How much does a guitar's country of origin matter?

[mackerelmint]

my middle class bourgeoisie status

AHHHHHH I LOVE THIS. It's such a great expository tidbit. According to Marx, the middle class he was born into didn't exist. You're a lord or a serf in his world view, a proletarian or bourgeoisie. Yet now anyone in that "imaginary" middle class is basically accused by many Marxists of being part of the bourgeoisie, despite working for a paycheck and holding exactly none of the means of production as their own property.

I was attempting to be ironic.

I KNOW!!

It's just that the thing you said ironically is also a thing that a lot of people honestly believe is a thing. It's amazing: the middle class that doesn't exist in the first place is simultaneously part of the bourgeoisie and also a bunch of proletarians who've fallen victim to false consciousness. What they get called at any given moment depends on what they're being maligned for, of course.

YOU CAN'T BE IRONIC TO A COMMUNIST CUZ THEY'LL NEVER GET IT

[wooderson]

AHHHHHH I LOVE THIS. It's such a great expository tidbit. According to Marx, the middle class he was born into didn't exist. You're a lord or a serf in his world view, a proletarian or bourgeoisie.

Marx referred often to the petit bourgeois.

Marx didn't refer to what Americans might call the middle class, because it didn't exist until after he was, you know, dead (and largely came into existence because of industrial labor unions inspired by Marx).

Yet now anyone in that "imaginary" middle class is basically accused by many Marxists of being part of the boureoisie, despite working for a paycheck and holding exactly none of the means of production as their own property.

Actually associating with Marxists on a regular basis, it's actually quite the opposite - given the decline of the American middle class over the last several decades, there's a push to broaden the American idea of the working class along the lines of Marx's original distinction (selling one's labor) in order to intensify class associations.

[mackerelmint]

AHHHHHH I LOVE THIS. It's such a great expository tidbit. According to Marx, the middle class he was born into didn't exist. You're a lord or a serf in his world view, a proletarian or bourgeoisie.

Marx referred often to the petit bourgeois.

Yes, I am aware. I have read him at length. The "petit bourgeoisie" isn't really anything more than a way to villify people for trying to improve their circumstances on terms other than Marx's. After all, if someone can do well without owning the means of production... That's actually one of my big complaints with Marxism: any other way of arranging an economy is monolithic and evil, which it has to be otherwise socialism ceases to be necessary. If people can improve their lives in a market system of any kind, it's an existential threat to socialist ideas. It dovetails real nicely with Marx's notion of false consciousness and the circular logic it relies on.

Marx didn't refer to what Americans might call the middle class, because it didn't exist until after he was, you know, dead (and largely came into existence because of industrial labor unions inspired by Marx).

It existed before he was alive, as he knew full well since he was born into it. It had existed as a merchant class for as long as lords started scooping up the commons and even before. You are correct that it wasn't until the industrial revolution that it became large enough for economies to rely on it. That said, he edited its existence out of the picture he was trying to paint. I've long thought that Marx was short on integrity for this and other reasons.

Yet now anyone in that "imaginary" middle class is basically accused by many Marxists of being part of the boureoisie, despite working for a paycheck and holding exactly none of the means of production as their own property.

Actually associating with Marxists on a regular basis, it's actually quite the opposite - given the decline of the American middle class over the last several decades, there's a push to broaden the American idea of the working class along the lines of Marx's original distinction (selling one's labor) in order to intensify class associations.

Among educated Marxists, that is also true and I've seen some of that myself. I've also seen what I've described far more often than I've seen what you describe. There's no "well, ACTUALLY" to spout here, both exist. Again, the middle class are proletarians until one of them annoys the average modern Marxist, at which point they are reclassified so that the annoyed Marxist in question has something mean to call them. But the Average Marxist starts reading Capital at chapter 8 because it's a pretty easy read and it's all chock full of harsh laws from the middle ages to get riled up about. Most fans of Marx have barely read him, if at all, from what I've seen, preferring to read the cliff's notes and the analyses of others to get their ideas. Just my experience with 'em. There sure are a lot of them around here.

