Bourgeoisie Liberals: What's Their Outlook?

[solinvictus]

Poll question: Bourgeoisie Liberals: What's Their Outlook?

Do bourgeoisie liberals consider themselves bourgeoisie first or liberals first?

[Trajan]

1. Sorry ....Even as a 'poor' liberal....

I cannot brook such divisive ad hominem attacks ...

You should be ashamed of this thread ....

[solinvictus]

5. I attacked no one...

To call a thread "divisive" when all it does is acknowledge a divide exists is childish. I'm asking for opinions of the issue because I believe that, by and large, the Democratic Party appears to have abandoned working class Americans and our elected officials are bourgeoisie. A thread on a website is not going to change that.

[Trajan]

6. Really ? ...

And the selection 'Neither, they're closet moderate republicans' isnt a classic ad hominem fallacy ? ...

Cmon .... who exactly is acting 'childish' ? ..

You have had more than a fair share of mean spirited posts this last week ... and no: I wont seek them out: Let those who have a desire seek them out and see for themselves ...

I stand by my original claim: THIS is a intentionally divisive thread intended only to satisfy YOUR hatreds ...

Even as one on the edge of subsistence, I can read you like a book ...

[UdoKier]

7. Totally. I harbor my share of resentments...

...against "comfortable" liberals who I don't think really feel what many of us working people are going through, or even care enough.

But this isn't going to win any of them over, either.

[MissB]

10. I'm sure we could start a new discussion

on whether "comfortable" liberals feel enough or not.

:banghead:

I appreciate your post. I really do. I do get frustrated sometimes though.

[solinvictus]

9. I have two names as examples of bourgeoisie DINOs who sell us out..

Lieberman and Biden. Really, are they Democrats or are they closeted Republicans? I can't tell a difference. The last time I checked, their economic status placed them in the upper 10% of American incomes, so I guess that makes them bourgeoisie by default. Lately, with the speedy approvals of Bush nominees, I can't see a great deal of difference in our leadership. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and (FINALLY!) John Kerry are fighting the good fight, but they do so AGAINST their own inate class interests. Lieberman and Biden? Hell, they may as well be the Chimperor's house Democrats the way they both act like Steppin Fetichit for him.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UdoKier]

2. All right, I know there is a class problem here and with dems in general

But is this a constructive way to address it, by bashing the folks who actually give the democratic party a fair percentage of its donations?

[coloradodem2005]

3. Both to some extent. But I think Bourgeoise first.

[blogbear]

4. My politics are left but I see myself as more proletariet..I see the

radical 'aristocratic' first and second far right 'estates' as being the bourgeoisie in our present age..

[sandnsea]

8. Tell me about yourself

I've recently become curious about those who constantly attack business, trade, etc.

What do you do for a living? What kind of place do you live in? Do you have a family or partner? What do you eat? Wear? How do you travel? Entertainment? Your computer? Phone?

[solinvictus]

11. Attacking business?

Geez, what sort of political system do you want to have, an oligarchy like the current regime? That's a typical response of neo-conservatives: if anyone questions the status quo economic state or the inherent benevolence of all companies, they're labeled as some sort of wild eyed radical.

[sandnsea]

12. Who's labeling?

Seems to me you are.

I just said I was curious about the lives of people on DU who attack every aspect of US business. Are you calling me a neocon for that?

I'm really curious. Tell me about yourself.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Labeling is the word that came to mind for me

So limiting, putting people in convenient boxes. I know it's easier for the purposes of thinking, but it promotes stereotypes. We need to understand each other rather than forming factions and staring at each other with suspicion.

And as someone pointed out (mighta been you) this is where alot of our donations come from. I actually think that rich Dems are esp noble, as they could just as easily be Repubs and protect their stack. But no, they stand on principle. That may be my own stereotype, but at least it's a more positive one.

[disgruntledloner]

20. The personal details of people who criticise "US business" are,

appropriately enough, not your business, and have no relevance to the debate. I'm curious as to why you'd bring it up. perhaps you're trying to suggest that only a percieved abnormality in someones personal life would lead them to favour the poeple who actually do the work to bring them their food, clothes etc over the people who sit in head office and wallow in the profits produced. How sad.

