|
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — me and people who make more than me.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Frog Act posted:while also believing class analysis is unimportant you're arguing in bad faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — me and people who make more than me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:you're arguing in bad faith you’re being intentionally reductive, since class analysis inherently can’t be a binary and asserting that it is is effectively the same as saying there’s no need for it
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
I cannot fathom how you can look around the world at the effects of a better-compensated but non bourgeois professional-managerial class on our discourse and think “anyone mentioning them is just angry about people who make more than them specifically” like lmao. obviously the ultra rich are villains but they aren’t the only ones responsible for perpetuating capitalism in a way consistent with their perceived or real class interests
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — me and people who make more than me. This but unironically
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:I cannot fathom how you can look around the world at the effects of a better-compensated but non bourgeois professional-managerial class on our discourse and think “anyone mentioning them is just angry about people who make more than them specifically” like lmao. obviously the ultra rich are villains but they aren’t the only ones responsible for perpetuating capitalism in a way consistent with their perceived or real class interests Your mistake is basing it on income. Income does not determine someone's class, class determines their income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
incommunism 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
the more i read this kotkin stalin bio the more tankie i get
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:the more i read this kotkin stalin bio the more tankie i get 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:Your mistake is basing it on income. Income does not determine someone's class, class determines their income. This seems overly deterministic. Why couldn't the relationship flow either way depending on circumstances? Sheng-Ji Yang posted:the more i read this kotkin stalin bio the more tankie i get 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
It's not the money, it's how you get it imo. The property ownership and its associated wealth/income is the dividing line for me between the proletariat and the petit bourgeoisie. edit: removed the part where i was being super catty Solid Poopsnake fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
obviously having more wealth and comfort is going to make someone generally less interested in radical change, irregardless of their class
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
nvm
Goast fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jul 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Solid Poopsnake posted:It's not the money, it's how you get it imo. The property ownership and its associated wealth/income is the dividing line for me between the proletariat and the petit bourgeoisie. The dividing line between a proletarian and petit bourgeois is the property ownership, but income isn't really a defining element. The definition of petit bourgeois is a capitalist who mixes their own labor in with their business, so landlords do often meet that definition because they're operating their rentier business themselves. A partner in a law firm is still petit bourgeois, even if they have more wealth and income than a landlord. The need to still labor is what separates petit bourgeois from moyenne bourgeois, who never have to labor and just pay other people to do all the work for them. And moyenne are still steps below the ladder of grande bourgeois (dynastic) and haute bourgeois (aristocratic). Petit bourgeois all like to imagine they're moyenne, and the moyenne like they're grande, and so on and so on. That's why Trump can come from generations of wealth, be the most powerful man in the world, and still envy New York high society - because he's denied the prestige of being haute bourgeois.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
smarxist posted:here's a good primer
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
incredibly surprised no one has started raging against the labor aristocrats in the past few pages
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:incredibly surprised no one has started raging against the labor aristocrats in the past few pages give me a day or so to go reread settlers so I can start that rant with pure, fresh third world maoism in my veins
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
it takes me a minute to work myself into the rhizzone mindset and I don't know if that's good or bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
income isn’t how you determine one’s class, but it’s still a useful tool given how it correlates pretty well with the likelihood of being a class traitor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:And moyenne are still steps below the ladder of grande bourgeois (dynastic) and haute bourgeois (aristocratic). Petit bourgeois all like to imagine they're moyenne, and the moyenne like they're grande, and so on and so on. That's why Trump can come from generations of wealth, be the most powerful man in the world, and still envy New York high society - because he's denied the prestige of being haute bourgeois. Can you please explain to me the difference between grande and haute bourgeois? What makes it impossible to transition from one to the other?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
You can insist in some dry technical sense that class is just your relationship to the means of production and isn't determined by your income but unless you're making a specific theoretical argument that seems like a rather pedantic definition to insist on. Income seems to be just as or even more relevant for determining many people's subjective politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You can insist in some dry technical sense that class is just your relationship to the means of production and isn't determined by your income but unless you're making a specific theoretical argument that seems like a rather pedantic definition to insist on. Income seems to be just as or even more relevant for determining many people's subjective politics. there are plenty of working class socialists with high incomes but you're not going to find many business owners who support socialism. the only way to define social class in a way that has any use is by how one relates to production. whether one works or owns things for a living fundamentally alters their way of life in a way differences of income doesn't. Edit: I guess my point is there definitely is some correlation between income and politics but it's minor in comparison to the relation between class and politics
