then they're still bourgeoisie. the proletariat are not just those who sell their labour to survive, but those who MUST sell their labour to survive as they have no other asset than themselves
in addition to what our comrade said - the landlord is profiting off owning something and extracting profit from someone else's labor, which is translated into money (rent). That's a bourgeoisie, baby
Whether you are successful at generating profit does not define your class, your exploitation does.
if you're being expoloited - you're a prole
if you're exploiting someone else - bougie
exploiting yourself but still selling your labor - petite bougie
More rambl-y answer: proles reproduce in labor in something like 1/3 of hours worked (don’t remember specific number, but remarkably consistent across countries). Conceivably if worker takes 2/3 of remaining value from bourgeoisie activity (investing or lording) she is in equilibrium on societal scale. The issue is if not everyone doing it, they are still more bourgeoisie, as they take something not from society, but individual.
deleted by creator
then they're still bourgeoisie. the proletariat are not just those who sell their labour to survive, but those who MUST sell their labour to survive as they have no other asset than themselves
deleted by creator
in addition to what our comrade said - the landlord is profiting off owning something and extracting profit from someone else's labor, which is translated into money (rent). That's a bourgeoisie, baby
Whether you are successful at generating profit does not define your class, your exploitation does.
if you're being expoloited - you're a prole
if you're exploiting someone else - bougie
exploiting yourself but still selling your labor - petite bougie
I thought petit boug were kulaks and the like
Like they own their means of production and profit off the labor of others, but they have distinct material interests from the national boug
deleted by creator
They are synthesis :twisted:
More rambl-y answer: proles reproduce in labor in something like 1/3 of hours worked (don’t remember specific number, but remarkably consistent across countries). Conceivably if worker takes 2/3 of remaining value from bourgeoisie activity (investing or lording) she is in equilibrium on societal scale. The issue is if not everyone doing it, they are still more bourgeoisie, as they take something not from society, but individual.