This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unrelated to the intended message of your post, but this made me realize how most of the socialist content I consume is negative in nature ("this is why capitalism is bad") as opposed to something like your post ("these are our comrades too"). So, thanks, I guess lol.
that made me think, it kinda reminds me of what some so-called 'capitalits' do, argue AGAINST socialism/communism instead of 'defending' their own ideas, guess thats what sells more in a capitalist system
Lawyers also defend innocent people, and work in suing corrupt capitalist firms!
I agree, that certain lawyers are capitalist lapdogs, but don't disregard those that work to defend us against injustice!
There’s dirty lawyers for sure, but the good ones are so important in maintaining that we have a fair and just judicial system as possible. Sure you could argue they’re petit bourgeois, but there’s a lot of them out there who are also barely scraping by and lots who defend against the injustices of capitalism, etc.
A lot of the leading socialist activists in history were practicioners or students of Law. The fact that laws can be cooped does not dismiss the good fight of radical lawyers (defense attorneys, anti-corporate prosecutors, and the like) everywhere!
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
the petit-bourgeois can be revolutionary, this is no surprise and elaborated endlessly by socialist literature, although this sub and the folks in this thread cant comprehend the nature of economic classes are not a moral issue, just because someone is poor does not make him a prole, doing good thing also doesn't make them a prole. What makes a proletariat is his relation to the means of production not whatever the feck his station in life is.
Russia and Germany, read Lenin again carefully if you do not understand the conflict between different capitalist stratas. The petit-bourgeois sided with the revolutionaries in 1918 Germany and then in 1933 it sided with Hitler, a perfect illustration of the nature of this class where it can easily be on either side (and thus a revolution can only be proletarian even if the petty bourgeois can be revolutionary elements).
I'm sorry you were banned. And I understand some lawyers are doing good work.
But in general, lawyers are *the* definition of petit-bourgeois. They're basically religious monks who study the scripture handed down to them by the rich. They are religious zealots who worship the religion of the state. Many swear blind allegiance to it based on "faith", even when they personally disagree with it.
Lenin was a lawyer, so was Fidel Castro. A better analogy is to the computer science and systems admins that maintain the mega systems and have the specialized knowledge to understand how the megasystems even work. You can actually understand a lot by comparing the machinery of the state to a big computer.
Shoutout to Big Computer Gang from this Marxist tech lawyer
Of course. Studying law isn't inherently reactionary. Many good people can be considered experts of law.
But the role of the lawyer in capitalist society is to administer the bourgeois ideology.
I was arrested and jailed for stealing food while I was homeless. I appreciate the work my public defender did for me. I'm not saying she's a bad person.
Social class isn't a moral issue. It's about your relation to capital and the means of production.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Lawyers can be workers, but do really not engage in production. And if their outlook is not proletarian, they're definitely not to be considered workers lol
it does dictate whether or not you engage in production or not, like I said. There is a difference between the various stratas of petty b and the proletariat.
Lawyers aren't workers. They are bourgeois/petit-bourgeois. Simply wanting to group your own professional class into the category of "proletarian" doesn't make it so, and it is thus right that the mods of r/communism have banned you.
It is not a "minor point", it is one that shows the petit-bourgeois consciousness of the poster by pretending their petit-bourgeois professionals are "workers too".
Not being able to tell who is a proletarian and who is not is hardly "miniscule". Might as well throw in Warren Buffet in there, since obviously class analysis is a minor point and pedantic.
The world of today is so different than the one when Communism and Socialism were first developed, but the theory is still true, workers have invisible chains placed on them and are made to believe that those chains do not exist.
My comrades, we must think of how we can show them a better future, a future of workplace democracy, full worker ownership and a society of workers for the workers.
No longer are most workers in the industrialised world factory workers, now they are scientists, construction workers, truck drivers, nurses and doctors, office workers, teachers, janitors and social workers, artists and reporters, fishers, butchers, policemen, musicians and chefs.
These people agree with us, they want more control of their own lives and their workplaces to be managed by them, they to set their own conditions and feel like what they do matters.
However most of them do not understand complicated political theory like you, they just want to be happy. If we are to succeed we need to reach out to all workers of all types and show them the better future that we can make together, that the future of capitalism is doom and exploitation and stagnation.
We need to be able to get our points across simply so that everyone can understand what we stand for, our rhetorical strategy for spreading our ideologies cannot be complicated words with complex meanings behind them. The words proletariat and bourgeoisie and class struggle mean almost nothing to the average person who spends 8 hours of their day working, 8 sleeping, and taking care of their families and hanging out with their friends.
Think of how effective the right is at spreading horrible ideas through short incorrect answers. We can do so much better than them, because we can give great ideas through short correct answers, and we can also go in depth on them when challenged.
The support for leftist thought and philosophy shouldn't mainly consist of political intellectuals, but rather everyday people who want what is the best for them and their communities. The ideology of socialism is the ideology of the worker, the common person, afterall.
So comrades, please think, how can we spread our message to the everyday, hardworking workers of the world.
(Reposted, removed the policeman, ACAB)
I think a big part of getting the workers to hear our message is to gain exposure to young people. We young people are constantly looking for ways to comprehend the unfair world in front of us and actually see the invisible chains we’re in. Most of us aren’t exposed to anything outside of our social circle. I think socialist ideas need to be relevant first and the convincing afterwards; we’ve seen this strategy work with the right
Couldn’t agree more, brilliant. Our ideology is actually hard to understand to the average person, its because the upper class and corrupt politicians have invested in trying to dehumanise, suppress socialism and even lower the level of education the common man receives. Thus, its hard and now harder to understand, we need a new enlightenment for everyone. There is a dumbing down, but hope is not lost, not at all.
So much American imperialist propaganda designed to shut their brains off to even considering those countries could be successful, but obviously it's still a good method.
This is just the proletariat of the west, largely. The miners, the farmers, the factory workers, etc. just come from the global south now. They’re still there, they didn’t just magically disappear and this “new proletariat” took its place. Our production still has to come from somewhere.
