Did the Capitalist Class Really Earn Their Wealth?



hello currents today I have had to talk briefly about how the bourgeoisie the capitalist class often argue that ah I earned my wife's I would have liked wealth as is my worth not yours because I entered honestly and properly and this is not true for many reasons obviously the main being they did not earn most of their wealth most of their profit came through the exploitation of others it's quite a simple system workers have no choice but to sell their labor to someone who already owns means of production and the tools to do labour and the labor creates surplus value and the bourgeoisie keep most of that sickles valued as profit that's basically how capitalism works and therefore the laborer has not been given the full value of their labor and has been exploited by the bourgeoisie so that's the main reason why the bourgeoisie did not earn their wealth there's other things as well like lots of things such as texting another dishonest criminal activity that the bourgeoisie do but today I'd like to talk about another interesting concept and that is basically the bourgeois so you do not have very humble origins historically as a class they have origins and wealth and this is not completely true because obviously capitalism rose in the Middle Ages out of mercantilism the whole thing with merchants starting through trade they were a separate class from the main classes of feudalism the aristocrats the clergy of the peasants it was the merchants another class who generally wouldn't want by anyone else but they started to make money they started to do trade start generating profits and of course that eventually rose into capitalism these merchants version to the Porsche wanna see but many aristocrats and many people who had positions of power under feudalism ended up once capitalism had become much much bigger so we're talking sort of seventeenth eighteenth century now a bit late – wrong once careful ism was far more prominent many aristocrats and people who already had positions of power exploited their the power that they already had from feudalism to basically become rich under capitalism and become members of the bourgeoisie and very powerful and wealthy ones now I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie did not do class struggle against the fetal aristocrats obviously they did there were revolutions such as the French Revolution revolutions of 1848 and and all that all these big bourgeois revolutions where they gained most of their extremely prominent political power that they have today but that there were also other things other forms of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats I am NOT denying this at all bound talking about later on once capitalism had already become quite prominent especially in England how former aristocrats or current aristocrats when it was still kind of feudalistic exploited the position of one up in power they had Judy aristocracy to basically become rich under capitalism in this show is one of the many reasons why the bourgeois a good number of the bourgeoisie didn't work her for the wealthy and here's that it from the exploitation of other systems as well now this is shown in je je a shafts book early modern England a social history where he's talking about the royal courtiers people who were to the Royal Court those of the court were uniquely well-placed to grasp opportunities to improve their fortunes courtiers and their clients can be found investing in joint stock companies enjoying the fruits of monopolies holding lucrative officers making fortunate marriages deriving profit from custom farms revenue farms and the collection of old tips to the crown from the various trading privileges and from the management of the lands of recusants and wards sharp also describes how the gentry members of the landed nobility so aristocrats but not the top top aristocrats also benefited from early capitalism so direct involvement with trade was out of the question this would lead to two rogue Asian loss of noble status but investment in a joint stock company or in a private hearing in venture even in the business of mining was acceptable and given the realities of such activities while suited to the aristocratic taste for gambling heiress moreover ample evidence that the upper nobility were alerted to the need for efficient estate management there were some problems in the adjusting to the 16th century inflation and the period 1582 1620 does seem to have been one of financial difficulties with peerage as a group but in the long run their income from rince had overtaken inflation by 1640 and the detailed estates surveys and greater professionals professionalism among estate stewards of the early 17th century point to an increased managerial efficiency similarly peers an old established gentry were aware of the possibilities offered by extracting and minerals which lay beneath the broad acres they owned the Senor sugar coal and iron extracting industries were firmly under the control of peers and upper gentry and by 1672 the lid mine and slanting clanton sweat swelled ale in the North Riding were giving Lord Wharton and his partners an annual profit of three thousand two hundred pounds which remember with inflation is a hell of a lot perhaps the most perfect example of entrepreneurial spirit in the period of tourneys rising gin tree was provided not by some rural capitalist newcomer but by representative of one of the longest established noble houses in England now obviously there was class struggle between the monarchy and the bourgeoisie to deny so would be to deny a basic Marxist analysis of history and some examples of this with a Dutch Revolt of 1568 the English Civil War French Revolution the bullsháá revolutions of 1848 these are cases where the bourgeoisie struggled against the monarchy and fought for political rights and for economic freedoms or so-called freedoms and these were cases of class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the feudal monarchs but there are also some cases and this is only once capitalism was already quite developed of the monarchy actually supporting the bourgeoisie was putting the interests of the bourgeoisie now like I said this is when capitalism was quite developed and this is these cases are in England and this is when capitalism is already quite developed in England they weren't in its early phases where there was far more class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the monarchy one example of this is in Tudor times in England during the Reformation when England broke away from the Catholic Church to quote a people's history of modern Europe by William a bells when the crown confiscated church wealth most people were indifferent it's not supportive soon there was a new class of men who had directly profit by purchasing church holdings from King Henry by participating in what Rome called the rape of Mother Church these people would tie themselves to the futures of the tutor project a later restoration of papal authority threatened not merely religious reform but the new landowners very economic one and there are more examples of this sort of thing later on goes on to say while Europe and the 17th century was notable for his lack of they're in societies they gap between rich and poor was especially glaring and England throughout the Tudor era vast sections of the populace have been forced from the land and were ever more dependent on wage labor Ilia many of the pool had survived by access to the commons that is land that belong to the community where the poor could hunt gather firewood for heating or even plant modest-sized crops more and more the wealthy had closed off or enclosed the Commons and made at private travel and public property one motivation for this was the growing need for land for raising sheep to supply the wool trade thus as early as the reign of Henry the eighth Sir Thomas More could remark that Inglot had become a land where sheep eat men having lost their land or access to the Commons many more than before were forced to buy food of market prices existing conflicts between rich and poor now saw a growing tension with merchants nobles and rich fans on one side and the bulk of the population on the other so these are some examples of an England when after the initial sort of introduction of capitalism and the initial class struggle between the feudal monarchy in the bourgeois say this is an example of now the few feudal nobility in the monarchs working with the bourgeoisie and the and the bourgeoisie gaining their wealth through already-existing of separations of wealth and power from feudalism another example of this can be found in Italy to quote jerko and in his journal rational capitalism in Renaissance Italy land was generally divided into smaller estates and was of an owned as a business investment by the nobility the communes or the capitalists themselves the nobility after despising capitalism engaged in trade as an excellent means of gaining wealth moreover wealthy businessman could move solidly into the nobility noble titles became merely designations for the wealthy class guilds were frequently weak as noted above and the number of cases were controlled by the business owners Burswood little or opposition wealthy Renaissance capitalists had liberal little trouble making the business order one of the dominant secular institutions of the Italian city-state and establishing themselves leading citizens with full honors dignity and high respect based on their public surface the effects of the fact that many members of the nobility used capitalism to their advantage and became capitalists can be seen by the facts if you take a Florence for example tax records in Florence show that the richest Florence's richest families today are the same as in 1427 so the wealthy in Florence the people who are wealthy hasn't changed since 14 27 so when capitalists say oh you know just earn your wife like they did capitalists they think rich through hard work this is simply not true the wealthy people today are the same as the wealthy people hundreds of years ago they're just inherited their wealth and you could say well that's just one city yes but that's it is a perfect example of what goes on in most capitalist countries I mean you take the really wealthy people the Rothschilds for example one of the wealthiest families in the world now I'm not gonna go all conspiracy theorist I'm not gonna go and he semitic here i don't view them as the root of all evil they just normal members of the bourgeoisie they've been wealthy since the 18th century that family they're one of the wealthiest in the world and they've been in that position since the 18th century the bourgeoisie it doesn't come from hard work they come from an era ting their wealth from generations and generations of exploiters in fact one study has shown that hereditary wealth and privilege date back to the earliest days of farming in the neolithic according to researchers who have studied hundreds of ancient human skeletons so now this won't be true for everyone obviously but there is a general trend that for the current bourgeoisie their wealth goes back through generations and generations of inheritance and goes back to previous ruling classes they did not earn their wealth they did not do hard work to get where they are they inherited their wealth through exploitation and they gain even more wealth and use that inherited wealth to further their business empowers or whatever and exploit even more people and that is hell but bourgeoisie did rich so it is not hard work that makes you rich under capitalism it is exploitation and the same people that are exploiting us now have been exploiting us for generations and generations coming back to feudalism or even performing and the only way to stop this cycle of exploitation is overthrowing the capitalist system

