages.

Ignoring his occasional slide into Cold Warrior nonsense (which, it must be said, is really only found in the passages about the Cultural Revolution and the 'Communists' like Pol Pot), it isn't that bad of a history. Could one do better for a scholarly text? Sure. Is it a good, semi-scholarly overview for an amateur historian? I think it is.

And I think not. But in spite of the appearance of it, this is not supposed to be a debate thread, so I will leave it with what I already brought forth.

Sure. An overview of the Welfare State/Social Democracy would be fascinating even if they do digress into some Class Warrior nonsense at the end.

Ignoring the loaded term "Class war" - socialists prefer the term class struggle - "fascinating" is not the issue here. My first mother-in-law was a "fascinating" person, but had few things recommendable about her.
There is a not unimportant difference at work here which shouldn't go unnoticed.

I would greatly appreciate that.

Thanks a lot. I am afraid not too many share your sentiment, though.

Well it's true that he sees libertarian socialism as a natural outgrowth from liberal principles. But like I said, I think he's more useful for his critique of the American Mandarin class (a term he coined, by the way), of which he has produced an extensive and highly insightful repertoire on. I think Chomsky is important for this reason, but also because his anarchist positions are good for "pulling us back left again." Allow me to explain. I think there is a tendency, especially among American socialists, to drift back towards an uber-liberal position, because of our incredibly dichotomous political sphere. So even though I ultimately think Chomsky's reasoning for his anti-authoritarian positions is grounded in incorrect thinking (it may not be entirely his fault that he cannot empathize with Marxism, being an MIT professor for so long, and having come to his political awakening when Spanish anarchism was in vogue), I can't help but agree in some part with many of those conclusions.

I don't want to use too much time on Chomsky. He gets more than enough attention anyway.
I see him as basically a classical liberal. He quotes a lot of liberal figures, regurgitates the usual anti-Soviet propaganda soundbytes and recommends people to vote for the Democrats. Since you, with good reason mentioned Michael Parenti, just compare Chomsky's lionizing of Thomas Jefferson with Parenti's analyse of the American Constitution in the very book you recommended,

So, essentially, the enemy of my enemy is in this case my friend.

That may of course be correct, but that goes both ways. When chomsky goes on and on about the miserable tyrannies, what a manipulative power-hungry right-wing despot Lenin was and that USA is the best country in the world, then exactly whose friend or enemy is he?

As for his comment about America's greatness, I'm not familiar with it so I don't know the context. I can't help but imagine, however, that he meant in a somewhat different aspect than jingoists and nationalists generally do. I've said somewhat similar things about America in the context of it being the most ideal place for socialism to begin.

I think he said that sort of things many times. My understanding is that he thinks that USA is the country in the world which best protects free speech (perhaps some people will think that that is a strange thing for one of the people behind Manufacturing Consent to say), which obviously is more important for him than say a universal health care system or rights on the workplace. I can hardly see that as anything than a liberal perspective.
Regarding your last sentence I want to ask, which after all is the purpose of this thread, why is that? What makes USA more suited for socialism than for instance the country I used to live in?

I think it says a lot that Service speaks in a "serious" treatment of a subject in the same way that we do in pubs and backrooms.

The Industrialization of Soviet Russia, Volume 5. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933 - by R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The entire series is fantastic, it starts with the first forced collectivization campaign in 1928 and goes through the end of the Second Five Year Plan in 1937, including one volume dedicated entirely to the nature of, and life on, the Soviet kolkhoz in 1929.

Thanks. I might check it out if I ever read anything about history or politics again.

Not sure if you forgot or just haven't gotten to it, but can you get back to my question about how writers and pursuants of other creative arts who have talent at what they do would be rewarded?

My "stalinoid" answer; I see no reason why people who make music, paintings, literature etc.should be rewarded in any other way than people who build houses, make clothes, grow food, drive buses or remove infected teeth or appendixes to name but a few examples. Work is work.

In terms of Marxism, the current American president is nowhere near a leftist. Even the most progressive democrats are rarely "leftist" as the perpetuation of the welfare state simply continues the domination of labor by capital.

