Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
7. hmmm pretty interesting
Wed Jul 31, 2013, 12:14 PM
Jul 2013

In this chapter it seems like Marx intends to deliver an exposé on various competing socialistic movements and offers his analysis of them.

There is one in the list that seems particularly relevant to our modern situation, and to this question of the role of the middle class, is in Chapter 3 Part 2

Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.


So I think he's talking about a capitalist tendency that offers hope, and limited material improvement, to some workers, while at the same time maintaining the the basic relationships of production and organization.

In that last bit he seems to get snarky, when he says how in this tendency every capitalist maneuver is sold to the working class as being for the good of the working class.


Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Haven't had a chance to look at the others yet.


Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Did Marx underestimate th...»Reply #7