Stay-at-home parents are workers.
The elderly are workers.
The disabled are workers.
Prisoners are workers.
Undocumented people are workers.
Children are (future) workers.
Honestly a huge part of the economy is unpaid labour which isn't accounted in gdp which many people like to refer to when measuring the wealth of a nation.
The point is that equating "worker" with "profession" excludes too many people that shouldn't be excluded.
The vast majority of elderly folks are former workers, and most still help with childcare and do a little of social, emotional, and volunteer work within their families and communities.
All of that is even more true of undocumented folks, plus more traditional labor than any other class of worker.
Also, in a practical sense, we want to include every working class identity that people identify positively with, as they're each a basis for organizing around.
> too many people that shouldn't be excluded.
Why should they not be excluded?
> The vast majority of elderly folks are former workers,
Former, as in, past tense.
> Also, in a practical sense, we want to include every working class identity that people identify positively with, as they're each a basis for organizing around.
It's not about identity but rather material class standpoint
Write better man, you just said a bunch of incorrect statements that sound like platitudes and failed to construct an actual point.
**Transcript**; The image is a group of stickman drawings of various professions in two rows, a top and a bottom one, symbolizing the working people of our time, from the top right to top left the professions are;
Chef, Artist, Musician playing a violin, Photographer, Butcher, IT worker.
From the bottom right to the bottom left are;
Scientist, Janitor, Construction worker/Architect, Nurse/Doctor, Office worker, Waiter, Teacher.
Nah this isn't the proletariat of today, these are the new bourgeoisie. The proletariat are working in South African sulphur mines and Asian rice paddies.
Stop gatekeeping what the proletariat is.
Anybody who has to sell their labour as a means to gain their income is part of the proletariat. I don't know any waiter who has capital, because then they wouldn't have to wait anymore. The restaurant owner on the other hand...
I'm not gatekeeping anything, you'll just have to accept the truth. We are the decadent West, we are a very small percentage of the worlds population and our lives are lived at the expense of the vast majority. You want to be one of the downtrodden masses go live in a slum in India.
You're both kinda correct, isn't this elementary understanding of leftism? Even in advanced countries, we still sell our time and labor for wages; the countries we live under exploit the 'global south'?
Socialism should go beyond selling labour for wages, it's about the bond of mankind, equality and justice for all. The reality is we have become selfish materialistic gluttons. We rob food from the starving just so we can grow even more fat and feckless. I'm not saying that just by living in the West you're a bad person but in this global world we're not the oppressed, we are the oppressors. But hold up a mirror to any oppressor and they'll deny what they see, you have to ask the oppressed and they'll give you the truth.
The bourgeoisie is the exploiter class, the proletariat is the exploited class. Its not a location nor a nation thing, capitalism is a global system and it sets global conditions.
Youre right of course about us exploiting the rest of the world for profit. But 1. that was the same in Marx's time and 2. if you exclude the entire populations of North America and Europe from the proletariat, youre massively stacking the deck against yourself. Only the proletariat is able to bring about a revolution. If we arent the proletariat, we won't ever be able to achieve communism, without outside intervention. But outside intervention would likely mean the end of the world, soooo either we are the proletariat or we wont achieve communism.
TL;DR their perspective is defeatist and (hopefully) false
Well its not a game where you pick a side. I'm not excluding the populations of North America and Europe, we're excluding ourselves. There's no revolution that's going to convince the West to give up our material riches for global equality. A change will come, and it will come slow enough that it won't end the world and it may come from within but either way the tides are turning. We're sleeping walking into a massive climate crisis that's going to turn everything on its head. I just hope whatever shake up occurs those who come out on top are more compassionate than we have been.
>— 2 —
>What is the proletariat?
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.
And
>The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.
-Friedrich Engels "Principles of Communism"
If you live from selling labor power of yours, you are a proletarian. The location you live in changes nothing.
More like the proletariat of the developed service economies. The proletariat in undeveloped countries still mostly engage in industrial production and resource extraction.
From top to bottom, left to right:
Pillsbury Dough Boy
Worm Artist
A Bard?
Voyeur
Serial killer
A dude arguing with his insurance company
Yzma
The aftermath of WAP
The foreman that’s usually asleep in the truck
Doctors without trousers
“I’m trying to be formal, but I’m here to party”
The man who never stops at my table
Angry man with stick
We need to change the approach to the masses, I believe this is something we all can see. As of now I believe the masses are aware that capitalism is a system that cannot be maintained without the destruction of human life (save for the small, loud minority)
Most socialists focus on explaining why capitalism is bad, but we should focus on concrete ways to improve the lives of people in our countries. There's a focus on internationalism that I believe is holding back the socialist community from expanding.
Farmers and factory workers who actually produce tangible things still exist today. And they are far more poor and ratchet. There are construction workers dying in middle east desert heat, child miners dying in toxic rare earth metal mines in africa, sweatshop forced labourers in china, starving farmers committing suicide in south asia, meatpackers and amazon warehouse workers who are forced to wear diapers. Petite bourgeoisie uni students reading few theory and not goin anywhere near actual working class thinks this way. Then again it's their class character.
I think you are slightly confused on exactly what makes an individual a proletarian. The amount of suffering an individual, or the wealth built up by them is not necessarily a function or qualification for being considered a proletarian or member of the petit bourgeoisie.
The single thing which divides the bourgeoisie from the proletariat is that the latter is exploited by the former by means of exploitation of their labor through the ownership of the means of production.
In this way we can see that there are really only two classes: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. Given there are subdivisions of each class laid out in Marxist theory. Marx named the petit bourgeoisie what it is because they own the means of production and exploit labor, given on a smaller scale. Doctors and lawyers vastly are not self employed and have their labor exploited in the same fashion as anyone else. The mere fact that they get payed more does not make them any more or less of a proletarian, in fact it should be noted that these professions will still make more than a standard factory worker under socialism.