The Communist Manifesto is Marx's lamest, though most readable, popular work. It's short, easy to read (thanks to Engels), and should be taken as a historical document and not a manifesto. It represents the end of an era of "apocalyptic capitalism" in which industrial capitalism was at its worse, most toxic, most egregious stage. As the trend had been getting worse and worse, it looked like the only option was a soon-to-happen revolution. Instead there was an evolution and the Manifesto lost its validity. That and 6-8 of their 10 points of achieving the end of capitalism have been reached without needing or heading towards communism, but achieving much of what they wanted.

Better is Marx's Capital, which is far more influential, interesting, and reasonable. Like how we more or less can achieve communism with a strong welfare state and a 20 hour workweek. Historically, post-Marx, we've seen this can be done via the ballot and not the bullet (although bullets tend to fly when people fight for shorter work days).

Probably my favorite communist/Marxist to read is Gramsci (Italian, "GROMtshe"), because while I have no idea what his communist end goals are, and only moderately care, his description of how modes production change society is like, awesome. Regulation theory, or something.

Your observations are quite good, including the one about Obama, but keep in mind that the Manifesto is not intended to be a seminal work. As a pamphlet I find it excellent and I wish modern communists were able to produce propaganda of similar quality. Also please don't underestimate Engels. Just his work on the State, Family and Private Prioperty should be known by many more, including a lot of those who call themselves communists.

Since I already know both of your tastes, what is with Communists and Folk Music?

Nothing more than with communists and for instance Boccherini, which happens to my favourite for the moment (And no, not that blasted Minuet, there is much, much more to the man).

Incidently, do you believe there is such a thing as ideologically preferable music?

No I don't.

 

[Hygro]

Ugh, I remember the Gilded Age period, without the curve I got half of the questions on it wrong in AP US That said, that was one thing that I remember.

Keep in mind that in ADDITION to those 8 hours off that you aren't sleeping, you get two complete days (16 hours + sleep) off, and 2 full weeks a year off (Definitely think we can do a tad better in that regard...) that said, the above isn't really my point. I think the difference between a 40 hour workweek and a 60 hour one is like the difference between night and day. And keep in mind how many people still do the latter.

I'm just questioning, again, from a position of ignorance, how well society could actually sustain itself with a 20 hour work week. If it can be done without averse effects, I obviously don't have an issue with it. I can't see myself supporting "Time and a half" at just 20 hours though, 40 seems much more reasonable in that regard.

Society, economic growth, and capitalism could sustain itself fine on 20 hours a week, but things would look a little different. Some things would be done more efficiently, other things wouldn't be done at all. Some things would be done in a completely different way. But in the end, the modern lifestyle would continue.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Society, economic growth, and capitalism could sustain itself fine on 20 hours a week, but things would look a little different. Some things would be done more efficiently, other things wouldn't be done at all. Some things would be done in a completely different way. But in the end, the modern lifestyle would continue.

I find that surprising, but OK

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thanks a lot. I am afraid not too many share your sentiment, though.

I've heard no contrary opinions voiced.

I don't want to use too much time on Chomsky. He gets more than enough attention anyway.
I see him as basically a classical liberal. He quotes a lot of liberal figures, regurgitates the usual anti-Soviet propaganda soundbytes and recommends people to vote for the Democrats. Since you, with good reason mentioned Michael Parenti, just compare Chomsky's lionizing of Thomas Jefferson with Parenti's analyse of the American Constitution in the very book you recommended,

I mean, I think Jefferson was a pretty cool dude, as far as 18th Century Americans go, and his house is awesome...I've never heard Chomsky's worship of him though (but then again I'm not THAT acquainted with his repertoire)...I'll certainly look for it.

As for his praise of the democrats, he's been just as critical of Obama, if not more so, than Bush (I seem to remember him saying that Obama was worse than Bush, because he was less honest than Bush about forwarding almost the same agenda). It is also the CPUSA's position to vote strategically against the Republicans (i.e., for the Democrats), if that is worth anything. It's not something I advise, but given a choice between just the two on the ballot (or even if the other alternatives are some of those horrid "libertarian" parties like Constitution or Libertarian) I'll go with Democrat.

That may of course be correct, but that goes both ways. When chomsky goes on and on about the miserable tyrannies, what a manipulative power-hungry right-wing despot Lenin was and that USA is the best country in the world, then exactly whose friend or enemy is he?