[wooderson]

Yes, I am aware. I have read him at length. The "petit bourgeoisie" isn't really anything more than a way to villify people for trying to improve their circumstances on terms other than Marx's. After all, if someone can do well without owning the means of production... That's actually one of my big complaints with Marxism: any other way of arranging an economy is monolithic and evil, which it has to be otherwise socialism ceases to be necessary. If people can improve their lives in a market system of any kind, it's an existential threat to socialist ideas. It dovetails real nicely with Marx's notion of false consciousness and the circular logic it relies on.

Your exact line was "according to Marx, the middle class he was born into didn't exist. You're a lord or a serf in his world view, a proletarian or bourgeoisie."

Weird that now you remember the petit bourgeois, which is... a middle class between proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Given that Marx's life primarily took place when and where monarchy was the dominant form of government, you could also say that even leaving out the petit bourgeois he discussed 'the middle class' just in reference to the bourgeoisie - ie proletariat, bourgeoisie and nobility.

Marx's primary work was historical analysis, not prescriptive.

It existed before he was alive, as he knew full well since he was born into it. It had existed as a merchant class for as long as lords started scooping up the commons and even before. You are correct that it wasn't until the industrial revolution that it became large enough for economies to rely on it. That said, he edited its existence out of the picture he was trying to paint. I've long thought that Marx was short on integrity for this and other reasons.

This "merchant class" is the aforementioned petit bourgeois. People who neither sell their labor (the proletariat) nor those who own the means of production (bourgeoisie). As you've agreed, they were hardly ignored by Marx.

The American class concept is part style of work and part income based - our "middle class" primarily refers to professional, white collar laborers earning more than the working class - and so, no, Marx didn't refer to that because it didn't exist.

Among educated Marxists, that is also true and I've seen some of that myself. I've also seen what I've described far more often than I've seen what you describe. There's no "well, ACTUALLY" to spout here, both exist. Again, the middle class are proletarians until one of them annoys the average modern Marxist, at which point they are reclassified so that the annoyed Marxist in question has something mean to call them. But the Average Marxist starts reading Capital at chapter 8 because it's a pretty easy read and it's all chock full of harsh laws from the middle ages to get riled up about. Most fans of Marx have barely read him, if at all, from what I've seen, preferring to read the cliff's notes and the analyses of others to get their ideas. Just my experience with 'em. There sure are a lot of them around here.

There is a well actually here in that you're making broad - and incorrect - statements about a) Marx's writing (cf. the middle class and petit bourgeois) and b) 'what Marxists honestly believe' with some handwaving about "lots of people" and "from what I've seen." You're basically trading on lazy stereotypes of the "average modern Marxist" (whatever the hell that would even be) colored by your obvious hostility.

[mackerelmint]

Yes, I am aware. I have read him at length. The "petit bourgeoisie" isn't really anything more than a way to villify people for trying to improve their circumstances on terms other than Marx's. After all, if someone can do well without owning the means of production... That's actually one of my big complaints with Marxism: any other way of arranging an economy is monolithic and evil, which it has to be otherwise socialism ceases to be necessary. If people can improve their lives in a market system of any kind, it's an existential threat to socialist ideas. It dovetails real nicely with Marx's notion of false consciousness and the circular logic it relies on.

Your exact line was "according to Marx, the middle class he was born into didn't exist. You're a lord or a serf in his world view, a proletarian or bourgeoisie."

Weird that now you remember the petit bourgeois, which is... a middle class between proletariat and bourgeoisie.

It's not, for a few reasons. The first because making the distinction between the little bourgeoisie and the big capital B Bourgeoisie in a casual remark hardly seems worth it. The second being that both are "the bad guys" or at least ill actors in Marx's taxonomy.

