Socialist Progressives

TBF

(36,063 posts)

3. Perhaps.

Tue Jul 30, 2013, 01:29 PM

Jul 2013

Marx opined that the petty bourgeoisie were a class that would eventually lose its separate status and become part of the proletariat. I think he may have underestimated how the ruling class/capitalists would use religion of all things to keep this class compliant.

See Chapter 3 of the Manifesto for some discussion: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Did Marx underestimate the power of the middle class ? [View all] limpyhobbler Jul 2013 OP

In a word, yes. Proud Public Servant Jul 2013 #1

In a word, no. ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #2

Perhaps. TBF Jul 2013 #3

hmmm pretty interesting limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #7

Marx and Engels wrote each other letters talking about the problem. Starry Messenger Jul 2013 #4

Thanks for the links limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #11

In a word, maybe. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #5

So the middle class in some places may turn out to have been sort of temporary. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #8

Well to me that's the crux of this question...... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #9

Yeah it really seems that way. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #10

There's a lot of history behind ALL of these reform/revolution arguments.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #12

Yeah this is limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #13

Well I'm not so sure that eminent domain couldn't be used.... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #14

They should be using eminent domain for that. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #16

reform vs revolution DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #28

Just a quick reply as I have to go to work in a few.......... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #29

my reply DonCoquixote Aug 2013 #30

Well once again, I don't think that it's a guarantee that the ....... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #31

Marx didn't get industry. joshcryer Jul 2013 #6

"at no point in history did new productive facilities actually change the mode of production" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #20

That's a Jensen view. joshcryer Aug 2013 #21

i appreciate the name-dropping BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #22

I don't reject that notion. joshcryer Aug 2013 #23

"Ideally historical materialism would've said, BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #24

it was actually utopian socialists, e.g. the saint simonians - BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #25

I didn't say historical materialism said that. joshcryer Aug 2013 #32

i'm sorry historical materialism didnt say what you wanted it to say BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #33

What do you think "new productive faculties" are? joshcryer Aug 2013 #34

you remain wrong about the "new productive faculties" BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #36

Capitalism is inherently hierarchical. joshcryer Aug 2013 #37

what is workplace alienation? BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #38

Eh. Disengagement commenced. joshcryer Aug 2013 #39

Three things changed since Marx that were firsts in history Taverner Aug 2013 #15

Coal, oil and gas certainly did fuel the development of modern society. limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #17

The Peak Oil Hypothesis still holds Taverner Aug 2013 #18

no BOG PERSON Aug 2013 #19

Yes he did, for a couple of reasons Warpy Aug 2013 #26

Not at all. David__77 Aug 2013 #27