[ronimacarroni]

You know I've been thinking
There's been times in history when the dictatorship of the proletariat was mentioned and times when dictatorship of the wealthy was mentioned.
But never has there been mention of a dictatorship of the middle class.
Given that the middle class is the most important class for a democracy, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be in charge of decision making?
And by dictatorship of the middle class I mean that only people who are in the middle class would be able to vote.

[Rei Murasame]

Dictatorship of the middle class (petite-bourgeoisie) manifested as Jacobinism in the previous era, and in this era it manifested as Fascism and Market Socialism.

In any case, the middle class cannot reign alone, and must look for support from other classes above and below it in order to maintain its rule, and that's where things get both interesting and dangerous.

[Sithsaber]

There are so many things wrong with this...


1. What is your definition of class? Are we going by the traditional but slightly oudated proletariat than petty bourgeoisie than Haute Bourgeosie? And what iwho would get to be labelled middle class in the world of today? Why would those still in charge of the means of production just drop out and give authority to a bunch of paper pushers?

2) Are we going to take into account the fascist bullshit? It should be a given that most "fascist" viewpoints heavily utilize the rube, and still defend the ingrained interests of the local oligarchs.

Playing into local jingoism and reactionary tendencies is not a elevation of the middle class to the over class, especially when the upper class is still holds huge influence.

[ronimacarroni]

So fascism is the dictatorship of the middle class...
Uh, makes sense.

[Sithsaber]

No it isn't. Fascism just throws a bone to the mob.

[onemalehuman]

And by dictatorship of the middle class I mean that only people who are in the middle class would be able to vote.

I want to ask some questions, what is a middle class to genetic continuation of specific ancestry and their specific ancestors without comparing lifetimes to social justifications.

children, childless adults, parents, grandparents, great grandparents because usually lifetimes rarely live to see their great great grandchildren.

Again, what is the middle class in this environment of genetic continuation existing within one atmosphere exactly as conceived?

So children don't vote because they are not parents.
Adults without children cannot vote because they are not parents.

So, that leaves parents because without them there are no children that become adults without having children elevating parents to grandparent status or grandparents to great grandparents status once a third generation lifetime has been added to this atmosphere.

Now, do just parents get to vote? Adoptive parents don't count since they didn't add an ancestor to this atmosphere.

does this change the perception of playing both endes against the middle? Children and grandparents politically setup to demand parents supply what they need by law? What are the parentless adults going to do? Currently they legislate administrate what parents need to teach their children about saving society's last generation and newest generation.

What dictates there is a middle class anyway?

[Dagoth Ur]

There isn't a middle class. Just labor aristocracy and petite bourgeoisie.

[ronimacarroni]

Well fine "dictatorship of the petite bourgeoisie" then

does this change the perception of playing both endes against the middle? Children and grandparents politically setup to demand parents supply what they need by law? What are the parentless adults going to do? Currently they legislate administrate what parents need to teach their children about saving society's last generation and newest generation.

Well you're assuming only parents are middle class. I base (upper) middle class as households that earn around $100k-250k.
If that just makes up parents that sounds fine by me. Parents who have a nuclear family tend to be more responsible on average than non-parents.

[onemalehuman]

Well fine "dictatorship of the petite bourgeoisie" then

Well you're assuming only parents are middle class.

In specific genetic ancestry, it is absolute in regards to living life naturally, not honoring theorums or theology that practice the art of tipping the scales of natural balance for the benefit of the few at the cost of everyone else following orders of orchestrated chaos in the form of vocabulary.

[Sithsaber]

I actually understood that fhuehfefmekajfhreut

[Krates]

Dictatorship of the middle class (petite-bourgeoisie) manifested as Jacobinism

I disagree with the notion that the Jacobin republic was a dictatorship of the petite bourgeoisie. It was far more radical than that, they represented all the unprivileged of that time. Remember that Robespierre was one of the first world leaders to abolish slavery. As far as the dictatorship of the middle class goes it sounds like a deeply disturbing and very reactionary idea and indeed fascist.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, just because it happened to embrace a lot of people, doesn't change which class of people was actually in charge. If it wasn't that, then who would you say was actually in charge?

[Sithsaber]

The proletariat hadn't even really developed at that point. The logic is off and would be like saying Julius Caesar fought the banking class.

[Rei Murasame]

Marxists appear to think otherwise, since Leon Trotsky says the same thing that I've said in this thread, in his piece titled, "The Only Road For Germany":

Any serious analysis of the political situation must take as its point of departure the mutual relations among the three classes: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (including the peasantry), and the proletariat.

The economically powerful big bourgeoisie, in itself, represents an infintesimal minority of the nation. To enforce its domination, it must ensure a definite mutual relationship with the petty bourgeoisie and, through its mediation, with the proletariat.

To understand the dialectic of the relation among the three classes, we must differentiate three historical stages: [1.] at the dawn of capitalistic development, when the bourgeoisie required revolutionary methods to solve its tasks; [2.] in the period of bloom and maturity of the capitalist regime, when the bourgeoisie endowed its domination with orderly, pacific, conservative, democratic forms; [3.] finally, at the decline of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie is forced to resort to methods of civil war against proletariat to protect its right of exploitation.

The political programs characteristic of these three stages -- JACOBINISM [left wing of petty bourgeois forces in Great French Revolution; in most revolutionary phase, led by Robespierre], reformist DEMOCRACY (social democracy included), and FASCISM -- are basically programs of petty bourgeois currents. This fact alone, more than anything else, shows of what tremendous -- rather, of what decisive -- importance the self-determination of the petty bourgeois masses of the people is for the whole fate of bourgeois society.

Nevertheless, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and its basic social support, the petty bourgeoisie, does not at all rest upon reciprocal confidence and pacific collaboration. In its mass, the petty bourgeoisie is an exploited and disenfranchised class. It regards the bourgeoisie with envy and often with hatred. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, while utilizing the support of the petty bourgeoisie, distrusts the latter, for it very correctly fears its tendency to break down the barriers set up for it from above.

While they were laying out and clearing the road for bourgeois development, the Jacobins engaged, at every step, in sharp clashes with the bourgeoisie. They served it in intransigent struggle against it. After they had culminated their limited historical role, the Jacobins fell, for the domination of capital was predeterminated.

For a whole series of stages, the bourgeoisie entrenched its power under the form of parliamentary democracy. Even then, not peacefully and not voluntarily. The bourgeoisie was mortally afraid of universal suffrage. But in the last instance, it succeeded, with the aid of a combination of violent measures and concessions, of privations and reforms, in subordinating within the framework of formal democracy not only the petty bourgeoisie but in considerable measure also the proletariat, by means of the new petty bourgeoisie -- the labor bureaucracy. In August 1914 the imperialist bourgeoisie was able, by means of parliamentary democracy, to lead millions of workers and peasants to the slaughter.

But precisely with the war there begins the distinct decline of capitalism and above all of its democratic form of domination. It is now no longer a matter of new reforms and alms, but of cutting down and abolishing the old ones. Therewith the bourgeoisie comes into conflict not only with the institutions of proletarian democracy (trade unions and political parties) but also with parliamentary democracy, within the framework of which the workers’ organizations arose. Hence the campaign against “Marxism” on the one hand and against democratic parliamentarism on the other.

But just as the summits of the liberal bourgeoisie in their time were unable, by their own force alone, to get rid of feudalism, monarchy and the church, so the magnates of finance capital are unable, by their force alone, to cope with the proletariat. They need the support of the petty bourgeoisie. For this purpose, it must be whipped up, put on its feet mobilized, armed. But this method has its dangers. While it makes use of fascism, the bourgeoisie nevertheless fears it. [...]

So even the other side agrees on at least that much.

[Sithsaber]

1. tHE Petite bourgeoise are for the most part viewed as willing stooges and when aroused can be easily soothed.

2. Your post still didn't address my underlying presumption, which correctly states that Marxism vies the class system as step by step science, and that Bourgeois revolution was necessary before the proletariat could even essentially develop. (there is a difference between the working class and the serf, although the symbolism and status are viewed as nearly the same)

[Rei Murasame]

1. tHE Petite bourgeoise are for the most part viewed as willing stooges and when aroused can be easily soothed.

Apparently not, since clearly the bourgeoisie is afraid of the possibility that once they concede that they need to hand over their sword to the petty bourgeoisie for the purpose of solving various tasks, the same sword could potentially (obviously it does not always happen, but we all know the famous cases in which it did happen) be suspended over the heads of the bourgeoisie like a sword of Damocles, thus creating the 'unthinkable' scenario of a dictatorship of the petty-bourgeoisie.

2. Your post still didn't address my underlying presumption, which correctly states that Marxism vies the class system as step by step science, and that Bourgeois revolution was necessary before the proletariat could even essentially develop.

Maybe there is nothing to address, since what I've written in this thread doesn't assume that the proletariat had 'fully developed' anyway, so it's a bit of a strawman. I am only saying that Jacobinism was a petty-bourgeoisie movement that appeared at the dawn of capitalist development, and that it became a dictatorship of the petty-bourgeoisie. And then for various reasons it collapsed.

If you agree with that, then there's nothing to argue about.

[Sithsaber]

1. So you see the lower classes as basically eternal serfs forever enslaved by the bourgeoise, whether the ruling class be consolidated in the few or integrated into the societal whole?

2. Historically all I can think of is Reign of Terror France and maybe the boxer rebellion. OTL Fascists never really enslaved the haut bourgeoisie.

[Rei Murasame]

1. So you see the lower classes as basically eternal serfs forever enslaved by the bourgeoise, whether the ruling class be consolidated in the few or integrated into the societal whole?

Serfs can only exist in the feudal system.

2. Historically all I can think of is Reign of Terror France and maybe the boxer rebellion. OTL Fascists never really enslaved the haut bourgeoisie.

I'm really not going take the thread off topic into debating with you about who did or did not achieve it.

[Sithsaber]

How can you derail this thread by talking about actual historical examples of it? You're just backing out of a un winnable argument.

ps: Fascist Japan doesn't count because it never really developed a capitalist class of its own and basically got axed in between steps.

[Rei Murasame]

How can you derail this thread by talking about actual historical examples of it? You're just backing out of a un winnable argument.

I'm just not interested in the argument, since I already know what you'll say, and it bores me. The only thing I'm in this thread to say is that a dictatorship of the petty-bourgeoisie is possible, and has happened. Since no one is contesting the fact that is has happened at least somewhere at some time, there's no further efforts that need to be made by me.

So I don't need to drag the thread off topic to have the 900th debate about fascism, with you.