/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>489741
Except, in practice, the only people who are clearly petit bourgeoisie are people who invest capital into others' labor, or, at the very least, into land. This includes a lot of artisans, but not all artisans by any means. Most of the people who can easily be defined as small business owners are people who employ other people. The idea that anyone who owns a paint brush and sells works of arts is clearly discernible as petit bourgeoisie actually immediately runs into a major problem when you consider that Marx includes "tinkers," "literati," and "organ grinders" as lumpen proles, and these are groups whose relationship with their own labor is similar to that of freelance artists. Where with an owner of a small shop we can actually draw a hard line, with an owner of a paintbrush or a street organ there is no actual inherent discernible separation based purely on the ownership of those specific pieces of personal property. A freelance artist who does not invest in others labor is not discernible as a "small business owner," and demanding some kind of imagined purity on this is the kind of useless "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" silliness that Marxism really doesn't need more of.

>>489742
>This includes a lot of artisans, but not all artisans by any means.
I said "independent artists."
>freelance artists
Define "freelance" because this word is a bourgeois class collaborationist doublespeak.

>>489743
>I said "independent artists."
If you're talking about solo work then no. I don't think that is generally something anyone can strictly define, across the board, as small business ownership.
>Define "freelance" because this word is a bourgeois class collaborationist doublespeak.
"1. a person who pursues a profession without a long-term commitment to any one employer
2. a person who acts independently without being affiliated with or authorized by an organization"

per Merriam-Webster.

>>489744
>1. a person who pursues a profession without a long-term commitment to any one employer
That's a freelancing proletarian.
>2. a person who acts independently without being affiliated with or authorized by an organization
That's still a bourgeois doublespeak that includes both proles and petty bougies.

>>489744
Regardless, this is off-topic. I just wanted to know how literate and/or petite bourgeois the online left is.

>>489742
You know, you could've actually responded to me by saying that many independent artists do not rely on art as their primary source of income. Which is a solid argument. But I'm talking more about those who can sustain themselves purely through donations and commissions. Ofc many people who can do that also start hiring employees (like famous YouTubers) and opening their own businesses. But they don't have to.

Also, it seems like online leftists are afraid of classifying anyone whom they support as petite bourgeois as if petite bourgeoisie are this evil incarnate. But why? Petite bourgeoisie, like lumpens, have ambiguous class interests and can side with anyone really.

Reminder that small businesses compared to corporate employers actually tend to pay worse wages, have worse benefits, and skirt a lot of workplace safety requirements that only kick in when you have a minimum number of employees.

>>489749
Leftists throw around the term “bourgeois” out of jealousy. Go on Ogre. Alot of the patrons there are pro-NEET and dream of being a trust fund baby so they don’t have to work.

>>489753
This.
Small businesses also tend to have more skeletons in their closet. A lot of murders or forged papers due to wanting to control the profits.

Corporate entities tend to rely on small businesses as subsidiaries to begin with

>>497167
the use of the term bourgeois as an expression of ressentiment instead of an analytical category (or even just as a good old fashioned insult) isn't exactly new, at least not in its origins, moralism and hyperpolitics has been rotting out the left for a long time now
contemporary leftists cant seem to separate propaganda from theory nor pragmatic compromises from practice

>>497352
Leftism died in the 1970s. What we have now are either radlibs or reactionaries with red aesthetics.

Leftypol type leftists are the kind that if they were to live in a real leftist society, they would kill themselves because they aren’t gonna get their freebies.

The closest thing we had to leftism was the Soviet Union and they say it was a bastardized example of leftism

>>497355
>freebies
The USSR had massive public housing and jobs programs. I don't know what larger "freebie" undertaking could possibly be implied here.

>>497358
That's not really "freebies" though because people were required to work and most didn't make more than a certain amount.

Stalin and his ilk didn't tolerate wilful slackers.

>>497358
By freebies I mean free booze and snacks and "state sponsored" girlfriends.

>>497366
They offered massive jobs programs, which is a condition which did more to end "wilful slacking" than any punitive measure they might take.

>>497368
I 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.

>>497358
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 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…

>>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 it
But 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.

>>497377
>from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
thats communism
>They also largely don't exist.
we're not talking about the vast majority of people here now are we