[sandnsea]

21. Actually, no

I suggest that perhaps those who so readily jump on the ones wallowing in the profits are benefiting from this system as much as the wallowers. I just asked a simple question, what is it that one does for a living that makes them so superior to the bourgeoisie? Where is the line that defines wallowing? One tv, two, five? Would someone in a hut in Africa not consider someone with a tv and a computer bourgeoisie? What about the people who think it's terrible to want a better life for someone in a hut, that it's inflicting American consumerism on them? Easy to say when you've got electricity, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, refrigerator, car, heat. Very bourgeoisie, if you ask me.

[QC]

13. In my experience, even nice, well-intentioned middle-class white people

tend to universalize their own experience. In other words, they tend to assume that their background, lifestyle, comfort, privilege, etc. are the norm and to be quite surprised when they discover otherwise.

I can think of a number of examples, like the woman at work who just could not understand why on earth I borrowed so much money to go to college. Well, she's married to a lawyer and lives in a million dollar waterfront house. My father, on the other hand, worked back then in a factory that makes truck beds for semis. The only way I could go to college was to take on debt. She's a nice lady, but a pampered one, and found the whole idea shocking. Then there are the people I was in grad school with, from backgrounds like hers, who were shocked that I had never been to Europe. And then there are my old professors who were always boycotting something in solidarity with people many thousands of miles away but couldn't understand why the grad students thought they should be paid more than $750 a month to do all their teaching for them. (I guess exploited labor is not so bad when it makes one's 2/2 teaching load possible.)

These are not bad people I'm talking about here, only naive. But they need to get over that naiveté right away if they want liberalism to survive, because so long as we in the bottom 90% remain divided from one another, the Right will rule us all.

[Cats Against Frist]

14. "Bourgeoisie schmoozwazi"

You're just assuming that high-paid liberal columnists, John "Ketchup" Kerry ( :silly: ) and Babs Streisand represent those who've abandoned the working class, when the truth is actually that middle-class leftists have abandoned their brothers and sisters, and themselves.

The "two-story cardboard in treeless-ville, or the funky little flat with the window box for African Violets" is a huge draw, and so are the Volvos and the Subarus and the coffee and the organic food (which I wholly endorse buying, by the way), independent films, camping trips, etc. -- no one that I know that affords and buys all of these things makes more than $60,000 (combined household), which would put them solidly in the "working middle class."

Now, even if those people are the bourgeoisie, who, then, are the "working men?" The people in the cardboard house, next door, who are simply buying beef franks, instead of nitrate-free chicken franks, who drive a Ford, instead of a Toyota, who watch "Desperate Housewives" instead of Satyricon? Or is the "below-the-poverty-line" people, who are a much smaller group than the middle class, and are generally -- also pretty interested in consumption, and have their asses glued to the rot box at AT LEAST the same rate as the middle class?

And, don't get me wrong -- I think the above groups of people are fine and that none of them are worse than any other, in terms of propping up the corpo-fascists -- and probably not too much worse (if you think in terms of rate than actual dollar amount) than Babs, Johnny Ketchup or that gorgeous Vandenheuval (sp?) woman who is brilliant, and, I'm sure -- very well kept.

So, what is it that you mean -- who is this bourgeoisie? And couldn't it really be that we've all abandoned each other, and even our own convictions?

[sandnsea]

17. Exactly

Which is why I wonder about the lives of those who constantly attack the bourgeoisie, or business, or trade, etc. What are they suggesting as a replacement? Are they partaking of the benefits of capitalism while looking down their noses at those who may have benefited a little more? Makes no sense to me.

Better to return to the value of community, which is truly the way economies works best. When we share in the cost and work of building communities, we are each able to best maximize our talents and gain financial independence. And then turn around and meet our obligation to continue contributing to the building of community for future generations.

[solinvictus]

22. You make it sound so benign...

this "benefitted a little more", as if the ruling class made a few bucks more per hour than workers and the rest are griping about their parking spot.

