|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« on: 22:55:15, 14-05-2007 » |
|
(continuing something that began in the Eurovision 2007 thread) If we want to continue this discussion concerning the nature of the bourgeoisie (to which I do essentially subscribe to the Marxist definition, maintaining that the ownership of capital is an essential prerequisite - putting specific numbers on it is meaningless, it is about owning enough capital to have that relationship Richard describes, so that one is not obliged to sell one's labour in order to survive) we should have another thread. The only relevance to Eurovision is in terms of those companies who finance it.
Fair enough - and agreed in principle, at least. You have now defined your view of "significant amounts of capital" as amounts which enable their owners to survive without the need to offer their labour service and, without any need for you or anyone else to be specific about a threshold figure, I understand and accept that, as far as it goes; my earlier remarks about the fact that the dividing lines are far less defined than once they were remain, however, in that the clear once-and-for-all dividing line between members of "the bourgeoisie" and people outside that membership are quite different today to what they were - or may have been perceived to be - a mere half century ago. There is a certain difference, but the basic economic system remains. There is of course also the term 'petite bourgeoisie', referring in a Marxist sense to the more wealthy proletariat (often who have a certain amount of inherited wealth, though not enough so they do not need to work at all). Roughly corresponds to what we now call the upper middle classes. The equation of bourgeoisie with middle classes is not strictly accurate in the contemporary sense - it would be more apt to equate them with the upper classes, though it depends in which society one lives. In America that equation makes absolute sense, because there are almost no trappings of feudal society there. To a certain extent the same occurs in France, Germany and some other European countries. In Britain it is different because some elements of feudalism remain - institutionalised in the case of the monarchy and the House of Lords - otherwise operating more informally, but still prevalent. Breeding and being from the right stock still count to a significant extent in the UK; the bourgeoisie are defined by their relationship to capital, not by such neo-feudal aspects. So, to confuse things more, in this sense the term 'aristocracy' is not synonymous with 'upper class'! Another thing that bothers me about the purely economic definition of "the bourgeoisie" or any other conveniently contrived definitional class is that, rather as in the case of the Indian caste system, there seems still to be quite a generalised repository of received opinion that if one is born to a particular "class" one should, as a matter of principle, expect and be expected to remain therein for the entirety of one's life; this, too, seems to be far less obviously prevalent in practice than once it was. For the vast majority of the population, it remains the case in terms of the broader classes. There are a handful of exceptions, of course. Perhaps the thing that concerns me the most is that so many people have only to hear the word "politics" nowadays and their thoughts turn - in some kind of kee-jerk response - immediately to specific issues of economics, as though the entire business of matters financial has somehow managed to invade all shades of public political "thinking" almost to the exclusion of other considerations; notwithstanding the undeniable importance of such factors, this strikes me - when I contempate it - as a matter of great sadness. Because economics are the most fundamental thing of all - without enough money to be able to live, eat, have a roof over one's head, one can't do anything else. Which other political considerations do you think might be of comparable importance? (I should add that such things as the family, the status of women, ethnic minorities, are overwhelmingly to do with economics as well) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 23:19:25, 14-05-2007 » |
|
If we want to continue this discussion concerning the nature of the bourgeoisie (to which I do essentially subscribe to the Marxist definition, maintaining that the ownership of capital is an essential prerequisite - putting specific numbers on it is meaningless, it is about owning enough capital to have that relationship Richard describes, so that one is not obliged to sell one's labour in order to survive) we should have another thread. The only relevance to Eurovision is in terms of those companies who finance it.
Fair enough - and agreed in principle, at least. You have now defined your view of "significant amounts of capital" as those that enable their owners to survive without the need to offer their labour service and, without any need for you or anyone else to be specific about a threshold figure, I understand and accept that, as far as it goes; my earlier remarks about the fact that the dividing lines are far less defined than once they were remain, however, in that the clear once-and-for-all border between members of "the bourgeoisie" and people outside that membership are quite different today to what they were - or may have been perceived to be - a mere half century ago. There is a certain difference, but the basic economic system remains. There is of course also the term 'petite bourgeoisie', referring in a Marxist sense to the more wealthy proletariat (often who have a certain amount of inherited wealth, though not enough so they do not need to work at all). Roughly corresponds to what we now call the upper middle classes. The equation of bourgeoisie with middle classes is not strictly accurate in the contemporary sense - it would be more apt to equate them with the upper classes, though it depends in which society one lives. In America that equation makes absolute sense, because there are almost no trappings of feudal society there. To a certain extent the same occurs in France, Germany and some other European countries. In Britain it is different because some elements of feudalism remain - institutionalised in the case of the monarchy and the House of Lords - otherwise operating more informally, but still prevalent. Breeding and being from the right stock still count to a significant extent in the UK; the bourgeoisie are defined by their relationship to capital, not by such neo-feudal aspects. So, to confuse things more, in this sense the term 'aristocracy' is not synonymous with 'upper class'! Another thing that bothers me about the purely economic definition of "the bourgeoisie" or any other conveniently contrived definitional class is that, rather as in the case of the Indian caste system, there seems still to be quite a generalised repository of received opinion that if one is born to a particular "class" one should, as a matter of principle, expect and be expected to remain therein for the entirety of one's life; this, too, seems to be far less obviously prevalent in practice than once it was. For the vast majority of the population, it remains the case in terms of the broader classes. There are a handful of exceptions, of course. Perhaps the thing that concerns me the most is that so many people have only to hear the word "politics" nowadays and their thoughts turn - in some kind of kee-jerk response - immediately to specific issues of economics, as though the entire business of matters financial has somehow managed to invade all shades of public political "thinking" almost to the exclusion of other considerations; notwithstanding the undeniable importance of such factors, this strikes me - when I contempate it - as a matter of great sadness. Because economics are the most fundamental thing of all - without enough money to be able to live, eat, have a roof over one's head, one can't do anything else. Which other political considerations do you think might be of comparable importance?
