We are this close to class consciousness š¤
We are this close to class consciousness š¤
Comments
136-
-
The number of "capitalists" with a negative net worth and assets that generate little or no profit is astounding. They're just going through a hard time, though. They're going to be one of the few that makes it.
-
There is no such thing as middle class, you're either in the capitalist class or working class.
-
Yes there is ... middle class are the people that believe there is a middle class, without knowing that they are actually working class
-
"There's no such thing as a rectangle, you're either a parallelogram or you're not a parallelogram."
The idea of a middle class has absolutely nothing to do with socialism analysis of class relations; it's simply a measure of quality of life.
-
A measure of quality of life quite vague and incalculable because as humans we tend to manage money poorly sometimes in our lives.
The idea of a middle class is just capitalist propaganda to get 9-5 workers who earn significantly more than blue collar workers but look like 0 along with other lesser paid jobs when looking at wealth chart that has Billionaires
-
Yeah, this level of pedantry does no one any good, and just makes one come off as snotty and condescending.
The 'dialogue' in the OP is the same way. 99% of the people who'd say "I'm a capitalist" define it no more specifically as 'I like capitalism', which in turn is typically defined no more specifically than 'supplying what the market wants = profit' by the vast majority of people.
Talking down to people does the opposite of fostering solidarity.
-
-
There is, but it isn't the liberal middle class that's some arbitrary amount of money you earn as a salary, but petty bourgeois or in other words small business owners.
They're in an unique position where they both own a business and live off of that income but are also forced to work in these businesses alongside their employees due to them not being wealthy enough to fully offload everything about it to the working class.
-
I read Thomas Pikettys Capital in the 21st Century recently, and it informed me on this topic. I still agree with you that those are the two most important class distinctions, but if I'm speaking with someone who is capable of nuance in the realm of socioeconomics I would give this statistic from that book: The top 1% own 30% of the wealth, the top 10% (which includes the 1%) owns 50% of the wealth, the next 40% (so not including those two prior categories) owns the rest, and the bottom 50% owns nothing. So there is now a patrimonial middle class that serves as a buffer between 'rich' and 'poor', but this statistical analysis doesn't really help with getting people aware of the fact that they are the poor and that they are poor BECAUSE a select few are outrageously wealthy.
-
The petty bourgeois, which encompasses coop workers, self-employed artisans, small business owners that put in many hours but also pay wages to workers, lawyers with partner status, etc. are a middle class. They own their means of production to a large extent but also put in labour.
During times of crisis they align with one of the big classes or the other largely depending on which of those subgroups they belong (the shopkeep will generally align with the factory owner, the coop worker and the artisan usually align with the factory worker). Those that align with capital often end up becoming fascists.
-
-
It's funny how corporations rebranded workers into collaborators and entrepreneurs, and ironic how many idiots fell for that. "No, I'm not a worker, I'm a COLLABORATOR!!"
-
I'm a mercenary, thank you.
-
-
*wage slave
-
"I don't wanna lose these chains! They're all that I have!"
-
The last thing I want to hear is how great capitalism is - as told by someone that capitalism refers to as capital.
-
The person who happily answers "yup" to the first two questions isn't going to understand the meaning of "You're a worker."
-
I agree. I can nearly taste it.
-
But you have a truck. A truck! Don't worry about driving for less than minimum wage as an owner-operator.
-
Nah, we're still light years away from class consciousness given how much stupid shit the self-proclaimed "class conscious" people write and who they support.
-
Are you referring to democratic socialists who try to work within the law (like Bernie and Mamdani)?
-
Yes, but also ML's that come from "Deprogram" podcast who uncritically support China/Russia/Nationalism and liberal types who rally behind capitalist political figures for "more liberalism" and who consider it class consciousness (like what's happening in Turkey and Serbia).
Not necessarily calling these movements and groups bad, there might be class conscious particles in them even, but they ultimately reinforce our class society and the ideas/mechanisms of it.
-
-
-
what's wrong with being a worker? Who is this post making fun about?
-
This post is not making fun of workers. Too often we see workers identify with rich capitalists and see their own lack of capital as a personal failing. But once we recognize the difference between the two classes we can dispel ourselves of that notion.
Members of the working class sell their labor in order to gain money and buy the necessities of life. The ruling class buys labor in order to see a profit on the money they already have. Since capitalism compels the capitalist to make a profit, they must pay the worker a fraction of the value that the worker creates. (The business owner wants to stay in business and the shareholders demand every-increasing value.) Hence we should not consider ourselves capitalists: we are workers who are being exploited, as necessitated by the system.
