Who is and who isn't proletariat?
A lot of those occupations would have private practices which would make them bourgeois, or a commie would call them labor aristocracy that has a privileged position in the capitalist framework that benefits (indirectly) from labor exploitation despite being workers themselves. The house negroes of capitalism. Hardcore campists think everyone in the west counts as labor aristocracy at best.
In short, the rich have people who manage their wealth, security and health. this group is more likely to align with the rich because they make a decent life possible. Individual doctors aren't automatically class enemies, but as a group they basically are.
If your main source of income is a wage then you're a prole>but CEOs!!Get stock options and almost always have a huge investment portfolio>but the police!!Proles but defenders of capital; class traitors at worst>but doctors!!Often own their own practice in which case bourgeois.Some random hospital physician is a prole.>but lawyers!! but accountants!!See above>but Pete Hegseth!!Was working class but politicians are legally allowed to insider trade so they almost immediately turn bourgeois. Pete was accused of exactly this last year.
>>18535800>intelligent and productive people delegate work to other people Yeah that’s generally how life works. Spiteful, unintelligent, unremarkable dysgenic mutants have poor executive function so are incapable of either managing their own time or gathering the resources to have others do it for them. That’s the basis of communism.
>>18535815To be fair, in every country where the communist takeover succeeded the "intelligent" ruling class managed to exceed the commies in successive retard moments.
>>18535808The fact you have to use loopholes to say the secretary of Defense of the United States is not a proletarian shows how fucking dub this anner of thinking is.
>>18535808>Proles but defenders of capital; class traitors at worstWhich proles aren't defenders of capital?
He was thinking of Pete Hegseth when he said this btw
>>18535831It's not a loop hole. Abstractly, someone working in government doesn't simply leave the class to which they belonged. A nobleman who gets a parliamentary appointment doesn't go from upper class to bourgeoisie. The entire point of a dictatorship of the proletariat is that governments consisting of the working class should be the ones leading society. The issue is that, in practice, political appointments in capitalist societies come with a heap of additional advantages and perks that quickly usher any prole into the bourgeoisie.>>18535832That's a dumb post. The production of a commodity is irrelevant. It's the selling of one's labor that's key. Otherwise a person who accepts a wage to clear a field for the planting of a crop is not working class because no commodity has resulted from that. That's stupid.
>>18535792>>18535796Theoryfags get the rope.
Neither leftoids nor rightoids actually read Marx so no one actually knows what they are talking about. Working class and proletariat are not the same thing. Proletarians as described by marx are the most exploited of the workers, the people working 12+ hours a day to barely pay the rent they share with +5 other people in a dirty dark room where they all sleep on the floor. Lawyers , doctors etc are technically working class, but they are not exploited and often benefit from capitalism, even though they are not the cause behind exploitation existing.But anyway, Marx was writing in a context which doesn't exist anymore and trying to LARP revolutionary politics in the 21st century is laughable. The "proletarian" umbrella had to be extended because the main audience for marxist slop in the 21st century are college students who aspire to intellectual or pseudo-intellectual careers. Revolutionary movements only make sense in contexts where life is so harsh most people would rather risk dying in a civil war than continue to work in slave-like conditions. This isn't the case and no one is going to war against the goverment because they can't afford 4 streaming subscriptions and have to drop one, or because they can't order takeout every day.
>>18536568The industry workers were not the proletariat either.The real oppressed group was the rural tenant farmers, but they were too downtrodden to start up a revolution.The people working in factories were not oppressed but underpaid. That's why a socialist revolution never happened in the wealthy West. "The proletariat" stopped revolting as soon as employers started to pay them decently.
