Scratchin Mamba

4y

It wasn't all just working class groups tho, Korean shopowners were petit bourgeois

SEGA GOON

4y

Every classic hood flick has an Asian shopowner being racist scene

Scratchin Mamba

4y

It wasn't all just working class groups tho, Korean shopowners were petit bourgeois

Scratchin Mamba

4y

It wasn't all just working class groups tho, Korean shopowners were petit bourgeois

Womanpuncher69

4y

weren’t asians also getting better loans to help set up businesses in black neighbourhoods that were denied to black people

Scratchin Mamba

4y

It wasn't all just working class groups tho, Korean shopowners were petit bourgeois

americana

4y

Very true but how bourgeois is petit bourgeois when you own a liquor store in east LA you feel

When you have the class inequalities that you do in the US there’s eventually gonna be a point where the line blurs (labor aristocracy as well I guess) and even owners are gonna get their s*** stomped out by the system

Womanpuncher69

4y

weren’t asians also getting better loans to help set up businesses in black neighbourhoods that were denied to black people

Womanpuncher69

4y

marxist class a***ysis isn’t about how much u make but ur relations to other classes, the kulaks weren’t living glorious lavish lifestyles, those people compared to us would still be poor but the problem was the relationship they had to the means of productions in the kulak case owning the farm lands and tools and then using the famine to make a profit as grain prices raised
comparatively to us the Kuluks were much poorer but that’s not the problem , the problem was the relationship they had with the peasents.

Womanpuncher69

4y

marxist class a***ysis isn’t about how much u make but ur relations to other classes, the kulaks weren’t living glorious lavish lifestyles, those people compared to us would still be poor but the problem was the relationship they had to the means of productions in the kulak case owning the farm lands and tools and then using the famine to make a profit as grain prices raised
comparatively to us the Kuluks were much poorer but that’s not the problem , the problem was the relationship they had with the peasents.

krishna bound

4y

yes, but they were mainly given loans targeted at immigrants usually w/ the express purpose of financial exploitation. while there was racism involved certainly in the process of loan givers thinking black people wouldn't be able to run a business well enough to maintain income (or rather that immigrants were simply easier to financially exploit w/o recourse), let's not beat around the bush that the purpose of offering loans to start up businesses was still based in exploitation regardless

americana

4y

I think part of class struggle should be an understanding on the part of the PetBou that collaboration with the Prole class is far more beneficial than collaboration with the landed bourgeois and s***. As you said the kulaks suffered under Imperial Russian conditions versus the potential they had in Soviet conditions

krishna bound

4y

the relationship of kulaks to peasants isnt really comparable to the modern landscape of economic categorization at all w/o basically getting into a "we live in a society" discussion

Womanpuncher69

4y

well i agree personally i always seen a key question in the west being who is the ally of the prolateriant, in russia and china it was the peasants.

During the 60s u see an alliance forming with the students with all the massive protest and cultural revolution (where it was more explicit) an alliance between students and workers though this did fall apart and imo due to the students unwillingness to let the workers lead.

I think too many western lest it’s put an emphasis on ideology, and ignore material conditions and you can see this with most western leftist heritage coming from adorno and such that focus on the superstructure, when material conditions get worsen and the PB realize they’re an unstable dying class perhaps then the workers can find their alliance once again

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Well that's just loans and finance in general isn't it, nobody saying those loans were given out of the goodness of their hearts

That doesn't mean financial discrimination isn't any less of a problem however

Jobs under capitalism are exploitative, that doesn't mean job discrimination is any less of a problem

krishna bound

4y

I wasn't disagreeing with that point, but i was just saying it's weird to be angry at the koreans when they were largely being exploited themselves. Exploitation is obviously is a set of intertwined roots in modern society, but like it's not like the Koreans woke up and were like "let's steal these loans away from black people"

Womanpuncher69

4y

well i agree personally i always seen a key question in the west being who is the ally of the prolateriant, in russia and china it was the peasants.

During the 60s u see an alliance forming with the students with all the massive protest and cultural revolution (where it was more explicit) an alliance between students and workers though this did fall apart and imo due to the students unwillingness to let the workers lead.

I think too many western lest it’s put an emphasis on ideology, and ignore material conditions and you can see this with most western leftist heritage coming from adorno and such that focus on the superstructure, when material conditions get worsen and the PB realize they’re an unstable dying class perhaps then the workers can find their alliance once again

americana

4y

What would the proletariat coalition look like the imperial core peasentry isn’t really a thing here and most labor is performed in service and not in the manufacturing of goods

krishna bound

4y

I wasn't disagreeing with that point, but i was just saying it's weird to be angry at the koreans when they were largely being exploited themselves. Exploitation is obviously is a set of intertwined roots in modern society, but like it's not like the Koreans woke up and were like "let's steal these loans away from black people"

Scratchin Mamba

4y

No of course, but when Koreans see themselves as superior than black people, see their success compared to black people as the result of said superiority and not acknowledge that financial discrimination, discriminate against them while shopping, don't hire them in their shops even if they're in your neighborhoods, it's hard to see how you would be mad at people who were mad at those Korean shopowners, regardless of whether the riots were part of some principled working class revolution or anything

krishna bound

4y

i think there's a level of justification on some moral level for ethnic tensions at times - I'm not really saying there isn't; i.e. it makes sense black LA residents were angry at koreans especially following the Latasha Harris killing and the widespread tension between koreans disliking black communities (who they also depended financially on), and like, not related but tangentially w/ race vs class, yeah, it makes sense that Palestinian Muslims would be angry at Ashkenazi Jewish settlers - it's not just about the land from an economic standpoint obviously there either.
I'm just saying that while there may be a structural reason from a marxist pov why these types of ethnic tensions may exist or originate, in the immediacy none of the behavior of the LA riots was explicitly because of something related to leftist politics or policies so it's weird seeing arguments trying to frame them that way pop up

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Why are peasants exactly seen as a seperate class tho? If there's a capitalist employing them as workers they're proletarians themselves, same thing with students, they're not a class in the marxian sense

Womanpuncher69

4y

the difference between a peasant and prole is the peasant owns the production or as Engels describe it possess and uses a piece of land or product of instrument and then give up the surplus while the prole uses the instruments of another

on the student part i do agree and is a huge flaw in my own thinking i’m trying to figure out, usually i see it describe students being a sub sect of the PB.

Scratchin Mamba

4y

But then that peasant would be petit bourgeois if they own it themselves

The peasants in the USSR that were supportive of the revolution gave their support because they were proletarians who didn't own much of the land and the USSR enacted land reform that gave them that land as private property

Peasant isn't a class in and of itself, it's just an occupation, but within that occupation you can have different class positions: serf-feudal lord, proletarian-bourgeois