Ciao!

Hi
I always respect to bourgeois i don't think we can put the bourgeois and capitalist people in the same category. I don't think we can concern the US bourgeois's state.. American intellectual level showed himself in Iraq’s war clearly.. Petrol refineries protected by freedom worriers but historic places and museums are lived hungry crowded mercies. In the Second World War fascist Germany those barbaric SS solders didn’t destroy any historic place and museum. Even they didn’t use those very intelligent bobs,... Look at this what we learn from American freedom,, free press.. did you see that? News reporter was in iraq , in army , in the American army, they just show us what soldiers showed them..

While I respect your right to disagree, I think you have a few factual errors there. First, the bourgeoisie and capitalism are inherently linked. Capitalism is the economic theory of the bourgeoisie, so, yes, they're in the same category. I'm not sure what you meant about the museums (I suspect English isn't your first language, and that's nothing to be ashamed of), but I do think the US military tried to avoid those places. And the looting, it seems, was done after the war and was later acknowledged as an "inside job" (most of the pieces later ended up in France, of all places).

As to the SS and Germans not bombing museums and historical places. That's clearly not true. You are aware, I'm sure of the London Blitz and the general theory of total aerial bombardment first developed by the Luftwaffe (though, yes, later also used by the Allies). Also, remember the book burnings and other artistic/literary/musical censorship by the Nazi regime.

As to the question of whether the "embedded" journalists were a product of censorship. That's logically flawed. Censorship is the prevention of information, not the assistance of information. If that's the case, then every press conference would be an act of censorship, since it requires that reporters gather at a specific location at a specific time, rather than just roaming the corporate halls, the White House, or union offices. The military allowed the "embeds" to move w/ troops (giving them a much closer view of the Gulf War II than Gulf War I), even when they were critical of tactics or the war effort. Even Al Jazeera and ADTV had embedded reporters. Also, the embedded journalists were not the only reporters in Iraq. Independent and free lance reporters were roaming around -- and reporting -- from Iraq w/o military cover. One such reporter (Christopher Allbritton) did so utterly independently, raising his own money to sneak into Iraq through the Turkish border. And don't forget the reporters in the Baghdad presspool (w/ all their Iraqi "minders"). I suspect their views were much more highly censored than those under American protection.

So the bourgeois are better than the aristocrats and the Nazis (who isn't?) but that doesn't mean that they are beyond reproach. Marx was wise to urge caution in dealing with the ruling class- while I'm not a socialist I'm also not a Reganite; I think to cheer on the bourgeois can quickly lead to cheering on greed. You've suggested that giant, monopoly-like corporations have their benefits but are they doing all that they should be? Its only by criticizing some of the actions of the ruling class and ruling corporations that people inspire change and more fairness; railing against the bourgeois (with informed logic) is part of proccess which makes for a better system. I'd go on but there's no more room

Bill, I certainly didn't state (or even imply) that the bourgeoisie are beyond reproach. And do re-read your Marx, he isn't as negative about the bourgeoisie as the post-Lenin revisionists have portrayed him to be. Rather, for Marx, the coming of socialism would come about because of the dialectical process w/in modern capitalism. That is, the bourgeois class, in advancing freedom, set forth the nature of their own demise and would, in time, naturally fade away. Of course, Marx wrote this during the birth pangs of industrial capitalism, not during its heyday. Gramsci (in the 1930s), for example, further revised Marxism (standing in opposition to the Leninist revision) and came to the conclusion that bourgeois democracy and socialism could easily co-exist. In fact, the welfare state we see today is a social-democratic construct. Look at the "ruling" parties in Europe: Labor in Britain (a socialist party, actually, the oldest socialist party), Social Democrats in Germany (the party founded by, ahem, Marx and Engels), and the list goes on.

The point is that the relationship between socialism and democracy -- and Marx's early predictions about capitalism made in the 1840s -- have been revisited by Marxists themselves. And they're not necessarily along the lines of the Lenin-Bakunin-Trostky camps popular among the activist crowd.

