2 replies to this topic

[Arbiter]

Marxism sees two distinct classes of people present within modern society; the bourgeoisie and the prolateriat. The former being the owners of the so called "means of production", these being factories, capital, land etc., and the latter being the workers, who sell their labour to make a living. Marx thought that the prolateriat would eventually rise up against their "exploiters" and thus society would become communist.

My criticism is simply that the prolateriat does not exist as a discrete entity. Social mobility is very real, and arguably has been since industrialisation. Not only that, but people can be both for example by working for themselves. I do not think society can be justifiably divided into two parts in this way, and so the prolateriat/bourgeoisie divide no longer exists (and perhaps never did). The ruling class/working class dichotomy is not applicable to a society where there are individuals from so many distinct walks of life and where there are such varied options open to people regarding career and lifestyle.

Thoughts?

[Darkademic]

I agree. Marx's notion of a two tier society has long been invalidated, and indeed there was never an essential difference between the two. Individuals in society can be classified in a vast number of different ways, most of which are more precise and certainly not as vague as "class". There are so many things to consider if you wanted to put people into the categories prolateriat or bourgeoisie, so many that it makes such a task arbitrary if not impossible.

Marxism's flaws goes well beyond this however, though it would take a book to fully examine them all. Luckily, others have already written those books.

[Twilight]

Given my understanding of Marx, his "class struggle" is simply the supposed clash of interests between the hardworking, selfless proletariat who just want to make a living for their families and the greedy, exploitative capitalists who want to bleed them for all that they're worth. The "refutation" is simply to recognize that there is no such conflict of interests. The ultimate source of wealth and prosperity is not physical labor but innovation, discovery, proper business management, etc - I.e. mental labor. The capitalist can always find another worker, but the worker needs the capitalist to develop the infrastructure and promote the innovations that make physical labor valuable in the first place.