To seal off a new era in humanity's social development, the previous structure has to go.
The bourgeoisie succeeded in their mission to create liberal democracy, civil liberties, free trade etc. because they eliminated the hostile aristocracy, the previous ruling class.
The bourgeoisie pushed to repeal the Corn Laws in 1846, which had the effect of liquidating the land-owning aristocracy and making the bourgeoisie the unchallenged masters of the present civilization.
In short, the bourgeoisie succeeded (and we should all be glad they did) because they annihilated their opposition. They didn't compromise with them and leave them alone to then undermine their work later on.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It extends the principle of, ''from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'' to healthcare distribution.
What Marx meant by that was free access to the articles of consumption or de-commodification.
Although under socialism the principle of ''from each according to his ability...'' cannot be totalized and commodity production and exchange still exists for the most part, essential services and goods can be de-commodified in accordance with this principle.
The commodity exchange done away with for these goods and services, prices will no longer act as impediment for people to fulfill their needs and nor will there be a severe maldistribution of resources, hence ''from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.''
This is a very good point when people on the left contemplate the old ''communist'' regimes.
Without democracy, you have a very bastardized and limited socialism. Ownership by a state being ''socialistic'' depends crucially on the degree to which that state is representative.
The USSR was socialistic in the sense the profits industry were socially distributed through welfare and that class differences were minimal.
But it was not socialistic in the sense that it allowed social wealth to be managed democratically and the rule of class diminished.
If we to call the USSR completely socialist, we would essentially have to concede to the argument that ''socialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does a lot of stuff that is communism.''
All the places that historically lacked or do lack political parties (Confederate States, Gulf states etc.) are reactionary or authoritarian states. Its a de-facto one-party state.
If you abolish political parties, you don't abolish political orientation or benefit left-wing causes if that is what you are into.
Politics reverts to the default ideology of the status quo society.
This is why George Washington didn't want political parties.
Washington was afraid of so-called ''radicals'' (aka what we call leftists today) and that political parties would encourage the ''passion'' of the people or citizenry. (democratic political movements)
That automation and capital income study that recently released in NBER has a very useful dataset about income and wage growth over the previous decades for different parts of the income distribution:
''Bourgeoisie'' is fine, in a sense. I prefer to say ''owners of capital'' or ''capital owners,'' but the trem ''bourgeoisie'' represents those owners ideologically, referring to the term bourgeois liberalism.
''Bourgeoisie'' is very clunky and inelegant term, which is why ''owners of capital'' is better. I guess it makes sense only when you are speaking about more ideological and philosophical particulars.
@MouthyInfidel@pseudocia ''Means of production'' may also be very wonky, so ''capital,'' ''wealth,'' ''property'' ''product'' (as in product of the nation or product of labor) may also work.