Given that Marx's life primarily took place when and where monarchy was the dominant form of government, you could also say that even leaving out the petit bourgeois he discussed 'the middle class' just in reference to the bourgeoisie - ie proletariat, bourgeoisie and nobility.

I don't agree with this. Monarchy was on its way out, and what existed was generally constitutionally restrained by that point in time. I'll agree with you in terms of him living in a time of cultures more stratified than they are today. If you were to argue that he saw the middle class as being so small at the time and so doomed in any case that it would quickly vanish forever so wasn't worth mentioning, I'd be sympathetic to that argument, but he minimized their significance, and only acknowledged them to the extent that he could categorize them essentially as parasites selling the labor of others. That takes us back to the earlier chapters of Capital where he ponders the nature of value, notices that the labor theory of value isn't complete, can't work the rest out, and then we later see him basically decide to go with what he knows is a flawed notion of value as a premise, except where he doesn't. Marx wasn't very consistent, and it's a drag to see him leave off an idea mid sentence and not revisit it until years later.

Marx's primary work was historical analysis, not prescriptive.

Yes and no. In terms of how many words he spent on a given subject, it ranks highest, but it was also done in service of an explicitly prescriptive body of work so that his prescriptions would have context. Marx is the only one I'm aware of who looked at stages of development and declared unequivocally what would come, categorizing it as an inevitability. He's certainly the only one who did that and had people take it at face value... which probably speaks to the value of the historical analysis he gave them. He knew that his readers needed that context, so he put the work in.

This "merchant class" is the aforementioned petit bourgeois. People who neither sell their labor (the proletariat) nor those who own the means of production (bourgeoisie). As you've agreed, they were hardly ignored by Marx.

Yes, he mentioned them to the extent necessary for him to define them in a way as to undermine the value or even rectitude of their existence. His narrative was nothing short of an evangelistic take on good vs evil, and that shade of grey floating around didn't fit in. So they became proletarians who didn't know their place (false consciousness) and who exploited the labor of others. They're simultaneously black AND white, and so instead of leaving something grey and liable to raise questions, he painted one side white and the other black, and preserved the purity of the dichotomy he was organizing the world into.

The American class concept is part style of work and part income based - our "middle class" primarily refers to professional, white collar laborers earning more than the working class - and so, no, Marx didn't refer to that because it didn't exist.

No, it didn't. But a contemporary analog did, and he didn't refer to that, either. Even then, the middle class was more than just merchants- Marx's own father was an attorney. The middle class looked then more like it does now than you're giving it credit for, and Marx grew up in that world. He knew what he was doing when he rewrote the world to be in black and white.

There is a well actually here in that you're making broad - and incorrect - statements about a) Marx's writing (cf. the middle class and petit bourgeois) and b) 'what Marxists honestly believe' with some handwaving about "lots of people" and "from what I've seen." You're basically trading on lazy stereotypes of the "average modern Marxist" (whatever the hell that would even be) colored by your obvious hostility.

Well, yeah, I made broad statements - though not essentially incorrect ones - in a rather offhanded remark. You brought up the petit bourgeoisie which wasn't wrong to do, and we disagree about their significance, apparently. As long as you're not accusing me of moving the goalposts just for having acknowledged the small distinction without a difference that the petit bourgeoisie represent. It is my opinion, having read quite a lot more of Marx than I would have really liked to since he tends to be florid and unorganized in his thoughts, that his erasure of the middle class was a device to help lead readers (presumably the working poor) to his own point of view, in a classic polemicist's tactic that most of them wouldn't be savvy enough to recognize.

