Aug 24, 2022·1 reply
RoosterShooternot gonna lie, i dont remember when the transition between sites was or when i joined.
still curious tho, have you experienced or been involved in a person or group that has transitioned either a part of or their full body beliefs since youve been here???
I've seen a couple happen for sure
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyScratchin Mamba
I've seen a couple happen for sure
interesting. i wonder what their breaking points were. if it was due to a candidate faltering or due to a convincing argument.
again, this was a huge talking point that has seemed to have lost a good amount of its momentum.
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyScratchin Mamba
Low wages, healthcare, infrastructure, public schools, housing etc, the usual mostly
I think what disillusioned a lot of them was also the incredible amount of slander Bernie got during the campaign even from liberals. A lot of them saw how just these basic reforms were somehow seen as extremely dangerous by those in power and started asking questions about the system more broadly
so it wasnt the underwhelming support that these policies got??
- Aug 24, 2022RoosterShooter
interesting. i wonder what their breaking points were. if it was due to a candidate faltering or due to a convincing argument.
again, this was a huge talking point that has seemed to have lost a good amount of its momentum.
Well i can speak for myself
I've always recognized the problems of capitalism basically as soon as i got into politics, being a second generation Ethiopian immigrant from a working class family it's kind of in your face really, but i always thought that capitalism in essence wasn't the problem and that it could be reformed
All it took for me was to just read a summary of Marxist economic theory and i went from a lib to a Marxist in like 1 or 2 days ask @cloud_rap
But i've done most of my ideological development since then tbh, 2018 communist me isn't the same as 2022 communist me ideologically
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyRoosterShooter
so it wasnt the underwhelming support that these policies got??
It was the fact that these policies got sk much support, but Bernie still got demonized so much by mainstream media and establishment democrats I would say
Aug 24, 2022·1 replyRoosterShooternot gonna lie, i dont remember when the transition between sites was or when i joined.
still curious tho, have you experienced or been involved in a person or group that has transitioned either a part of or their full body beliefs since youve been here???
The transition from KTT1 to 2 happened two days before JIK dropped
But we’ve had a number of people become socialist here. FIFTY950 and Quakerboy are our two primary example
- Aug 24, 2022Scratchin Mamba
It was the fact that these policies got sk much support, but Bernie still got demonized so much by mainstream media and establishment democrats I would say
As a Bernie bro, correct
Aug 24, 2022·2 repliesScratchin MambaI would say yes. You can make a distinction within workers with the labor aristocracy, but to call them bourgeois obfuscates class imo. I think there's a distinction to be made in class vs revolutionary potential. If doctors were the most radicalized nobody would say they're petit bourgeois
ah i think this is the fundamental problem.
because classifying petty bourgeois as something overdetermined DOES make class distinction difficult.
the only part of me that complains here, is that perhaps class distinction actually is difficult, and there could also be a language issue here.
because many petty bourgeois do also conduct labor and "earn" their salary, in my view what ends up determining their category as petty bourgeois is whether what they "earn" can be attributed to ownership of private property or the value of the actual labor they produce.
in the case of a doctor in the US, irregardless of the monopolization of the profession specifically, many earn a vastly disproportionate salary to the labor they do as a result of their position being a form of private ownership in and of itself. ig in my head i imagine it to be similar to how dirt becomes capital through a sociostructural process.
the second bit my brain clinged to is that the petty bourgeois are not necessarily the enemy of the revolution. the petty bourgeois as a class are constantly on the verge of extinction as a result of being crushed by the upper echelon of capitalists, and as a result will have to make an effort towards the left or the right if they cannot escape upwards. so to my mind this is not a specifically dangerous idea, but what do you think
- Aug 24, 2022·2 repliesdeadacc
ah i think this is the fundamental problem.
because classifying petty bourgeois as something overdetermined DOES make class distinction difficult.
the only part of me that complains here, is that perhaps class distinction actually is difficult, and there could also be a language issue here.
because many petty bourgeois do also conduct labor and "earn" their salary, in my view what ends up determining their category as petty bourgeois is whether what they "earn" can be attributed to ownership of private property or the value of the actual labor they produce.
in the case of a doctor in the US, irregardless of the monopolization of the profession specifically, many earn a vastly disproportionate salary to the labor they do as a result of their position being a form of private ownership in and of itself. ig in my head i imagine it to be similar to how dirt becomes capital through a sociostructural process.
the second bit my brain clinged to is that the petty bourgeois are not necessarily the enemy of the revolution. the petty bourgeois as a class are constantly on the verge of extinction as a result of being crushed by the upper echelon of capitalists, and as a result will have to make an effort towards the left or the right if they cannot escape upwards. so to my mind this is not a specifically dangerous idea, but what do you think
because many petty bourgeois do also conduct labor and "earn" their salary, in my view what ends up determining their category as petty bourgeois is whether what they "earn" can be attributed to ownership of private property or the value of the actual labor they produce.
