I don’t think your skillset is what determines your class. It is how your skillset is employed in a wider system where power is determined by ownership and subjugation to ownership
Peasants can be bourgeois, just as much as those who handle financial capital (handle, not own). Finance workers can (very rarely) be proletariat just as much as the poorest serf. Brokers working long hours and handling multiple phones a la Wolf of Wall Street
It’s about what you own and what owns you, not what you do to get into one of those positions
(This is an textually unprincipled position, just off my head)
yea this was my understanding too but i wanted to kind of butt heads a bit and see if there's something contradictory about it
i would understand in the case of for instance cuba, but a massive part of the privatization of healthcare is the monopolization of access to medical knowledge and practice as well as the accreditations.
i mean i made the comparison of trucker owner operators as petty bourgeois, but i also am not entirely certain that is a correct classification
There are plenty of jobs with restrictions. Engineers, architects, lawyers, teachers, doctors, accountants, auditors...
Thread is way faster and more active than on KTT1 and not filled with Bernie bros
We did the math once and it was twice as fast as the ktt1 thread
This thread in just under three years has more than half the pages that thread got in 9 years .
Plus this socialism thread is actual Marxists not DSA social democrats.
There are plenty of jobs with restrictions. Engineers, architects, lawyers, teachers, doctors, accountants, auditors...
i think americana wrote what i was trying to get across. is that also along the lines of what you understand?
also i heard the example of mcdonalds vs in n out as monopoly vs non monopoly capitalist. does that example make sense ?
also are the monopoly capitalists solely individuals or structures as well? or is there a better way to understand them
i think americana wrote what i was trying to get across. is that also along the lines of what you understand?
also i heard the example of mcdonalds vs in n out as monopoly vs non monopoly capitalist. does that example make sense ?
also are the monopoly capitalists solely individuals or structures as well? or is there a better way to understand them
In n Out got CA fast food in a monopoly trust
crazy how slow this thread is Tbh. 5-4 years ago this would have been the premiere ideology to compete with capitalism
Thread is more active than it used to be tbh
We don't have as many dumb arguments itt anymore bc kkktt all got banned so it's mostly just socialists itt discussing things itt
Which i like better tbh, much higher quality discussion and it's not like we all agree on everything either
interesting thank you
and i assume you also understand doctors, lawyers, and professors to be petty bourgeois ?
I would say they're labor aristocracy
But more often than not they've made so much money that they start investing it as capital that they eventually do become petit bourgeois
Thread is more active than it used to be tbh
We don't have as many dumb arguments itt anymore bc kkktt all got banned so it's mostly just socialists itt discussing things itt
Which i like better tbh, much higher quality discussion and it's not like we all agree on everything either
They gave EVERYONE a second chance it’s crazy how many more people get banned these days
Thread is more active than it used to be tbh
We don't have as many dumb arguments itt anymore bc kkktt all got banned so it's mostly just socialists itt discussing things itt
Which i like better tbh, much higher quality discussion and it's not like we all agree on everything either
nice turn of phrase. lol no sarcasm.
i was an avid user on the og site and didnt venture into the politic section. i regret that tbh. i was a tv/film andy.
but from what other users have said, mass bans. controlled moderation. ostracization. and now its sort of peaceful.
thats nice tbh.
so do ppl still believe in a socialist ideology or a method in which there would be a healthy or consistent implementation of said policies of socialism?? dont have time to scroll thru the entire thread but
it seems like more ppl are moving away from this ideology.
I would say they're labor aristocracy
But more often than not they've made so much money that they start investing it as capital that they eventually do become petit bourgeois
I think there's a distinction to be made in class status vs revolutionary potential.
Undoubtedly, the revolutionary potential of doctors earning 300k a year is a lot less than those of construction workers or even teachers, and yes that's also mostly based on their material interests. But does that make them not proletarians? I wouldn't say so. People who claim that the lumpen proletariat aren't revolutionary don't say they're not proletarians anymore, I think we can apply the same principle to high earning wage laborers
That's just my take tho @deadac
They gave EVERYONE a second chance it’s crazy how many more people get banned these days
sounds like u were there for the big transition. il take ur word for it that ppl got second chances to be cool about certain topics. tho i have no evidence to support it.
how long have u been a part of this board
I also don't in any way see how students would be petit bourgeois, if anything students have been some of the most revolutionary throughout history. Like Haile Selassie setting up universities backfired on him because those students eventually overthrew him in a revolution
nice turn of phrase. lol no sarcasm.
i was an avid user on the og site and didnt venture into the politic section. i regret that tbh. i was a tv/film andy.
but from what other users have said, mass bans. controlled moderation. ostracization. and now its sort of peaceful.
thats nice tbh.
so do ppl still believe in a socialist ideology or a method in which there would be a healthy or consistent implementation of said policies of socialism?? dont have time to scroll thru the entire thread but
it seems like more ppl are moving away from this ideology.