I would hazard a guess that America hasn't seen the idyllic type of community you speak of since at least the 1970's when real wages began to stagnate and fall for workers. Earnings have been under attack through depressed wages and an unfair tax burden for the past two decades. In inflation adjusted dollars, earnings are lower than ever while being taxed at an increasing rate. Passive income is now taxed lower than ever, not to mention corporate taxes. My anti-corporatism is rooted in the fact that while neo-cons and neo-liberals tout the free market, they do not believe in it. Corporations receive billions in tax breaks, direct grants and contracts, offshore tax dodges, and incentive packages from every level of government. At the same time these entities receive government largesse, every dollar spent for assisting an individual American is demonized as socialism. We have socialism all right, only for the ultra rich. For example, the Bush tax breaks benefitted what, the upper 5% income bracket? What about the rest of the country? Hell, the rich even get to keep homes in bankruptcy proceedings, a right denied the rest of us. What about the unchecked growth of CEO compensation? If a CEO outsources, he recieves bonuses for reducing cost, likewise if he decides to initiate mass layoffs. When a CEO makes over 400-500 times the earnings of a worker, there's clearly something wrong. Until workers receive equal political representation, we'll have no sense of community in America because of the exploitative nature of our current economy.

[sandnsea]

23. I understand that

But what's the liberal bourgeoisie thing all about? Don't you think somebody who excuses corporate malfeasance for a logging job, or whatever is is people do for a living, is just as guilty?

I'm just as anti-corporate as you. But I don't pretend that I'm innocent in the process or that it's only a group of upper class people that are the problem. In fact, I tend to think it's the working people who have been duped that are more the problem. Think of who is most upset AT undocumented workers. It's not the liberal bourgeoisie; who tend to support a fair immigration process. It's the working people.

And who is most likely to say fuck the world, I want my job. And not care about the poverty or even understand the dangers poverty around the world represents. Working people. And who is most likely to say that at least someone in a foreign country has a job, even with sweatshop information staring them right in the face. Working people.

If you asked most working people to give up anything to help make real change, even liberal working people, they wouldn't do it. Why blame only the liberal bourgeoisie?

[solinvictus]

24. What do the working people have left to give up?

Many, if not most, are working multiple jobs to support their families with no benefits. If they have a child get sick and have to take time off, it is a financial hardship because of either unpaid time off or it endangers their job(s). They often don't have health insurance and, if they do, it's an ordeal to miss any work for medical appointments. They don't have benefits many take for granted: sick and vacation leave, health insurance, flex time, and other work place perks.

Here's my issue with much of the liberal bourgeoisie in this country: their pet issues are, by and large, distant and abstract. Has anyone in power even mentioned universal healthcare? How about wage disparities and stagnation? Outsourcing, anyone? Of course working people are against illegal aliens, these illegal aliens are competing for their meager jobs. The "fair immigration process" espoused by many liberal bourgeoisie would likely be instrumental in throwing many American workers out of a job. Again, that's the attitude I'm addressing: the fact that liberal leaders will show more concern for illegal immigrants than American workers. Can you not see how that will create resentment among the blue collar population? Think about the resentment among tech workers who must compete with an endless well of Indian/Pakistani/Chinese H1B workers. Is cheap chicken, produce, and consumer goods worth sacrificing the livelihood of American workers? Aren't solidarity, equality, and common decency worth defending?

I'm going to address workers from firsthand experience and my own observations as a manager. I used to be a claims clerk for a major insurer, in the same department as my SO. We both earned about $8/hour for a family of three. We had a single dying clunker in operation, high rent, high day care, and utilities. Needless to say, it was a struggle. I received a promotion and managed a digital imaging center at the same company. I managed a variety of Kelly Services temps who had no prospects of promotion, benefits, or raises. One day, we were all discussing the Memorial Day weekend (which Kelly Services received no holiday pay) and the topic turned to hot dogs. A middle aged woman who was a long time employee said her favorite brand was Oscar Meyer, but she could only afford them on special occasions and normally bought generic chicken franks. Now, I'm certain a pack of Oscar Meyers was likely half her hourly wage. Can you see the issue that concerns me? A full time worker with impeccable attendance, performance, and attitude could not get ahead and agonized over a pack of weiners that is cheaper than a Starbuck's coffee. At times, I quietly gave employees gas money, brought sodas for the department, and generally did what I could to make the job bearable.