Now, I've read him quite a bit because I've had to in order to understand the economies of the USSR and PRC, and the ways and reasons that their economic transitions have differed and continue to. I also live in a city where there are a lot of Marxists, and have a lot of friends who are Marxist-adjacent. These are not the kind of Marxists who actually have read Marx, or at least have read and understood Marx since they'd realize that history has disproven him. I consider Marxists to be no different to flat earthers. We know now and have the empirical data that shows that many of his premises were flawed, and we also have his handwritten manuscripts with notes in his own hand acknowledging this. Yet, he published it anyway. He prescribes the correct behavior and aspirations for workers and anything outside of that is "false consciousness", the only definition of which is conveniently his own. He presents a "utopia" (as long as you don't have your own ideas about what that is, I guess) as an inevitable result of human evolution via socialism. The whole thing is totally religious (albeit atheistic) in its vision, it's spread more or less evangelically, and the guy who cooked it up said that religion is the opium of the people. Only a fool wouldn't find that something to be suspicious of! Of course I'm hostile. The whole thing smacks of a con job. Shit, I can't imagine wanting to listen to a guy who never worked in his life expound on the nature of the worker's plight. He lived off Fred Engels' money, and have you read how Engels talked about him? He sounded like a mark, and I think it's because he was one. That said, Marx made plenty of insightful observations about the nature of economies and societies that are very illuminating and useful. I just don't believe him to have been an honest man. If he was, he didn't understand the human condition very well for all of his historical ruminations. So yes, I am hostile toward Marxism. And I don't believe in holding the means of production in common, even with a market economy, because then nobody owns the means of production. They just get paid by the state to use them and power remains concentrated, as we've seen in every example of a Socialist experiment so far.

I was reading an Op Ed that Albert Einstein wrote about the necessity of socialism. And he was indeed talking about holding the means of production in common. He made a couple of astute observations about everything being a zero sum game in capitalism and the tendency of firms to swallow each other and move toward monopoly. And he complained about how in our market economy, people are paid according to what they need to get by. And that struck me as funny, because Albert Einstein of all people should have appreciated the computational impossibility of creating a planned economy that functions well, and also because the wage issue is all but decreed by Marx himself : "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". And that's all anybody ever really got, at best.

Marx's policy prescriptions failed and he is only relevant today because some people are too stupid to realize how incompatible his ideas are with reality.

[Despot]

I try, where possible, to buy guitars from their original country of design - so Fender/Gibson from the US, or if I wanted a Vox I would try to find one that was made in the UK rather than overseas.

However I don't treat this as a firm dictat, but more a guiding principle. The reason for this is that I've come across examples of guitars made in the far east that were truly exceptional (I've often mentioned that '61 RI Casino that was made in China, which was incredible).

My first proper electric guitar was a 1989 Fender Strat Plus - US made. It had a neck pocket that left room for lunch, weighed enough to anchor a ship and was fairly lacklustre. I still have it for sentimental reasons. I worked two summers in a printworks to be able to afford it. My second 'proper' electric was a US made Telecaster - a Highway One, closely followed by a Korean made Sheraton II. Both of those guitars were fantastic - and were gigged for years in the days that I did that type of thing. The only issue with the Epiphone was addressed through the replacement of the pickups, pots and switch. The guitar itself, from a construction standpoint, was actually better than the Fender - the level of workmanship in the inlays, the truly fantastic fret work (that guitar had the lowest action I'd encountered in a guitar for years - it was a joy to play) ... the guy I sold it to still has it and still gigs it.

I'd never fault folk for buying according to their means - it might seem with all the guitar flipping going on at Despot Towers that I have some hidden bank robbery fund somewhere ... but really it's the result of buying and selling stuff for years. There's 20 years of grind behind the guitars I have left. The one thing I would say is that the quality of budget guitars has improved an awful lot since the early '90s - back when I was starting to play you were basically throwing money away if you bought anything other than a MIJ or US made Fender (or Gibson). Squiers were poor quality, off-brands copies like Hohner etc were throw away instruments ... even guitars like the Yamaha Pacifica (which tended to be pretty decent) held poor resale value. Now you can get an awful lot of guitar for around 300 euro - and if you use it as a modding platform with pickups etc ... hell, you can make it whatever you need.

