If the proletariat is the historic subject then why are proletarians useless retards while most great socialist figures were not proletarian themselves, i.e. didn’t produce surplus labor value.
<Karl Marx
>Son of a lawyer
>Journalist, philosopher, political economist
<Friedrich Engels
>Part-owner of textile mills
>Factory manager
<Vladimir Lenin
>Son of a noble-rank civil servant
>Lawyer and professional revolutionary
<Leon Trotsky
>From a relatively prosperous farming family
>Intellectual, journalist, political leader
<Rosa Luxemburg
>Middle-class background
>Academic theorist and political activist
<Antonio Gramsci
>Journalist and academic
<Mao Zedong
>Son of a wealthy peasant/landholder
>Teacher, librarian, organizer before revolution
<Ho Chi Minh
>Son of a scholar-official
>Worked abroad in service jobs but not industrial proletariat
<Eduard Bernstein
>Bank clerk turned theorist
>Middle-class background
<Karl Kautsky
>Son of artists
>Writer
<Jean Jaurès
>Middle-class background
>Academic and politician
<Olof Palme
>Upper-middle-class Swedish family
>Political leader
<Michael Harrington
>Academic and writer
<Robert Owen
>Factory owner
<Charles Fourier
>Bourgeois commercial clerk
<Henri de Saint-Simon
>Aristocrat
<Che Guevara
>Upper-middle-class Argentine background
>Medical doctor
<Fidel Castro
>Born to wealthy landowning family
>Lawyer and revolutionary leader
<Salvador Allende
>Physician
>Upper-middle-class Chilean background
<Kwame Nkrumah
>Teacher and intellectual
>Political leader
<Julius Nyerere
>Teacher and politician
<Herbert Marcuse
>Middle-class academic philosopher
<Theodor Adorno
>Philosopher and musicologist
<György Lukács
>Aristocratic Hungarian family
>Philosopher and literary critic
<Slavoj Žižek
>Middle-class academic
<Gustav Landauer
>Middle-class intellectual
<Dorothy Day
>Journalist
>Oh, well that‘s because privileged people have more free time!
Sure, but how doesn‘t that make THEM the historic subject? All the ideas seem to come from them while proletarians are rather some sort of mass to direct, either by the bourgeoisie or socialist intellectuals from privileged backgrounds.
Read more
>>2579375>implying communists, communism and the proletariat are separate from each other>implying communism is about educated saviors helping the proletariat out of their good willretarded thread
also most of the "great figures" in your shitty list are just that, bourgeois socialists, not even communists LOL
<Karl Marx
Proletarian writer
<Friedrich Engels
paypig
<Vladimir Lenin
Proletarian lawyer
<Leon Trotsky
>From a relatively prosperous farming family
>Intellectual, journalist, political leader
Not Communist
<Rosa Luxemburg
>Middle-class background
>Academic theorist and political activist
Not Communist
<Antonio Gramsci
>Journalist and academic
Not Communist
<Mao Zedong
worker peasant commander professor
<Ho Chi Minh
Peasant worker commander
<Eduard Bernstein
>Bank clerk turned theorist
>Middle-class background
Fascist
<Karl Kautsky
>Son of artists
>Writer
Fascist
<Jean Jaurès
>Middle-class background
>Academic and politician
Fascist
<Olof Palme
>Upper-middle-class Swedish family
>Political leader
Fascist
<Michael Harrington
>Academic and writer
Fascist
<Robert Owen
>Factory owner
Not Communust
<Charles Fourier
>Bourgeois commercial clerk
Not Communist
<Henri de Saint-Simon
>Aristocrat
Not Communist
<Che Guevara
Proletarian doctor commander
<Fidel Castro
Proletarian lawyer commander
<Salvador Allende
>Physician
>Upper-middle-class Chilean background
Not Communist
<Kwame Nkrumah
>Teacher and intellectual
>Political leader
Not Communist
<Julius Nyerere
>Teacher and politician
Not Communist
<Herbert Marcuse
>Middle-class academic philosopher
Fascist
<Theodor Adorno
>Philosopher and musicologist
Fascist
<György Lukács
>Aristocratic Hungarian family
>Philosopher and literary critic
Fascist
<Slavoj Žižek
>Middle-class academic
Fascist
<Gustav Landauer
>Middle-class intellectual
Fascist
<Dorothy Day
>Journalist
Fascist
>>2579526Lenin specialized is prol law.
