PDA

View Full Version : Capitalism has killed off the bourgeoisie?


Cheerio
4th Sep 2011, 22:13
BBC News - A Point of View: The revolution of capitalism (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14764357)

This talk was broadcast this morning and articulated what I have felt in my bones for many years. Have a read of the link and let us know what you think. Big picture stuff not micro-economics.

lomapaseo
4th Sep 2011, 22:33
Hunters, gatherers, grass hoppers or ants, what should I be.:confused:

Taint nuting that's perfect. At least capitalism is creative as much as it begots the suckers and the suckees.


Nope I don't want to create a socialist life although I may be condemed to live in it. I'll be the pig and somebody else can be the lambs

tony draper
4th Sep 2011, 22:51
We have to think up these systems because there are way way to many of us wandering the Earth far far more than nature intended.
:rolleyes:

Keef
4th Sep 2011, 22:54
I listened to the bloke, and thought "How depressing". So I went to church.

racedo
4th Sep 2011, 23:33
Nope they still there.

Are the Hearts family less rich in the US since their newspaper empire got smaller ?

ESPN says otherwise.

Smart rich people are still rich just they don't flaunt it.

con-pilot
4th Sep 2011, 23:36
I listened to the bloke, and thought "How depressing". So I went to church.

That's your job, a job you like, hardly a sacrifice. :p

Worrals in the wilds
5th Sep 2011, 06:19
I think there are a lot of assumptions in there.
For example;
In fact, in Britain, the US and many other developed countries over the past 20 or 30 years, the opposite has been happening. Job security doesn't exist, the trades and professions of the past have largely gone and life-long careers are barely memories. For a lot of people, life-long careers are barely 'memories' because there are now options to change careers. Adult trade apprenticeships and people deciding to do degrees and become scientists at 50 were almost unknown concepts even thirty years ago. Now there is freedom to move between careers for people with the nous to do so. Of course people are also forced out of careers when their business is unviable, but didn't that always happen? What about the last cartwheel manufacturer etc etc? The professions are still reasonably secure; while competition can be fierce it was always thus. Didn't Dickens do a couple of stories about the pressure of being a young solicitor?
In a society that is being continuously transformed by market forces, traditional values are dysfunctional and anyone who tries to live by them risks ending up on the scrapheap.I think he's been paying too much attention to alarmist newspaper articles. The marriage concept may be changing but I don't see Hogarthian style scenes on the street yet, in most parts of the capitalist world anyway. There are a lot of people quietly plugging away sticking to reasonably traditional values but they don't make for interesting 'news' stories, so we hear an inordinate amount about the 18 year old junkies with 5 kids to 5 dads. It's a much more entertaining read than hearing about Joe Bloggs who's a bank worker studying part time to be a nurse and living in reasonable harmony with partner, child and rescue dog, although they are actually more indicative of the majority.

More and more people live from day to day, with little idea of what the future may bring. I'm sure most people always did. We only have access to snippets of info from the Victorian Era and earlier, and they often show a fictional or distorted small slice of life. In any case, he seems to be particularly selective with his historic reading. The Victorian Era had its guttersnipes, violent crimes, drug addicts, listless losers and boring ol' ordinary people working jobs. In some ways it was as crazy a time to be alive as today is.

The world certainly moves faster than it did but I don't see that as a bad thing. Exhilarating would be a more positive word for exactly the same phenomenon. Whether the glass is half full or half empty all depends on the point of view.

corsair
5th Sep 2011, 10:25
It's a much more entertaining read than hearing about Joe Bloggs who's a bank worker studying part time to be a nurse and living in reasonable harmony with partner, child and rescue dog, although they are actually more indicative of the majority. The modern problem for Joe Bloggs is that the bank is cutting back, his pay is static or reduced and there's a chance he won't have job next week. If he makes it as a nurse he will probably take a drop in pay, work longer hours and be under more pressure. His life won't improve merely change. When the child is old enough for school, a choice will have to be made. Either pay for expensive child care with both partners working or one gives it up and works part time or not at all.

They won't end up in the street but any aspirations to improve their situation are stifled to some degree. These are the people who are the bedrock of any society. When they begin to struggle it's bad news for everyone.

As for the article. I don't really think the bourgeoisie are gone at all. I see them every day. They have simply adapted to the new situation. They remain the comfortably off minority. They're most easily seen bringing their kids to school. Perfectly turned out women and well manicured men in their expensive cars. Not for them the struggle to pay the mortgage every month.

The rest of the time they're mostly invisible.

