6 ms·

The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. Both views are fla

The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. Both views are flawed, of course.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. That's not the flip side of that view, because the socialist view of an exploited proletariat in an advanced industrial democracy is not one of “helpless victims”, but of a powerful force that has the power to reverse the power structure once they realize it exists and act in solidarity against it.
- treerock 6y ago
  > socialist view of an exploited proletariat is one of...a powerful force May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', with no real power? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', No, the lumpenproletariat, in Marxist theory is an underclass beneath and contrasted with the proletariat consisting largely of the unemployable (not due to economic system or structure, or physical capacity, but personal character and inclination), career criminals (of more than mala in se than malum prohibiting sense), and the others who neither make nor are inclined to make a positive contribution to society, and which unlike the proletariat is not viewed as a fertile ground for developing class consciousness and is viewed as a dangerous class at best useless to revolutionary organization of the proletariat, and also having a great potential, largely for pay, to individually be recruited as agents by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
    - ivanhoe 6y ago
      Ohh, so something like Bachelors of Arts, right? :P
- Anthony-G 6y ago
  I don’t understand why this post is being down-voted as it clearly states one of the foundations of socialism. A quick (and very) simplified summary of the traditional socialist perspective is that in capitalism, the vast majority of the population must work as wage-earners (proletariat) to provide the means to sustain their life. A much smaller group of people (capitalists or bourgeoisie) own the means of production and do not need to work. The material interests of these two groups are in opposition (class struggle): value is created by work done (labour theory of value) and it is in the interest of capitalist owners to exploit workers as much as possible, i.e., maximise the amount of value they can extract as profit. As economic value is created by the labour of workers, in an advanced industrial society, they are the class with the potential to consolidate this economic power: if they were to unite (in unions and socialist parties), they could use this economic power to take political power from the capital class. The goal of the socialist is to unite workers across boundaries so that they understand that their material interests coincide with other workers (class consciousness) – what they have in common is more important than what divides them. If workers don’t see that their material interests lie with the vast majority who have to work to live, the class will remain divided (as illustrated by the Ronald Wright quote). As well as these two primary classes, there are other (smaller) classes in capitalist society, such as - petit-bourgeoisie (small capitalists who own their means of production, e.g. shop-keeper) who can employ workers but don’t possess sufficient capital to not have to work themselves. Their class interests can lie with both capitalist and worker. - lumpen proletariat – the underclass of the proletariat who don’t provide economic value, e.g., thieves, beggars, criminals; they lack class consciousness and act in their individual self-interest; they can be used by capitalists against the interests of the proletariat (e.g., strike-breaking, inciting racism to divide workers).
  - chongli 6y ago
    I understand why socialism appeals to people when they see so much suffering and inequality in the world. What I do not understand is why any scholars would cling to the labour theory of value in light of such things as multi-billionaire startup founders. It should be pretty clear to anyone at this point that all you need is a laptop, programming skills, a good idea, and a lot of luck to become a billionaire. You don’t need thousands, let alone millions, of employees labouring for you.

The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. Both views are flawed, of course.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. That's not the flip side of that view, because the socialist view of an exploited proletariat in an advanced industrial democracy is not one of “helpless victims”, but of a powerful force that has the power to reverse the power structure once they realize it exists and act in solidarity against it.

treerock 6y ago
> socialist view of an exploited proletariat is one of...a powerful force May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', with no real power? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', No, the lumpenproletariat, in Marxist theory is an underclass beneath and contrasted with the proletariat consisting largely of the unemployable (not due to economic system or structure, or physical capacity, but personal character and inclination), career criminals (of more than mala in se than malum prohibiting sense), and the others who neither make nor are inclined to make a positive contribution to society, and which unlike the proletariat is not viewed as a fertile ground for developing class consciousness and is viewed as a dangerous class at best useless to revolutionary organization of the proletariat, and also having a great potential, largely for pay, to individually be recruited as agents by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
  - ivanhoe 6y ago
    Ohh, so something like Bachelors of Arts, right? :P
Anthony-G 6y ago
I don’t understand why this post is being down-voted as it clearly states one of the foundations of socialism. A quick (and very) simplified summary of the traditional socialist perspective is that in capitalism, the vast majority of the population must work as wage-earners (proletariat) to provide the means to sustain their life. A much smaller group of people (capitalists or bourgeoisie) own the means of production and do not need to work. The material interests of these two groups are in opposition (class struggle): value is created by work done (labour theory of value) and it is in the interest of capitalist owners to exploit workers as much as possible, i.e., maximise the amount of value they can extract as profit. As economic value is created by the labour of workers, in an advanced industrial society, they are the class with the potential to consolidate this economic power: if they were to unite (in unions and socialist parties), they could use this economic power to take political power from the capital class. The goal of the socialist is to unite workers across boundaries so that they understand that their material interests coincide with other workers (class consciousness) – what they have in common is more important than what divides them. If workers don’t see that their material interests lie with the vast majority who have to work to live, the class will remain divided (as illustrated by the Ronald Wright quote). As well as these two primary classes, there are other (smaller) classes in capitalist society, such as - petit-bourgeoisie (small capitalists who own their means of production, e.g. shop-keeper) who can employ workers but don’t possess sufficient capital to not have to work themselves. Their class interests can lie with both capitalist and worker. - lumpen proletariat – the underclass of the proletariat who don’t provide economic value, e.g., thieves, beggars, criminals; they lack class consciousness and act in their individual self-interest; they can be used by capitalists against the interests of the proletariat (e.g., strike-breaking, inciting racism to divide workers).
- chongli 6y ago
  I understand why socialism appeals to people when they see so much suffering and inequality in the world. What I do not understand is why any scholars would cling to the labour theory of value in light of such things as multi-billionaire startup founders. It should be pretty clear to anyone at this point that all you need is a laptop, programming skills, a good idea, and a lot of luck to become a billionaire. You don’t need thousands, let alone millions, of employees labouring for you.