You must log in or register to comment.
few people talk about Marx’ younger sister, Anya, who was a near world class sprinter in a time when women were discouraged from such things.
She became so famous back then for her abilities they still say her full name at the beginning of most every competitive footrace in the world.
If anyone wants to get higher Marx in class, I made an introductory Marxist reading list 🤓
Bourgeois is the characteristic of the middle class.
Bourgeoisie is the middle class itself.
The Aristocracy is the class that controls most governments.
that’s not the Marxist definition most leftists use
During the time of Marx, the bourgeoisie was keeping the proletariat down. They directly owned the means of production, since Soviet Russia did not have a stock market.
Now in the US, the bourgeoisie has become smaller and less influential. They no longer own the means of production due to selling shares.
Our oppressors are the aristocrats. They sit on the boards with majority power, giving direction without directly running the businesses.
What?! The bourgeoisie is the owning class of the means of production. They exploit labour and are the primary enemy of the working classes of this world
EDIT: aristocrats are a feature of feudalism and it’s remnants
Right. And what class is running Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street and the like that sit on the board with majority ownership of every bourgeoisie run business in the US? The wealthiest people in the nation.
The bourgeoisie is being leveraged against the proletariat by the aristocrats/plutocrats through stock ownership. The bourgeoisie no longer own or control their own businesses in the US.
You’re using class terminology in a way that doesn’t conform to any leftist current and this deliberately confuses the conversation. Furthermore, the bourgeoisie are the class that owns Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. You are using Petite Bourgeoisie to refer to Bourgeoisie.
So the wealthiest people in the nation are the bourgeoisie according to Marx? Do you have a source?
Even in Marx’s time, there was stock speculation, he even won money on the stock market on occasion. The Bourgeoisie are owners of Capital, this includes large financial and stock Capital as well. The subsection of the bourgeoisie that faces proletarianization is the Petite Bourgeoisie.
You’d do well to read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
More like plutocrats. Aristocrats would be the nobel left after the fall of monarchies. Plutocrats are the rich corporate elite.
Or just go with the umbrella term: Oligarchs.
Fair. We still agree that our enemy is not the bourgeoisie. They’re becoming more of the proletariat every year.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/
Facebook memes… nice.
Frankly, I think the Professional Managerial Class is more of an impediment to progress in the US. They’re content with having 25-80% more than their peers, and thus will happily unite with the petite bourgeoisie to punch downwards at any progressive reforms.
The billionaires are the real problem. Targeting anyone else is just a distraction.
They are, but if you’re only focused on one element, without seeing the whole picture, than any solution is temporary at best.
It’s not just that billionaires are bad, their existence is a symptom of a larger broken system. And within that same broken system are millions of cogs that perpetuate and solidify the system’s processes. So without addressing the Professional Managerial Class and petite bourgeoisie’s complicity, the system would simply create more billionaires after enough time has passed.
To say that these other elements are “a distraction” is dismissive of larger root problems. So consider that your perspective is too narrow.
It’s not just that billionaires are bad, their existence is a symptom of a larger broken system.
Capitalism is the problem here. Billionaires (Capitalists) are not merely a symptom, they are deeply part of the root problem as they have the most power to fix things if they wanted to use their wealth for good rather than evil. I also want to point out that growing the wealth disparity with little to no regard for the damage done to society or the future is largely the entire point of capitalism.