I fully agree with this actually, but..
in the case of a doctor in the US, irregardless of the monopolization of the profession specifically, many earn a vastly disproportionate salary to the labor they do as a result of their position being a form of private ownership in and of itself. ig in my head i imagine it to be similar to how dirt becomes capital through a sociostructural process.
Here i have a different understanding, yes their labor becomes capital once it becomes privatized, but isn't that the case with all professions? In the end all labor is just variable capital in a Marxist framework. But they're the ones that sell that labor to a capitalist, which in the end is that which makes them not petit bourgeois but proletarian due to that relation with a capitalist from my pov. In many professions people can make more money in the private industry than the public one, does that make the workers in the private sector bourgeois instead of proletarian?
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyamericana
The transition from KTT1 to 2 happened two days before JIK dropped
But we’ve had a number of people become socialist here. FIFTY950 and Quakerboy are our two primary example
We have a lot of grillpilled socialists on here that don't come itt too shoutout to them
- Aug 24, 2022Scratchin Mamba
We have a lot of grillpilled socialists on here that don't come itt too shoutout to them
Shoutout safe fr
- Aug 24, 2022Scratchin Mamba
because many petty bourgeois do also conduct labor and "earn" their salary, in my view what ends up determining their category as petty bourgeois is whether what they "earn" can be attributed to ownership of private property or the value of the actual labor they produce.
I fully agree with this actually, but..
in the case of a doctor in the US, irregardless of the monopolization of the profession specifically, many earn a vastly disproportionate salary to the labor they do as a result of their position being a form of private ownership in and of itself. ig in my head i imagine it to be similar to how dirt becomes capital through a sociostructural process.
Here i have a different understanding, yes their labor becomes capital once it becomes privatized, but isn't that the case with all professions? In the end all labor is just variable capital in a Marxist framework. But they're the ones that sell that labor to a capitalist, which in the end is that which makes them not petit bourgeois but proletarian due to that relation with a capitalist from my pov. In many professions people can make more money in the private industry than the public one, does that make the workers in the private sector bourgeois instead of proletarian?
yea ig something about the earnings reading more than the combination of the technical and variable in this is rubbing me weird but its a nonfalsifiable assertion so its prob best to assume the thought process you stated is correct
- Aug 24, 2022·editedScratchin Mamba
because many petty bourgeois do also conduct labor and "earn" their salary, in my view what ends up determining their category as petty bourgeois is whether what they "earn" can be attributed to ownership of private property or the value of the actual labor they produce.
I fully agree with this actually, but..
in the case of a doctor in the US, irregardless of the monopolization of the profession specifically, many earn a vastly disproportionate salary to the labor they do as a result of their position being a form of private ownership in and of itself. ig in my head i imagine it to be similar to how dirt becomes capital through a sociostructural process.
Here i have a different understanding, yes their labor becomes capital once it becomes privatized, but isn't that the case with all professions? In the end all labor is just variable capital in a Marxist framework. But they're the ones that sell that labor to a capitalist, which in the end is that which makes them not petit bourgeois but proletarian due to that relation with a capitalist from my pov. In many professions people can make more money in the private industry than the public one, does that make the workers in the private sector bourgeois instead of proletarian?
The upper working class have both the largest income and the highest social status within the class as a whole. It includes those in the skilled trades such as electricians plumbers some carpenters some tool and die makers and those who do specialized repair and maintenance, Teachers , nurses ... a section of organized workers in basic industries such as mining and steel, and some government workers.
^what i was told by somebody is the upper working class. doctors and lawyers dont get this classification
the definition of prole i got is also slightly more specific where essentially it means "people who have nothing BUT their labor power"
for instance politicians are petty b as a result
Aug 24, 2022·2 repliesThe fact that there are still white people in south africa is so wild to me
- Aug 24, 2022·edited
ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/MarxistConceptsofClassStructure.pdf
chapter by erik olin wright "analytical marxist" on the marxist conceptions of class from 1980
havent finished reading but pretty interesting on this topic
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyLein
The fact that there are still white people in south africa is so wild to me
Really? Could you please elaborate? What would be less wild?
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyFranquitoReynolds
Really? Could you please elaborate? What would be less wild?
Mariel boatlift but for the cacs
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyScratchin Mamba
Mariel boatlift but for the cacs
Send em where? Alaska?
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyFranquitoReynolds
Send em where? Alaska?
