[americandream]

All Planty has to do is explain his understanding of what the term "bourgeoisie" signifies for him, its origins and extension as a class worldwide and its maturation into capitalist. As well as a description of that form of profit, "capital". It's that simple.

I may well be wrong. All he has to do is simply state his case. All this woeful crying get us nowhere and we learn nothing other than the nonsensical characterisation of the likes of liberal capitalists such as Obama as communist. .

Simply telling me that bourgeoisie are owners of capital, Planty, tells me nothing. Is a bourgeoise born with a wad of capital as he emerges from his mothers womb. Does he simply rise up from the murky depths, phoenix like? What are his characteristics. His roots. His place in the American revolt against the king.

Until I am rebutted, point by point rather than bald statements, there is no debate underway, just a lot of petulant hysteria. Especially given that he hasn't told me what these poor Chinese were seeking in rising up in revolt, especially given China's full accession to capital since then including its accession to the WTO. I stated that they sought freedoms necessary in a mercantilist society, not a return to Maoist collectivism. He just keeps telling me I don't know what I am talking about. Well then. Educate me.

The floor is yours Planty.

[SeaGypsy]

Your mistake AD is in this instance simply over simplification of a very complex issue into a single aspect. I have no agenda to rebut you, I agree with much of what you have to say here and elsewhere. If you have some kind of actual evidence of your point in describing the Chinese uprising thus, I think you should have put it forward. Not doing so just makes it look like you have made it up in your head. Given that Plant is pretty much correct in his statements about the resource attributes of those directly involved on the ground at Tiananmen Square, what basis is there to call this a bourgeoisie attempt at overthrow of anti capitalist government? I am not arguing your point is baseless; simply highly questionable and in need of evidence.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'Y')our mistake AD is in this instance simply over simplification of a very complex issue into a single aspect. I have no agenda to rebut you, I agree with much of what you have to say here and elsewhere. If you have some kind of actual evidence of your point in describing the Chinese uprising thus, I think you should have put it forward. Not doing so just makes it look like you have made it up in your head. Given that Plant is pretty much correct in his statements about the resource attributes of those directly involved on the ground at Tiananmen Square, what basis is there to call this a bourgeoisie attempt at overthrow of anti capitalist government? I am not arguing your point is baseless; simply highly questionable and in need of evidence.

[SeaGypsy]

Thanks AD, would have saved a few bytes if you put this up first.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')Resourcing (poverty) is PRECISELY what suggests the bourgeoisie character of the uprising.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')Resourcing (poverty) is PRECISELY what suggests the bourgeoisie character of the uprising.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'T')hanks AD, would have saved a few bytes if you put this up first.