It sounds like he is attacking Lenin there, and not socialism. I don't agree with him, but he isn't saying that America would be worse off under socialism, or that American socialists are leading us down a path to tyranny and emulation of the USSR. People are allowed to be ignorant of historical circumstances. I don't think much of his critique is very productive (though some certainly is, I would not have posted that video if I didn't think so), since calling Lenin a tyrant doesn't really mean anything to us today...even communists would agree that things went very undemocratically, it's the believed reasons for it doing so that make the difference between us and Chomskyites.

Which leaves us with separating wheat from chaff again. Perhaps it was wrong of me to place such a high order upon dear OldSchooler, while he is still wet behind his Red Ears.

I think he said that sort of things many times. My understanding is that he thinks that USA is the country in the world which best protects free speech (perhaps some people will think that that is a strange thing for one of the people behind Manufacturing Consent to say), which obviously is more important for him than say a universal health care system or rights on the workplace. I can hardly see that as anything than a liberal perspective.

It is precisely because of his demonstrable knowledge of such things, as Manufactured Consent shows, that I can't help but take his statements with any meaning except what they appear to have at face value. Again, I don't know the context, but perhaps he was saying that the US protects free speech on a whole more than any other nation does? I don't know how that's true, but it's not exactly praise for the liberal system...I could say that the Venetian Republic was better governed than the Kingdom of France, but that's not praise for a merchant oligarchy.

Has he said that protecting speech is more important than universal health care or workplace rights? I'm not familiar with those statements either. If he has, then that's a pretty serious self-incrimination. But I've not heard that, and I'd have to see the context before I'd condemn him wholesale.

Regarding your last sentence I want to ask, which after all is the purpose of this thread, why is that? What makes USA more suited for socialism than for instance the country I used to live in?

This is a hard question to answer.

It is partly situation, and partly personal opinion.

I think that America's history has supremely suited it for the transition to socialism. We have traversed the bridge from merchant republic to industrial powerhouse of the world, without the monarchial baggage that much of Europe has. I don't know if the European progression towards the welfare state is as useful as it seems to be; sometimes I think that Americans are more likely than Western Europeans to opt out of the capitalist system entirely, because we don't have the extensive welfare state to cushion the roughness of life at the bottom, and because our politics is so forcefully dichotomized by the powers that be. I fear progressive momentum being bought off by the welfare state. But that is perhaps a ways down the road. It took three years of horrid-beyond-imagination war, starvation, and brutality before anything happened in Russia, I have no delusions that rising gas prices and degrading national credit ratings will spark a proletarian revolt (though the events of a week from today should be interesting, I may have to start a thread with a first-hand account). Though I think I've told you before about the generally anarchist tendency of American radical leftists, as opposed to Marxist socialism. Not that we don't exist, obviously, but I think Marxist socialism has been more thoroughly demonized in the US than anarchism has, which has contributed to the ideological dispersion of American leftists.

Speaking of which, there is a local brewery that produces a gluten-free beer that I had the other day, it was really good. I don't know if you can get Dogfish Head in Europe, but if you can, definitely worth the look.

Thanks. I might check it out if I ever read anything about history or politics again.

What do you read, these days?

Your observations are quite good, including the one about Obama, but keep in mind that the Manifesto is not intended to be a seminal work. As a pamphlet I find it excellent and I wish modern communists were able to produce propaganda of similar quality. Also please don't underestimate Engels. Just his work on the State, Family and Private Prioperty should be known by many more, including a lot of those who call themselves communists.

Guilty as charged. Never read it, but it's definitely on my ill-defined "massive list of things to read."

No I don't.

I will take this opportunity to ask you a question: what are your thoughts on Trotsky's Literature and Revolution? Or Anatoly Lunacharsky's On Literature and Art, if you're familiar with it?

 

[brennan]

I'm just questioning, again, from a position of ignorance, how well society could actually sustain itself with a 20 hour work week.

Permit me to throw some UK statistics at this question:

The labour force in the UK is around 42 million.

Less than 23 million people have full time work - let's say they all do 40 hour weeks, that's 920 million man-hours.

Less than 10 million have part time jobs, let's say they average 10 hours each, that's another 100 million man-hours.

1020 million/42 million = an average working week of a little over 24 hours.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I've heard no contrary opinions voiced.

Neither have I, curiously enough.

I mean, I think Jefferson was a pretty cool dude, as far as 18th Century Americans go, and his house is awesome...I've never heard Chomsky's worship of him though (but then again I'm not THAT acquainted with his repertoire)...I'll certainly look for it.

As for his praise of the democrats, he's been just as critical of Obama, if not more so, than Bush (I seem to remember him saying that Obama was worse than Bush, because he was less honest than Bush about forwarding almost the same agenda). It is also the CPUSA's position to vote strategically against the Republicans (i.e., for the Democrats), if that is worth anything. It's not something I advise, but given a choice between just the two on the ballot (or even if the other alternatives are some of those horrid "libertarian" parties like Constitution or Libertarian) I'll go with Democrat.



It sounds like he is attacking Lenin there, and not socialism. I don't agree with him, but he isn't saying that America would be worse off under socialism, or that American socialists are leading us down a path to tyranny and emulation of the USSR. People are allowed to be ignorant of historical circumstances. I don't think much of his critique is very productive (though some certainly is, I would not have posted that video if I didn't think so), since calling Lenin a tyrant doesn't really mean anything to us today...even communists would agree that things went very undemocratically, it's the believed reasons for it doing so that make the difference between us and Chomskyites.

Which leaves us with separating wheat from chaff again. Perhaps it was wrong of me to place such a high order upon dear OldSchooler, while he is still wet behind his Red Ears.



It is precisely because of his demonstrable knowledge of such things, as Manufactured Consent shows, that I can't help but take his statements with any meaning except what they appear to have at face value. Again, I don't know the context, but perhaps he was saying that the US protects free speech on a whole more than any other nation does? I don't know how that's true, but it's not exactly praise for the liberal system...I could say that the Venetian Republic was better governed than the Kingdom of France, but that's not praise for a merchant oligarchy.

Has he said that protecting speech is more important than universal health care or workplace rights? I'm not familiar with those statements either. If he has, then that's a pretty serious self-incrimination. But I've not heard that, and I'd have to see the context before I'd condemn him wholesale.

I was preparing a long answer to this, but I realized it isn't worth it. I regard Chomsky as irrelevant, except of course for his impressive achievement in linguistics, and this thread is undisiplined enough as it is.
I might elaborate on this only if more people shows interest, otherwise I just want to share the observation that if he didn't exists, corporate America had to invent him.
Furthermore, i don't regard anybody who engages in this type of anti-Sovietism as a real socialist, that also goes for people here who regard the former Eastern Bloc as "capitalist". While those countries had a lot of flaws, I think they differed qualitatively from the Western capitalist one, and in certain important areas in a favourable way.

This is a hard question to answer.

It is partly situation, and partly personal opinion.

I think that America's history has supremely suited it for the transition to socialism. We have traversed the bridge from merchant republic to industrial powerhouse of the world, without the monarchial baggage that much of Europe has. I don't know if the European progression towards the welfare state is as useful as it seems to be; sometimes I think that Americans are more likely than Western Europeans to opt out of the capitalist system entirely, because we don't have the extensive welfare state to cushion the roughness of life at the bottom, and because our politics is so forcefully dichotomized by the powers that be. I fear progressive momentum being bought off by the welfare state. But that is perhaps a ways down the road. It took three years of horrid-beyond-imagination war, starvation, and brutality before anything happened in Russia, I have no delusions that rising gas prices and degrading national credit ratings will spark a proletarian revolt (though the events of a week from today should be interesting, I may have to start a thread with a first-hand account). Though I think I've told you before about the generally anarchist tendency of American radical leftists, as opposed to Marxist socialism. Not that we don't exist, obviously, but I think Marxist socialism has been more thoroughly demonized in the US than anarchism has, which has contributed to the ideological dispersion of American leftists.

While this is both interesting and demonstrates a high level of reflection, I think it sorely underestimates the lamentable backwardness of the USA in regard to politics as well as the inept nature of anarchist movements. I remember Attila Jozsef saying something like that those people save the world five times a day, but are unable to light a match...

Speaking of which, there is a local brewery that produces a gluten-free beer that I had the other day, it was really good. I don't know if you can get Dogfish Head in Europe, but if you can, definitely worth the look.

Thanks; much appreciated. Might even find it. Could be a welcome change from Corona...

What do you read, these days?

Mostly chess theory, old fiction, some philosophy.

Guilty as charged. Never read it, but it's definitely on my ill-defined "massive list of things to read."

