“[By] the 18th century, the time of the Industrial revolution (1750–1850) and of industrial capitalism, the bourgeoisie had become the economic ruling class who owned the means of production (capital and land), and who controlled the means of coercion (armed forces and legal system, police forces and prison system). In such a society, the bourgeoisie’s ownership of the means of production enabled their employment and exploitation of the wage-earning working class (urban and rural), people whose sole economic means is labour; and the bourgeois control of the means of coercion suppressed the socio-political challenges of the lower classes, and so preserved the economic status quo; workers remained workers, and employers remained employers.”

…

“Besides describing the social class who own the means of production, the Marxist usage of the term “bourgeois” also describes the consumerist style of life derived from the ownership of capital and real property. As an economist Karl Marx acknowledged the bourgeois industriousness that created wealth, yet criticised the moral hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie when they ignored the true origins of their wealth — the exploitation of the proletariat, the urban and rural workers.”

found here!

The project that begat this blog is now over, but minnesocialist will continue! Keep your eyes peeled for radical new content over the summer!!!

p.s.
Always feel free to submit your questions and/or topic ideas. The more the merrier :)

Anonymous asked: I'll explain it this way: Advertising can exist without hurting the consumer. People need to be educated about advertising so advertisers can start changing their methods. More honest ads can be made if people are educated.P.S. We're not all out to sell as much as possible. I care about quality of products, so I won't sell something cheap to you. :) (kiosk question)

For the most part I agree with you. Of course the poster in question is making a sizable generalization about the advertising industry as a whole. It’s not my intent to blame any individual advertising professional; certainly there are plenty of advertisers and agencies that work hard and produce inspiring work, and none that intend to hurt the consumer.

However, while “selling as much as possible” may not be a priority for the advertiser, it surely is for his or her client. Why would they want it any other way? What upsets me is the fact that, in most cases, the advertiser’s task is to fabricate an unnecessary link between human emotions and market commodities. This isn’t exactly the case when a small business promotes itself, but this is especially true for the countless corporations who sink millions of dollars into disposable ad campaigns. For example, lets consider the toothbrush: A relatively simple tool with a straightforward use-value. The fact of the matter is that even though every toothbrush performs essentially the same task, companies like Phillips, Oral-B, Colgate, etc… spend large amounts money competing to convince the consumer that their toothbrush performs best (queue up images of happy white people with happy white teeth, and stunning 3D animations of ultra-sonic toothbrushes vaporizing 99.9% of germs, plaque, and gingivitis). Companies that compete under capitalism often have no choice but to promote their products with advertising though. I believe that a socialized, truly democratic society would choose to channel these resources and energies into more valuable applications such as public dental health education, affordable/universal dental health coverage, and efficient dental health products.

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!)

Anonymous asked: Thanks for dissing my major, asshole. (kiosk question)

Perhaps you’d like to pose a question or statement that challenges the statement I’ve made? In the meantime, I’ll stand behind it.

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!) 

Anonymous asked: What ways can an independent artist fund their private creative endeavors in a non–capitalist institution? (kiosk question)

It’s difficult to predict exactly how a socialized society in transition from capitalism might function, because the idea is that society must reshape itself through reforms that abolish profit and the market and replace it with conscious, democratic planning. Paul D’Amato writes,

“Some of these measures might include: introducing a progressive income tax against the rich, establishing free education at all levels; abolishing advertising and all other wasteful and costly diversions, with the use of these funds going toward health, education, and artistic needs[.]”

Basically, organized committees of workers would decide democratically on the appropriate use of their labor–power and subsequent wealth. As society’s more basic needs would be met (ei food, shelter, and healthcare for all), so too would its artistic desires. Painters, designer, filmmakers, musicians, etc, would be provided the tools and materials necessary for their work, and our creatives would not only be provided these materials, but they would be equally involved and invested in the production of them. I believe that when the motives of social value replace those of profit and capital, the potential of artists and all other workers, previously stunted by capitalism, will be able to flourish!

(This question was originally written in this book, in regards to this poster. Thank you to the asker; I hope this answer was helpful. Let’s keep the discussion going!)

Anonymous asked: What are your views on Stalin and Lenin?

Lenin was a revolutionary Bolshevik party leader. (Bolshevik is derived from an ordinary word in Russian, bol’she, ”bigger, more.” The plural form Bol’sheviki was the name given to the majority faction at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party in 1903. The smaller faction was known as Men’sheviki, from men’she, ”less, smaller.”)

In contrast, Stalin was a state–capitalist bureaucratic dictator.

This short article by Paul D’Amato tells a little more about Lenin.