Workers are concerned with tangible issues that affect their daily lives, such as wages, healthcare, sick and vacation time, retirement benefits, and disability/Worker's Compensation coverage. I would wager they could care less about gay marriage, public morality, the latest political scandals, or the judiciary branch of government. The issue is about their dignity, their right to earn enough at work to pay for both rent and groceries. It's about these people putting up with shit daily while wearing a polyester uniform or a colored apron emblazoned with a company logo and a nametag. They work, sweat, bleed, and sacrifice so many of the rest of us can enjoy a post-industrial consumer society. My view is that the Democratic leadership has abandoned them and left these workers to fend for themselves with no one in their corner. I guess my question to you is what would you have these people sacrifice? They have no material possessions, no opportunities, and little hope or dignity left. What do they have to give?

[sandnsea]

25. 2nd paragraph

Universal health care? Wage disparity? Wage stagnation? Declining wages? Outsourcing?

What the fuck presidential campaign were you watching????

No credibility after making statments like that.

[solinvictus]

26. I don't remember Kerry offering a universal healthcare plan..

at all. I may have missed it, but I followed the debates and press releases and I can't say it came up as a major issue. Edwards addressed the latter four issues, but again, I can't remember it coming up with Kerry. Kerry let himself be defined by Karl Rove and, in my view, was ineffective in getting his message out.

On edit: I still want to know what sacrifices you'd have American workers make.

[sandnsea]

28. bla bla bla

bla bla bla bla

You didn't pay attention to the campaign, you based your opinion on your liberal bourgeoisie biases.

American workers can give a shit about somebody besides themselves, how big of a sacrifice is that?

[solinvictus]

29. "American workers can give a shit about somebody besides themselves"...

And that attitude is what has led the Democratic Party to so many victories since 1994, isn't it? I don't think you got the crux of my argument: they have all but run out of anything to give and their self interest is all they have left. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say.

John Kerry did not promote a plan at all, he used politico-speak and said he had one without elaborating on it. There was no campaign to pay attention to, he relinquished the initiative from day one to Roveco and surrendered the election before he even fought. But hey, obviously his formula works for you and the DLC; keep ignoring the working class and you'll keep receiving the accolades due to an ineffective opposition party that has enabled corporatism in America.

[sandnsea]

30. Bullshit

I'd still like to know something about your personal circumstances. It's sort of telling that you won't say.

Me, I've never had two nickels to rub together in my entire life. The others I know who have worked their hearts out this year. Let's see, a single self-employed mother who gave up almost everything to make a change. Another mom who was an Avon lady. An 83 year old woman who's one wish was to get Bush out of office before she died. All kinds of working people bothered to give a shit, so don't tell me it's not possible. In fact, as I look back, it's always been working people who pushed change. From the Bonus Army to unions to civil rights. Working people. In fact, the more "comfortable liberals" pat working people on the head and condescend to them as unable to care or contribute, the less likely working people will think that liberals understand them at all. In fact, it's one of the things some of us working people find so disgusting about the "grassroots activists" who have money to fly all over the country advocating for change on behalf of "us poor working people". Change that most working people don't even want, like a socialist country.

But an ability to buy into the federal employee health plan, with a sliding scale subsidy, now that's something working people want. That's one reason working people voted for Kerry. And to give tax benefits to businesses that create jobs at home. And close tax loopholes and unnecessary subsidies for corporations. And to get an increase in the minimum wage. And to invest in the economy of this country again.

Not to destroy business or punish the bourgeoisie.

[solinvictus]

31. When did I advocate destroying business??!?

That's crazy, all I said in every response is that workers need a stake in their own lives; they need decent wages, benefits, and opportunities for advancement. Contrary to insurance company propaganda (that's what I used to do, I worked in various capacities for different insurers), national healthcare would SAVE businesses because it would lessen the burden of healthcare costs. I have an actuary friend who put it in simple terms: if you want lower healthcare costs, get rid of health insurers.