>>2579526OP is completely wrong. The proletariat are greatest men. Every Communist was worker peasant except for engels who was paypig. The petty-bourgeois are all fascist liberal.
>>2579764Engels is the 1800's equivelant of a gacha game whale funding Chinese dengism.
>>2579780>lawyer>working classYou so goddamn stupid, boy. Lawyers work
>>2579786Working class and proletariat do not mean exactly the same.
>>2579780>>OP confused about the concept of class traitorsI‘m not. I‘m saying that most great socialist figures were not proletarian and am asserting that proletarians aren‘t actually the historic subject.
>>2579840Someone rape this man now
>>2579786>>2579861<working class is when you work XDfucking retard. i guess CEOs and neurosurgeons are proletarians too
>>2579844>most great socialist figures were not proletarian and am asserting that proletarians aren‘t actually the historic subjectgreat man idiocy
>>2579840>>2579868In Communism, they are. When a proletarian lawyer creates Communism, they are proletarian
>>2579868>CEOs are working classSomebody make him read
>omits Stalin, which was an actual proletarian
kys trot
>he didnt mention stalin
sus
Its because reading Marx requires some base level of education, which in the time period you just listed was mostly reserved for people who could afford to actually study - the sons and daughters of the petite-bougie for the most part.
The PMC are still wage labourers and therefore working class. Many have their interests aligned with the ruling class of course. But this is no different to religious retards who will defend the King at all costs.
the notion of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject is clearly a false idea. power does not move from the bottom-up, but from the top-down. always has.
It's funny how retards like OP call our movement Blanquist while they believe in spontaneity which is an idealist position invented by FUCKING ECONOMISTS LMAO
>>2579929That‘s a reasonable answer, however, nowadays such material should be easily accessible and still socialism is more prominently represented by those kinds of people that I‘ve listed. If the counter to that is that proletarians don‘t have the time to study Marxism because capitalism squeezes them out too much as to not become prominently represented in theory, praxis or both then this may be a good excuse but it still speaks for them not being the historic subject. They are rather some sort of victim that is either bossed around by capitalists or guided by privileged intellectuals, given that the circumstances are also ripe.
#rapeglownonymous
>>2579868non-owner CEOs are working class, yes.
sorry that material reality doesnt match your aesthetic.
>leftypolers don‘t even know the difference between proletarian and working class
Pathetic.
>>2579979there is no difference, pseud:
<The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capitalhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm also all successful communist revolutions were essentially peasant revolutions
>>2579993Ah yes
The historical lack of even a single successful communist revolution
Thanks for reminding me
>>2580001
>Idealism
Not even once
Proletarian just means you own little to no property and in aggregate work for a wage. Ancient Rome had a proletariat before the capitalist mode of production.
>>2580121the marxist term "proletariat" refers to wage workers.
thats it.
>>2580001
>the real movement is the unthinking masses
Why are they unthinking?
>>2580126Because of treats.
>>2580126The answer to that doesn't matter because their impotence, whatever may bring it about, excludes them from being the historical subject.
>>2580126theyre not unthinking; they just think the things which OP doesnt approve of.
>>2580125It comes from the Roman use etymologically. Marx differentiates only by saying that the “Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat”. That there are some proletariat better off than others was never a contradiction.
>>2580145the terms are not synonymous to each other
>>2580156They’re not synonymous because they refer to the proletariat under different relations of production and political economy, yes.
>>2580159no, the roman proletari are not comparable to the working class, which was the free labourers and slaves of antiquity, not soldiers.
>If the proletariat is the historic subject then why are proletarians useless retards
Every revolution like the Russian civil war were won by proletarians though, it's not like Lenin or Marx personally overthrew governments or destroyed armies with their own two hands. Hell, a lot of them didn't even personally lead proletarian armies either beyond serving as figureheads or giving political advice. What a retarded thread.
>>2580164yes, the workers are mere tools to revolutionaries
>>2580164No one said that proletarians weren't involved. I could flip your argument and say without people like Marx and Lenin the proletarians wouldn't have achieved the overthrow of capitalism to attempt socialism. In the way things played out proletarians play a role of an unconscious, ignorant mass that is merely commanded by the bourgeoisie or guided by privileged intellectuals.
>>2580159>proletariat under different relations of productionLMFAO the proletariat only exists under a capitalist mop you utter retard
>and political economysimply lol
>>2579997Only one existed and that was the paris commune.