communist worldview is inherently ridiculous and they cannot even consistently define their own termsyet claim to be 'scientific'it's a pseudo religion
>>18536595>it's a pseudo religionCommunism is a charismatic proselytizing religion.>prophet figure in Marx, every major branch has its own interpretation that they argue about but no one critiques the source material>every branch uses its own lexicon that expands on the original source, different branches can often disagree to the point of violence>promises future state of blissful paradise (communism achieved) in exchange for giving up power to priestly class (politburo/party)>"we must labor to build communism for future generations" = suffer on the earth for your heavenly reward>the worst examples are completely self contradictory, ie charismatic megachurch preacher talking about humility and communists talking about dictatorship of the proletariat while sending tanks to crush striking workers>dependent on control of both macro and micro level to assure consensus, priestly class directly interferes in daily life via propaganda and informers>when in power completely subsume all branches of society to work towards their goal>when not in power form isolated micro societies within larger society with its own set of restrictions and in-group codes of conduct>violently lash out at society around them when provoked/disagree with society
>>18535792Marx’s theory of class is simply an analysis in who has which economic interests in changing or keeping the system. It’s not meant to be an exhaustive typology of society but a mean to divide people into groups in regards to their interests and its underlying causeProletariat is those who sell their labor to survive and who have an interest in repossessing the productive process for themselves Labor aristocracy is those who sell their labor to survive yet have a privileged place in production and thus have interests in keeping the organization of society the way it isPetite-bourgeoisie is those who have some limited capital and who are at risk of being expropriated by the bourgeoisie, and who as such have fluctuating interestsThe bourgeoisie concerns those who have private property of the productive process and thus control and a right over others’ labor. Their interests is in keeping the system the way it is.Then you have other minor classes like the lumpen, the peasantry, and the aristocracy whose interests change over time.
People who own nothing but their children, technically speaking.
>>18535792Anyone who sells their labour power for a living and receives a wage/salary to survive. They are all subject to the contradictions of the wage relationship and have the surplus value of their labor exacted because they do not own the means of production and thus do not receive the full value of their labor exacted commodities produced through their labor and the resulting variable capital. The shortest, easiest explanation you’re going to get is Wage Labor and Capital:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
>>18536591The peasantry aren't the proletariat either. Marx didn't consider them to be a revolutionary class. The proletariat are wage workers who own nothing except the ability to do labor, something the peasantry is not, since they often owned land and could keep their own produce. which is why the soviet union fucked them over at every direction.But you're right that all it takes is giving them some better pay and less working hours. Marxism only makes sense in the context of the 19th century, where a factory worker had worse living conditions than a slave. You take that away, and the whole thing becomes ridiculous. "Kill thousands, perhaps millions, and risk dying yourself, because you couldn't buy a car this year and entertainment is kind of expensive!" = nonsense.
>>18535832>not allowing me to steal is a crime against meMarxists are one of many groups who evince against the freedom of speech
>>18537853>muh freedumb of speechWhat's the point if everything that comes out of yours is written by social engineers working for capitalists?
>>18536876>It’s not meant to be an exhaustive typology of society but a mean to divide people into groups in regards to their interests and its underlying cause"worker" is a vague, bullshit, and fake identity. It makes sense in 1915 Russia when like 60% of the population is peasant farm hands and 40% industrial laborer, but now communist are literally LA millionaire douchebags in mansions, nepo baby millionaires who are mainstream politicians, and millionaire NGO workers who get government handouts and award themselves lucrative salaries as an operation cost.
>>18537888You didn't actually refute anything in his post. Try again.
>>18537893>divide people into groups in regard to their interests and its underlying causeThat was his claim. Im pointing out that its a bullshit and fake dividing line. The interest of insane millionaires who hate white people and hate america do NOT have the same interest as actual working-class Americans. Communist never shut the fuck up about how these working class Americans who are against them "vote against their own interest" or are "bootlickers" ect.>Proletariat is those who sell their labor to survive and who have an interest in repossessing the productive process for themselvesThe other point he made. Again, this is such a wide net that it is essentially meaningless. Going back to the OP image, Millionaires who are proles bc they have to work for a living. I feel that youre going to do a motte and baily with who is or isnt a prole/working class
>>18537839> A factory worker had worse living conditions than a slaveThe factory workers lived way better than Caribbean slaves, everybody did.And many factory workers did way more complex tasks than carrying heavy loads. They had skills that were worth money, and their employers knew it. You could keep rural farm workers down because they only had 1000-year-old skills that were easily replaceable. It was much harder in the industry, where there were only a few people who could use certain machines effectively.
>>18535792Getting real tired of foreigners
>>18537904>The interest of insane millionaires who hate white people and hate america do NOT have the same interest as actual working-class Americans.That's what his post already implies.> Millionaires who sell their labor to survive They don't exist. You're completely delusional.
>>18538408>Millionaires who sell their labor to survive >They don't exist*blocks your path*
>>18538411He doesn't sell his labor to survive, he makes retarded YT videos so that he could consoom more.