(I should add that such things as the family, the status of women, ethnic minorities, are overwhelmingly to do with economics as well)
All interesting stuff, for which many thanks. My only comment about the matters of economics is to emphasise again - perhaps more strongly than I appear to have done beforehand - that, whilst not undermining the crucial importance of economic factors in most people's lives (and whilst at the same time agreeing entirely with what you say about the need for "enough money", etc.), there has grown a somewhat disproportionate attitude towards economics that is arguably one of the victims of the kind of "society" that plugs mass-market consumerism as widely, loudly and prevalently as it does (and I know well that you deprecate this as much as I do). My point in the other thread was also that capitalism of one sort or another has similarly invaded (or perhaps always been an inevitable part of) both ostensibly capitalist and ostensibly socialist/communist "societies", to the extent that all governmental systems have always depended for their survival to some degree upon wealth creation and the ever-increasing globalisation to which you have drawn attention serves only to make this ever more true. To speak of "landed gentry" as being of a certain class is all very well, but there are not that many people in UK these days who possess inherited wealth sufficient to keep them to a high standard of living (from a purely economic perspective) and even some of those who do so are constantly looking over their shoulders in increasingly desperate attempts to ensure the preservation of such wealth as they retain but, as I observed previously, it is not these folk that I am so concerned about when making the remarks that I have about inheritance tax and capital gains tax, or about people who have private income but still work because they either choose and/or need to do so in order to keep going, etc. This is just one area wherein the economic "class" divides of old have, as I have previously suggested, become frayed almost beyond recognition. Accordingly, I really do not believe that we any longer have anything that can credibly be defined as "the bourgeoisie"; instead, I tend towards the belief that there are thousands of "classes" - perhaps up to 60 million or so of them - in UK today. My music naturally reflects such thoughts and beliefs. Not. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:24:55, 14-05-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marbleflugel
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 01:19:03, 15-05-2007 » |
|
That's an interesting thought, Alastair-that in the mush of political hegemony a new kind of individualism might emerge. A song from the post-Generals era Brazil has just breezed over the net-Two Kites by Jobim, in which
the protagonist says to his corinha , '(let's) dismiss/with a kiss/the petty bourgeoise'. With the then ongoing sturm and drang, whence gentle ironyan alternative manifesto?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'...A celebrity is someone who didn't get the attention they needed as an adult'
Arnold Brown
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 07:41:45, 15-05-2007 » |
|
That's an interesting thought, Alastair-that in the mush of political hegemony a new kind of individualism might emerge. A song from the post-Generals era Brazil has just breezed over the net-Two Kites by Jobim, in which
the protagonist says to his corinha , '(let's) dismiss/with a kiss/the petty bourgeoise'. With the then ongoing sturm and drang, whence gentle ironyan alternative manifesto?