Don't worry, it is quite an easy read. And don't forget living either. The young men on this forum seem to read far too much. Remember Francis Bacon; "The one who studies too much is just as lazy as the one who studies too little" (Quoted after memory, might be phrased a little differently).

I will take this opportunity to ask you a question: what are your thoughts on Trotsky's Literature and Revolution? Or Anatoly Lunacharsky's On Literature and Art, if you're familiar with it?

Trotsky I can do without. Lunacharsky though; great man, outstanding writer. He even made me want to read Proust...

 

[lovett]

What do you think of Market Socialism?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I was preparing a long answer to this, but I realized it isn't worth it. I regard Chomsky as irrelevant, except of course for his impressive achievement in linguistics, and this thread is undisiplined enough as it is.

Fair enough. Just don't mistake my not-total disregard of him for lionization. There are lots of socialist thinkers who can be useful to us without requiring that we hop on their bandwagon. I think Trotsky is useful, but that doesn't make me a Trot.

I might elaborate on this only if more people shows interest, otherwise I just want to share the observation that if he didn't exists, corporate America had to invent him.

Now that I would like to hear.

Furthermore, i don't regard anybody who engages in this type of anti-Sovietism as a real socialist, that also goes for people here who regard the former Eastern Bloc as "capitalist". While those countries had a lot of flaws, I think they differed qualitatively from the Western capitalist one, and in certain important areas in a favourable way.

I've never heard anyone say they were the same. I certainly heard statements about the true "State Capitalist" nature of Soviet socialism, and I have various thoughts on that concept, but never one that equates East and West, save on specific cases like Galbraith, drawing a comparison between dysfunctionally-structured American corporations and GosPlan.

At any rate, it's not an anti-socialist criticism to hold our future Western Socialism to a much higher standard than the USSR, and in-depth critique of that bygone system is necessary in order to do so. I know you don't personally think this way, but I know some who think any sort of criticism towards that direction robs someone of their communist qualifications.

While this is both interesting and demonstrates a high level of reflection, I think it sorely underestimates the lamentable backwardness of the USA in regard to politics as well as the inept nature of anarchist movements. I remember Attila Jozsef saying something like that those people save the world five times a day, but are unable to light a match...

Oh yes, it certainly has its problems (not the least of which is that it's not ideologically correct ). And I'll make no argument against our politically backward nature. But if we can retake the political economy, then I think our backwardness can work to our advantage.

Thanks; much appreciated. Might even find it. Could be a welcome change from Corona...

I can't imagine many things that aren't...

Mostly chess theory, old fiction, some philosophy.

I keep trying to get back into chess, but the world is fighting me on it. No one to play with, and reading books on it doesn't do me any more good than studying a language I never get to speak.

Don't worry, it is quite an easy read. And don't forget living either. The young men on this forum seem to read far too much. Remember Francis Bacon; "The one who studies too much is just as lazy as the one who studies too little" (Quoted after memory, might be phrased a little differently).

I'm sure; things by Engels generally are. It's more a matter of making the time than actually doing it.

Trotsky I can do without. Lunacharsky though; great man, outstanding writer. He even made me want to read Proust...

What is the relation between these men?

What do you think of Market Socialism?

Depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean a non-centrally planned economy? Or European social welfare states? I personally don't see why cooperative enterprises couldn't function within a market environment, though I certainly don't think that translates into a complete removal of state-directed economic functions (quite the opposite, actually). Though I suppose that if such a thing were implemented, it would have to move in that direction at some point, lest we never do away with the state.

I've become more convinced over the years of the viability of a planned economy, provided it is correctly structured, i.e. it resembles more the American inter- and intra- corporate planning system than the Soviet one. But as far as ideology is concerned, I don't particularly favor one over the other.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Fair enough. Just don't mistake my not-total disregard of him for lionization. There are lots of socialist thinkers who can be useful to us without requiring that we hop on their bandwagon. I think Trotsky is useful, but that doesn't make me a Trot.

No problem. Chomsky has his moments. Even Trotsky. Good thing though, that he didn't become Lenin's successor...

Now that I would like to hear.

OK, stay tuned. I will return to it when it is more convenient for me. that means, when my medication is a bit less heavy.