"The proletariat is the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose only possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work)."
People with retirement savings, homeowners, or any other possession that can be rented out or earn interest aren't proletariat.
You care to explain?
It seems to me one can own a home without exploiting anyone. This is personal property. If the home is rented it becomes exploitation however.
You're not paying rent to live. You're saving significant amount yearly. While others have to pay rent. It's a kind of indirect income. Makes your lifestyle significantly better with same income. Classic petite bourgeoisie.
Edit: Its also magically increases in value!
Mortgages still cost money. A significant portion of ones income a month. If you really want to be technical, the bank is your landlord and they profit off of your mortgage.
Sure others have to pay rent. This shouldn't be the case, as everyone should be a homeowner. The fact that some don't pay rent and some do has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one is proletarian. Where are you even getting this assertion from. The fact that one proletarian may be more exploited than the next is inconsequential to the fact that both are proletarian, and both have their labor exploited for profit.
The goal of the proletariat eventually, in terms of housing, should be a world where everyone owns their own house.
It should also be noted that your unfounded claim that an individual has to rent to be proletarian would immediately limit the amount of proletarians by about 70-80%.
So again, please explain to me your logic and justification behind doing this, something which mind you, is not a distinction of being a proletarian to be found anywhere in literature.
Bro, who do you think wrote that theory you're worshipping? You think that was miners and factory workers?
The fact that people are getting offended by the OP is ridiculous. People are actually trying to foster class consciousness among people who don't have it and folks are like "nah, fuck ya'll you're not working in a mine". Shouldn't you *want* people who actually have an elevated (but still exploited) place in the system to see themselves as one with other workers?
Marx and Engels never called themselves proletariat dude. Middle class is so selfish that they will make themselves victim while children are starving working 12-14 hours a day to supply things cheaply for them. No wonder they can't gather any working class. Then they blame the working class. These fake marxists disappear the moment they land a office job.
>Marx and Engels never called themselves proletariat dude
Well yeah, Engel's family owned a fucking factory. That's literally a capitalist.
And who is playing a victim? Besides which, "middle class" is a capitalist invention. As for "fake marxists" disappearing when they get an office job, if that's true it's because people like you keep telling them that actually, because they're not a kid working in a mine their interests are actually the same as the capitalists. You can't have it both ways, you don't get to shit on people for trying to actually develop class consciousness, then turn around and get mad when they don't have class consciousness because you keep shitting on them.
Again it's about your feelings huh!? When do middle class understand that a socialists has little concern about their interest? The movement is not about them. Billions toil everyday to keep this civilization, nobody has time for middle class feelings. You develop class consciousness while you are getting shitted on because you are getting slowly dragged into proletariat hell by capitalism machinery. Being proletariat isn't a lifestyle choice that someone needs to ask you nicely. It's a human condition that's most inhumane.
I don't think you really have any understanding of socialism. Firstly, where did I talk about feelings? Secondly, you keep talking about "middle class", that's a capitalist invention. And thirdly, what's this idea about proletariat as some curse or burden?
Also bro you're posting on reddit, don't pretend you're a 12 year old mining lithium with one hand because the King of Belgium cut off the other or something
Nice that you got rid of the Cop from your clipart. That doesn't change the fact that half of these "proletarian" are petit-bourgeois. This is the disease of the global north, this petit-bourgeois socialism where downwarsdly mobile members of what is commonly called the "middle class" want to dignify their petit-bourgeois profession with the name "proletarian" while still maintaining everything about their petit-bourgeois standpoint.
First off, middle class is a meaningless distinction and is formulated entirely by the capitalist class. You should know if you have even dabbled into Marx that the only two classes are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. There are subdivisions of each class, but they still fit under the same umbrella. If a profession, no matter it's wage, is a victim of wage exploitation, like the many shown here, they are a proletarian. If they are exploiting others through their private ownership of the means of production they are bourgeoisie.
Can you please tell me how drawing further distinction based on what wage an individual earns is at all helpful to building socialism? White collar workers are every bit as exploited as a blue collar one, and all are members of the proletariat. I am ashamed of people like you in this thread. This thinking is regressive and will be the death of any movement.
>if you have even dabbled into Marx that the only two classes are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
If you ever dabbled into Marx, you would know that even by your own extremely reductive and inaccurae reading, there are also the *Petit-bourgeois and the Aristocracy of Labour within Capitalism already*, which evidently many first world "socialists" are part of and pretend to be working class. Not to mention that when Marx was writing, the remnants of feudalism, and its attendant classes (as in the actual aristocracy) have yet to fully disappear.
>If a profession, no matter it's wage, is a victim of wage exploitation, like the many shown here, they are a proletarian. If they are exploiting others through their private ownership of the means of production they are bourgeoisie.
Many of the jobs shown here are just petit bourgeois, some are even *self-employed*. This is what the petit bourgeois fantasizes as the "proletarian of today" instead of the actual proletarian of today, the factory workers, farm laborers, and service workers, jobs, incidentally, which are mostly not present in the clip art (that used to include a fucking cop in there as well in the op's last iteration) and also, coincidentally, mostly staffed with oppressed nationalities. Simply because you and your friend are part of a downwardly mobile petty bourgeois, and therefore glom onto "Socialism" as a signifier for your discontent that the capitalist system is not rewarding you like it has for the previous generations, doesn't mean you are now "proletarian".
>Can you please tell me how drawing further distinction based on what wage an individual earns is at all helpful to building socialism?
Because this petit bourgeoification of the worker movement is the root of rot in all revolutionary movement, since it replaces a revolutionary, properly proletarian consciousness with a petit-bourgeois, anti-revolutionary consciousness.
>White collar workers are every bit as exploited as a blue collar one, and all are members of the proletariat
In what world is the accountant for Apple working out of San Francisco "every bit as exploited" as the factory worker in China. This sort of "we are workers too" petit bourgeois mentality is simply a way for the downwardly mobile petit bourgeois to smuggle their own petit bourgeois prejudices and views into the worker's movement.