Such a new individualism might wll struggle to emerge and make its presence felt in an environment in which too many people are encouraged by too many others not to do too much thinking for themselves, but what I meant was that this fact does not of itself deny the possibility that such individualism can have an existence, for it may indeed do so but it simply needs nurturing rather than suppressing. That said, there are obviously such differences between us all already that it might not be something to worry about overmuch; Ian is a pianist and I am a composer - as such, we might be said to be in different "classes", albeit not in the social "class" sense as it has been understood. I simply don't get the "bourgeoisie" idea in a present-day context; it seems to have an unavoidable whiff of the antediluvian about it in the 21st century. Ian is right, of course, to remind us of the "petite bourgeoisie" sector, but then this just seems to me to be illustrative of one place where the door of the argument gets to be opened and left open; individual circumstances (economic and otherwise) and aspirations vary so much from one person to another that this kind of attempted classification - whether it be of the "ruling classes/bourgeoisie/petite bourgeoisie/proletariat" type or the more recent "social groups A/B/C etc." kind - risks telling us more about those who invent and use them (and why they do so) than it does about those who supposedly fall into the various categories within them. Do come to St. John's, Smith Square on 22 June and you'll find all that kind of thing enshrined in some pieces of mine. Not. (No, of course I don't mean "don't come to St. John's"; I think that it's clear what I do mean!...) Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 10:22:31, 15-05-2007 » |
|
I simply don't get the "bourgeoisie" idea in a present-day context; it seems to have an unavoidable whiff of the antediluvian about it in the 21st century Entirely so. The "bourgeousie" does not exist, other than as a concept for those who look down on them. But the fiction that they exist gives the editors of "Class War" and similar publications a scapegoat to target. We'll have the Illuminati and the Lizard-People next. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 10:29:11, 15-05-2007 » |
|
This place is going to the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 10:47:57, 15-05-2007 » |
|
The "bourgeousie" does not exist, other than as a concept for those who look down on them. Those who own sufficient capital that they are not forced to sell their labour to survive, don't exist? Where does that leave the owners of major corporations? And the Russian oligarchs? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:49:49, 15-05-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 11:25:20, 15-05-2007 » |
|
I took your own idiotic drivel about "the masses not existing", and substituted the term "the bourgeosie".
So if you have trouble with the result, Ian, then you only have your own big mouth to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 11:27:51, 15-05-2007 » |
|
I took your own idiotic drivel about "the masses not existing", and substituted the term "the bourgeosie". 'The masses', in the sense of an undifferentiated group of philistine, stupid people seen as such from outside, indeed do not exist other than in the minds of aesthetes. The proletariat, on the other hand, is an economic definition, as is the bourgeoisie. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 11:30:50, 15-05-2007 » |
|
This place is going to the dogs.
Is that instead of going to the pub, or as well as?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 11:33:16, 15-05-2007 » |
|
And similarly, according to Commissar Pace, the "mass-media", "mass culture", etc, also "don't exist". Nothing exists, except what was described by Marx. in the sense of an undifferentiated group of philistine, stupid people Whose description is that, Wolfie? I guess it's only the hate that gives you a reason to get up in the mornings, Ian? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 11:37:42, 15-05-2007 » |
|
And similarly, according to Commissar Pace, the "mass-media", "mass culture", etc, also "don't exist". Both of those things do exist in the sense of being produced for sale in the mass market (defined in terms of numbers). in the sense of an undifferentiated group of philistine, stupid people Whose description is that, Wolfie? Good grief - the post makes very clear that I was saying that such a group does not exist in that form, it is just a patronising fantasy. And, in case you're about to bring it up, ideals of valiant sons of toil are equally a fantasy. This is about individuals' relationship to the means of production, not about character traits. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
calum da jazbo
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 11:43:50, 15-05-2007 » |
|
the economic definition offered would include many erstwhile public sector employees living on state pensions, also many middle managers and staff from the 80's and 90's downsizing epidemic who all had mortgages paid off and other inducemts to go quietly, that we are still paying for in our utility bills.
since this goup is most likely to vote, and does hold to what it neeeds to own its pension fund and house, they may well be cautious in practical affairs. but many of such persons i meet from time to time at concerts in the local methodist church are rather radical and egalitarian in their outlook. freed by their economic independenc to think and express themselves in actions against the arms trade, poverty etc.
'bourgeois' seemed a relevant concept in the 60s & 70s because it captured my own class antagonism to the upper class oxbridge elite that ran the country, hunted or went to the opera. LeCarre describes them in his Smiley novels. But they were just an elite; and the mebership rules have changed, have they not? and the current over-controlling mind set is rather distinct from the laissez faire traditionalism of yore.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's just a matter of time before we're late.
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 11:48:28, 15-05-2007 » |
|
 Daniil Kharms, surrealist author and writer of children's books. Murdered by the KGB in 1942.  Osip Mandelstam, symbolist poet. Died in unclear circumstances at a Gulag Transit Camp in Siberia, 1938.  Varlam Shalamov, author, playwright, poet. Sentenced to three separate terms in the Gulag, including 14 years in the Koyma "Fields Of Death" in the Siberian arctic. Survived.  Vsevolod Meyerhold, theatre producer, director, author, teacher. Collaborator of Anton Chekhov and Stanislavsky. Arrested by the KGB for refusing to inform on other actors. His iron will enabled him to withstand torture for four days, but he died when they used electric irons on his feet. It was later announced he had been "shot" - but they shot a dead body. His wife was found murdered in his apartment, clearly the work of the KGB. (photo - KGB archives). Posthumously "cleared of all charges" in 1955 - I bet that really made him feel better? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:50:31, 15-05-2007 by Reiner Torheit »
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 11:51:08, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Yes, the Stalinist Terror was truly hideous in all respects - but what has that directly got to do with the issues being debated here?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
