As time goes on and the tasks of the industry undergo automatization, most jobs are left to the part-time workers. Hasn't anyone else noticed this trend? We call them petite-bourgeoisie and yes variably but mostly tend to be since the nature of their work is not collectivist and is akin to the statuses of small business owners (individual entrepreneurs), shopkeepers (of small businesses), small-scale merchants (without a proper shop), semi-autonomous peasants (now just semi-autonomous poor entrepreneurs), and artisans. I feel that class relations have changed and nobody has bothered to do a concise analysis of it, instead clinging to the same labels, looking back and trying to reapply or justify the changed situation with outdated concepts. For example the "peasantry" Marx described is not the same as the poor jobless homeless, they were literally farmers with limited land-ownership and yet I see people calling hobos and the general poor as peasants. I am lead to believe the term proletariat barely applies anymore, the industrial proletariat is being scaled down and once society no longer relies on its labor then nothing makes it a revolutionary subject since it cannot bring about change through strikes or anything - it will just disappear once its no longer needed anywhere. My thesis is that the majority of the current workers are in the sphere of services and that the revolutionary subject may be IT workers, programmers, generally technicians and scientists which can understand the machinery and affect it. Machinery has already enveloped most of society, so any change that comes upon it will affect it and whoever can affect it can take control of the social order.
Most workers don't work a single job anymore, they do part-time jobs here and there to live by. In the historical situation for which Marx was writing, workers generally lived and died the same profession they took up.
And yes we've had this thread before, though there is a different response each time so I'm trying it against to see what comes out as a response. I present it in a different way and with a different flag that may or may not even be related.
My current thesis is that the movement of the declassed (as Bukharin labeled it) might have the upper hand with the growth of capitalism, the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production do lead to a sort of decomposition, but generally don't appear to be able to lead to collapse on their own unless it brings about omnicide.
The industrial proletariat can only exist as long as the industry needs manual intervention, when manual intervention is deduced to management rather than physical labor it is only those professions which can control the machinery and know how it functions that are able to intervene in production at all. There are less and less factory workers since their manual labor to operate the machinery is not needed - most just move onto working in logistic hubs or construction, but what happens when they're no longer needed there either?
Also FYI, this is just speculative thought experiment, I may or may not believe it, just putting it out there to see what others think.
348 posts and 36 image replies omitted.>>2405483so to recap:
(1) you affirm private property relations under communism
(2) you say that private property isnt simply property owned by private entities
(3) i ask for a definition. you say to read marx.
(4) i present marx - you tell me to stop reading marx and go to a chatbot instead.
i asked the chatbot what form of property homes should be considered and it said "petty private property". according to marx, wikipedia and the chatbot; homes count as private property. you refuse to define "private property", but do you still disagree?
>>2405487>>2405487Ok here's your ruble gimme your toothbrush
More seriously,
Private property is used to extract surplus from labour, where is the surplus?
>>2405492It's why private property causes crisis son, because it used to exploit labour
Perhaps try thinking on a level that is a bit higher than a chatbot dredging through sources finding snippets to support an argument?
I think this discussion about housing and shit vindicates OP's position about how the working class has been effectively declassed.
I mean look at >just keep it as a reserve that protects you from the ruthlessness of the labor market from
>>2404331 anon. The core of this argument is that houses should be considered MoP not because it produces anything but because it reduces your revolutionary potential.
And here lies the tacit surrender to the concept that the distinction of Workers and bourgeoisie cannot be measured by their relationship to means of production but rather capacity and willingness to inflict a sort of Divine Violence against the status quo.
>>2403529>but not all kinds of propertyif there are different kinds of property, then your definition is necessarily just a name for a set of different things and not something universal that has always existed in reality. there are no generalizations in real life, they are just ideas we make up in our heads to help us simplify and understand reality, but they aren't a replacement for it. check
>>>/leftypol/2403312 and
>>>/leftypol/2403381marx used the word property in that context as understood under capitalism, but he himself invented the method I'm using to educate you: that you have to look at all social relations in their context, material and historical
>>2405501>MoPor just a store of value?
>>2405506>there are no generalizations in real lifehave families always existed in society? yes or no?
>marx used the word property in that context as understood under capitalismno, marx directly references different kinds of property from different eras, but still sees that indeed, property always existed, just in different contexts. to imply that "property" didnt exist before the 16th century is beyond idiotic.
>>2405524>money (property) is a store of valueyes
>inequality isnt measured by money and propertywhat is the metric, then?
>>2405539actors are prole
if you think a millionaire or billionaire cannot be a prole you are a liberal and not a socialist
>>2405617I already did, that
My current criticism is that you went for an abstract definition and called it grounding, that's the sort of "thinking" LLMs do
Clever with words but utterly lacking ground in the real world
>>2405631>I am having a bit of trouble handling the long context just like an LLM, and I talk and think like one too! TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!No
If I wanted to deal with this nonsense I could talk to an LLM and you've already wasted enough of my time being dumber than a chatbot, bye 👋
>>2405644I answered with
> Potentially yesBecause you were talking about an actor, which could have potentially made almost all of it by being hired and working as an employee
>>2405646Then that's a simple no
>>2405648just explain why you disagree with marx
>>2405649CEOs receive a salary. are they working class?
>>2405521let me put it retardedly simple
property under capitalism is nothing more than a legal relationship to a product of labor
property under communism will refer to the use-relationship the subject has with the object.
how that will 'look' like, we can't tell.
>>2405788>property under capitalism is a legal conceptyes, such as in all societies. theft as a legal category has always existed so long as there have been states.
>property in communism is about usewhat if two or more people want to "use" the same thing at the same time? isnt this why we moved past barter?
>we dont know what this will look likeright, so you want communism, but dont even know what communism is. 🤔
>>2405657
>CEOs receive a salary. are they working class?Yes, they are.
Why wouldn't they be?
>>2407296lmfao
>>2407300finally a marxist on this shithole
>>2407304>Shelter is renting, not owning.and what percent of workers of the world rent from a bank but are still counted as "owning" in statistics?
>>2407308>anarchist talking pointsthis is marxism 101 nothing anarchist about it. whats actually incredible is this no u bullshit with nothing to back it up. its you who keeps regurgitating proudhonism and pretending its marx
>>2407381yes it does depend entirely on the relation to the means of production.
feel free to provide an alternative any time
>>2406024i know you're retarded troglodyte getting off on intellectual ragebaiting but i am not an idiot and can recognize you're threading thinnly to getting it, but refuse to do so
you miss out cruical points
property existed in all
CLASS societies. states have existed as long as
CLASS society exists.
the bourgeoisie is determined by its ownership over the mop (their private property is used to create social wealth; the production process (use process) is socialized, the end result (product of labor) is privatized).
>you want communism, but dont even know what communism isread marx. i'm done
>>2407460then why are you bringing it up in the context of the industrial proletariat?
what percent of the industrial proletariat own their own home?
is that percentage so significant that it has an effect on the the entire industrial proletariat as a class?
do you have anything relevant to say to the thread or are you just here to argue semantics out of context and be wrong?
>>2407296>CEOs are working class>>2407304so in communism, the state can own property, but citizens cant?
>>2407309>private property is an unequal social relationshipthats all social relationships
>It is exploitatiion which defines private propertyso owning things is exploitation?
>>2407448>property existed in all class societies.yes, which is all societies in history.
>read marxi already did:
>>2405475 >>2405482>im doneyes you are. you want communism but dont even know what it is.
Unique IPs: 25