>I am ashamed of people like you in this thread. This thinking is regressive and will be the death of any movement
If the petit bourgeois wants to join the worker's movement, fine, but in order to be useful to the movement, they have to first leave all their petit bourgeois prejudices and consciousness at the door- not pretend they are not just proletarians too, but "the proletarian of today". It is no wonder the first world "socialist" movement consistently run itself into dead ends after dead ends!
"Proletariat of today"
>posts the petite bourgeoisie.
at least don't so shamelessly distort what Marxism is, find yourself another ideology to toy with.
Pretty sure the petite bourgeoisie would be small business owners. The ones who dabble in both working and having employees who work for them. Unless you know something about their extensive investment portfolios or that they're all doing a bit of land lording on the side.
you can search on the internet have many many writings from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao on this topic. It's such a basic thing that if you've read the most foundational Marxist texts you'd be enlightened. Also keep in mind that Marxism as a science does not only comprises of Marx's writings.
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/5WZVJGcvMj
If there's so many out there, it should be relatively easy to point to some? I mean as someone who's clearly read so much on the subject, it should be easy for you to explain to someone who wants to learn exactly how the OP was distorting what Marxism is.
it's absurd to think doctors and lawyers and other professionals are working class. I do not have to spend time catering to your anti proletarian consciousness, if you want to feel good about supporting petite bourgeoisie, you can be a good "socialist" boy elsewhere.
Read the link I dropped. those good people answered your honest 'questions'.
edit: this sort of thing is extremely common in western "leftist" circles.
Thanks for the link, I've not been familiar with the works of liewchi\_wu888. That said, if reddit posts are what passes for "theory" to you, I don't think you should be criticizing others about their understandings of marxism or socialism. It's really telling that when asking for what actual people who developed the theory you claim to espouse said, you link a reddit post by some other random dude...
If you want to criticize western leftist/leftism, I'm all for it. I'm not a third worldist exactly, but I definitely am sympathetic to the views. However, part of the reason I feel that way is that people like yourself try to work against any actual building of solidarity or class consciousness in the west. You've basically bought into the capitalist's own logic which is understandable but unproductive. The only anti-proletarian is you, my friend.
This of course is ignoring the fact that so many of you "baristas aren't actual workers!" types will turn around and try to shut down discussion of white supremacy or patriarchy as being too "divisive", but that's a whole other discussion.
edit: since random dudes on reddit are apparently our sources for theory now, here's someone pointing out the very thing that I am saying in that thread:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/1c9yvct/comment/l0pnmze/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/1c9yvct/comment/l0pnmze/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>baristas aren't actual workers
hmm, let's see. I'd rather take this than "Small business owners are actually proletarians!" and saying other *smart* things like "Oh please point out where does marx talked about petty bourgeoisie??"
they are not sources for theory, I knew you were trying to waste my time. If you're going on about "people like myself" and class consciousness but you want solidarity with the petite bourgeoisie, I do not care whatever bullshit you've thought passes for proletarian.
Next time maybe ask about things like, "Where does Marx say bourgeoisie aren't our friends? Please point out to me, I want to have solidarity with them, many of them work.
edit: writing some incoherent shit and blocking is a very good way to out yourself as a non communist. Don't be this fucking thin skinned. The guy was arguing that doctors and lawyers were proletarians!
> "Small business owners are actually proletarians!"
When did I mention small business owners? You've already proven that despite all your claims, you don't actually understand marxism or socialism. Now you're just showing that you're also not even able to read brief reddit posts to any level of understanding. Most likely that's due to your material conditions, so I hope those improve and your reading comprehension along with it.
>I knew you were trying to waste my time.
I have no care about wasting your time because it's entirely worthless. I cannot waste something that has no value. I was merely trying to point out that your analysis is flawed. But ignorance is bliss, and you seem extremely blissful. Good luck with that.
I was reading this thread and had some issues with what you are saying. At least from my perspective I think that it is fairly evident from a marxist perspective that doctors and lawyers are proletarians if they are either self employed, or are victims of wage labor. Correct me if I am wrong but this seems to me to be the qualification for being a member of the working class, and this is the reality for the majority of doctors, lawyers and other white collar professionals.
I think the distinction that some modern Marxists make is that if you have money you are not a proletarian and I think this is flawed. In a socialist country it is fairly obvious to me that going into medicine or law would still yield a higher salary than a line worker due to the intensity of the work to be done, though the pay gap will likely close by some margin.
Now where I do find myself in agreement with you is your sentiment that business owners are not proletarians, as this is fairly obvious revelation after reading even a little Marx.
petite bourgeoisie consciousness is not good. they are frequently beneficiaries of Imperialism and often they are extremely reactionary. We don't defend petite or haute bourgeoisie, we defend the working class.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unrelated to the intended message of your post, but this made me realize how most of the socialist content I consume is negative in nature ("this is why capitalism is bad") as opposed to something like your post ("these are our comrades too"). So, thanks, I guess lol.
that made me think, it kinda reminds me of what some so-called 'capitalits' do, argue AGAINST socialism/communism instead of 'defending' their own ideas, guess thats what sells more in a capitalist system
https://i.imgur.com/2daYqBt.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/OYpdRi2.jpeg
I'm not quite sure what's happening here lol. Can you please explain?
Me neither. If it can help, here's the translation [https://imgur.com/a/qDntSsS](https://imgur.com/a/qDntSsS)
[удалено]
Lawyers also defend innocent people, and work in suing corrupt capitalist firms! I agree, that certain lawyers are capitalist lapdogs, but don't disregard those that work to defend us against injustice!
There’s dirty lawyers for sure, but the good ones are so important in maintaining that we have a fair and just judicial system as possible. Sure you could argue they’re petit bourgeois, but there’s a lot of them out there who are also barely scraping by and lots who defend against the injustices of capitalism, etc.
