DallasCowboys

I have but it all appears pretty bias, I can't find something that gives proof to the oppressive acts the Bourgeoisie supposedly did. All I can find was that the working class was paid very little but if they were paid very little and it was actual capitalism the market would correct this problem. william.scherk suggested I read the wiki page but even it has a pretty bias stance on the matter, It even uses Marx and Gramsci terms to make its points. Here is the quote from wikipedia- "in the event, despite its initial philosophic progressivism — from feudalism to liberalism to capitalism — the bourgeoisie social class (haute and petite) became reactionary in their refusal to allow the ascension (economic, social, political) of people from the proletariat (peasants and urban workers) in order to maintain hegemony.[8]" If this quote is in fact true I would like something more then the workers were paid little to support it. In what way were the Bourgeoisie able to maintain power? Was this true capitalism? Are the bourgeoisie actually evil?

Are the Marxist's roots of the phrase discussed by your instructor? A... Basically we have just accepted as fact that the Bourgeoisie were capitalists oppressing the people. We have not discussed the phrase Bourgeoisie at all. I want to correct my opening question, in my question I stated that the Bourgeoisie weren't capitalist because they suppressed their people, from what I gather they were capitalist who didn't suppress the people. If I am incorrect please correct me, and if I am correct can someone direct me towards more information backing this claim. Everything I find online simply says the Bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat.

Hey Guys/Gals, First, I know you have probably noticed I changed my profile picture, and yes I am still a Cowboys fan; I just wanted a change of pace. If you are wondering what it is, it is me drawn as a Family Guy Character. Even though Family Guy is pretty liberal I do enjoy the episodes that don't involve politics. My question is about The French Revolution and The Bourgeoisie. In my class we have been reading Gramsci and we keep referring to the French Bourgeoisie as Capitalists, isn't this a tad bit of an ignorant statement. The Bourgeoisie held power by oppressing their people which is as far from capitalism as you can get. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, let me know what you guys/gals think? Thanks, David C.

First, let me say nothing beats Mortal Kombat arcade fighting, and I am pumped for Mortal Kombat X. Second, I do have a problem with what you said. In your opening, you said you are all for crushing the competition. I am more in favor of what Ayn Rand once said "Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."- Ayn Rand Thanks, David C.

These are awesome pictures, I loved the shot from the bottom of the tower, it was quite moving.

You are right, I apologize. I should have worded it differently.

I just wanted to make a thread in honor of everybody who gave their life on that day. I believe honoring them every passing year is very important.

Time for the class this thread is based on, wish me luck.

I have a serious problem with "literature in translation." If you are not reading it in the original, all you are getting is a second-hand interpretation. Myself, my first class in German was before the 7th grade at an experimental summer school at Western Reserve University (now Case-Western) in Cleveland. My SAT scores in German were higher than my SAT scores in English. I last used German for work when employed by the Carl Zeiss Foundation 1997-1998. That being as it may, I never read Hegel in German. Hegel believed that the Prussian state was the highest Idea of History. He believed that History has a Goal. It achieves this Goal by a processes of Dialectic. Opposites become new Beginnings. Ayn Rand never to my knowledge addressed Hegel directly. It is true that his philosophy is the basis for both communism and fascism. Thank you so much, I agree the best way to form an opinion is from the source. I sadly don't speak German, though I would love to, I have been interested in trying Rosetta stone. By the way, just so it is clear it wasn't out of left field, I asked what Ayn Rand's opinion on Hegel was because on her lexicon website she mentioned him once or twice in a not so positive light. Just so everyone who has posted in this thread knows I have been doing research on the Hegel Dialectic and this site http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/01/hegelian-dialectics-for-dummies/ was quite helpful, I suggest anyone interested give it a read.

I am certainly going to try my best. It would be easier if it was just this class but I also have a Vietnam class from a teacher who has to say how evil Fox News is in every sentence. For the record, I do plan on becoming a college professor and when I do I am going to teach history as objectivly as possible. We shall see what happens, my one fear is that I am not nearly as patient as Ayn Rand was. David C

I agree it has nothing to do with Marx or Hegel that's why I find our reading of them rather out of place.

