Comradeship // Freechat

2655 readers

135 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

[Showerthought] does the bourgeoisie culturally exist? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Throughout history, the dominant class usually create a very explicit cultural distinction between themselves and the exploited. Kings were divinely ordained and lived secluded in their courts, Roman senators had their privileges explicitly encoded into law, and colonial slavemasters relied on racism and religion to distinguish themselves from their slaves. They were explicitly and unashamedly metaphysically different kinds of people, with exclusive access to social markers like clothing.

Meanwhile the modern bourgeoisie seems to be almost reliant on propagating the myth that they're just like workers. Billionaires will go on talk shows to talk about their "job" as CEO, mostly dress just like the labour aristocracy, and even (ghost) write books on productivity or lifestyle as though they're human. Heck, some of them even have salaries! Culturally, they seem to always try to frame themselves as just a particularly successful regular Joe rather than a categorically different kind of person.

Am I crazy here or is the bourgeoisie historically unique in ideologically negating their own existence as a class? These statements seem too broad to be true.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

There's a pretty huge number of people who own enough shares of tech companies that rapidly exploded in value to never step foot in an office again. They literally do control what the CEO of the company does. But because of the distribution of individual interests among many people, it's ultimately best to think about capital itself being the force that a CEO responds to, because that's what the shareholders have and wish to increase.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 days ago

Good point. Seeing the capital itself as a force to respond to is pretty convincing.

Still, money is not the main point here. The old money folks dont exist in a vacuum. If you took their money tomorrow, they would be back in money the day after because they built dynasties and networks of favors to call in over the decades or even generations. I dont think we know enough to really judge what their clubs and hidden communities even look like. Things like the rotary or lions club are the most visible and somewhat accessible if you are in the top earners of the working class (dont ask me how I know). I'm fairly certain there are clubs that you only get into if you are in completely different worlds, financially. I worked for a german private bank once (hauck & aufhäuser) which is famous for their investment banking scheme. Pretty sure they have special programs for their top customers to make them known to each other.

We would really benefit from a person like Engels who is both a capitalist and a marxist who spoils the secrets.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago

Good point. Seeing the capital itself as a force to respond to is pretty convincing.

We would really benefit from a person like Engels who is both a capitalist and a marxist who spoils the secrets.