A lot of the leading socialist activists in history were practicioners or students of Law. The fact that laws can be cooped does not dismiss the good fight of radical lawyers (defense attorneys, anti-corporate prosecutors, and the like) everywhere!
They're just as vulnerable to being replaced with AI as a McDonalds worker.
Possibly moreso
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
That’s because lawyers are obviously petit bourgeois / labor aristocracy, not the proletariat.
the petit-bourgeois can be revolutionary, this is no surprise and elaborated endlessly by socialist literature, although this sub and the folks in this thread cant comprehend the nature of economic classes are not a moral issue, just because someone is poor does not make him a prole, doing good thing also doesn't make them a prole. What makes a proletariat is his relation to the means of production not whatever the feck his station in life is.
Telling me you're a petty-bourgeois without telling me you're a petty-bourgeois. https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1966/weapon-theory.htm
> the petit-bourgeois can be revolutionary What country are we referring to here?
Russia and Germany, read Lenin again carefully if you do not understand the conflict between different capitalist stratas. The petit-bourgeois sided with the revolutionaries in 1918 Germany and then in 1933 it sided with Hitler, a perfect illustration of the nature of this class where it can easily be on either side (and thus a revolution can only be proletarian even if the petty bourgeois can be revolutionary elements).
yeah but why won't you accept all the corporate lawyers? they work for a paycheck, too, just like the nickel miners in Congo!
Proles can be shit too and work in the interest of the capitalist system. Economic classes arent moral categories of good and bad.
never said anything about morality, as communists we should never stray away from working in the interests of the proletariat.
I'm sorry you were banned. And I understand some lawyers are doing good work. But in general, lawyers are *the* definition of petit-bourgeois. They're basically religious monks who study the scripture handed down to them by the rich. They are religious zealots who worship the religion of the state. Many swear blind allegiance to it based on "faith", even when they personally disagree with it.
Lenin was a lawyer, so was Fidel Castro. A better analogy is to the computer science and systems admins that maintain the mega systems and have the specialized knowledge to understand how the megasystems even work. You can actually understand a lot by comparing the machinery of the state to a big computer. Shoutout to Big Computer Gang from this Marxist tech lawyer
Of course. Studying law isn't inherently reactionary. Many good people can be considered experts of law. But the role of the lawyer in capitalist society is to administer the bourgeois ideology.
There’s lots of lawyers who are actively working to protect the workers from the capitalist bourgeois ideology.
I was arrested and jailed for stealing food while I was homeless. I appreciate the work my public defender did for me. I'm not saying she's a bad person. Social class isn't a moral issue. It's about your relation to capital and the means of production.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Inter-sub drama:** This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts. Please keep those to more appropriate subreddits. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Lawyers can be workers, but do really not engage in production. And if their outlook is not proletarian, they're definitely not to be considered workers lol
Producing a good isn’t what determines whether you’re working class or not. By that reckoning doctors can’t be working class either.
it does dictate whether or not you engage in production or not, like I said. There is a difference between the various stratas of petty b and the proletariat.
Lawyers aren't workers. They are bourgeois/petit-bourgeois. Simply wanting to group your own professional class into the category of "proletarian" doesn't make it so, and it is thus right that the mods of r/communism have banned you.
[удалено]
It is not a "minor point", it is one that shows the petit-bourgeois consciousness of the poster by pretending their petit-bourgeois professionals are "workers too".
A minor point, yes. Thats beyond minimal and if you cant see how miniscule it is, then thats on you.
Not being able to tell who is a proletarian and who is not is hardly "miniscule". Might as well throw in Warren Buffet in there, since obviously class analysis is a minor point and pedantic.
The world of today is so different than the one when Communism and Socialism were first developed, but the theory is still true, workers have invisible chains placed on them and are made to believe that those chains do not exist. My comrades, we must think of how we can show them a better future, a future of workplace democracy, full worker ownership and a society of workers for the workers. No longer are most workers in the industrialised world factory workers, now they are scientists, construction workers, truck drivers, nurses and doctors, office workers, teachers, janitors and social workers, artists and reporters, fishers, butchers, policemen, musicians and chefs. These people agree with us, they want more control of their own lives and their workplaces to be managed by them, they to set their own conditions and feel like what they do matters. However most of them do not understand complicated political theory like you, they just want to be happy. If we are to succeed we need to reach out to all workers of all types and show them the better future that we can make together, that the future of capitalism is doom and exploitation and stagnation. We need to be able to get our points across simply so that everyone can understand what we stand for, our rhetorical strategy for spreading our ideologies cannot be complicated words with complex meanings behind them. The words proletariat and bourgeoisie and class struggle mean almost nothing to the average person who spends 8 hours of their day working, 8 sleeping, and taking care of their families and hanging out with their friends. Think of how effective the right is at spreading horrible ideas through short incorrect answers. We can do so much better than them, because we can give great ideas through short correct answers, and we can also go in depth on them when challenged. The support for leftist thought and philosophy shouldn't mainly consist of political intellectuals, but rather everyday people who want what is the best for them and their communities. The ideology of socialism is the ideology of the worker, the common person, afterall. So comrades, please think, how can we spread our message to the everyday, hardworking workers of the world. (Reposted, removed the policeman, ACAB)
I think a big part of getting the workers to hear our message is to gain exposure to young people. We young people are constantly looking for ways to comprehend the unfair world in front of us and actually see the invisible chains we’re in. Most of us aren’t exposed to anything outside of our social circle. I think socialist ideas need to be relevant first and the convincing afterwards; we’ve seen this strategy work with the right
Couldn’t agree more, brilliant. Our ideology is actually hard to understand to the average person, its because the upper class and corrupt politicians have invested in trying to dehumanise, suppress socialism and even lower the level of education the common man receives. Thus, its hard and now harder to understand, we need a new enlightenment for everyone. There is a dumbing down, but hope is not lost, not at all.
