Do you have questions about the site? Write to bruce at perens.com .
List of all articles we've ever published.
Source Code
Developer's Documentation
RSS
XML Sitemap
XML News Sitemap
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
The Communist Quiz
The development of the Industrial proletariat is conditioned by the development of the Industrial bourgeoisie. [Editor: Long discussion follows of politics and economics as the UK emerges from monarchy.]
Proletariat is from the Latin, those who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labour to live.
Bourgeoisie is also from the Latin, a townsman, marked by a concern for material interests and respectability, and a tendency towards mediocrity.
Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville were not novelists, any more than Adolf Hitler with Mein Kampf, they were writing about things they had seen and witnessed, and then, like any blogger, trying to explain it and make sense of it in terms that meant something to them.
Marx though revolution grew inside the existing incumbent society, before bursting forth and taking over, so the Proles should remain inside the existing incumbent, eating and growing, until the capitalist system had run its course, at which point the Proles could burst forth and take over.
Others thought the Proles would burst forth too early, in response to political and social pressures that were not all caused by the Proles or their existence, and this premature showing would result in either repression by the non Prole majority, or creation of a Prole regime, but one beleaguered on all sides by its own authoritarian substitutionist regime.
The problem is that not only the Proles heard about Marx, Tocqueville et al, those in power did too, and still do, so now Industrialists and Bourgeoisie have ensured that the Capitalist system cannot trigger its own demise by making sure that the Proles have a lot more to loose than their chains.
As men I chose Marx and Tocqueville because they are poles apart, one was landed gentry, and one was a political philosopher and theorist, they were worlds apart, but they talked about the same thing, but that only becomes apparent with the passage of time and reading history too. If you read just one or the other you become polarised yourself.
The Proletariat is still with us, as are the Bourgeoisie, but the incumbents have read Marx and Tocqueville too, and taken note, and adjusted the status quo so that the things they observed can't happen in quite the same way.
The English Proletariat have a lot more to lose, their homes, their cars, their plasma screens on HP, their Mastercards, and of course any organisation such as a union under whose umbrella they could withhold labour on anything other than an individual basis.
There won't be another Miners strike or General Strike, which we had in the 70's, which is the closest thing we had in *my* living memory to social and political revolution, because the incumbents were ahead of the game, nowadays a General Strike is even more unthinkable than it was then, but the problem with this is that it puts the Capitalist system on crutches.
This gives the Capitalist system artificial stability, makes it hang on in there far longer than it would have, the million plus anti Iraq war demo in London didn't faze the Bourgeoisie one iota, because there were no Proles demonstrating, only wannabe Bourgeoisie with too much to loose apart from their chains.
So, with this extra propping up, the Capitalist system will last longer than it has in the past, the wannabe Bourgeoisie have far more to lose than mere Proles, so nobody really wants to upset the apple cart.
Obviously this can go one of two main ways.
Eventually, even with the artificial supports in place, Capitalism will run its course and collapse, but because it was artificially supported long past its sell by date the collapse will be more profound than it would have been otherwise.
Or, something else will come along to supplant Capitalism and avert a collapse and revolution, what that something will be I do not pretend to know, but it will involve the current Capitalists and true Bourgeoisie hanging on to as much power and influence as possible, so it needs to be sold in such a way that nobody thinks they are one of the new Proles, better they are "stakeholders" and don't rock the boat too much.
The workers control the means of production, and the struggle of class against class is a political struggle, simply will not wash with the MySpace Nintendo HDTV generation, this is the Capitalist version of social security, free enterprise crowd control, because nobody has nothing to lose by simply withholding their labour and throwing off their chains, so there are no Proles any more.
The fact that much of what makes us non-Proles is illusory is irrelevant, facts do not matter if mass delusions and widely enough held, and reinforced at every opportunity.
Perhaps it is time for a new class of Prole, the Techo-proletariat, we do not withhold our labour from society, but we withhold our willingness to adhere to any given set of belief systems or standards.
We do not give the Bourgeoisie our belief that Retinol-A and lipids will wash our hair any better than trade detergent, we do not give our belief that a Fiat economy monetary system that we do not control will allow us to trade any better than an arbitrary system based on open source e-credits, we do not give our belief that post Marxist Capitalist Imperialism is any better than Free Trade, we do not give our belief that closed source proprietary Operating Systems are better than Open Source (same goes for codecs and Api's etc too) we do not give our belief that Bourgeoisie media conglomerates is better than the commons for controlling the Internet.
The French Revolution of 1848 and the Russian Revolution were not mere political or social events, they had their roots in emerging technology, technologies that fundamentally altered the status quo, and we are in such time again now, at the beginning of the 21st Century.
I will close with a quote from Tocqueville about the French Revolution, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation.
'In a country without monarchical traditions , in which the executive branch has always been weak and continues to be thoroughly restricted, nothing could be wiser than to entrust the choice of its representative to the nation. A president lacking the strength derived from such an origin would be the plaything of the (legislative) Assemblies, but our situation was quite different. We were emerging from a monarchy, and even the Republicans' habits were monarchical. In any case, centralization made our position unique, for it meant that the whole administration of the country, from the greatest to the most trivial matters, would be in the president's hands'