We are reading several books pertaining to the partisan of India and we are going to use how Marx and Hegel study history and apply it to the partisan. I listed the books we are reading along with Hegel and Marx below, Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, and Political Economy. 3rded. New York: Routledge, 2011. Butalia, Urvashi. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000. Carr, E.H. What is History? New York: Vintage, 1961. Pandey, Gyanendra. Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism, and History in India. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Ghosh, Amitav. The Shadow Lines. Kolkata: Ravi Dayal, 1988. Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

It is so difficult to find someone who teaches history objectively. The whole point in reading Marx and Hegel, is we are going to use how they studied history and apply that method to the partisan of India. History as a study and discipline cannot be completely objective. Why? Prior to the current moment there are a trillion trillion or more events that brought about the conditions of the current motive. All we can do is select a very small subset of these events which have left traces in the present time and draw conclusion from this paltry sampling. The fact that we -must- pick and chose the events we study precludes completeness and objectivity in history. Ba'al Chatzaf You are right, let me correct myself, I don't want my teachers opinion on the conclusions we draw from the "paltry sampling". If we conclude Lincoln died on April 15, 1865, I don't want my teachers opinion on his death. As students we should draw our own conclusions.

Hegel and then Marx? -- that's an agenda, not remotely connected to history, unless it's a left-wing history of German idealism. History is supposed to look at documentary evidence. What else was going on at the time? Hegel lived 1770-1831, Marx 1818-1883. That century was bristling with industrial and commercial progress, especially in the United States. Napolean Bonaparte (1769-1821). US Civil War (1860-65). British Raj (1858). Screw-propeller steamships (1839). Intercity railroads (1830). Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). Intellectual history: Voltaire (1694–1778), Adam Smith (1723-1790), Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Jefferson (1743-1826) It is so difficult to find someone who teaches history objectively. The whole point in reading Marx and Hegel, is we are going to use how they studied history and apply that method to the partisan of India.

I will definitely listen to this, thanks so much. This is gonna be one brutal class to make it through.

Thank you so much, we are reading Marx next if you were wondering. The whole point in this class is to show us how to study history properly.

Hi Guys/ Gals, Let me start by apologizing for not being able to give my input on some of the other threads I have started, my second year of college has just begun and I have been quite busy. In my seminar history class that I am required to take we were assigned Hegel's Philosophy of History for homework, and I must say I don't really understand it. It all comes off as nonsense to me. I have tried looking for simple summaries of his philosophy on history and haven't had much luck. If anyone can explain to me how he viewed history and why Ayn Rand disagreed with it, it would be very helpful to me. Thank You, David C.

This leads me to another question, what would the objectivist position on indecent exposure be?

I would like to see a pilot program and I would want it to be secret. That would be super interesting to watch.

Sorry to keep making so many new threads but you guys/gals have such amazing viewpoints and you always keep me thinking. The other night I was watching Redeye and they were debating a story about a man who was arrested for being naked in his front yard. From an Objectivist viewpoint should he be allowed to stand in his front yard naked? Thanks, David C.

I was watching my favorite T.V. show in Redeye last night and Andy Levy suggested all police officers wear cameras. I am mixed on the issue. I can see it solving many problems such as the question of what actually occurred and yet I can see it also causing many problems. I was curious of your guys/gals opinion on the issue. Thanks, David C.

Hi all, I don't know how to explain it, but if you guys/gals have free time I suggest reading the article in the link I posted below. Thanks, David C. http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/12/robin-williams-didnt-die-disease-died-choice/

I don't know how this guy stayed so patient for so long, I would have lost it. He should have just have hung up and called again and would have got a different comcast rep.

I realized I should have post this in the movies and entertainment section but I don't know how to move it. I apologize in advance.

Hi all, Here is the trailer for the final installment in the film series. I personally thought it looked rather bad, let me know what you guys think? Thanks, David C. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-gsvboXXjQs