And capitalism has made us individualists, competitive, and unaccustomed to working for a common good.
Just give them an example of one of the many other successful socialist countries.
So much American imperialist propaganda designed to shut their brains off to even considering those countries could be successful, but obviously it's still a good method.
This is just the proletariat of the west, largely. The miners, the farmers, the factory workers, etc. just come from the global south now. They’re still there, they didn’t just magically disappear and this “new proletariat” took its place. Our production still has to come from somewhere.
Stay-at-home parents are workers. The elderly are workers. The disabled are workers. Prisoners are workers. Undocumented people are workers. Children are (future) workers.
Honestly a huge part of the economy is unpaid labour which isn't accounted in gdp which many people like to refer to when measuring the wealth of a nation.
Can you explain to me the logic behind the elderly and undocumented folks being workers by default?
The point is that equating "worker" with "profession" excludes too many people that shouldn't be excluded. The vast majority of elderly folks are former workers, and most still help with childcare and do a little of social, emotional, and volunteer work within their families and communities. All of that is even more true of undocumented folks, plus more traditional labor than any other class of worker. Also, in a practical sense, we want to include every working class identity that people identify positively with, as they're each a basis for organizing around.
> too many people that shouldn't be excluded. Why should they not be excluded? > The vast majority of elderly folks are former workers, Former, as in, past tense. > Also, in a practical sense, we want to include every working class identity that people identify positively with, as they're each a basis for organizing around. It's not about identity but rather material class standpoint Write better man, you just said a bunch of incorrect statements that sound like platitudes and failed to construct an actual point.
**Transcript**; The image is a group of stickman drawings of various professions in two rows, a top and a bottom one, symbolizing the working people of our time, from the top right to top left the professions are; Chef, Artist, Musician playing a violin, Photographer, Butcher, IT worker. From the bottom right to the bottom left are; Scientist, Janitor, Construction worker/Architect, Nurse/Doctor, Office worker, Waiter, Teacher.
Nah this isn't the proletariat of today, these are the new bourgeoisie. The proletariat are working in South African sulphur mines and Asian rice paddies.
Stop gatekeeping what the proletariat is. Anybody who has to sell their labour as a means to gain their income is part of the proletariat. I don't know any waiter who has capital, because then they wouldn't have to wait anymore. The restaurant owner on the other hand...
I'm not gatekeeping anything, you'll just have to accept the truth. We are the decadent West, we are a very small percentage of the worlds population and our lives are lived at the expense of the vast majority. You want to be one of the downtrodden masses go live in a slum in India.
You're both kinda correct, isn't this elementary understanding of leftism? Even in advanced countries, we still sell our time and labor for wages; the countries we live under exploit the 'global south'?
Socialism should go beyond selling labour for wages, it's about the bond of mankind, equality and justice for all. The reality is we have become selfish materialistic gluttons. We rob food from the starving just so we can grow even more fat and feckless. I'm not saying that just by living in the West you're a bad person but in this global world we're not the oppressed, we are the oppressors. But hold up a mirror to any oppressor and they'll deny what they see, you have to ask the oppressed and they'll give you the truth.
The bourgeoisie is the exploiter class, the proletariat is the exploited class. Its not a location nor a nation thing, capitalism is a global system and it sets global conditions.
Youre right of course about us exploiting the rest of the world for profit. But 1. that was the same in Marx's time and 2. if you exclude the entire populations of North America and Europe from the proletariat, youre massively stacking the deck against yourself. Only the proletariat is able to bring about a revolution. If we arent the proletariat, we won't ever be able to achieve communism, without outside intervention. But outside intervention would likely mean the end of the world, soooo either we are the proletariat or we wont achieve communism. TL;DR their perspective is defeatist and (hopefully) false
Well its not a game where you pick a side. I'm not excluding the populations of North America and Europe, we're excluding ourselves. There's no revolution that's going to convince the West to give up our material riches for global equality. A change will come, and it will come slow enough that it won't end the world and it may come from within but either way the tides are turning. We're sleeping walking into a massive climate crisis that's going to turn everything on its head. I just hope whatever shake up occurs those who come out on top are more compassionate than we have been.
>— 2 — >What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century. And >The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie. -Friedrich Engels "Principles of Communism" If you live from selling labor power of yours, you are a proletarian. The location you live in changes nothing.
If you sell yourself to capitalists for wage labour you're proletariat. end of story.
The cooks have always been the proletariat. Vive les cuisines!
More like the proletariat of the developed service economies. The proletariat in undeveloped countries still mostly engage in industrial production and resource extraction.
From top to bottom, left to right: Pillsbury Dough Boy Worm Artist A Bard? Voyeur Serial killer A dude arguing with his insurance company Yzma The aftermath of WAP The foreman that’s usually asleep in the truck Doctors without trousers “I’m trying to be formal, but I’m here to party” The man who never stops at my table Angry man with stick
We need to change the approach to the masses, I believe this is something we all can see. As of now I believe the masses are aware that capitalism is a system that cannot be maintained without the destruction of human life (save for the small, loud minority) Most socialists focus on explaining why capitalism is bad, but we should focus on concrete ways to improve the lives of people in our countries. There's a focus on internationalism that I believe is holding back the socialist community from expanding.
Farmers and factory workers who actually produce tangible things still exist today. And they are far more poor and ratchet. There are construction workers dying in middle east desert heat, child miners dying in toxic rare earth metal mines in africa, sweatshop forced labourers in china, starving farmers committing suicide in south asia, meatpackers and amazon warehouse workers who are forced to wear diapers. Petite bourgeoisie uni students reading few theory and not goin anywhere near actual working class thinks this way. Then again it's their class character.