>>2580162>>2580172> Lastly, I hope that my work will contribute toward eliminating the school-taught phrase now current, particularly in Germany, of so-called Caesarism. In this superficial historical analogy the main point is forgotten, namely, that in ancient Rome the class struggle took place only within a privileged minority, between the free rich and the free poor, while the great productive mass of the population, the slaves, formed the purely passive pedestal for these combatants. People forget Sismondi’s significant saying: The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat. With so complete a difference between the material, economic conditions of the ancient and the modern class struggles, the political figures produced by them can likewise have no more in common with one another than the Archbishop of Canterbury has with the High Priest Samuel.t.Marx
The point being that what separates these two is the historical conditions they inhabit and the position it puts them in.
>>2580164Seeing as Russia was overwhelmingly made up of peasants I think it's more accurate to say every revolution is won by the peasantry
>>2579375>If the proletariat is the historic subjectThey're not the Party is.
>>2580461the October revolution was done by the russian proletariat. where the fuck was this peasantry in petrograd, moscow, the donbass at that time? (there wasn't any)
Adulthood is realizing most proles are retards and that champagne socialists are and always were based, because they are the only ones who lead and develop theory.
>>2580126i like not thinking
A revolution is the act of millions, primarily workers
>>2580521>>2580533>most proles are retards and that champagne socialists are and always were basedlol at these middle classers retards conveniently presenting themselves as revolutionary
>lead and develop theoryradlibs cope by treating communism like a saintly lore of savior complex logic lol god damn
you dont go hunting for "recruits" for communism or try to teach it on twitter or in classrooms. you dont preach communism to the prole you show them their own interests through organizing and leadership. when their movement grows strong enough, communism comes out of it
>>2580599>act of millionsit could be hundreds of thousands too, it depends
>>2579979Rape this guy too
>>2579981>>2579840Mods ban these falsifiers NOW!
>>2580844The mods are falsifiers howeverbeit
>>2580605The sad thing is that if you read marx its pretty clear he’s commenting on the revolutionary and militant working class movements that existed a long time before he ever entered politics and which all of european society was being forced to respond to
>>2579840>>2579840>Working class and proletariat do not mean exactly the same.Nationalist, retard
>>2579375>>2580605>>2585598IMO the simple answer is that the bourgeoisie were still largely historically progressive at the time. Marx was a visionary but the transition from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat as the revolutionary subject was a process that has taken much longer than Marx expected. I think that today the proletariat are the revolutionary subject much more than they were in the past.
>>2592218
the rulers are above politics since they fund wars on every side and gain the profits. wall street supported the nazis and the soviet union. theres no loyalty.
Wtf are Palme and Zizek doing in this list?!
>>2592218
You have a point, Naziman
>>2579375Material conditions.
If you come from a wealthy background, you have better access to education, food, living conditions, etc. It's simple reality.
>Sure, but how doesn‘t that make THEM the historic subject?It doesn't work that way. The material conditions of society shapes the man, not the other way around.
<Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. >>2593345To expand on this, what do you think would happen if you transported Napoleon to today's world? Do you think he would've had the same impact? Of course not. He would no longer be relevant, his actions would be meaningless.
The material conditions of society are the ones that determine history.
>>2593412
Uhhh guess who's the driving force of society…
>>2593518It’s not the proletariat or the bourgeois
Fidels dad was literally a slave owner
Ángel Castro once had 500 Haitians working for him, and at the time of his death 400 Haitians on the estate.[1]: 28 Castro prospered and was eventually able to buy 1800 hectares and lease a further 10,000 hectares of land which yielded pine wood, livestock, and sugarcane. It is said that this prosperity was due in part to harsh treatment of his mostly Haitian workers, and various illegal exploits. Although perhaps slightly inaccurate in detail, there is a vivid description of late 1920s life, especially in reference to the plight of Haitian contract labour at Antilla and Banes in Bancroft in the northern part of what was then Oriente province.[7] Later in life Fidel recalled his father's corruption, buying votes from the existing political classes, but by the standards of the day he was probably less harsh than many proprietors. During the winter he would hire redundant workers from neighbouring plantations to weed the ground. He was an obeisant man, kind to his children, spoiled them even, and rarely lost his temper, except at dominoes. By the 1950s Ángel was worth about $500,000 (equivalent to $5,900,000 in 2024).
Unique IPs: 44