Australia with their fellow British criminals
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyScratchin Mamba
Australia with their fellow British criminals
What about the native islanders there? don't they deserve to be liberated? Why you dumping your trash there..
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replyFranquitoReynolds
What about the native islanders there? don't they deserve to be liberated? Why you dumping your trash there..
In all seriousness South Africa needed a revolution that abolished the colonial economic relations that the white settlers forces upon the African populations, knowing how white South Africans are they wouldn't take that very well and probably leave or fight to the death in response to that. Where they go is up to them.
Aug 24, 2022·1 replyLeinThe fact that there are still white people in south africa is so wild to me
The authors of the ANC's Freedom Charter in the 50's were white Jews. Many good comrades, some were assassinated by the police.
It makes South Africa's solidarity with Palestine even more beautiful, because anti-Zionist Jews helped to contribute to that consciousness and were some of Mandela's closest allies.
In 94 when the new constitution was written, the sections of that aforementioned Freedom Charter that were about equality of race were used, but the economic demands, such as nationalisation of industry, land for the landless, shorter work days and living wages, were completely stripped out.
That was ultimately Mandela's great failing, at a time when he had a militant movement ready to fight for the freedom of South Africa, he underestimated his leverage and folded to the suits in Davos who were warning of the economic impact of upsetting them. Such a sad squandered opportunity, look where they are now.
I get what you mean though, Afrikaners are some of the worst and most racist people you will ever meet lmao
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replydeadacc
ah i think this is the fundamental problem.
because classifying petty bourgeois as something overdetermined DOES make class distinction difficult.
the only part of me that complains here, is that perhaps class distinction actually is difficult, and there could also be a language issue here.
because many petty bourgeois do also conduct labor and "earn" their salary, in my view what ends up determining their category as petty bourgeois is whether what they "earn" can be attributed to ownership of private property or the value of the actual labor they produce.
in the case of a doctor in the US, irregardless of the monopolization of the profession specifically, many earn a vastly disproportionate salary to the labor they do as a result of their position being a form of private ownership in and of itself. ig in my head i imagine it to be similar to how dirt becomes capital through a sociostructural process.
the second bit my brain clinged to is that the petty bourgeois are not necessarily the enemy of the revolution. the petty bourgeois as a class are constantly on the verge of extinction as a result of being crushed by the upper echelon of capitalists, and as a result will have to make an effort towards the left or the right if they cannot escape upwards. so to my mind this is not a specifically dangerous idea, but what do you think
Proletarian doesn't mean poor. That's why terms like the labor aristocracy exist. A lot of engineers, doctors or big law firm lawyers will be labor aristocrats. They can become petit bourgeois or landlords or rentiers through investments from their wages later on, of course.
Professional accreditations are not capital, they just restrict supply of laborers in a profession and thus increase the wage prices given constant demand. Furthermore, a doctor or lawyer genuinely has years of training and education which increases their labor power. Would you let a beginner perform heart surgery on you? One hour of labor from a heart surgeon is simply worth more than one hour of untrained labor.
Also, the idea that petit bourgeois are enemies of the revolution is silly to begin with, there are those who will side with the haute bourgeois and those who will side with the proletarians, just like with any class.
- Aug 24, 2022Scratchin Mamba
In all seriousness South Africa needed a revolution that abolished the colonial economic relations that the white settlers forces upon the African populations, knowing how white South Africans are they wouldn't take that very well and probably leave or fight to the death in response to that. Where they go is up to them.
They had it in their fingertips and Madiba opted to avoid any bloodshed
Now the bloodshed just comes from 30 years of broken promises and violence for the 'born free' generation
- Aug 24, 2022·1 replykool2
The authors of the ANC's Freedom Charter in the 50's were white Jews. Many good comrades, some were assassinated by the police.
It makes South Africa's solidarity with Palestine even more beautiful, because anti-Zionist Jews helped to contribute to that consciousness and were some of Mandela's closest allies.
In 94 when the new constitution was written, the sections of that aforementioned Freedom Charter that were about equality of race were used, but the economic demands, such as nationalisation of industry, land for the landless, shorter work days and living wages, were completely stripped out.
That was ultimately Mandela's great failing, at a time when he had a militant movement ready to fight for the freedom of South Africa, he underestimated his leverage and folded to the suits in Davos who were warning of the economic impact of upsetting them. Such a sad squandered opportunity, look where they are now.
I get what you mean though, Afrikaners are some of the worst and most racist people you will ever meet lmao
Their original plan had stuff like land reforms and so on, maybe if Apartheid ended in the 70s or 80s they could have went with it, but after the failure of the USSR bloc I think they saw no way out and had to water it down