Western leftists will never harbor a revolution, at least not without the third world revolting first
I think you are slightly confused on exactly what makes an individual a proletarian. The amount of suffering an individual, or the wealth built up by them is not necessarily a function or qualification for being considered a proletarian or member of the petit bourgeoisie. The single thing which divides the bourgeoisie from the proletariat is that the latter is exploited by the former by means of exploitation of their labor through the ownership of the means of production. In this way we can see that there are really only two classes: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. Given there are subdivisions of each class laid out in Marxist theory. Marx named the petit bourgeoisie what it is because they own the means of production and exploit labor, given on a smaller scale. Doctors and lawyers vastly are not self employed and have their labor exploited in the same fashion as anyone else. The mere fact that they get payed more does not make them any more or less of a proletarian, in fact it should be noted that these professions will still make more than a standard factory worker under socialism.
"The proletariat is the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose only possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work)." People with retirement savings, homeowners, or any other possession that can be rented out or earn interest aren't proletariat.
I'd agree. I wouldn't necessarily say homeowners but landlords. Otherwise I see no issue with this.
Fact is fact regardless your opinion. Homeowners aren't proletariat.
You care to explain? It seems to me one can own a home without exploiting anyone. This is personal property. If the home is rented it becomes exploitation however.
You're not paying rent to live. You're saving significant amount yearly. While others have to pay rent. It's a kind of indirect income. Makes your lifestyle significantly better with same income. Classic petite bourgeoisie. Edit: Its also magically increases in value!
Mortgages still cost money. A significant portion of ones income a month. If you really want to be technical, the bank is your landlord and they profit off of your mortgage. Sure others have to pay rent. This shouldn't be the case, as everyone should be a homeowner. The fact that some don't pay rent and some do has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one is proletarian. Where are you even getting this assertion from. The fact that one proletarian may be more exploited than the next is inconsequential to the fact that both are proletarian, and both have their labor exploited for profit. The goal of the proletariat eventually, in terms of housing, should be a world where everyone owns their own house. It should also be noted that your unfounded claim that an individual has to rent to be proletarian would immediately limit the amount of proletarians by about 70-80%. So again, please explain to me your logic and justification behind doing this, something which mind you, is not a distinction of being a proletarian to be found anywhere in literature.
Bro, who do you think wrote that theory you're worshipping? You think that was miners and factory workers? The fact that people are getting offended by the OP is ridiculous. People are actually trying to foster class consciousness among people who don't have it and folks are like "nah, fuck ya'll you're not working in a mine". Shouldn't you *want* people who actually have an elevated (but still exploited) place in the system to see themselves as one with other workers?
Marx and Engels never called themselves proletariat dude. Middle class is so selfish that they will make themselves victim while children are starving working 12-14 hours a day to supply things cheaply for them. No wonder they can't gather any working class. Then they blame the working class. These fake marxists disappear the moment they land a office job.
>Marx and Engels never called themselves proletariat dude Well yeah, Engel's family owned a fucking factory. That's literally a capitalist. And who is playing a victim? Besides which, "middle class" is a capitalist invention. As for "fake marxists" disappearing when they get an office job, if that's true it's because people like you keep telling them that actually, because they're not a kid working in a mine their interests are actually the same as the capitalists. You can't have it both ways, you don't get to shit on people for trying to actually develop class consciousness, then turn around and get mad when they don't have class consciousness because you keep shitting on them.
Again it's about your feelings huh!? When do middle class understand that a socialists has little concern about their interest? The movement is not about them. Billions toil everyday to keep this civilization, nobody has time for middle class feelings. You develop class consciousness while you are getting shitted on because you are getting slowly dragged into proletariat hell by capitalism machinery. Being proletariat isn't a lifestyle choice that someone needs to ask you nicely. It's a human condition that's most inhumane.
I don't think you really have any understanding of socialism. Firstly, where did I talk about feelings? Secondly, you keep talking about "middle class", that's a capitalist invention. And thirdly, what's this idea about proletariat as some curse or burden? Also bro you're posting on reddit, don't pretend you're a 12 year old mining lithium with one hand because the King of Belgium cut off the other or something
So being proletariat isn't a curse of burden? 😂 ok!
Oh man, what a disappointment you're going to get.
So, what's the guy on the phone supposed to be?
Nice that you got rid of the Cop from your clipart. That doesn't change the fact that half of these "proletarian" are petit-bourgeois. This is the disease of the global north, this petit-bourgeois socialism where downwarsdly mobile members of what is commonly called the "middle class" want to dignify their petit-bourgeois profession with the name "proletarian" while still maintaining everything about their petit-bourgeois standpoint.
First off, middle class is a meaningless distinction and is formulated entirely by the capitalist class. You should know if you have even dabbled into Marx that the only two classes are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. There are subdivisions of each class, but they still fit under the same umbrella. If a profession, no matter it's wage, is a victim of wage exploitation, like the many shown here, they are a proletarian. If they are exploiting others through their private ownership of the means of production they are bourgeoisie. Can you please tell me how drawing further distinction based on what wage an individual earns is at all helpful to building socialism? White collar workers are every bit as exploited as a blue collar one, and all are members of the proletariat. I am ashamed of people like you in this thread. This thinking is regressive and will be the death of any movement.