>>18535808>Pete HegsethHe's a multi-millionaire who rents out multiple properties, so he's definitely not part of the proletariat
>>18538417Thats selling his labor to survive. Like I said, you are already giving a motte and baily fallacy to defend your flawd take. Hasan lives a lavish LA douchebag lifestyle of mansions and celebrity parties and designer clothes ect. but he does have to make videos for another platform that he doesnt own in order to generate that income. In principle, this is no different than a factory worker who must work in a factory he doesnt own to earn an income. If youre going to make the case that Hasan and others like him are very rich so it just doesnt count because then anyone who earns more than bare subsistence income is in the same category as him. You have to now make a no true scotsman fallacy argument to keep your ball in the air anon. Its better to just admit that maybe, just maybe, Marxism is kinda retarded.
>>18538464Being a prole isnt about being rich, is about not owning the means of production.
>>18535796If you have a private practice as a doctor(not working for one, you own it) You arent bourgeois, you are upper class. Bourgeois is middle class, even in marxism. Hence marx talking also about the upper class.
>>18538572so a stocktrader worth a 100m is a prole?He doesnt own enough in any stock to have any control over any company. He has no more control over the means of production than a truck schoolteacher.
All of this talk about finacial classes seems like old men yelling about crusty old books or something. ALL leftism is rooted in pure blood and soil race nationalism calls for land and materials when you get to the core of it.
>>18538576Exactly. Within the context of Marxist definitions, you are 100% correct. Its not about being rich or poor, its about owning the means of production. If you think this idea is ridiculous, then you are starting to realize that Marx was an insane retard.
>>18535792>Who is and who isn't proletariat?In the context of the 1920s, factory workers who worked in a factory owned by a factory owner and farmers who worked on landed owned by landowners.
>>18538576If his income from stock trading is dependent on the interests and profits of the businesses he's invested in, then he's bourgeois even if he doesn't have controlling stock in any one company. Where do you think the money his stock trading makes comes from? Surplus value extraction
>>18536591>The people working in factories were not oppressed but underpaid. That's why a socialist revolution never happened in the wealthy West. "The proletariat" stopped revolting as soon as employers started to pay them decently.It never got so bad there were revolutions like that, but there were some violent episodes of class conflict in the 1800s, early 20th century including in America. Labor unrest in the 1870s was notably violent with the army showing up, conflict with striking workers escalating, and then the troops blasting the crowd with rifle fire. It's not just factory workers, railroad workers was a big one and the most explosive (railroads employed a shitload of people back then), dockworkers, and coal miners. But reform movements (Knights of Labor, etc.) and general increase in the standard of living took the edge off.I agree that it needs to be the most exploited / oppressed workers though to get a full-scale revolt. The conditions have to be INTOLERABLE. I actually like fiction and art because you can visualize it in a visceral way (also helps avoid cliche ideological stuff), but I think it's really like the train revolt in Snowpiercer where you have people living in a barracks and having to literally eat zee bugs while living under the direct threat of violence:https://youtu.be/EH1EtiOhr6oOr a Shortparis conceptual music video (Russian guy) which does it well but it has a pessimistic ending:https://youtu.be/wi7SRWuL4m4
>>18538573The "upper class" in the Marxian sense were the nobility and landed gentry which were still a major factor in his time and have since largely bourgeoisified themselves to maintain their wealth that they used to just be entitled to purely through the privilege of their birth as opposed to the "middle class" who made their wealth through leveraging private capital ownership and extraction of surplus value from the production of their workers. "Middle class" in the modern common usage usually just means a group of people with an arbitrarily defined range of income which is mostly made up of high skilled professionals ("professional managerial class") and petite bourgeois like small business owners or small time landlords. These two groups of people have completely different relations between capital and labor (although PMCs usually have enough invested in stocks to argue they're a kind of micro-bourgeois and participation in the market is becoming increasingly necessary to even be in the "middle class" as the balance tips in capital ownership and wealth over paid labor and there has been a very deliberate attempt to create this micro-bourgeois class through privatizing the pension system and the like). That's the important part. Pro-labor policy would be good for a "middle class" worker and many of them are in unions and such where as the interests of the petite-bourgeois middle class would still be to break any kind of labor or tenant organization
>>18535808So a factory worker who puts his savings in stock is not a prole? Are you retarded?
communism is when funko popscapitalism is when hospital and grocery store
>>18537885I just want to say the N word