Yeah i used to be in gd sxn a lot, it was wild lol it was basically just the racism sxn ngl
I would say if anything people have become more disillusioned with the prospects of capitalism being reformed, a very big chunk of bernie bros have become full on communists since
I think there's a distinction to be made in class status vs revolutionary potential.
Undoubtedly, the revolutionary potential of doctors earning 300k a year is a lot less than those of construction workers or even teachers, and yes that's also mostly based on their material interests. But does that make them not proletarians? I wouldn't say so. People who claim that the lumpen proletariat aren't revolutionary don't say they're not proletarians anymore, I think we can apply the same principle to high earning wage laborers
That's just my take tho @deadac
definitely the crucial aspect to this is revolutionary potential, and people from all classifications have revolutionary potential depending on specific circumstances - probably except for the monopoly capitalists.
with that in mind its a semi pedantic point to scrutinize but i think its just one of those specifics that goes inherently unspecified that i randomly realized my understanding was not complete on.
I also don't in any way see how students would be petit bourgeois, if anything students have been some of the most revolutionary throughout history. Like Haile Selassie setting up universities backfired on him because those students eventually overthrew him in a revolution
i think students would fall under the intelligentsia, which have prole and bourgeois aspects within the classification.
sounds like u were there for the big transition. il take ur word for it that ppl got second chances to be cool about certain topics. tho i have no evidence to support it.
how long have u been a part of this board
I’ve been here since 2016 lol
definitely the crucial aspect to this is revolutionary potential, and people from all classifications have revolutionary potential depending on specific circumstances - probably except for the monopoly capitalists.
with that in mind its a semi pedantic point to scrutinize but i think its just one of those specifics that goes inherently unspecified that i randomly realized my understanding was not complete on.
I feel you, but it's not an unimportant topic at all tbh
A lot of the bs coming from leftists who say all workers in the first world is bourgeois basically comes down to the fact that currently their revolutionary potential isn't so high
I would say they're labor aristocracy
But more often than not they've made so much money that they start investing it as capital that they eventually do become petit bourgeois
ig the real question i have is if there is some fundamental mistake in classifying petty bourgeois as something overdetermined rather than a more rigid classification in their relation to the means of production
Yeah i used to be in gd sxn a lot, it was wild lol it was basically just the racism sxn ngl
I would say if anything people have become more disillusioned with the prospects of capitalism being reformed, a very big chunk of bernie bros have become full on communists since
what aspects of captialism did they want to be reformed??
sounds like the bernie bros (like other ppl have said) never intended to hold their ground or gather ppl to their side. as soon as he didnt preform, they lost their juice
I feel you, but it's not an unimportant topic at all tbh
A lot of the bs coming from leftists who say all workers in the first world is bourgeois basically comes down to the fact that currently their revolutionary potential isn't so high
i think something interesting is that the alliance between the petty bourgeois and the proletariat is extremely important in overthrowing capitalism.
like people like to s*** on pet b's but according to history and historical theory that is the one class we HAVE to find allies within.
ig the real question i have is if there is some fundamental mistake in classifying petty bourgeois as something overdetermined rather than a more rigid classification in their relation to the means of production
I would say yes. You can make a distinction within workers with the labor aristocracy, but to call them bourgeois obfuscates class imo. I think there's a distinction to be made in class vs revolutionary potential. If doctors were the most radicalized nobody would say they're petit bourgeois
I’ve been here since 2016 lol
not gonna lie, i dont remember when the transition between sites was or when i joined.
still curious tho, have you experienced or been involved in a person or group that has transitioned either a part of or their full body beliefs since youve been here???
what aspects of captialism did they want to be reformed??
sounds like the bernie bros (like other ppl have said) never intended to hold their ground or gather ppl to their side. as soon as he didnt preform, they lost their juice
Low wages, healthcare, infrastructure, public schools, housing etc, the usual mostly
I think what disillusioned a lot of them was also the incredible amount of slander Bernie got during the campaign even from liberals. A lot of them saw how just these basic reforms were somehow seen as extremely dangerous by those in power and started asking questions about the system more broadly