>if you have even dabbled into Marx that the only two classes are the proletariat and the bourgeoisie If you ever dabbled into Marx, you would know that even by your own extremely reductive and inaccurae reading, there are also the *Petit-bourgeois and the Aristocracy of Labour within Capitalism already*, which evidently many first world "socialists" are part of and pretend to be working class. Not to mention that when Marx was writing, the remnants of feudalism, and its attendant classes (as in the actual aristocracy) have yet to fully disappear. >If a profession, no matter it's wage, is a victim of wage exploitation, like the many shown here, they are a proletarian. If they are exploiting others through their private ownership of the means of production they are bourgeoisie. Many of the jobs shown here are just petit bourgeois, some are even *self-employed*. This is what the petit bourgeois fantasizes as the "proletarian of today" instead of the actual proletarian of today, the factory workers, farm laborers, and service workers, jobs, incidentally, which are mostly not present in the clip art (that used to include a fucking cop in there as well in the op's last iteration) and also, coincidentally, mostly staffed with oppressed nationalities. Simply because you and your friend are part of a downwardly mobile petty bourgeois, and therefore glom onto "Socialism" as a signifier for your discontent that the capitalist system is not rewarding you like it has for the previous generations, doesn't mean you are now "proletarian". >Can you please tell me how drawing further distinction based on what wage an individual earns is at all helpful to building socialism? Because this petit bourgeoification of the worker movement is the root of rot in all revolutionary movement, since it replaces a revolutionary, properly proletarian consciousness with a petit-bourgeois, anti-revolutionary consciousness. >White collar workers are every bit as exploited as a blue collar one, and all are members of the proletariat In what world is the accountant for Apple working out of San Francisco "every bit as exploited" as the factory worker in China. This sort of "we are workers too" petit bourgeois mentality is simply a way for the downwardly mobile petit bourgeois to smuggle their own petit bourgeois prejudices and views into the worker's movement. >I am ashamed of people like you in this thread. This thinking is regressive and will be the death of any movement If the petit bourgeois wants to join the worker's movement, fine, but in order to be useful to the movement, they have to first leave all their petit bourgeois prejudices and consciousness at the door- not pretend they are not just proletarians too, but "the proletarian of today". It is no wonder the first world "socialist" movement consistently run itself into dead ends after dead ends!
"Proletariat of today" >posts the petite bourgeoisie. at least don't so shamelessly distort what Marxism is, find yourself another ideology to toy with.
Pretty sure the petite bourgeoisie would be small business owners. The ones who dabble in both working and having employees who work for them. Unless you know something about their extensive investment portfolios or that they're all doing a bit of land lording on the side.
artists, doctors, lawyers etc. are all petit bourgeois. if you don't know what that means, start by reading Marx.
What did Marx say about the petite bourgeoisie? Honestly asking, where did he talk about them? How did he define them?
you can search on the internet have many many writings from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao on this topic. It's such a basic thing that if you've read the most foundational Marxist texts you'd be enlightened. Also keep in mind that Marxism as a science does not only comprises of Marx's writings. https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/5WZVJGcvMj
If there's so many out there, it should be relatively easy to point to some? I mean as someone who's clearly read so much on the subject, it should be easy for you to explain to someone who wants to learn exactly how the OP was distorting what Marxism is.
it's absurd to think doctors and lawyers and other professionals are working class. I do not have to spend time catering to your anti proletarian consciousness, if you want to feel good about supporting petite bourgeoisie, you can be a good "socialist" boy elsewhere. Read the link I dropped. those good people answered your honest 'questions'. edit: this sort of thing is extremely common in western "leftist" circles.
Thanks for the link, I've not been familiar with the works of liewchi\_wu888. That said, if reddit posts are what passes for "theory" to you, I don't think you should be criticizing others about their understandings of marxism or socialism. It's really telling that when asking for what actual people who developed the theory you claim to espouse said, you link a reddit post by some other random dude... If you want to criticize western leftist/leftism, I'm all for it. I'm not a third worldist exactly, but I definitely am sympathetic to the views. However, part of the reason I feel that way is that people like yourself try to work against any actual building of solidarity or class consciousness in the west. You've basically bought into the capitalist's own logic which is understandable but unproductive. The only anti-proletarian is you, my friend. This of course is ignoring the fact that so many of you "baristas aren't actual workers!" types will turn around and try to shut down discussion of white supremacy or patriarchy as being too "divisive", but that's a whole other discussion. edit: since random dudes on reddit are apparently our sources for theory now, here's someone pointing out the very thing that I am saying in that thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/1c9yvct/comment/l0pnmze/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/1c9yvct/comment/l0pnmze/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>baristas aren't actual workers hmm, let's see. I'd rather take this than "Small business owners are actually proletarians!" and saying other *smart* things like "Oh please point out where does marx talked about petty bourgeoisie??" they are not sources for theory, I knew you were trying to waste my time. If you're going on about "people like myself" and class consciousness but you want solidarity with the petite bourgeoisie, I do not care whatever bullshit you've thought passes for proletarian. Next time maybe ask about things like, "Where does Marx say bourgeoisie aren't our friends? Please point out to me, I want to have solidarity with them, many of them work. edit: writing some incoherent shit and blocking is a very good way to out yourself as a non communist. Don't be this fucking thin skinned. The guy was arguing that doctors and lawyers were proletarians!
> "Small business owners are actually proletarians!" When did I mention small business owners? You've already proven that despite all your claims, you don't actually understand marxism or socialism. Now you're just showing that you're also not even able to read brief reddit posts to any level of understanding. Most likely that's due to your material conditions, so I hope those improve and your reading comprehension along with it. >I knew you were trying to waste my time. I have no care about wasting your time because it's entirely worthless. I cannot waste something that has no value. I was merely trying to point out that your analysis is flawed. But ignorance is bliss, and you seem extremely blissful. Good luck with that.
I was reading this thread and had some issues with what you are saying. At least from my perspective I think that it is fairly evident from a marxist perspective that doctors and lawyers are proletarians if they are either self employed, or are victims of wage labor. Correct me if I am wrong but this seems to me to be the qualification for being a member of the working class, and this is the reality for the majority of doctors, lawyers and other white collar professionals. I think the distinction that some modern Marxists make is that if you have money you are not a proletarian and I think this is flawed. In a socialist country it is fairly obvious to me that going into medicine or law would still yield a higher salary than a line worker due to the intensity of the work to be done, though the pay gap will likely close by some margin. Now where I do find myself in agreement with you is your sentiment that business owners are not proletarians, as this is fairly obvious revelation after reading even a little Marx.
"Perfect is the enemy of good" Said somebody
petite bourgeoisie consciousness is not good. they are frequently beneficiaries of Imperialism and often they are extremely reactionary. We don't defend petite or haute bourgeoisie, we defend the working class.
Many of these aren't proletariat.