Not necessarily

I think bourgeois class traitors like Engels are pretty neat

Then when things erupted into revolutionary violence, why did the vast majority of merchants and business owners support the establishment of the democratic republic? @Platinum Spark

But they didn't resist things like the National Constituent Assembly abolishing what was left of feudalism in the country

It was before the Declaration of the Rights of Man or the drafting of the first constitution, it is much more like talking about the American Revolution and beginning with the Declaration of Independence.

Why does the set-up and beginning of violence matter if I'm trying to illustrate that the bourgeois (in the Marxist sense) classes did not resist the abolition of feudalism?

Sure in the French Revolution, but I'm not talking about the 3rd Estate. I'm talking about the possessed non-noble classes of France

Sure, I'm not referring to every non-landed non-church individual, and it's inaccurate to refer to the 3rd Estate of consisting of only non-landed individuals. 51 members of the Estates General before the beginning of the revolution were non-noble land owners

But what does any of this have to do with a rejection of the idea that the French Revolution involved a revolution against feudalism

?

The primary goals achieved were the abolition of feudalism, a shrinking of church authority, and a dissolution of the monarchy

I didn't say that

It was a language confusion because of how I use the word bourgeois

Like I said when I say bourgeoisie, I don't mean all members of the 3rd Estate, I mean somebody who possessed property, but was not a member of the aristocracy or church

Because he was an aristocrat

And helped end feudalism

I'm not using the word wrong, i told you that's how the word is used in Marxism

And I'm a Marxist so I tend to use Marxist language.

He uses the word in dialectical materialism, which is his entire system of historical analysis

Not just in reference to the French Revolution, and certainly not to mean simply the 3rd Estate of the French Revolution.

If you think I'm incorrect I could quote Marx using the word in a context outside of the French Revolution

"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

That's from the manifesto

and he's not talking about the French Revolution in this passage

No it doesn't.

There's an entirely different word for them within Marxism

We call them labor aristocrats

They're not the same thing as the bourgeois class

@3v6en8 The bourgeois class uses money to purchase the dead labor of a workers, they then extract surplus value from the value generated by the labor of workers, and they keep that surplus value

A labor aristocrat is just a worker who is disproportionately compensated for their labor

and so their class interest becomes confused and they're more likely to seek the maintenance of capitalism because it provides a high standard of living for them

Then he's petit-bourgeois

Which just means any possessed person who owns a small business, or most exploit their own labor as well as the labor of others to profit

Yes

They have to in order to make money

If they paid you the full value of your labor, they wouldnt make a profit

No like

Workers generate their own value

@3v6en8 The only they exist is through an extraction of value from the labor of others.

Like, say you work at a burger restaurant. Your boss offers you 10 dollars as your wage. Lets say a burger cost 5 dollars, and to simplify it further you put all of the labor into preparation and serving that burger. Lets also say you can sell 4 burgers in an hour.

Your labor has generated 20 dollars of value for the business in an hour.

You get 10 dollars.

His presence is not necessary for the burger restaurant to be there

A state could make the burger restaurant or laborers themselves with a loan could create the burger restaurant

He does nothing outside of owning the Means of Production\

@3v6en8 You are paying for it through your labor.

You generate all of the money that goes towards maintenance of the restaurant, paying off the cost of its creation, and the labor of paperwork, but your wage needs to be less than what's left after these necessary cost have been incurred

If your wage wasn't less than the full leftover value, your boss would make no money

Most first world workers are labor aristocrats IMO

We don't face terrible exploitation on the regular

Like we're still having surplus value extracted, but the conditions have been improved at the expense of the third world

Because burgers are a waste of time @Otto

Doctor's Sausage, bread, and some butter are more than sufficient

It is absolutely at their expense

Being paid cents on the dollar of what labor is worth is to your detriment

People in African mineral mines, South East Asian sweatshops, and Latin American farms aren't benefitting greatly from our presence there

@3v6en8 That's becoming part of the cycle of exploitation necessary in capitalism

No

Your individual choice not to purchase gods doesn't affect the extraction of wealth from the periphery

Like I could decide not to go to walmart, and I could maybe get a couple hundred people to do it with me, but it doesn't systemically challenge wealth extraction

Hypothetically, if all Westerners stopped buying things made in the third world, yes it would disrupt imperialist extraction

But uh

good luck doing that

Whoah whoah whoah

Violence is wrong

Physically remove the rich, and steal their stuff.

Expropriate the possessions of the rich, and then use their assets to build socialism, and eventually communism.

How can I steal what is already stolen? @+｡.｡デーモンボーイ｡.｡+

No I bought it with money I earned through labor

Jeff Bezo's bed though

That is up for grabs.

@Pelth They do that.

Ever heard of the Contras?

@3v6en8 And everyone won't be rich, but we'll have more equitable outcomes on the basis of one's actual societal usefulness and need as opposed to how well you can play the game of capital accumulation

"Gommunism is when everyone gets paid the same"

I don't believe in total economic equality

Neither does Marx

He outright rejects equality of outcome

Why would innovation and progress disappear without the profit motive? @3v6en8

The satisfaction of helping your fellow man, your name in a history book, societal recognition, compensation appropriate for the innovation and it's significance as opposed to the selling of that innovation to a corporation which will find a way to use it which generates the greatest amount of profits possible

They wouldn't get the same

That's not the idea of socialism or communism

Compensation is not equal

You'd pay someone preforming more labor or more important labor more

The wage gaps are just drastically less

I think in the USSR the largest wage gap after the revolution was 1:10

@Pelth Because they reproduce capitalist logic within their day-to-day lives and personal interactions

E P I C

What is human nature?

@3v6en8 All of that depends on the particular socialist formation

I do that daily

What about it is incompatible with a stateless, moneyless, profitless society?

I'm staunchly opposed to idealism philosophically

Historical Materialism, A dialectical theory of knowledge, empiricism

shit like that

Like the Marxist theory of history

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

Name a single state which has existed without socioeconomic classes? @Pelth

and furthermore name one where these classes are not in conflict with one another

@3v6en8 Engage in the destruction of bourgeois class society, and build a world where human need is the primary driving force