I'm not certain what you're saying in the rest of your post. Are you accusing me of minimizing the past contributions workers made to America? Are you accusing me of Marxism or some other form of radical socialism? I just don't follow you, but you now seem to be saying that workers, not wealthy liberals, were catalysts for change. Is that the case? You started out being defensive about corporations, but now change your tune. Which is it?

[sandnsea]

35. I started out

by wondering about the financial habits of some folks who spend an awful lot of time attacking groups of people when they partake of luxuries from the capitalist system themselves. That's all I started out doing. And while in the US a tv and a refrigerator isn't really a luxury, it is in alot of the world. I just think people shouldn't be so quick to lay the blame of US economic problems at the doorsteps of one group of US citizen. It is ALL of us.

I then said, as to economy in general,

"Better to return to the value of community, which is truly the way economies works best. When we share in the cost and work of building communities, we are each able to best maximize our talents and gain financial independence. And then turn around and meet our obligation to continue contributing to the building of community for future generations."

Within that community are going to be a variety of thoughts on how to maximize financial independence. Currently, there is not enough support for single payer. Despite the cost added by insurance companies, people aren't ready to give up the myth that they're getting better treatment because they have private insurance. That's reality. That's why John Kerry proposed an easy solution to help people NOW. You may be able to sit back in your "liberal comfort" and hold out for the superior single payer. I can't. I haven't been to a doctor in at least 12 years. I needed you to put your superiority on the sidelines and help me get insurance NOW.

So excuse me when I get just a little testy when some folks come around with their purist lefty attitudes. People are suffering while you hold out for an idealist world that is never going to happen. And for those who have their "liberal comforts" while they're doing it, well that just pisses me the fuck off.

[More Than A Feeling]

16. I think you have touched on a key point

a fault line in the party I haven't even seen discussed here as much as say, religion, and I say that as someone who would most likely be considered a bourgeoisie or comfortable liberal. I don't know the answer, but I sense this is an important discussion and I hope it continues

[Swamp Rat]

18. How could anyone possibly know?

I suppose we could take a poll of every single person in the USA, or ask John Edwards or Miss Clio.

I'm more interested to know if George W. Bush considers himself human yet.



edit: I voted "other" because I am not a mind reader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Some liberals from the bourgeousie:

Lenin
Castro
Mandela
Danton
Guevarra
Mao
Emma Goldman
Martin Luther King
Trotsky
Kropotkin
Mark Twain
Emiliano Zapata (Forget the movie - he was a lawyer)
Gandhi

and many, many, more

I can think of very few "liberal" or leftist leaders from the proletariat.

[solinvictus]

27. Durruti..

Cesar Chavez, Jimmy Hoffa, Stalin (I know, bad example, but he was working class), and Joe Hill.
Iburruri was working class as well, but I have an issue against her for supporting the suppression of the CNT/POUM in Spain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Jimmy Hoffa was a liberal?

I was going to mention Cesar Chavez as one of the few working class leftist leaders.

I agree about Durruti and La Pasionaria. Durruti being the more admirable of the two, considering the Stalinist attacks on the CNT and POUM, but it's a helluva good quote.

Interesting that Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tolstoy were all aristocrats.

[solinvictus]

33. Hoffa

Well, he was pro-labor, maybe not a true liberal. That's something in my view.

[Still_Loves_John]

36. As a rich liberal

I have to say that I'm a little offended by what this poll imples. I may not have to personally deal with poverty, but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for people who do. Not everyone acts solely in their own self interest. I was raised to help those less fortunate than I, and thats why I'm a liberal. Do the Kennedies not care about the poor? Does Kerry? Do the Clintons? It is possible to care about people you don't directly relate to.

[yurbud]

37. can you be bourgeoisie without health insurance?

you're implying that all liberals drive Volvos and go to wine tastings.

I have gone to wine tastings, but just because it's free booze.