[shadowplay]

Just a question for every one to consider ... you don't need to reply:

(Blue) Jeans are a USA historical piece of clothing that was then eventually accepted throughout the rest of the world.

Where are the jeans that you are currently wearing manufactured?

More an American perfected garment, the true origins are European where cloth from Nimes in France (serge de Nimes) was taken to Genoa in Italy and made into a work pant popular with sailors. Italy's denim industry is still based around Genoa. The word Denim is derived from Nimes and Jeans phonetically from Genoa.

The Jeans I own are either American or Japanese. When I started wearing Japanese jeans in the late 80's it was purely because I found American NOS jeans too hard to find. I was importing them from the USA at the time and selling them on to folk with a clue for pin money but suddenly the price jumped from $5 a pair or less to several times that (killing my margins) and even then they were hard to find.

Why was I looking for NOS denim you might ask? I was looking for it because the American brands no longer made what I consider a proper pair of jeans due to cost cutting, which is as American as Apple pie (which is actually European and developed in USA like denim).

Ever since the early 50's the US mills had been phasing out 30 inch shuttle narrow looms in favour of 70 inch projectile looms purely because you needed 3 yards shuttle denim to make a pair of pants. With shuttle denim the outseam is self finished (I.E. the edge of of the cloth or the selfedge or selvage), whereas projectile jeans are overlocked meaning you can cut two or more pairs from the width and not be limited to cutting to the outseam.

Fast forward to 1984 and Cone mills phase out their shuttle looms completely and Levi start making non selvage 501's with the rest of their output having long gone projectile.

The Japanese recognise the folly of what is happening and start buying up the defunct American shuttle looms and chainstitching machines and many brands spring up making denim to a standard never achieved in the USA (for a price). None of the brands made trademarked Levi's but they made denims based on them often sailing very close to the wind in this.

Later on The US mills restart narrow loom production on reproduction machines but sad to say Cone mills closed the last mass produced narrow loom denim mill last year and essentially ended US mass production of denim and now most US made jeans are made with 'authentic' Japanese denim.

Look on this like guitars; like a Fender in the early 80's Levi's stopped making them like it used to/should do and the Japanese stepped in.

D

[Despot]

I knew there was a difference between 'self edge' and other denim ... but I've never seen it explained so clearly.

Thanks for that.

[leokula]

Just a question for every one to consider ... you don't need to reply:

(Blue) Jeans are a USA historical piece of clothing that was then eventually accepted throughout the rest of the world.

Where are the jeans that you are currently wearing manufactured?

Let's not get to cameras, tablets, computers, glasses or chairs LOL

[shadowplay]

Just a question for every one to consider ... you don't need to reply:

(Blue) Jeans are a USA historical piece of clothing that was then eventually accepted throughout the rest of the world.

Where are the jeans that you are currently wearing manufactured?

Let's not get to cameras, tablets, computers, glasses or chairs LOL

Camera (Germany), computer (no choice China or wherever Apple make their overpriced shite), Glasses, sunglasses, reading spectacles (USA and UK), Glasses drinking (UK/Italy/Scandinavia), chairs and furniture in general (UK, mostly England but some local Glasgow, USA, Italy, Scandinavia). Even before I was even thinking about where stuff was made in any ethical dimension I found the things I liked tended to made and designed in Europe or the USA. I'd probably say there's as little stuff in our house made outside a democracy as is possible and if I'm honest most of this just down to taste as much as any handwringing.

D

[wooderson]

It's not, for a few reasons. The first because making the distinction between the little bourgeoisie and the big capital B Bourgeoisie in a casual remark hardly seems worth it. The second being that both are "the bad guys" or at least ill actors in Marx's taxonomy.

Again, whatever path your hostility is leading you down is irrelevant.
You said Marx never talked about the middle class. This is objectively untrue. Like "the earth is flat" untrue.

