Is there a reason we won’t have a “dictatorship of the petit-bourgeois” before we have a dictatorship of the proletariat? As well a dictatorship of the labour aristocracy? We can surely imagine a world where mom and pop shops seek to put heavy restrictions on capital bigger than themselves, making themselves more competitive and using the working class vote against the big bourgeois to do this?
I unironically think this is going to happen. Historically, the biggest revolutionary elements were from bourgeois turned traitors to their class.
This is somewhat in line with some bourgeois theorists beliefs regarding economic growth and individual welfare, except they're predictably more limited in their horizons with an emphasis on a more permanent social democratic model than a revolutionary one. Typically the more left wing of liberal academic will suggest that economic growth has negative consequences for income inequality in the short run, but the vast accumulation and depressed individual welfare will result in a counter tendency under the correct conditions (ideal liberal democratic ones) for the state to start redistributing the gains. Then you'll see a decline in inequality and a general increase in democracy and human development.
It's a nice story, but unclear if it really occurs because of present hitches in the predictions. While some theorists claimed this was already observable in the data, we've seen over the past decades a vast increase in inequality. Maybe this could be explained as an isolated cycle of accumulation associate with the neoliberal turn, so that we should expect a counter tendency to be kicking in soon in the form of socdems like Sanders.
But even assuming this redistributive cycle is true, we've recently come into the dilemma that it may no longer be possible to put off human welfare for a later day after vast, unequal accumulation because of global warming. For example, an article last year in Foreign Policy argued that further compounding economic growth may be impossible even assuming shifts to "green" production without increasing resource consumption to the point that it is unsustainable: foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/12/why-growth-cant-be-green/
If that were true in all immediately forseeable futures (technological, material like population scales) then it may be the case that whether this model of political economic development is accurate or not, it is no longer a strategically viable form of development.
Jesus christ, the absolute state of this board in current year
when were u when leftypol dies
i was sat at home try for read theory when thread is made
'revolution is petit bourgeois'
Having thought about it a little bit more, isn't what fascism claims to offer a dictatorship of the petit bourgeoisie?
Also, isn't this essentially the ideal outcome for social democrats? Fascists are basically 'revolutionary' socdems who use nationalism and racism as a boost.
Sounds like another form of fascism to me. Reminder that fascism finds its vanguard in the Petit-bourgeois.
This. It's also the reason why fascists ideologies are so fucking schizophrenic. Even when they're at the helm, the petit-bourg are just good little bitches for the daddy bourg, the absolute fucking eternal cucks.
Okay i'm in agreement, the scary after thought then is, does the national progression of history mean we will go through a period of fascism before we get to communism.
Like if you look at the change from feudal society into capitalist society that was larger merchant class eating the smaller aristocracy. Why isn't the next stage the larger petit bourgeoisie class eating the smaller big bourgeoisie.
Is it because their class interests align to closely? What happens then, as is happening now in many places in europe in america, where the gap between the working class and the petit bourgeoisie gets smaller while the gap between the petit bourg and the bourg bourg gets bigger.
Consider that the recent upsurge in fascist ideology came off the back of a mortgage crisis that smashed the world economy. What could be a more perfect example of the difference between the petit borugioes and the bourg bourg, now they see themselves as aligned more with the working class, who they still associate with on a daily basis more than big bourg,
did Marx predict that the petit bourgeoisie would come to be such a large section of society?
If I'm not mistaken, the standard ML analysis of fascism is that its primary base of support is the petit bourgeois class, but serves the interests of the big bourgeoisie once it's in power. Obviously the anti-communism, hostility towards unions, bourgeois nationalism, etc. means that it's anti-proletarian.
If the current state of western "leftism" and the impending catastrophe of climate change (with the ensuing mass migration) are any indications, then yes. Don't want to be a downer but it's not looking good, most of the western "left" are in cahoots with neoliberals and abet imperialism. I would be SHOCKED if the west DOESN'T become fascist during crisis, there's absolutely no organization among the left.
This is the elephant in the room. The socialist/communist left is still basically non-existent in most western countries. We have nothing. There is a new social democratic movement starting to gain some influence in the US and the UK, but at the same time social democracy continues to decay in countries where it has been strong historically. We're starting from nothing here.
i'd say there is also a new current of the far left beggining to organise again, early stages but when certain tipping points happen you get mass radicalisation. For instance organisations such as Acorn are growing in the UK and across europe. I think last year was the biggest year for strikes in the US for 50 years or something
Also, i think it is doubtful that the UK/US/Europe would go full authoritarian in the current climate. More likely is a damp squib psuedo fascist who is then cucked to hell by the bourg parliamentary system but the petit bourg are temporarily satisfied their guy got in .. so Trump now i guess
Certain things like this suggest that the conditions needed to build a new socialist left are starting to emerge. I just hope we're gonna be able to capitalize on it.
Labour aristocracy is not a meme and it's not something MTWs invented. However, MTWs broaden the definition and make it a central point of marxist analysis. They still have a point when they say revolution has to start in third world countries and then move up the chain as global capitalism collapses.
To give a serious answer, capitalism is defined by capital and not capitalists. This makes it impossible for petit-bourgs to restrain or prevent a class of large proprietors forming above them.