[Le Rouge]

Don't all humans, regardless of class, have a vested interest in proletarian revolution and socialism? Socialism upturns long established hierarchies and forms of oppression. It takes world-historical challenges such as eliminating poverty, lack of education, racism, sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation. It willingly takes on newer human challenges such as space exploration and colonization, longevity and life extension, scientific inquiry and discovery, etc. Therefore it seems from time to time members of the petty-bourgeoisie, peasants, etc. will defect from their class and become revolutionary socialists. Marx (petty-bourgeois journalist / writer), Lenin (petty-bourgeois lawyer), and Mao (peasant / intellectual) are examples. It seems that only the profiteering capitalist is the only one with a definite interest in capitalism.

[Dr House]

No.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

All humans, regardless of class, have a vested interest in preventing a proletarian revolution and socialism so that they will not have to put up with pseudo-intellectual Marxists ordering their lives.

[ninurta]

All humans, regardless of class, have a vested interest in preventing a proletarian revolution and socialism so that they will not have to put up with pseudo-intellectual Marxists ordering their lives.

So true.

We have a vested interest in fighting for a free and democratic economic system, like those libertarians have to offer.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

We have a vested interest in fighting for a free and democratic economic system, like those libertarians have to offer.

I have no problem with the human race losing political rights because most of them wouldn't have any real idea about the system they are voting for anyway and would be happily apolitical if the conditions were right, but economic freedom is much more important. How I earn and spend my money is my buisness and nobody elses.

[The Immortal Goon]

Holy Libertarian circle-jerk Batman!

But to answer the OP, I'll quote Engels:

The individual capitalists, who dominate production and exchange, are able to concern themselves only with the most immediate useful effect of their actions. Indeed, even this useful effect – inasmuch as it is a question of the usefulness of the article that is produced or exchanged – retreats far into the background, and the sole incentive becomes the profit to be made on selling.

Classical political economy, the social science of the bourgeoisie, in the main examines only social effects of human actions in the fields of production and exchange that are actually intended. This fully corresponds to the social organisation of which it is the theoretical expression. As individual capitalists are engaged in production and exchange for the sake of the immediate profit, only the nearest, most immediate results must first be taken into account. As long as the individual manufacturer or merchant sells a manufactured or purchased commodity with the usual coveted profit, he is satisfied and does not concern himself with what afterwards becomes of the commodity and its purchasers. The same thing applies to the natural effects of the same actions. What cared the Spanish planters in Cuba, who burned down forests on the slopes of the mountains and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertiliser for one generation of very highly profitable coffee trees – what cared they that the heavy tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the unprotected upper stratum of the soil, leaving behind only bare rock! In relation to nature, as to society, the present mode of production is predominantly concerned only about the immediate, the most tangible result; and then surprise is expressed that the more remote effects of actions directed to this end turn out to be quite different, are mostly quite the opposite in character

This applies to much of the petty bourgeois elements and the slum proletariat also. However they often become fascists or libertarians also due to their opposition to the haute-bourgeois system.

But as per the general inclination-

But what is to be the consequence? Capitalist production cannot stop. It must go on increasing and expanding, or it must die. Even now the mere reduction of England’s lion’s share in the supply of the world’s markets means stagnation, distress, excess of capital here, excess of unemployed workpeople there. What will it be when the increase of yearly production is brought to a complete stop?

Here is the vulnerable place, the heel of Achilles, for capitalistic production. Its very basis is the necessity of constant expansion, and this constant expansion now becomes impossible. It ends in a deadlock. Every year England is brought nearer face to face with the question: either the country must go to pieces, or capitalist production must. Which is it to be?

[Dr House]

Holy Libertarian circle-jerk Batman!

Rojik ain't a libertarian, actually.

[redcarpet]

The Ruling class don't, no. They will probably never willingly submit

[legalboxerbriefs]

Don't all humans, regardless of class, have a vested interest in proletarian revolution and socialism? Socialism upturns long established hierarchies and forms of oppression.

You answered this yourself later in your post:

members of the petty-bourgeoisie, peasants, etc. will defect from their class and become revolutionary socialists. Marx (petty-bourgeois journalist / writer), Lenin (petty-bourgeois lawyer), and Mao (peasant / intellectual) are examples. It seems that only the profiteering capitalist is the only one with a definite interest in capitalism.

This is something that Marx hypothesized himself. Yet what you also seemingly recognize is that the "capitalist" class (such as, I suppose, CEOs, etc.) has no vested interest in the "proletarian revolution".

At the end of the day, though, I'd argue that very few except those who wind up seizing power and establishing the seemingly-inevitable brutal dictatorship after the "proletarian revolution" have any real vested interest in it.

It takes world-historical challenges such as eliminating poverty, lack of education, racism, sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation.

Okay, Hegel.

But, seriously: an orthodox Marxist reading of what Marx (and many other Marxists) actually believed would lead one to an inevitable condemnation of such postmodernist politics as you seem to advocate here. Issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation (and other issues, such as animal rights or the unfortunate apologetics for Palestinian terrorism) have, at the end of the day, nothing to do with "socialism". Socialism is about class, period.