I don't agree with this. Monarchy was on its way out, and what existed was generally constitutionally restrained by that point in time.

Um... no. This is just bad history. Aside from the UK and the Third Republic (which only existed for a little more than a decade at the end of Marx's life), strong monarchies were the order of the day in Europe and would be for 35 years after Marx's death.

If you were to argue that he saw the middle class as being so small at the time and so doomed in any case that it would quickly vanish forever so wasn't worth mentioning, I'd be sympathetic to that argument, but he minimized their significance, and only acknowledged them to the extent that he could categorize them essentially as parasites selling the labor of others.

Which is it, "never mentioned" or "minimized their significance"? I mean, neither is true, but it can't be both.

Yes, he mentioned them to the extent necessary for him to define them in a way as to undermine the value or even rectitude of their existence.

So he discussed them. Right. You can disagree, I suppose, with his stance toward the petit bourgeois but where you started was that he said they were "imaginary" and never discussed them.

Well, yeah, I made broad statements - though not essentially incorrect ones - in a rather offhanded remark. You brought up the petit bourgeoisie which wasn't wrong to do, and we disagree about their significance, apparently.

It is not minor or offhand to make one categorically false statement - there was no mention of a middle class - and to conflate that with anything regarding the popular version of the American class system, then criticize Marx for not confronting this American class system that didn't exist while he was alive.

Of course I'm hostile.

That's really all that needs to be said. Again, you're trading in lazy stereotypes and clearly not in a position to discuss "what Marxists honestly believe."

[PorkyPrimeCut]

I'd love to hear what TeenageShutdown! has to say on the distinction between the proletariat & the petit bourgeoisie. He seemed so well informed.

As to a guitar's country of origin, I get a lot of what Larry is saying. There's a certain value in heritage and I often see or hear about a slip in standards when production gets moved overseas to cut costs.
China is a tricky one. My AC30HH was built there & it's a killer amp (ironically the HH stands for handwired Heritage), and Sookwinder seems to have done very well getting custom-made Fibsons. But then there's the whole thread on people getting fake Rickenbackers made that just reads as a huge warning to not go there at all!

[Maggieo]

Nationalism is stupid.

I have a Vietnamese made Vox. I have an Indonesian Strat. I have guitars hand-built in America from trees that were here before Columbus.My cameras are from Germany and Japan. One of my cars is from Germany, the other is assembled in Mexico from parts made all over the world. My wines are French, Italian, Hungarian (they're amazing, BTW), Australian, and American. They are all fine examples of fellow humans' workmanship, and I'm proud to own every last one.

We're a single species, living on a single planet. We are one of the least genetically diverse species on it. It used to be if one group of humans didn't like something, they would walk away and find someplace new to do their thing. Unfettered migration was, and is, a fundamental human right. So is providing for your family by whatever means you are able.

Where are my guitars made? Here:



Thanks to Eugene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17 for making that photograph, for all mankind.

[PixMix]

^

I will also say, whatever factory Reverend uses in Korea, puts out some of the most amazing quality that's out there. Just amazing all the way around.

[Fiddy]

Nationalism is stupid.

I have a Vietnamese made Vox. I have an Indonesian Strat. I have guitars hand-built in America from trees that were here before Columbus.My cameras are from Germany and Japan. One of my cars is from Germany, the other is assembled in Mexico from parts made all over the world. My wines are French, Italian, Hungarian (they're amazing, BTW), Australian, and American. They are all fine examples of fellow humans' workmanship, and I'm proud to own every last one.

We're a single species, living on a single planet. We are one of the least genetically diverse species on it. It used to be if one group of humans didn't like something, they would walk away and find someplace new to do their thing. Unfettered migration was, and is, a fundamental human right. So is providing for your family by whatever means you are able.

Where are my guitars made? Here:



Thanks to Eugene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17 for making that photograph, for all mankind.