"there are now 7 classes, every time a marxist complains we will add another class"
All you dumbasses trying to organize and shit when you could just put on some classical music and drink some wine and become bourgeois.
Me listening to Clair de Lune on YouTube and drinking Barefoot merlot:
:porky-happy:
hands you a bag of cheetos and watches as you drop like three classes :troll:
The labor aristocracy isn't a class, there are two classes and lots of contradictions and bad class consciousness, fuck the middle class.
I thought there were three. Proletariat, bourgeoisie and the girl reading this
The lumpen are different from regular proles in the same way the labor aristocracy is. If lumpen are a different class, so are PMC. Unless I'm misunderstanding or missing something.
i don't think the lumpen is a distinct class, they're regular prole that don't distinguish themselves as prole. PMCs are meant to be a different class, somewhere between proletariat and bourgeoisie
Pretty sure petit bourgeoisie are managers and small business owners, they employ people. PMCs employ nobody but have either technical skills and/or college education that guarantees them a comfy spot in a company. It's a pretty transient class, I wouldn't rely on it for material analysis tbh.
Well it depends on what role a PMC has within a company. If they are, like you say, just someone that gets to have a well paying job within the company then yeah they aren't the petit bourgeoisie, but to me the term can also mean mid level managers, i.e. a stage below owners/shareholders/executives who represent the bourgeoisie, but who do not rely on their labor for income, instead relying on placing themselves high enough above the proletariat to reap benefits from being a lackey to the bourgeoisie in the form of managing the proletariat, which I would classify as petit bourgeois. However I also think this distinction is not that important when analysing the overall relationship between capital and labor.
I want people to understand, strategically, it is completely and totally essential to counter this.
This is a strategic counter to class consciousness, it has the goal of making it harder for the left to sow class consciousness by confusing the shit out of people.
There are two important things you must teach people to counter this:
-
Teach people that there are 2 different definitions of class. The liberal definitions and the socialist definitions.
-
Teach people the socialist definitions of class.
I can't stress enough how important it is to do these two things as much as possible. One gets people to disregard liberal definitions of class while the other teaches people the information they need to gain a real and educated class consciousness.
The only reason they put garbage like this out there is to create brainworms that make it harder for the people to become conscious.
Or, as I like to explain it,
"do you have the ability to sit on your doodoo ass and do nothing and still live more than comfortably
or don't you"
-
Me, a traditional Marxist-Leninist: "The PMC isn't real. It can't hurt you."
Australia:
This isn't the worst thing I've ever seen, but it still misses the point that, when a Marxist talks about class, it is entirely around their relationship to the means of production, and folks, you either own it or you don't.
Social capital is an interesting concept and useful for understanding modes of social reproduction, but it does not, on it's own, constitute enough difference to create a wholely different class within a rational conception of an efficient economic framework of society. The whole crux of a Marxist argument (though I would hesitate to say Marx himself argued this exactly) is that capitalism, over time, erodes and vulgarizes all social capital, which is why there are only two classes that are the drivers of history.
Not gonna watch the video, but on the topic of the middle class, I do think it's fair to identify non-proletarian, non-bourgeois classes such as peasants and artisans, who produce commodities on an individual basis and sell those commodities to the market. Proletarianization was an ongoing process in Marx's time, and is still on going in ours.
An example that I am familiar with is clinical pathology in the US. At the present time, pathologists are professionals that straddle the line between proletarians and the petite bourgeois. Some pathologists own their own practice/firm, while others are employees of healthcare systems. However, there is a push to replace pathologists with digital pathology software that could be operated by a purely proletarian technician. You can see plenty of other pushes to proletarianize the healthcare system, breaking up the myriad responsibilities of highly-paid professions and replacing them with software and low-paid technicians.
The emergence/destruction of the artisan class isn't a purely one-way street either. A example of this would be the progression of web video content. In the 2000s, you saw the emergence of an artisan population with a lot of self-employed web video creators who would distribute their videos on their own site. However, over time monopolization has lead to proletarianization. Now, these previously quasi-independent creators are now unofficial employees of Youtube.
non-bourgeois classes such as artisans
lol you mean the people who first created the middle class hundreds of years ago? Arguably the guild system's corruption was only matched by our modern corporate system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Economic_consequences
The artisan class still exists, but in a marginal fashion. Either as holdovers from feudal institutions or in the ferment of emerging industries. Again, proletarianization continues to dissolve that class, but it's a still ongoing process. The idea of a purely two-class society, with one class that does all the labor and another that does all the owning, is the horizon of capitalist development, not its current state.
Is the artisan class still considered relevant in the west? It seems to me like anyone that you might say fits into this is actually prole or petit-bourg. I guess musicians who release independently? It doesn't seem like the list is that big though?