Bill, I also think it's unfair of you to try to oversimplify the argument as between Marx (socialism-communism) and Reagan (neo-conservatism). That's a false argument. The bourgeois is, at his core, a liberal and NOT a conservative! While neo-conservatives have recently taken a pro-capitalist stance (which was not always the case, take Burke for example), this does not make them liberals.

As for the cheering on the bourgeois leading to cheering of naked greed. Point taken. But let's not always be so quick to throw the baby out w/ the bath water. Why can't one sing the praises of the bourgeoisie even while condemning its excesses? After all, that's exactly what Marx did.

I don't disagree with you. I think the petty bourgeoisie is nothing to be hated. I believe in socialism, or at least what I have kind of created in my head with combinations of ideas. I don't believe we all need to be working class/lower class, I think the best socialist system would be one with mainly (or all) middle class/petty bourgeoisie citizens. People should persue intrests in the arts, sciences, and professional carrers. My main problem is with the filthy rich, the owners of huge corpotations. I believe huge corporations keep the working class poor, halt them from lifting themselves into the middle class. With different levels of public schools, good for the rich bad for the poor, it just perpetuates poverty from one family to another. I don't have a fundamental problem with capitalism, being judged on your traits and skills and not ancestors. Yet it seems that when capitalism is let loose without restrictions, the competative nature causes winners and losers and the losing or winning transcends generations. We would like to believe that in capitalism you are not judged on ancestors, but this is not entirely true either. If you are born a millionaire, with every chance to exel and a lot of opportunities, you are much more likely to succeed that a person born into a drug-ridden, violent, hopeless ghetto. If every one is given the same changes to learn, succeed and love life, then it truely would be your detirmination and skills that allowed you to succeed. I have absolutely no problem with the petty bourgeoisie(for one thing, I won't be hypocritical, I am upper-middle class. I go to a good public school and I live a comfortable lifestyle.) I have problems with extreme class seperation, from dirt poor to filthy rich. I believe leveling the social field to a middle class life for all would be much more effective in society.

FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF A CULTURE OF TRADERS. -- We have now an opportunity of watching the manifold growth of the culture of a society of which commerce is the soul, just as personal rivalry was the soul of culture among the ancient Greeks, and war, conquest, and law among the ancient Romans. The tradesman is able to value everything without producing it, and to value it according to the requirements of the consumer rather than his own personal needs. "How many and what class of people will consume this?" is his question of questions. Hence, he instinctively and incessantly employs this mode of valuation and applies it to everything, including the productions of art and science, and of thinkers, scholars, artists, statesmen, nations, political parties, and even entire ages: with respect to everything produced or created he inquires into the supply and demand in order to estimate for himself the value of a thing. This, when once it has been made the principle of an entire culture, worked out to its most minute and subtle details, and imposed upon every kind of will and knowledge, this is what you men of the coming century will be proud of, -- if the prophets of the commercial classes are right in putting that century into your possession! But I have little belief in these prophets. Credat Judaeus Apella -- to speak with Horace.

Where did you get this idea, Friedrich? The trader values things according to his own criteria, and he does have to produce (he produces trade networks). But the nature of trade always rests on one thing: the consumer. You don't like the traders' product? Don't buy it. That's the beauty of capitalist trade.

Personally, I hope we do develop a culture based on trade. It's much better than one based on obligation or supersticion.

I enjoy your site and all the postings, Bravo !

Malthus' famous example of the poor Irish serves to show how poverty is not the external limit of the economy, rather its internal limit: contrary to the ‘law of trade outlets’ (loi des débouchés) which was being elaborated by Say, James Mill and Ricardo. Malthus’s Irish peasant stands witness to the futility of producing goods with which to invade a new market if there as been no previous concern there to ‘create the consumer’ (new needs), that other product which is of such particular and primary importance.

Capital is like the subtle ether of the older philosophers; it is around us, it is about us, it mixes in every thing we do, Thought itself invisible, its effects are but to apparent. It is no less useful to our economists than that was to the philosophers. It serves to account for whatever cannot be accounted for in any other way. Where reason fails, where argument is insufficient, it operates like a talisman to silence all doubts. It occupies the same place in their theories, which was held by darkness in the mythology of the ancients. It is the root of all their genealogies, it is the great mother of all things, it is the cause of every event that happens in the world.