17 thoughts on “Did the Capitalist Class Really Earn Their Wealth?

  • Well technically they do get their money by working, no shit in that logic. It’s not always gonna be those multi million companies that get all the glory, what about super small businesses? My dad has a lawn business, just him, my uncle, and occasionally I get in the action too. I think it’s unfair to punish good people that make money themselves, and I actually like being paid by my own dad, major irony👌. But as you put it all capitalists earn money off the workers, but what about overseas operations? Nothing smells like good old communism like clothes and 90% of all things made in China. But hey, it’s China, a fellow communist country. Surly their sweatshops are 100% “safe” and it’s not like most of our stuff is made by child slaves in China.(they are)

  • The only way a Capitalist gains their wealth is through employing workers to make money. In other words, the Capitalist system allows them to do this because of wage labour; the workers don't get to keep the full value of their labour, it goes to the Capitalist and only a small fraction of that value goes back to the working class.

  • Eighty percent of millionaires in the United States are first generation millionaires. They did not inherit their wealth, which means they had to create it. As much as you would like to try and link modern day capitalism to the past, this is not your medieval grandfathers mercantilism.

  • Leftists in the Sudan trying to fight and establish Socialism in the Sudan. Although the goons of Omar Al-Bashir are still trying to hold on to power🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

  • Even if all capitalists would have earned all their property through hard work (which they didn't, it is simple theft of surplus value), not even then does this gives them the right to use this property to subjugate others, so to me it is meaningless to even consider if they deserve or not their property, just because you make your own whip that doesn't give you the right to lash people to make then work for you, deserving is meaningless, no matter how in love liberals are with this fantasy of the self made man, what we propose is a systematic solution to all the problems of a ruthless, unsustainable economic system that is destroying life as we know it, and the only way is the abolition of private property, I don't care if they think they deserve to have this class privilege or not, it needs to be abolished.

  • No they didn’t. They took it from the labour of “their” workers. Capitalists like to say “in capitalism you can rise up to the top if you work hard!” Is this true? Can a female farmer in Africa rise up? Can she better herself by working hard? No she cannot. The Capitalists hold her down. What about Trump? Did Trump every work hard? No he did not. He inherited the money from his father. He did nothing to “earn” his money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *