|
burning dog
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: 17:04:35, 15-05-2007 » |
|
[Another problem is that blanket classifications such as "bourgeoisie", "workers", etc. are usually intended, as I mentioned before, to be taken as fixed concepts in the sense that anyone born to one of them is supposed to remain there. I think the free market system is reinforced/sold (depends on one's POV), by the fact that "workers" can become members of the bourgeoise! It would take some effort to effect the opposite journey, I feel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know why the term is so disputed when a daft terms like "lower middle class" which is used by all and sundry does not provoke such a reaction. It can be be used by some with a very reductionist philosophy as a term of abuse, but that can befall any "political" word. I do not understand why John W thinks he is being labelled a member of the bourgeoisie - and it's not a matter for either shame or pride anyway - on a personal level I'd prefer to be a member  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
quartertone
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 17:11:37, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Since the day the USSR collapsed and Yeltsin took charge, Russia has become the world's No 1 oil-producer (by barrels - Saudi still leads by revenue, because Russia discounts to needy nations who can't afford full-price). That's incorrect; Saudi Arabia both produces more barrels and has more reserves left. That's why Russia is a bit further up shit creek. But then, thanks to Peak Oil, pretty much everyone is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 17:21:26, 15-05-2007 » |
|
There's an interview with Jacques Attali here where he suggests, using the classical Marxist definition of the term, that the bourgeoisie amount to just between 1000 and 10000 people worldwide. OK, so in his view, at least, the "bourgeoisie" comprises about 0.0000017 of the world's populace; whatever one may think of such a view, if is certainly the case that most people have used the term to describe a far larger group of people. To John's point: I don't want to start getting into debates to do with the class status of individual posters to this forum, certainly not with respect to a moderator.
No, of course not, but why not forget who John is for a moment and answer his question as though he was just anyone of whom you knew nothing except what he'd told you about his economic and labour status? To Alistair on musicians and their class: The following, from a footnote to Marx's Grundrisse (see here for the full (long!) text, here for the footnotes in question), might be of interest (also for the smoking thread)! Indeed it is of interest and of no small value, but then what Marx wrote and all too much of what has happened in various places in his name since his death is as shamefully inhuman a perversion of the best of his thinking as is some of the activity that has gone in in various places at various times in the name of this religion or that. I don't blame Marx for the worst excesses and perversions of certain Marxists any more than I blame the composer when an insensitive musician makes a pig's ear of his/her piano music. I am reminded by this footnote (which I'm not reproducing here again for reasons of space saving) of those worst excesses of Thatcherism which were evidently supposed to encourage one to expect that if anything was not of itself capable of generating a profit it was of no possible use; as I once paraphrased the now Lord Tebbit's infamous remark "get on your bike, but for God's sake and yours don't drive it to a concert hall". Financial profit in its place, say I - and the more of it the better, as long as it's legally obtained - but to assume that every human work activity can and therefore must make a profit at all times is not only pure folly but profoundly undesirable - inhuman, in fact. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 17:24:08, 15-05-2007 » |
|
[Another problem is that blanket classifications such as "bourgeoisie", "workers", etc. are usually intended, as I mentioned before, to be taken as fixed concepts in the sense that anyone born to one of them is supposed to remain there. I think the free market system is reinforced/sold (depends on one's POV), by the fact that "workers" can become members of the bourgeoise! It would take some effort to effect the opposite journey, I feel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know why the term is so disputed when a daft terms like "lower middle class" which is used by all and sundry does not provoke such a reaction. It does provoke such a reaction in me; I apologise if I was insufficiently clear, but for the avoidance of doubt I confirm that I find all such terms pretty much as useless and unedifying as one another. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 17:26:25, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Except for certain wards of Liverpool, and in Pyongyang, Marxism really seems to have run out of steam entirely - a dogma invented to deal with entirely different world economic situations to today's. How could Marx have forecast, in the middle of the C19th, that call-centre workers in Hartlepool might find themselves underpriced by Mumbai? Marx and Engels were extraordinarily prescient on the development of what we might now call globalization. In their most famous of all texts, the Communist Manifesto, they wrote the following: Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. . . .
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. . . . It has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. . . .The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. (full text here) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 17:55:19, 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 #50 on: 17:33:15, 15-05-2007 » |
|
That's incorrect; Saudi Arabia both produces more barrels and has more reserves left. You'll find that statistic disputed. In any case, it does not disprove the cataclysmic failure of the Soviet economy to exploit a resource under its own feet, which it might have used either to sell for cash, or to provide to its people for the production-price alone. Either option would have financially underpinned the soviet hydra in a way that would have kept it going for longer - instead, its own colossal inertia contributed to its downfall. |
|
|
|
|
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"
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 17:33:42, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Tony, I do object to being called a pensioner because that term is usualy associated with someone who collects state pension, and I am a long way from that 'category'.   Just think, during the rest of my life I will pay more in tax (on my current pension) than I'll ever receive in state pension. I'm not Tony, of course, but the association of the term "pensioner" that you mention, whilst still largely correct, needs also to be changed to suit circumstances. Also, maybe you should consult a professional to help you pay less tax on your pension! After all, if you have a business, even that alone (provided that it is not incorporated) should help deal directly with this problem. Now to those (if any) who might fell inclied to leap up and allege that I am encouraging tax evasion on this forum, I would point out not only that I do not encourage illegal activity of any kind but also that, if everyone claimed every legitimate tax allowance and benefit to which they were entitled, the country would go bust pretty quickly unless some unacceptably extreme economic measures were implemented immediately... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 17:41:06, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Well, there wasn't a record industry back in Marx's day. Today a musician, whether pianist or kazooist, can record a CD, which becomes a commodity. So the player does produce capital, just as much the labourer who builds the instrument. The worker in the factory is not publicly named, of course. Good point - wonder whether the composer would have been defined in terms of 'productive labour' by Marx? Would be the same situation as with the writer - do they produce the book (or the score), or is that the printer who does that (obviously when composers produce their own material score, the situation is different). Need to have a dig around to see if Uncle Karl said anything about writers. If the bourgeoisie are given such an elitist definition, that would surely seem to go against their classification as being financially below the aristocracy? No, because the aristocracy is defined in terms of blood-lines, the hereditary principle, rather than economically. Strictly speaking, under capitalism the aristocracy do not have institutionalised power in the way they did under a feudal system (which was utterly rigid and unbreachable - no-one could become an aristocrat if not born one). Of course, vestiges of feudal privilege and influence remain. And the whole thing about the emergence of the bourgeoisie -starting with the Reformation - , as you know, was as an intermediate stage between the workers and the aristocrats, i.e. people who did work, but without being under the control of a feudal lord. Certainly, but with the overthrow of feudal systems, the bourgeoisie became the dominant class. At any rate, I think it's slightly beside the point to do a sort of HIP job on the actual term "bourgeoisie", as one could probably agree on a more basic definition - then at least everybody could be talking about the same thing. Well, simply I do think that the Marxist definition of the term, as Richard mentioned in the other thread, is still useful. It means a different thing to 'middle class', though. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 17:44:05, 15-05-2007 » |
|
That's incorrect; Saudi Arabia both produces more barrels and has more reserves left. You'll find that statistic disputed. In any case, it does not disprove the cataclysmic failure of the Soviet economy to exploit a resource under its own feet, which it might have used either to sell for cash, or to provide to its people for the production-price alone. Either option would have financially underpinned the soviet hydra in a way that would have kept it going for longer - instead, its own colossal inertia contributed to its downfall. I don't see anyone here defending the Soviet economy or system - certainly I wouldn't (and would contest whether it deserves to be called 'Marxist', at least from a few years after the revolution). The question of how much what has taken its place constitutes an improvement is something on which I know there are many views - t-p has said a bit about this in other threads, would be very interested in her views 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'
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 17:51:59, 15-05-2007 » |
|
To John's point: I don't want to start getting into debates to do with the class status of individual posters to this forum, certainly not with respect to a moderator.
