Supposing that the bourgeoisie is recomposing itself with nationalism, buttressed by ethnicity

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Supposing that the bourgeoisie is recomposing itself with nationalism, buttressed by ethnicity
Printer-friendly version

Suppose that is the case:

  • the bourgeoisie is recomposing itself based on nationalism as social crisis, buttressed by ethnicity

It seems reasonable that's what they want to do, anyway.

What are the working class doing? Perhaps assuming the working class have been slowly reconstituting for quite some time.

Internationalist solidarity? Seems maybe a bit hopeful ?

What do you mean by the

What do you mean by the international bourgeoisie "recomposing itself"? Do you mean changing the  its legitimation strategy? What was it before and what is it becomming now? Or is there a crisis of legitimation leading to no really clear overall strategy? I think its probably the latter.

Quote:no really clear overall

no really clear overall strategy
yes i would tend to agree that they look like headless chickens recently
Hi jk. What do you mean by "a

Hi jk. What do you mean by "a crisis of legitimation" on behalf of the bourgeoisie? Do you mean that they know they and their economic system are in trouble? 

Hi lem. What do you mean by "assuming the working class have been slowly reconstituting..."? Are there any signs that might  indicate this is true? 

A crisis of legitimation is

A crisis of legitimation is when the main ideological pillars of bourgeoius rule start to come undone, necessitating a change in ideological strategy--such as the switch from Fordist-corporatism to neo-liberalism at the end of the 70s. Now neo-liberalism is in crisis, prompting the rise of both right and left-wing populism as a new potential basis of bourgeois legitamacy, even if the main factions of the bourgeoisie have not embraced these trends preferring to run an older campigan about the defense of democracy and anti-fascism, even as their "democratic" credentials unravel. Thus, we are in a crisis of legitimation in which the bourgeoisie as a class has not found a real clear strategy yet. Will it coalesce eventually around some ideogocal narrative in particular or around some binary opposition of narratives? Unclear.

I had heard the phrase

I had heard the phrase "crisis of legitimation" before, but initially at least meant something more profound that the switch to neo-liberalism.

What do you mean by "assuming the working class have been slowly reconstituting..."? Are there any signs that might  indicate this is true?

I don't know about "signs", but I do feel like the counter-revolution in Russia is completely behind us now, at least. I'm not saying that this is a good thing cos it frees up the working class from having to work out how bad Stalinism is, I think that's kinda stupid. But, it's a good thing that something so horrific and anti working class has fizzed out. Though of course we have any number of new and existing barbarisms, there was maybe something especially bad about its class based origins.

Also, there's always hope !

 Thanks lem and jk for your

 Thanks lem and jk for your replies.  In my fuzzy brain I have a suspicion that Lukacs wrote about the bourgeoisie's "crisis of legitimation" in the 20's but I could easily be wrong and being fuzzy will not check this out.      Also I'm not sure I understand properly what is meant by the word "populism" though it's a popular word just now. 

But is it just the legitimacy of the bourgeoisie to go on ruling that's being called into question - if it is -  or the legitimacy of capitalism itself? 

A ruling class which reduces one of its main ideological planks ie. democracy to farcical status as is happening  in the US with the presidential election capers and in the UK too with the incredibly daft Brexit poll mess, might be thought  to be losing credibility which is the start of demonstrating publicly  your lack of capable leadership. This then raises the question  of your  leadership legitimacy. And worldwide there's the loss of control by the bourgeoisie of various fanatical petty-bourgeois gangs  busy making war and murdering innocent civilians, while supposedly legitimate bourgeois  governments stand by helplessly and watch, vaguely aware that their intervention doesn't function properly anymore and can even make  matters worse. The overall legitimacy and right of the ruling class to rule is being questioned, or at least is no longer just taken for granted. 

Regarding the legitimacy of the capitalist system itself....well even in the 19th century novelists like George Eliot compared  it mockingly to a gambling casino while Dickens saw money as the source  of many people's woes and unhappiness. But a system that can no longer provide jobs for everyone, while at the same time insisting  that everyone should be in  paid employ, is already calling its own legitimacy into question. And a system that depends absolutely on the ideological primacy of capitalism organised in nation states in conditions of permanent imperialistic  antagonisms that threaten even its own stability and future, is a crazed system with a questionable legitimacy. 

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold. The bourgeoisie is no longer legitimated to rule.

If we look at the most

If we look at the most desparate new barbarisms, and assume that the ruling class is sliding into the annihilation of its values in them, then we could maybe say that

the new trick the rulinng class have is religious persecution.

Interestingly, Lenin's first comment upon religion, which exists in English translation, is a passionate defence of religious freedom. A 1903 Article addressed to Russia's rural poor states that marxists "demand that everybody shall have full and unrestricted right to profess any religion he wants". Lenin denounced the laws in Russia and in Ottoman Turkey ("the disgraceful police persecution of religion"), discriminating in favour of particular religions (Orthodox Christianity and Islam respectively), as particularly "shameful". All these laws are as unjust, as arbitrary and disgraceful as can be. Everyone must be perfectly free, not only to profess whatever religion they please, but also to spread or change their religion.

Lenin's ideas on many aspects of revolutionary politics changed over time, but not as far as this question is concerned. This becomes apparent if Lenin's first major statement on this question - a 1905 article ‘Socialism and Religion’ - is compared to his later writings on this issue.

just as the working class, i feel, would be recompsing based on the materiality of their subterranean maturation.

of course that was just a vain guessing game for me


looks like brexit... i do still think the above, that any european wars will likely be based in religion rather than ethnicity or just explicitly or whatever expansionist. who knows tho, right

kinda more worried about the immediate future now, tho i didn't vote

Brexit: Triumph of white van

Brexit: Triumph of white van man?

I dunno, wouldn't describe it

I dunno, wouldn't describe it as a triumph of anyone except a faction of the political class. No idea how bad it will effect the economy, and it's not like the alternative was being fought on class terrain, but it seems like a desperately dumb thing to have happened

Well, a triumph for the

Well, a triumph for the ideological-media construction of the white, English working-class populist who just took his country back against the advice of most of the professional political class, including new-new Labour (and Obama!). No wonder Trump is so proud.....

hmm yeah. cool style :-)  are

hmm yeah. cool style :-) 

are you Joseph K, btw ?

not that remain was a solution

ah don't believe it... while i totally acknowledge that remain was not a better option, i am instinctively conservative on big capitalist decisions. i.e. don't make it worse than it has to be. 

it is a huge ideological flaw for someone who bothers the icc so much.

anway I reckon, which is a total guess, that the objective capitalist solution is a form of democratic racist / national corporatism, like a less authoritarian fascism? just based on reading on-line, etc.

which sounds highly unstable


ICC wrote:

 The misery under capitalist rule gives rise to a triad of destruction: firstly the accumulation of aggression, hatred, maliciousness and a longing for destruction and self-destruction; secondly the projection of these anti-social impulses onto others (moral hypocrisy); thirdly the directing of these impulses, not against the ruling class, which appears too powerful to challenge, but against apparently weaker classes and social strata. This three-pronged “complex” flourishes therefore above all in the absence of the collective struggle of the proletariat, when individual subjects feel powerless in face of capital.

The ICC wrote this is an article about the current situation in Germany on this site. But I think it says a lot too about what happened over Brexit, about which nobody talks much, 


Fred wrote:

The ICC wrote this is an article about the current situation in Germany on this site. But I think it says a lot too about what happened over Brexit, about which nobody talks much, 

Which is odd conisdering it seems like a monumental moment in the history of the UK bourgeoisie with massive implications for the national capital and the stability of the state. Maybe that's because it was a rather surprising result, raising the possibility once again that we have massively underestimated the progression of decomposition?


Hmm yeah weird times; almost seems like the end in slowmo these days.

If I were an anarchist, I would be quite excited, as well as excitable ha

Question about right-wing insurrection

What would have to happen for the ecoomic and political crisis to require an immediate solution, as with (afaik) Mussolini? 

EDIT sorry, stupid questions i guess