Skip to main content

Bourgeois Socialist BS on the BBC

I read, with increasing disbelief, this article on the BBC on how Marx was ‘wrong about communism’ and right about capitalism’.  Very clever line isn’t it.  If you think about it, to say that a great thinker is ‘wrong about communism’ and ‘right about capitalism’ is a perspectival sleight-of-hand.  On  the one hand, he is implying that communism is bollocks, and on the other hand, he’s saying that his critique of capitalism is correct.  What we are left with is that communism is left demonised, and we are to only take on board the critique of capitalism, not to do away with it and replace it with communism, but improve it. 

Marx and Engels did speak about gits like these.  They called ‘em, ‘Bourgeois Socialists’.  They are not unlike charitable institutions and lotteries - getting people to help and screw each other so that they wouldn’t turn around and question the system.  These are sort of cathartic valves installed by the Bourgeoisie to channel the energy of discontent in society emerging as consequences of top-down exploitation. 

Well, let’s get to what this idiot said that irked ed the most.

“Capitalism has led to a revolution but not the one that Marx expected. The fiery German thinker hated the bourgeois life and looked to communism to destroy it. And just as he predicted, the bourgeois world has been destroyed.

But it wasn't communism that did the deed. It's capitalism that has killed off the bourgeoisie.

This state of perpetual unrest is the permanent revolution of capitalism and I think it's going to be with us in any future that's realistically imaginable. bbc

This bloke talks a lot of nonsense. 

He is trying to render the bourgeoisie non-existent, with a flourish of some wand.  Just because people have been underdeveloped by the system to spend their lives with their faces glued to the shop window or telly, and the inane lives of the 'rich and famous', doesn't make the bourgeoisie non-existent.  It just makes them invisible, and hence, palatable.  But it is nevertheless still toxic in its effect.

To say that the bourgeoisie doesn’t exist is a very significant, but highly fallacious statement.  It is nothing short of a paradoxical statement of mephistophelean proportions.  If you want an example of ‘twisting words’, this is a good one.  To say so is to imply, ‘they exist, but they don’t, because to perceive reality as if it is hierarchically organised (class system) is to fuss about something that is natural and hence not worthy of being perceived as such.'    

you can say that capitalism has indeed ‘killed off the bourgeoisie’ by getting people to gradually see the exploitative bourgeoisie as a natural in life, and hence, not a problem, not an enemy, but just a reason why we should come up with more methods to put up the problems that emerge from it to the point that we wouldn’t be cognizant of its existence. Let me put it in simpler terms.  What is being said is that the bourgeoisie do not exist as a class apart from the rest of humanity as if it is an unnatural or bad thing, or in an antagonistic or exploitative sense as Marx had described.  Hence, if we cease to see them as exploiters, we don’t need to recognise their existence as being apart.  And if we don’t need to recognise them as being apart from us, than they don’t exist at all.  So if there is any problem, that’s just the way it is; or maybe you aren’t working hard enough; or you have yet to get used to singers and ball-kickers making loads of money through their insignificant ‘professions’; or there isn’t enough filial piety about for kids to pick up the burden imposed on their parents by the capitalist state of affairs; or etc, etc, etc.  Basically, if we can be taught to not view the elite in antagonistic terms, than they would cease to exist as a class or sector apart from us and equality is established - even if there isn’t.  That is what this idiot is trying to promote.

It is really really bizarre when people can write such rubbish and have them published at ‘respectable’ sites. 

Let’s clear up this BS a bit.

Marx didn’t ‘hate the bourgeois life’.  He love it.  And hence, he wanted everyone to enjoy it.  that is why Marx was averse to the capitalist class system which allows the ‘haves’ to enjoy more than the ‘have-nots’ or ‘have-less’; the former to make more at the expense of the latter, and (ed’s input) channel human development down paths that would make the proletariat more amenable to to their existence.

No.  The ‘bourgeois world’ hasn’t been ‘destroyed’.  You don’t own the company you work in do you.  And nor do you earn as much as your CEO do you.  It is that contradistinction that serves as the most obvious proof that they exist.

Yes.  In a sense, you can say that capitalism has ‘killed off the bourgeoisie’ by getting people to gradually see the exploitative bourgeoisie as a natural in life, and hence, not a problem, not an enemy, but just a reason why we should come up with more methods to put up the problems that emerge from it to the point that we wouldn’t be cognizant of its existence.

By stating that all the upheavels, unrests, etc, is just part and parcel of ‘the permanent revolution of capitalism’ is nothing but an attempt to tell the people that things can only get better, and that all these problems are required to fine-tune capitalism till it is perfect.  And part of this process would involve you being underdeveloped enough to not view anything amiss with the class system to the point that you might  not consider given the so-called queen, celebs, and the CEOs out there a two-fingered salute in place of a curtsey.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…