The Marxist origins of the Tea-party

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...now that I have your attention allow me to explain.

The average tea-partier will probably be as offended by suggestion that they have anything in common politically with Marx, and the most strident Marxists would likely agree. However if you take a closer look the parrels are intriguing.

First there are the obvious differenses, the Tea-party is a predominantly "Right-wing" movement and Marx has been traditionally associated with the "Left". Likewise, the Tea-Party does not advocate Communism, an ideology that historically has proven to be incredibly destructive. That said, they do represent "the awakening of the Proletariat" that Marx predicted.

Marx divided society into 5 broad social classes based on thier relationship with the economy. These classes were...

The Proletariat: “those individuals who sell their labour power, and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production The capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions enabling the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat because the workers’ labour generates a surplus value greater than the workers’ wages.

The Bourgeoisie: those who “own the means of production” and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat; they subdivide as bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie. Petit bourgeoisie are those who employ labourers, but who also work, i.e. small business owners, peasant landlords, trade workers et al. Marxism predicts that the continual reinvention of the means of production eventually would destroy the petit bourgeoisie, degrading them from the middle class to the proletariat.

The Lumpenproletariat: criminals, vagabonds, beggars, et al., who have no stake in the economy, and so sell their labour to the highest bidder.

The Landlords: an historically important social class who retain some wealth and power.

The Peasantry and farmers: a disorganised class incapable of effecting socio-economic change, most of whom would enter the proletariat, and some become landlords.

[copied from Wikipedia]

For the moment let's focus on the first three (or four), the Proletariat, the Bourgeoisie, and the Lumpenproletariat. These three classes still exist in a form that Marx (if he were alive today) could readily identify. The question is can the average "Leftist"?

The Proletariat is easy to spot, they flip burgers, answer phone calls, un-clogg drains, or whatever else it is they do to pay the bills. They also pay taxes and generally contribute to the day to day function of society.

The Lumpenproletariat are also easy to spot, they generally don't work or produce anything and if they do it is either done "under-the-table" or as a part of some criminal enterprise. They run the gamut from hardened criminals to the 32 year-old who's never held a job in his life and still lives with his parents.

The Bourgeoisie is where we see dissention. Your average Progressive would say that the Bourgeoisie are Wall Street, (hense the move to occupy it). Your average Tea-Partier on the other hand would say that Wall Street (the rich 1% if you like) are in fact the Petit Bourgeoisie and that the Grande Bourgeoisie are the "Political Class". Who are the "Political Class"? They are the Career Politicians (both R and D), the Ivy League graduates, and the "Skull & Bones Men" who are destined for great things because thier daddy was a mover and a shaker. In short they are a new aristocracy.

Progressives HATE this interpretation.

(edited to be more clear and less trollish)

The general perception among conservatives is that progressives primary goal is to increase the power of government so that they can forcefully address the issues social justice and the enviroment. In doing so they sided with the "Grande Bourgeoisie" and that as a result talk of progressive's talk individual rights and "speaking truth to power" comes across as hollow platitudes. The old 60s radicals won, and in doing so they became "The Man".

Turn about is fair play my friends ;)

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Um, petit bourgeois was something Marx came up with to classify the shop owner or "working owners" of small business.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

And that contradicts the above how?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

You see, if true a lot of Progressives are not honest proles as they like to present themselves but members of the ruling class.

Maybe I'm just tired and not seeing it, but I don't know how you're coming to this conclusion. Please elaborate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Poor people are members of the ruling class.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The general perception is that progressives want to increase the power of government to adress so that they can forcefully address the issues of inequality and social justice.

The problem is that in doing so they have sided with the "Grande Bourgeoisie"

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

A bunch (no accurate count so far) of the peasants in Austin didn't occupy the Bank of America, but they did go in today and close their accounts with the intention of moving their money to a regional bank or credit union.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I was in a credit union last Saturday finalizing a car loan and one person came in and went to a teller to have them move his money from BofA to the credit union because of the fee.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I lost interest when I realized I couldn't set this to Yakety Sax.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Hehehe :-)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You should petition the LJ gods to add that as a feature.

They could put a lttle button right next to "add a comment", "Sax it up!"

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

But if I were to maintain interest, I'd point out that lots of "progressives" are perfectly aware that they are in the "ruling class" -- hence, the entire focus on privilege within identity politics....it's not as if white middle class male academics who study/espouse identity politics are exactly able to ignore where they sit by their own theories.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

well that's where thing get messy and perhapse I should spell it out a bit better.