Produce tradenetworks for what self-produced and/or self-consumened goods or services?

If trade is economic, why base a culture on that; the ignorance and arrogance that a culture of trade is the only and sufficient option out of obligation and supersticion , and I am not talking about communism as alternative here. IF a solution at all: I do not really see world-suffering - compared to those for whom bad feudal, Roman, or aristocratic times before the bourgeosie thought they could conduct in their unselfisch manner - decreasing at this moment (uhm, yes Budha then said: look for the cause) in this world of "free subjects", well: formally free that is..

..Good lord, I envy and pitty your naievity..

...even more nominalisticly strange: since when is a culture unified, meaning: did there ever exist an all encompassing culture, or a concept even (a la 'culture based on trade') to explain the totallity of culture(s), does economics mean the same in other times (or will it mean the same)?..

..but then again, since it was Friedrich Nietzsche above, as far as I can see it: You are doing a good job (ofcourse, good=efficiency, id est oeconomic, here)! What makes you think we do not yet have a culture based on trade in this Hobbsian time of government of individualization (omnes et singulatim: consume! it is good for you, work! it is life fulfilling).

Even more strange: if you are doing a good job, why do you want more (the self-consuming need as apitite for the ones not hungry anymore), is there exercize of ruthlessness enough for every one?

Alas, just wondering on what grounds you judge a "better" CULTURE, supply and demand, in solipsistic narcist practices (no collective will, or market spontaneously giving), perhaps?

Despite your rambling (and you must admit, that's what it is, since you could've made your point so much easier w/o reverting to pseudo-intellectual jargon), I'll answer the basic question in your long missive:

On what grounds do I judge a "better" culture? I could give you the long rambling pseudo-intellectual Objectivist answer. Or just list a few basic things:

Better standard of living. Including: longer life-span, better education, greater access to variety of goods & services, better medical technology, etc.

If you look at the history of the world, only bourgeois capitalist systems have provided this. Socialist systems have failed. Feudal & oligarchic systems are a miserable experience. Fascist systems fail in their brutality. Name me a non-bourgeois capitalist system in which -- on the whole -- you'd rather live and raise your family. I dare you to name me ONE.

Ashamed of myself not making it simple what is looks te be I'll try to answer and question your question and answer in non-quasi-intellectual rambling, in a short:

Since you use 'culture' in a rather general and unifying manner, I would like to ask you two things besides the weirdness of pretending to even judge about "better" "cultures" from a intracultural (biased) standpoint:

1. Why should a culture be based on trade when you value culture according to extraeconomical terms? I know economics, in whatever kind, always is THE way that these valued things are reached/accomplished and that the value of economics is high, but why base a culture on trade when you yourself judge cultures in a non-economic way? This argument is, ofcourse, obviously a flaw when you consider the things you mentioned to be (intrinsically) economic/trade-like; if this is the case, I would love a supporting enligthenment from your side for this viewpoint.

2. Since I asked for WHOM a better culture, I could be rhetorical and ask the same again concerning these standards you are giving.....but since you might see these things good for everyone, indeed: why not, to be more clear: since the in this discussion presummed trader/bourgeos rule, what happend to the environment, the difference in income throughout the world (some people were losers en became poorer absolutely speaking (Africa)), what happend to the the wars (did the stop?), what happend to the use made of foreign ("lesser" culture) labour by western civilisation (yes, the end of slavery), what happend to cultures of wisdom (ever heard a western modern man say he valued wisdom over food?).....maybe these things are not causaully related to economics, trade, capitalism or bourgeois rule, but since we presumme here that they rule, why did they not prevent it from happening, and what does this say about it being so "good".

To answer you tuff question of how I choose the better system with my own feet: Besides the paradox of en non-bourgeois capitalist system - some might see 'capital' and bourgeois' as identical you know,
besides the fact that I might not want to raise a family (and why suppose everyone does want this and then make a society according to these not-consensual ideas),
besides the fact that this is not a matter of choice per se - for me perhaps, but I am spoiled,
besides that with your question you are forcing a economic/captial discourse on me for the problematic of culture while I do not even see captial as that important for culture (the topic of this discussion right here!),
besides the fact that your question presummes a capitalist system and with the above mentioned possible paradox of your question naming ONE might be impossible indeed,
besides the fact that it is impossible to live in a system that is not partially economics, about capital, about demands, needs, supply, products (that would be weird!),
besides that you do not only see free trade (with, ofcourse, the necessary regulations) as the best way for an economic system to function but also see culture be best based on this economic system what is an alltogether different issue...