Jane-DoH
5th Sep 2011, 14:19
The increasing anti-capitalistic sentiment and increasing embracing of communist ideas strikes me as potentially disturbing. While I do think capitalism requires extensive regulation to work safely, I do not think communism was, is, or will be a feasible economic system.

In the same way the TEA-Party was an astroturf movement for the right-wing/libertarian billionaires to advance their objectives; there seems to be a series of hard left-wing astroturf movements potentially underway. I don't think this is a genuine grass-roots movement. Who's funding this I have no idea. Regardless, the answer lies in whoever's funding it (as they say, follow the money).

Communism is very dangerous not just because of the fact that it virtually necessitates a dictatorship, and a massive bureaucracy to function (which tends to lead to a government that is unresponsive to the public will, and leads to oligarchic tendencies); it also calls for a world-government which I believe is something to be avoided at all costs for a number of reasons, one of them being if everything goes to hell, there's nowhere to run to... :ooh:

Storminnorm
5th Sep 2011, 14:26
I don't want to rule the World.
The Memsahib told me so.

corsair
5th Sep 2011, 14:31
Not even Communists follow Communism's rules anymore. It's failed hopelessly every time it's attempted not least because people like to be left alone to get on with their lives.

As for world government. The only people who could fund the idea, should it even exist are in fact capitalists. Hardly a likely source of the finance.

birrddog
5th Sep 2011, 14:33
Capitalism is when everyone looks up to the "bourgeoisie", gets inspired at what is possible, and works hard so they too can enjoy the benefits of life, bringing everyone up with them.

Socialism is when the "lower class"* want to live the "bourgeoisie" lifestyle at the expense of the "middle class"**, and in effect bringing everyone down to their level.


* If there is a "middle class" then I suspect there should be a "lower class" too
** The "bourgeoisie" will always be "bourgeoisie"

Storminnorm
5th Sep 2011, 16:36
The "Class" thing doesn't apply any more.
What used to be the "Working" class can't be bothered to get jobs.
So the "Middle" class have to support THEM financially, and the Upper
class couldn't give a Monkeys Toss about anyone else, as usual.

Jane-DoH
6th Sep 2011, 05:48
corsair

As for world government. The only people who could fund the idea, should it even exist are in fact capitalists. Hardly a likely source of the finance.

Not necessarily. If their aim is money, no; if their aim is power yes...

shedhead
6th Sep 2011, 11:25
What used to be the "Working" class can't be bothered to get jobs.
Have to disagree Stormin, quite a lot of the friends I grew up with will happily tell you that the only time they have been unemployed was for about 2 or 3 weeks after they shut the pit down and they were made redundant, the majority of them didn't even sign on but instead took a nice 2 week holiday before starting a new job.

stuckgear
6th Sep 2011, 11:54
The "Class" thing doesn't apply any more.
What used to be the "Working" class can't be bothered to get jobs.
So the "Middle" class have to support THEM financially, and the Upper
class couldn't give a Monkeys Toss about anyone else, as usual.


I also have to disagree there Stormin.

However I do agree that the class thing doesnt work anymore.

The 'Working Class' are bothered to get jobs and work long and hard to provide for their families.

The 'Middle Class' are also bothered to get jobs and also work long and hard to provide for their families.

The 'Upper Class' are also bothered to get jobs/work and also work long and hard to provide for their families.

All the classes are taxed to the point of breaking and in many cases beyond in order to provide for a failed, overpriced and inefficient period of administration of the country the results of which will be long suffered by the country, with many losing their homes and families trying to keep their heads above water.

The class system changed substantially under the last government where classes were readjusted to the class that has links with government and its PFI, contracts, nepotism and on the other end of the spectrum, those that do not but were financed by the country to live an alternative lifestyle at the expense of the upper, middle, working classes, all of who have to generate income to survive.

That is the feckless underclass that doesnt want to work, just sit at home, breed and take what they want, no deamnd, as their right as postulated by under a government that saw them as a solid vote base.

shedhead
6th Sep 2011, 12:07
a government that saw them as a solid vote base.
Which only underlines how out of touch with reality said government was. These people do not bother to register to vote and if they did they would be more inclined to vote for the BNP than for the more mainstream parties. The idea that this underclass is a core constituency for the Labour party is a myth. They do not vote! They never have and they have no intention of doing so in the future.

stuckgear
6th Sep 2011, 14:06
These people do not bother to register to vote and if they did they would be more inclined to vote for the BNP


It's the only party they can spell !