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:there are plenty of working class socialists with high incomes but you're not going to find many business owners who support socialism. There's some element of truth to this but you're being much too reductionist. A white collar professional or member of the managerial class can easily be subjectively closer to the views and interests of the ownership classes than they are with the average wage slave, regardless of whether they themselves have to work for a living to maintain their lifestyle. I guess this partially depends on how you define "relationship to the means of production" but at the very least your analysis really needs to specifically account for those professional types who profit off their labour but have interests more closely aligned with capital than labour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's some element of truth to this but you're being much too reductionist. A white collar professional or member of the managerial class can easily be subjectively closer to the views and interests of the ownership classes than they are with the average wage slave, regardless of whether they themselves have to work for a living to maintain their lifestyle. I tend to agree with this - part of the point of the "middle-class" is to have a cadre of professionals that are paid just high enough that they'll identify with and support the political goals of the capitalists, and in a nominal democracy, will allow the capitalists to win enough of a vote share that they can claim some level of legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Can you please explain to me the difference between grande and haute bourgeois? What makes it impossible to transition from one to the other? Pedigree. you have to marry into it. these are French definitions for French class distinctions so they won’t nap perfectly onto the United States. I guess the easiest comparison would be that grande bourgeois made family fortunes in the 20th century, while haute bourgeois made fortunes in the 19th or 18th centuries. some haute bourgeois even like tracing their families all the way back to the Mayflower, or some other old world bonafide that certifies their good breeding.=
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Pedigree. you have to marry into it. these are French definitions for French class distinctions so they won’t nap perfectly onto the United States. Oh it's about the quantity of demonic essence the bloodline has accumulated from doing pizzagate
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's some element of truth to this but you're being much too reductionist. A white collar professional or member of the managerial class can easily be subjectively closer to the views and interests of the ownership classes than they are with the average wage slave, regardless of whether they themselves have to work for a living to maintain their lifestyle. I think the key part of this is the subjectivity. They might feel like their interests are closer to those of the bourgeois but objectively they're not. Maybe it's a moot point because they'll act based on their subjective feeling. I tend to define "relationship to the means of production" or class as how you make your living. I don't honestly know if this correct from a Marxist or sociological perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Oh it's about the quantity of demonic essence the bloodline has accumulated from doing pizzagate also how much adrenochrome tolerance youve built up in genetic memory
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Pedigree. you have to marry into it. these are French definitions for French class distinctions so they won’t nap perfectly onto the United States. yeah this is much easier to see in places like the UK. old money that owns land vote tory, new money lives in cities and vote libdem. the UK elections around the turn of the century are neat for seeing these splits and power struggles
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Snip wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
being positive about china doesn't mean china is the "best" example of socialism, whatever the gently caress that means. closest to that would be cuba if you HAVE to rank them, which is a stupid activity in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
a “one gotta go....fellas?” meme with a pic of PRC, Cuba, USSR, and Vietnam
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:a “one gotta go....fellas?” meme with a pic of PRC, Cuba, USSR, and Vietnam [thinks extremely hard] uhhhhh the Vietnamese economic reforms were even more revisionist than Deng's was, soooooooo ...
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Ordered and started to read Losurdo's Liberalism: a Counter History and I decided to look him up. Wikipedia article says he "reportedly praised Pol Pot." Checking out the citation, the article is from some random blog, and the author says that he and some other guy have defended Pot, and links to an article by the other guy that has no mention of Losurdo. Ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:is the rhizzone still good I haven’t read it in forever They taught me about Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer, which is good. So I would have to say that it's good
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:Ordered and started to read Losurdo's Liberalism: a Counter History and I decided to look him up. Wikipedia article says he "reportedly praised Pol Pot." Checking out the citation, the article is from some random blog, and the author says that he and some other guy have defended Pot, and links to an article by the other guy that has no mention of Losurdo. Ridiculous. I got that book too! But I also got Capital and David Harvey’s companion and I feel like I should read those first e: And a collection of Lenin’s writings
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:being positive about china doesn't mean china is the "best" example of socialism, whatever the gently caress that means. closest to that would be cuba if you HAVE to rank them, which is a stupid activity in the first place. https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/1153838527614001153?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 12:13
|
|