[Le Rouge]

Issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation

All issues Marx wrote on or by Marxists that came after him.

[grassroots1]

Don't all humans, regardless of class, have a vested interest in proletarian revolution and socialism?

Yes, I would argue that even capitalists have a vested interest in the proletarian revolution and socialism, whether they know it or not.

[Kasu]

But, seriously: an orthodox Marxist reading of what Marx (and many other Marxists) actually believed would lead one to an inevitable condemnation of such postmodernist politics as you seem to advocate here. Issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation (and other issues, such as animal rights or the unfortunate apologetics for Palestinian terrorism) have, at the end of the day, nothing to do with "socialism". Socialism is about class, period.

Agreed. It's nothing but opportunism, middle-class radicalism, pabloite-revisionism, Stalinism, and post-modernist hogwash. The World Socialist Website stays clear of all of that, and sticks to genuine orthodox Marxism, including the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky.

Yes, I would argue that even capitalists have a vested interest in the proletarian revolution and socialism, whether they know it or not.

They would eventually have no other choice but to be liquidated into socialist society, and in the end they would benefit from it. Socialism will bring true happiness, more so than billions of dollars in private-ownership of capital could ever bring.

[Dr House]

Yes, I would argue that even capitalists have a vested interest in the proletarian revolution and socialism, whether they know it or not.

That's just dumb.

[Le Rouge]

Well isn't that strange because I'm not an opportunist--I am genuinely concerned with the plight of African Americans and other oppressed groups; I'm not from the middle-class--both of my parents were working class, I don't subscribe to 'pabloite-revisionism' or Stalinism or post-modernism.

[Mikolaj]

Don't all humans, regardless of class, have a vested interest in proletarian revolution and socialism? Socialism upturns long established hierarchies and forms of oppression. It takes world-historical challenges such as eliminating poverty, lack of education, racism, sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation. It willingly takes on newer human challenges such as space exploration and colonization, longevity and life extension, scientific inquiry and discovery, etc. Therefore it seems from time to time members of the petty-bourgeoisie, peasants, etc. will defect from their class and become revolutionary socialists. Marx (petty-bourgeois journalist / writer), Lenin (petty-bourgeois lawyer), and Mao (peasant / intellectual) are examples. It seems that only the profiteering capitalist is the only one with a definite interest in capitalism.

Certainly, all humans have an interest in a socialist society because they would have control of their economic lives and enjoy all the benefits you mentioned.

As past social movements have shown, people from the middling classes have often played an important role. This shouldn't be surprising, as this class has had lots of leisure time to think about a great many things - such as political theories and formulating a political opinion.

As you said, only the capitalist class has a vested interest in the current economic system, as they benefit from it more than anyone.

[Dr House]

The working class doesn't have a vested interest in the elimination of "surplus value." The working class has a vested interest in living standards as high as possible, and the socialist experiment of the late 20th century shows that socialism as currently constituted is not the way to achieve that. Public services in the USSR were good, but consumer goods were complete shit and extremely scarce, housing was non-tradeable, and at its peak the USSR only achieved 50% of American production per capita, despite longer working hours. Fuck, I'm not even against the concept of a state-owned economy at all, but Marxist economic theories were and still are complete and utter crap.

[Mikolaj]

The working class has a vested interest in living standards as high as possible, and the socialist experiment of the late 20th century shows that socialism as currently constituted is not the way to achieve that. Public services in the USSR were good, but consumer goods were complete shit and extremely scarce, housing was non-tradeable, and at its peak the USSR only achieved 50% of American production per capita, despite longer working hours.

I often wonder, if the USSR was trying to create the same type of prosperity as the U.S. and Co., minus worker exploitation, would that still be a society we would want or could afford? By this I mean a civilization that tries to emulate the level of consumerism with all its unsustainability and materialism.

Economic freedom (of the workers from the capitalists) is definitely an essential plank in a better society IMO, but this society must also account for the environment that supports it.

[Dr House]

if the USSR was trying to create the same type of prosperity as the U.S. and Co., minus worker exploitation, would that still be a society we would want or could afford?

Most of us certainly want this type of prosperity, and with the right economic policies the country could most certainly afford it.

By this I mean a civilization that tries to emulate the level of consumerism with all its unsustainability and materialism.

Modern society is very sustainable. If a stronger effort is made to solve real (as in, not irrelevant to humans or fabricated by the green lobby to further their animist agenda) existing environmental problems by technological means, it could be made even more sustainable.

[Kasu]

The little handful of recalcitrant capitalists who don’t like what is happening will not have to stay and watch if they don’t want to. The workers’ government of rich America could easily afford to give them an island or two, for their exclusive habitation, and pension them off and get them out of the way. How big is Catalina Island here? That might be just the place for them. It will not be necessary to kill them off. Just send them to Catalina. Let them take their bonds and stock certificates with them—as mementos of bygone days—and give them enough caviar and champagne to finish out their useless lives, while the workers go on with their work of constructing a new and better social order. That’s what Trotsky said.

[Ombrageux]

Of course, everyone has an interest in Utopia. Very few people, really, have an interest in military dictatorship by intellectuals and fanatics justified by the mystic promise of that Utopia.