Did Karl Marx make any distnictions between capitalist in relation to class? If so,then in what way? I ask because when I hear people talking about "the capitalist class" they seem to say this as if those of the capitalist class are in the same class and are monolithic. If you keep in mind that capitalist are individuals who own things that generate wealth such as land,businesses,rental property,equipment etc then these people can be of various economic levels. Not all capitalist have the same amount of wealth and influence. Both Donald Trump and a person who owns a gas station are capitalist,but they are not in the same capitalist class. So did viewing the capitalist class as some sort of ruling monolithic group distort Marx's critique of capitalism in anyway?
I believe he called small business owners: petit-bourgeoisie. He believed that they could either side with the ruling class or the proletariat in a rev and therefore were not classified as good or bad, just untrustworthy as a group. As an anarchist i have no prob with a small business owners, especially if they don't employ wage slaves. I think mutualism would be a decent way to keep small businesses a vital part of the community while still dealing with the inherent oppression of capitalism...
The way I see it,a person would only be a "wage slave" under capitalism if they had no other job options,but for the most part they do in capitalist America for example. Other wage opportunities can depend on what jobs are available in their location and their educational and job training level. What are these inherent oppressions of capitalism,especially with U.S capitalism?
A simply google search will bring up a basic summary of capitalism's flaws: and of course there are more sites. basically the main problem of capitalism is that profit is always the bottom line. everything else (workers, environment, sustainability, public health, ect ect) comes a distant second and are only taken into consideration when they affect the bottom line. The only things that make capitalism tolerable in the u.s. (5 day workweek, health care, holidays, safety standards, tuition reimbursement, daycare, ect) have been brought on by socialists of one kind or another and generally only pacify the populace and working class as other areas of their life are compromised (1 income no longer enough for household, outsourcing, bargaining power of unions negated, more americans working longer hours for relatively less pay, downsizing, ect). Example: 1 person used to be able to make enough pay to comfortable provide for his family (at least in the middle class and in the states), now (whether through capitalist greed or feminism) 2 income household barely gets you by, and even if it does you now pay for 2 vehicles, daycare(another profit maker for capitalism), and a # of other expenses. Not to mention that the destruction of the nuclear family also benefits capitalism(2 homes generate more profit than 1, divorce and child support are thriving businesses, ect). We all become slaves to the machine and the machine only cares about one thing, further profits. When there is a kink in the machine it adjusts accordingly, but in the end the machine trudges on and anything that can be sold for a profit is (even rainwater and national defense). Even if capitalism works for you, even if you live the american dream (already proven a myth to pacify the general populace), in order for someone to be top dog, several others have to be bottom feeders. So, it's not a matter of schooling or location, or even drive, for capitalism to work there has to be an elite of winners and a majority of losers, just like a foot race. Statistically speaking, in a capitalist system, you are more likely to lose than to win.... Which is understandable, it's a competitive system, but when the majority of people get the shit end of the stick maybe it's worth asking: does it have to be? Why should we have to place environmental responsibilty, our families, our health, and our happiness on the back burner for profits that most of us do not get to enjoy? Is it responsible, ethical, or even understandable for a gas station worker to have to have 2 jobs making min wage, while the CEO retires with hundreds of millions? Who truely represents the face of that business? 3 men are in a backyard, one tells the other two, "you chop that tree for me, and i'll let you split 13% of the wood", the 2 other men asks, "well why should i give you any wood if i'm doing the work?", first man replies, "i found the tree...." seems kinda ass backward if you ask me...
And pointing to other countries and stating "they have it worse" and pointing to immigrants and stating "see they want to come here" is not a defense of capitalism. It is a judgement on their own nations. And don't forget, capitalism knows no nationhood, corporations will go wherever the cheapest labor is, will exploit where it can, and will profit from war and destruction of your country just the same as any other...
besides, your OP wasn't about the viability of capitalism, it was whether or not marx made a distinction between different types of capitalists. asked and answered.
I agree "the capitalist class" is really vague. I never read anything by any Marxist that used that term. They always use petit-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.
Here's an example: " Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.) " link
Are you saying that most Marxist would give a different definition of a capitalist than that given by Socialist?
It all depend on who you talk to. Being a christian means different things depending on if you are asking a catholic, a baptist, or a methodist, and even then it would vary from person to person. the vast majority of anti-capitalists that i know, draw a distinction between a mom & pop diner and Mcdonalds... One is rooted in community, the other in profit. Some anti-capitalists take a harder line than others, but generally they are opposed to the economic system commonly known as capitalism, not this capitalist or that capitalist.
All Marxists are Socialists (and Communists) but not all Socialists are Marxists. If you want Marxist explainations go to www.marxist.com or www.marx.org .
