No.489741[Reply]
Not just radlibs but anti-idpol leftists too. Take the simple concept of the petite bourgeoisie. Some think that celebrities are petite bourgeoisie because they're… paid more (many WESTERN celebrities do own businesses however). Some think independent artists are not petite bourgeoisie because they… don't employ others… Which is also a weird definition since the petite bourgeoisie are defined by being a self-exploiting class, not by employing others:
<"The independent peasant or handicraftsman is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is capitalist; as labourer he is his own wage-labourer. As capitalist he therefore pays himself his wages and draws his profit on his capital; that is to say, he exploits himself as wage-labourer, and pays himself, in the surplus-value, the tribute that labour owes to capital. Perhaps he also pays himself a third portion as landowner (rent), in exactly the same way, as we shall see later, that the industrial capitalist, when he works with his own capital, pays himself interest, regarding this as something which he owes to himself not as industrial capitalist but qua capitalist pure and simple."
<
< – Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts: Theories of Surplus-Value
Do you agree? And if so, why do they claim to know theory if they haven't read anything? And is online leftism petite bourgeois?
14 posts omitted. Click reply to view.>>
No.497368
>>497358By freebies I mean free booze and snacks and "state sponsored" girlfriends.
>>
No.497369
>>497366They offered massive jobs programs, which is a condition which did more to end "wilful slacking" than any punitive measure they might take.
>>497368I feel like that's an infinitely small subset of people who I virtually never encountered
at all before I started using this site. Tbh I kind of think they're some kind of op.
The Leftypol demographic has been really, really dumb since Bunkerchan got couped.
>>
No.497374
>>497358nothing is a freebie in a society where everyone has to work and receives the full value of their work
this is the ideal of socialism, to each according to their contribution, whether or not the ussr achieved it
able bodied people who want things like public housing or healthcare without putting in the socially necessary work to pay for it are not socialists…
>>
No.497377
>>497374>nothing is a freebie in a society where everyone has to work and receives the full value of their work>this is the ideal of socialism, to each according to their contribution, whether or not the ussr achieved itBut also
"from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." It's not the exact opposite of what you said, because there is
some overlap, but these are still very different statements.
>able bodied people who want things like public housing or healthcare without putting in the socially necessary work to pay for it are not socialists…They also largely don't exist.
The vast majority of people who want public housing and healthcare as social services already work jobs, or, if they don't, have a lack of opportunity for work due to an exclusionary private jobs system which creates so many unemployed people by design that the US has consistently had to cook the books by redefining what it means to be "unemployed" to exclude people who've given up on finding work. A major point of socialism on a largescale state level is to put the profits of labor towards the greater good and democratize their usage rather than just enriching the capitalist and rentierist enslavers of humanity. The point isn't to lay some previously non-existent burden onto the backs of the people, but to enable the people's labor to go towards actual common progress and benefit.
>>
No.497378
>>497377>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needthats communism
>They also largely don't exist.we're not talking about the vast majority of people here now are we