....okay enough, I think I like to think that the Celtic/Germanic civilisations somewhere before Christ, and were lost by Roman invasion, were pretty nice for those times and not even bourgeois and/or capitalist..

...for those times, yep, you might argue that the living standards are higher at this moment in time BECAUSE the bourgeois capitalist system. Fair enough, but since I do not see economics as omnideterminant (sorry, more or less 'causing everything'), I might wonder if these living standards do not exist despite bourgeois capitalism and are acctually caused by noneconomic values making sure that the economy is not turning the society into a jungle and could be used as a basis for a rather good culture; for example: Sweden, I have no idea if you would call that a bourgeois capitalist system since there does according to me not exist one system, there are manny....and now for me slippery: Rwanda during the 60s-70s, or was that bourgeois capitalist....or Iran of the 70s.

The strange thing is: I could raise and live my family (!) in almost all non-totalitarian systems, I have the ability and at this moment as western man the money, but that is not the issue, the issue is if this better culture based on trade has only winners and if not what this makes of the goodness of this culture..

...but to turn back to our difference of opinion, at least as far as I can see it: why base a culture on trade when trade is merely the best way to exchange goods and services (and sometimes rights and freedoms), that is the trade of things with value (determined by, as you wish, the consumer) instead of the value itself, why base culture on trade when it could as well be co-based on the values, social, economic, political, ethnic, etc. aspects of (that is as base for) a culture? Why not only see trade as best economic system, as very important aspect of culture(s), but as its base?

You seem to like pointing out supposed errors in my argument, so I'll take a look at yours. And since it's clear that English is not your first language, I'll have to make allowances for that.

First, the post you're commenting on is about the bourgeoisie, a social class (as defined by Marx) and NOT a "culture" (as defined by Weber). So I'm not sure where you think I was speaking about culture in this post (although I do have a post on cultural relativism you're more than welcome to look up).

Second, you seem to want to argue both that I make arguments based on non-economic criteria & using wholly economic ones. I don't think I do either! Because I'm talking about the bourgeois political philosophy (which ecompases more than just economics, even if liberal rights are based on Smith-Ricardian economic principles of agency).

You argue, and rightly so, that bourgeois revolution hasn't made the world perfect. There are still wars, famine, etc. What's your point? These things have always existed and perhaps always will. But there's no doubting the evidence that bourgeois liberal societies have significantly reduced these. Read Sen's argument that there's never been a famine in a (bourgeoise) democracy (because famine's are distribution problems, not scarcity issues). Or the long-standing evidence that no two democracies have ever gone to war (they may go to war against non-democracies, but no democracies have ever gone to war in the modern world).

You seemed to take offence at my suggestion that you might want to raise a family. In doing so, you missed the point entirely. I don't care whether you want to raise a family, or not, or are gay, or not, or anything. My point was: if you had to choose, where would you rather live? You instead give the ridiculous suggestion of Celtic society. Ridiculous, because it dodges the question (you could've answered based on REAL existing societies) and flies into romantic fantasy. Also, because Celtic society (if you really knew it) would most likely appal you. They had slavery, no equal rights for women, violence, etc.

Then you give even more ridiculous counter-examples that aren't counter-examples at all. Rwanda as a bourgeois state? Or Iran under the Shah (or now for that matter)? Please! Either you have no concept at all of what a bourgeois society looks like, or you're just trying to be funny (and failing miserably).

Finally, your final argument is a non-argument. You oppose basing a system of moral ethics on trade, because you want to objects themselves to have value. OK. Based on what criteria? How do we determine our moral values? By what standards? Trade. You see trade as only a relation when you hand over $$ for some product. Friendship is also a relationship in trade: I exchange my highest valus in exchage for yours, emotional reciprocity is a form of trade.