I've never heard anyone say they were the same. I certainly heard statements about the true "State Capitalist" nature of Soviet socialism, and I have various thoughts on that concept, but never one that equates East and West, save on specific cases like Galbraith, drawing a comparison between dysfunctionally-structured American corporations and GosPlan.

At any rate, it's not an anti-socialist criticism to hold our future Western Socialism to a much higher standard than the USSR, and in-depth critique of that bygone system is necessary in order to do so. I know you don't personally think this way, but I know some who think any sort of criticism towards that direction robs someone of their communist qualifications.

Actually quite a few "socialists" thought that the Eastern Bloc was worse, not equal. That is actually the most depressing about it.
By the way,the USSR started out as state capitalist. One couldn't very well build socialism on that backward society that was Tsar Russia; still semi-feudal in character. However, the phase after NEP, with Stalin at the helm, should in my opinion by characterized as a socialist one. It is true then, that a certain restauration of capitalism came about in the Khruschev epoch. This was perhaps unavoidable, given the eastern Bloc's comparatively weak position compared to the most powerful capitalist states. But nevertheless, there were still differences.
And, I could probably write an entire book about the shortcomings of those societies. But even so, the lessons from the whole experiment and the inspiring example it provided makes my assessment positive overall.
I also then agree that it critique is not anti-socialism, or that we should copy the Soviet Union. That would be insane. However, we should also give it the respect it deserves.

Oh yes, it certainly has its problems (not the least of which is that it's not ideologically correct ). And I'll make no argument against our politically backward nature. But if we can retake the political economy, then I think our backwardness can work to our advantage.

If.
However, since Gramsci already have been mentioned, don't underestimate hegemony. I actually think that regaining the language might be a very important start.

I can't imagine many things that aren't...

Funny that. My father-in-law, a beer connoiseur of the first rank, actually found it quite agreeable. However, the problem is rather the lack of variation.

I keep trying to get back into chess, but the world is fighting me on it. No one to play with, and reading books on it doesn't do me any more good than studying a language I never get to speak.

My problem is rather that I am going to participate in a couple of rather serious events when I visit Norway next week, and given my very poor health it is going to be quite a pull, so at least I must be theorethically well prepared.
Can't say though, that I am completely comfortable with playing top board in the Norwegian Team Championship for my old team, facing some very tough opposition. But then, that is what one gets for being so good....

I'm sure; things by Engels generally are. It's more a matter of making the time than actually doing it.

True. Life is awfully short.

What is the relation between these men?

In that book you mentioned, there is an interesting and inspiring discourse about Proust.

 

[mech654]

Do Marxists see the middle class as just part of the working class or as it own unique class?

 

[Takhisis]

Depends on whether you define 'middle class' by their income/housing/other standards of living levels or by whether they own the means of production. The 'workers' can be defined as whoever works (duh!) for whoever owns the means of production and doesn't work… although this decision could include a company manager since stockholders rarely give the orders anymore.

But why do you ask this on a Caturday night? Caturday is Turbonegro night. Hard to concentrate while headbanging.

 

[Traitorfish]

Marxists would tend to reject that idea that there is a "middle class" altogether, in the sense that the term is usually used, arguing that it's a socio-economic and to a significant extent ideological category, rather than a social class in the proper sense. The "middle class" includes capitalists, petty-proprietors, white-collar workers, and members of what can be broadly be termed the "intermediate strata", such as managers, police officers, and other functionaries of capital, rather than representing a class in the same sense as Marx's "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie".

 

[Takhisis]

TF how the blazes do you manage to sound pedantic on a Caturday night? half of your post is what I posted anwyay.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not pedantic. Pedantic was the post I originally wrote, and then thought better of. That's concise.


(Plus, for me, Saturday night is "oh my god I spent ten hours pushing trolleys please dear god and/or beer help me think of something that isn't trolleys" night. So I come on here and rant at you until the wee small hours. )

 

[Takhisis]

It's already the wee small hours there. saying 'wee small' is redundant.

To my dear Communists and other -ists: should I get a Communist Cat pic?

 

[Monsterzuma]

are modern middle classers even any better off than 19th century workers when viewed in terms of the ratio between their income and that of the wealthy "class"?

 

[Takhisis]

'better off'? We haven't even agreed as to what is the middle class. Are you defining them by income?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Why was the Red Star chosen as a symbol of the Communist/Socialist movement?