The general perception is that progressive want to increase the power of government to adress the above issues. The problem is that in doing so they have essentially declared "Power to the Grande Bourgeoisie!" and the proles are understandably less than thrilled.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

In a mixed system, as the one in the US, government does not own all the means of production, although they can affect the rules which they go by.

If you are using the Marxist code, bureaucrats and politicians will only fit your picture if they are under the thumb of big corporations.

Which they are, so yeah, in a sense you have a point, but only because too much politics is ruled by libertarian free marketeers and not by voters.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well this gets into the nature of wealth. (and yeas this is something that both sides mess up)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

..and it's also kind of obvious that the marxist model isn't 100% applicable in a modern mixed democratic system. Times, change and all that.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

true but it's friday and I feel like fucking with people's preconceptions ;)

This is a post that is not serious:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If the Neocons are right-wing converted Trotskyists then the Tea Party must be Stalinists who turned Right-Wing. That would explain the welfare queens who want the government to let the poor die but let them be the sole lazy indolent parasitical ticks on the body politic. Ronald Reagan is right, the only people who support welfare are dishonest and lazy idle parasites. It's not just being on the dole that they want, which is why they want the government to outlaw Islam and homosexuality. They are too lazy to do it on their own with the cadillacs and diamond bikinis they buy with their food stamps. The only logical answer is to privatize nukes so that everyone has a nuke. Government which is the root of all evil shall wither away and then the skies shall rain gumdrops and pixies and rainbows and utopia shall be born.

Re: This is a post that is not serious:

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The Stalinists haven't shown up yet but there are Leninists to go around, other then that yah pretty much. ;)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Man, power sure is great. Imagine if you or I caused a deadly crash then violated a whole host of laws trying to cover it up. We'd get serious jail time. A Colorado state rep did it and she got a fine.

People really don't realize that political power has perks wealth can not buy.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Power is wealth(and vice versa) but that is a post in itself.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ted would have done 10 to 20 if his last name hadn't been Kennedy.

Nice try, but wrong on the facts.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

"Awakening" is doing what Dick Armey wants you do anyway? Maybe the Tea Party is a portion of the proletariat following its leaders' lead, like the whole freaking rest of history. How is advocating for the same damn things as Gingrich, Armey, Reagan, & Santorum have all along a rebellion against a ruling class?

Also: Most of the proletariat aren't actually Tea Party. The Tea Party's policies are pro-bourgeois at best, so hardly represent burger-flippers pursuing their own interests.

And for crying out loud, the government is not identical to the Grand Bourgeois! Even the corporate Right maintain that Wall Street is the Grand Bourgeois, and that the government is insufficiently considerate of bourgeois desires!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

the Tea-Party does not advocate Communism, an ideology that historically has proven to be incredibly destructive.

They do, however, advocate capitalism, an ideology that historically has proven to be incredibly destructive without parallel.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That must be why the U.S. is a desert wasteland while China and Russia have cities of gold...

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"Progressives HATE this interpretation."

What I hate is that you defined petite bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie) all wrong. The top 1% represents the haute bourgeoisie:

Though distinct from the ordinary working class and the lumpenproletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, the petit- is different from the haute bourgeoisie, (high bourgeoisie) or capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. Though the petite bourgeoisie may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie, they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.

More importantly, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly.

I also disagree that the 60s radical won. They always representing a small fraction of their generation, who got disproportionate attention simply because they were radicals. The Boomers that have had any political influence either never participated in the counterculture, or chose to drop back in.

As far as the career politicians being at fault, I'm in complete agreement.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

Oh FFS! I really wish they'd move the "Don't Auto-Format" checkbox to the response screen instead of forcing you to remember to hit "More Options…" just for that one option.

Au contraire, Pierre!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The bourgeoisie is a rather mixed class of people in post-modern society. The Wall Street grunts fit into the category of bourgeois, but so do the kids who occupy the streets. Their parents are middle class urbanites and suburbanites who qualify as fully bourgeois. The owners who profit from the Street are closer to the aristocracy at the time of Marx. They are former grand bourgeois who have replaced older money with less old old money. Most of the proletariat in the American economy live and work in places like China, Madagascar, and Latin America. Even burger flippers at Mickey D's qualify as petit bourgeois.

You are right about one thing: Tea Partiers fit into the Marxian perspective. They are running dog lackeys of capital. They are the enemies of their own class similar to those who promoted counter-revolution in Germany and Italy during the '20s and '30s.

Re: Au contraire, Pierre!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Seeing how the glorius revolution worked out for the Kulaks and rural Europe in general I'd say it was the revolutionaries who where "the enemies of their own class".