'Class status' ?? Oh how old-fashioned that term sounds now, to me anyway. Can't we refer to 'Levels of contribution to society' please? My contribution over 30 years was work and, I expect, the equivalent of £100,000s of tax. So can I stay at home now or am I hoarding my wealth? I have two kids in low-paid jobs who can't afford to buy their own homes, so my service 'to society' now is keeping a roof over their heads rent-free! As I say, now I occasionally do work/business that benefits local industry/community. I also do voluntary work in the form of moderating internet forums  If I chose to work every day then I would not have time to run this forum Tax on pensions, yes that is a sore point, and there may be a way to reduce it, depending how much business/profit I make. Oh dear, I mentioned profit  Right, I switched on R3, Bach keyboard concerto, Gould? goodbye bourgeoisie thread John W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
calum da jazbo
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 18:13:22, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Ian
i would refer you to David Landes survey The Wealth & Poverty of Nations for an asessment of social institutions and values in economic activity; or Jane Jacobs on Warriors and Cities. You may well have come across these, as well as Michael Manns survey of power in two vols so far. Broadly speaking i feeel that the left wing social theorising i have been able to assimulate struggles too hard to make the world fit its core concepts, rather more than it struggles to make its concepts approximate to the world. It also has yet to address the power law; wealth will always be distributed on a few/much many/little stratification for a variety of reasons including random variations and the vagaries of circumstance e.g being a programmer at the right time and place, and having just sold off your microsoft share options for ten million dollars.
I am afraid that my experience of marxist social science is that it is as dogmatic as literature and cultural critique; more impressed by hermeneutic analysis, and its own reputation, than evidence. humans were social before the means of production was a stone; the means of production is a social concept?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It's just a matter of time before we're late.
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 18:47:53, 15-05-2007 » |
|
the fundamental nature of the division of society according to capital, as defined by Marx, still holds true.
It's the 'fundamental' that is at issue, isn't it? You can presumably look at any society, at any time in history, through Marx's descriptive categories (or anybody else's descriptive categories for that matter) but the question isn't whether you can do it: it's whether the resulting description is useful, explanatory or significant. The objection to Marx the scientific theorist (as oppose to Marx the moralist) is that his theory has been shown not to be true. The charge is that it has failed as an explanatory account of what drives historical change. He put it forward as an explanatory scientific theory of how economies and societies 'really' worked, and it has turned out not to be so. Messy human history declined to behave as the theory predicted it would. In the normal rough and tumble of the evolution of scientific theories that would normally have sounded its death knell. I have to say that, as someone who does not accept the Marxist analysis as having much scientific credibility left to it, the attempts by contemporary Marxists to batter the modern world into his conceptual system (bourgeoisie, proletariat and all) does look pretty desperate stuff. There's only a certain amount of Procrustean 'dialectical reinterpretation' you can do on it before it begins to look almost as desperate as contemporary Christians trying to 'reinterpret' the Jehovah of the Old Testament as a sort of amiable LibDem underneath it all. And the religious whiff gets even stronger with the continued insistence among the faithful of the historical inevitability of the New Jerusalem in the form of the forthcoming World Revolution. That's how religions behave, not how science is meant to. When the phenomena become so drastically out of line with the theory, aren't we meant to do one of those Kuhnian paradigm shifts? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05:26:51, 16-05-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
quartertone
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 19:18:40, 15-05-2007 » |
|
Either option would have financially underpinned the soviet hydra in a way that would have kept it going for longer - instead, its own colossal inertia contributed to its downfall. Don't forget that the American powers jumped in to prop, or even set up the oligarchs as soon as capitalism was in sight. Never miss an opportunity, those chaps. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 20:01:41, 15-05-2007 » |
|
t-p has said a bit about this in other threads, would be very interested in her views here.
Oh please lord, no. My contributions here were an attempt to show how irrelevant I think this thread is in 2007, never mind how irrelevant it is on R3OK forum Yeah, I know, ignore thread, ignore thread John W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 20:04:52, 15-05-2007 » |
|
the fundamental nature of the division of society according to capital, as defined by Marx, still holds true.
It's the 'fundamental' that is at issue, isn't it? You can presumably look at any society, at any time in history, through Marx's descriptive categories (or anybody else's descriptive categories for that matter) but the question isn't whether you can do it: it's whether the resulting description is useful, explanatory or significant. Of course - I just think that it is all of those three things. The objection to Marx the scientific theorist (as oppose to Marx the moralist) is that his theory has been shown not to be true. The charge is that it has failed as an explanatory account of what drives historical change. He put it forward as an explanatory scientific theory of how economies and societies 'really' worked, and it has turned out not to be so. Messy human history declined to behave as the theory predicted it would. In the normal rough and tumble of the evolution of scientific theories it ought to have been abandoned. OK, I do respect your views on these things very much, just interested to know in which ways you do think history has confounded the models that Marx developed? PS. Just seen John's latest message - if it is desired that the thread be discontinued, fine. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
