aut-op-sy
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: AUT: Fascism




On 2/21/02 11:27 PM, "commie00" <commie00@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> i would. =P   and further, i've often wondered if fascism wasn't, at
>>> least
>>> in part, a response of the begining of mass proletarianization.
>>
>> So England circa 1830 was full of fascists?
>
> sorry, i should have been more clear: mass proletarianization of the
> petty-bourgeoisie in the 20th century.

...


>> The petite-bourgeiosie is dead? What the fuck? This country at least, is
>> swarming with little shop owners with grade-A pb attidue.
>
> i argue that, in the "first world", at least, small-shop owners, etc. were
> long ago (by the 30s, 40s, 50s) incorporated into the bourgeoisie proper as
> its lowest layer, while other former p.b. folks (like non-practicing owning
> doctors, teachers, etc.) were proletarianized.
>
> i don't really feel like going over this whole argument again, here. but
> check the archives. chris, myself and others have had some interesting
> exchanges about this over the last year or so.

I am not sure what exactly the distinction between pb and "bourgeoisie
proper"? Is this meant to be a distinction based on social status, or class
consciousness, position vis a vis the modes of production or what?

Not to bash the book or anything, but wasn't marx's pb meant to be small
shop owners and the more menial functionaries, understood precisely as the
lowest rung of capital-owners, those which may easily loose their capital
and rely on it to survive?  How has their position changed? Could you give
me some sort of idea of what you mean?

Do you mean, for instance, that the pb's were the people who owned just
enough capital to pay themselves a 'wage', so that they weren't in the
accumulation game? What do these people have to do with middle-class lawyers
and doctors? Wasn't lumping all these people together a bit of rhetorical
flourish, even in the 19th C?

The only reason I push the point is that you seem to be saying that this
distinction is important in relation to the rise of fascism.


Thiago



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]