-
I think OP is operating under the idea that workers aren't voting for their own interests (or alternatively not holding a revolution) because they don't see themselves in one of two broad categories.
-
Elon Musk of course, dude works more hours than most of us. He even slept in tesla factory for quite some time
EDIT: Obvious /j, but at the same time not really. If you think CEOs don't work, then that sounds a bit delusional
-
-
There are ideological capitalists and capital holders.
There are people who are capital holders who are ideologically left economically, some instances as far as full socialist.
There are people who hold little to no capital at all but believe capitalism is the best possible system.
As a percentage of their respective classes though, the later class traitor is unfortunately more common than the former class traitor.
-
No I do not work. I use to work so guess I graduated to Capitalist?
-
Per definition, a capitalist is a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
If you are, congratulations, you're rich.
-
I think we can be both. Most of our pensions depend on it for growth.
Might as well put it with the rich people money, because they rule everything and aren't about to let that shit sink in the long term...
-
You guys have pensions?
-
-
lmao OP thinks this is some kind of eye opening epiphany or something. Workers know they're workers, what they need is the realization who represents them and who is the enemy.
-
-
I know what I am, wtf you want me to do about it?
-
It helps to be aware of things the capital class does to try to divide workers.
For example any story about generation gaps.
It's also good to support less wealthy workers when you realize that you are all workers. Join a union even if you're well-paid and relatively safe.
Tech industry folks realizing that they are not in the capital class should be welcomed, not blocked by gatekeeping.
There's a lot!
-
-
I don't agree that capitalism is a good system, but I also agree that those who can work should work, because that's the only way society can function and get better.
If we were a hunter gatherer tribe and no one hunted or gathers we would die.
Just because we have cars and computers doesn't mean no one has to grow food or sell food or clean the water and build the houses.
-
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.
-
Get out of here with your
ChristianMarxist propaganda! /s -
I agree with the "to their ability" but not so much with "to their need"
If everyone worked to just sustain themselves, those left in the fringes suffer and die. We need people who are willing to work more than what they need to in order to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.
-
-
Through technology we have become way more productive though. Every increase in productivity can either be used to better the standard of living (assuming that requires more work) or be used to lower the amount of time people have to work. I think the people that want to work just because they like it are a big enough portion of the world population to feed and house every single person on the planet. But instead, the increase in productivity is being gobbled up by a few people at the top. (see productivity / pay gap)
-
You can work without furthering capitalism. Not everything is for-profit.
-
-
These are not mutually exclusive terms.
-
Definitions, especially definitions of political terms, vary a lot these days. But if we go by the leftist (and original) definition, the terms are definitely mutually exclusive.
-
-
You can be both a capitalist and a worker...
Not only that, but being a capitalist doesn't necessarily you're giga rich, it just means you think favorably of capitalism as an economic system.
-
it just means you think favorably...
By that logic, a literal slave could be a capitalist so long as they believe in the efficacy and morality of capitalism.
That doesn't even track the layperson usage of "capitalist".edit: Apparently this last claim is false.
-
-
-
I'm here wondering what exactly does OP want because other systems tend to be more abusive towards workers and nowadays people screaming they don't want any work but all the benefits just sounds like lazy gen-z bums who watched too many tiktoks about how communism is utopia
Capitalism in itself isn't inherently bad. It gets bad when the government does not put enough regulations, anti-trust/monopolistic laws in place, lacks in social systems/wealth distribution/taxing the rich, etc.. Plenty of capitalist countries who are doing just fine. US is a good example about how not to do capitalism if you care about the people.
-
-
So you want to change the name of ideology, that postulates free market relations as important part of human freedoms? Fine, it can be Classic Liberalism if you want.
-
i dont see why even communism would mean there are no free markets: in the most basic definitiv communism is (economically) a system in which the working people control the means of production. this could e.g. be achieved if all companies were work coops - thus workers controlled the companies and therefore the means of production if we dont change anything else there will still be a free market
-
Uh-huh. How do we define means of production? Can I come to your home and take your PC? I mean that's means of productions alright. So it shouldn't be privatized, and thus, traded.
(are we seriously discussing communism supporting free market? are we seriously considering communism as a sane ideology? what next, try nazism, because real nazism was never tried?)
-
Michael would definitely be the one to lack class consciousness, not Pam
Michael would be aware for everyone, but he would get it wrong constantly
"I DECLARE SOCIALISM!"
"...you can't just declare socialism."
Moreover, I think he'd be a pawn for a pseudo-communist, totalitarian regime. Draped in party-supplied luxuries, he'd still imagine himself a member of the proletariat and a champion for its cause. That's my take on a Stalinist version of the office anyway.