True! People need to understand money is not class. Even those athletes making $100,000,000 are still, technically, workers because they sell their labor. Now if they go open a clothing brand and make most of their money from owning that then they're no longer a worker. The highly paid athlete, while rich, stops getting paid if they stop working, where as the owner cutting their checks gets paid regardless of if they wake up that day.
Class is determined by ownership, not income.
And lastly, bourgeoisie can be class traitors and advocate for socialism, see Engels. Though they need to be scrutinized much more closely, it is still technically possible.
This is a bit oversimplified though. Those that do earn a lot of money, like athletes, are able to purchase other people's labour due to earning so much money, even if they don't own the means of production. Hasan for instance, will employ people like video editors and moderators. Athletes will employ trainers, physiotherapists, etc. Due to their high income, and ability to use other's labour to further benefit them, their class interests are more likely to align with the people that own the means of production, even though they do not own it themselves.
This isn't even considering the modern "PMC", I'm not mentioning it because there's a lot of disagreement there
"they are able to..." Yes, but if they don't then they're still workers. If you get paid a wage contingent on your labor, you're a worker. If you make money from scalping other peoples' labor, you're petite or bourgeoisie.
As for PMC, if one isn't a manager that manages people that they decide to hire/fire, then they're not PMC. That phrase has been so butchered online.
True! People need to understand money is not class. Even those athletes making $100,000,000 are still, technically, workers because they sell their labor. Now if they go open a clothing brand and make most of their money from owning that then they're no longer a worker. The highly paid athlete, while rich, stops getting paid if they stop working, where as the owner cutting their checks gets paid regardless of if they wake up that day.
Class is determined by ownership, not income.
And lastly, bourgeoisie can be class traitors and advocate for socialism, see Engels. Though they need to be scrutinized much more closely, it is still technically possible.
This is a bit oversimplified though. Those that do earn a lot of money, like athletes, are able to purchase other people's labour due to earning so much money, even if they don't own the means of production. Hasan for instance, will employ people like video editors and moderators. Athletes will employ trainers, physiotherapists, etc. Due to their high income, and ability to use other's labour to further benefit them, their class interests are more likely to align with the people that own the means of production, even though they do not own it themselves.
This isn't even considering the modern "PMC", I'm not mentioning it because there's a lot of disagreement there
"they are able to..." Yes, but if they don't then they're still workers. If you get paid a wage contingent on your labor, you're a worker. If you make money from scalping other peoples' labor, you're petite or bourgeoisie.
As for PMC, if one isn't a manager that manages people that they decide to hire/fire, then they're not PMC. That phrase has been so butchered online.
The thing is once people earn that much money, 99% of the time they do employ others. It's how capitalism functions
I am aware. I am arguing against categorical classifications.
People use it to mean professional media class and professional managerial class. Its stright iut the window now.
The internet is where words go to die.