Can someone tell me about whether there are classes inside the proletariat other than the lumpenproletariat, the labor aristocracy, and the managerial class? Is there a pyramid for it? Is there a similar differentiation on the classes constituting the bourgeoisie? What'd the lower middle class be defined, as a term? Can someone tell me more about the view on the middle class in general?
Astrology for multipolaroids
>>2640449The multipolar world is already over doe
>>2640928I look like this and I act like this.
So, I'll answer this without the sarcasm of other anons.
1) The lumpenproletariat is not a subset of the proletariat. It is distinct. They do not sell their labor power. It refers to prostitutes and other criminals.
2) There are other classes outside of working class and capitalist class. The peasantry still exists in much of the third world. There's still aristocrats in England who live off of taxpayer dollars. Landlords are also a separate class. There's also "La Boheme" or artists who are too poor to be validly considered members of the petty-bourgeoisie.
3) The only really meaningful division within the working class is unionized and non-unionized. Not white collar and blue collar or tradesmen and office workers. It's how they are ORGANIZED that matters more so than what they do for work.
>>2642524>The peasantry still exists in much of the third worldtheyre wage workers lmfao peasantry isnt just when theres farms
>There's still aristocrats in England who live off of taxpayer dollarstheyre much closer to entertainers or tourist attractions than the aristocracy of old
>There's also "La Boheme" or artists who are too poor to be validly considered members of the petty-bourgeoisie.there can be poor petit bourgeois lol
>The only really meaningful division within the working class is unionized and non-unionizeduh working class means proletarian, not just when you have a job or that would suddenly include CEOs, managers, etc
>Not white collar and blue collar or tradesmen and office workers. It's how they are ORGANIZED that matters more so than what they do for work.lol youre very stupid if you believe educated professionals can be compared to the proletariat - the mass of
immiserated reserveless propertyless workersfailing to compete with fellow petit bourgeois doesnt make you proletarian
until after youre proletarianized, not during, not before, after
>>2642530Doctors, lawyers, and office workers are proletarian. It's not limited to assembly line workers as you seem to believe.
And yes, there are still peasants in India and East asia. They are tied to land in the traditional feudal arrangement.
Marx himself differentiated between La Boheme and the Petit Bourgeois. It's a question of societal power.
Please don't leave ignorant comments like this in reply to mine!!
>>2642553If the majority of their income comes from their wage, not their investments, they are.
Neurosurgeons can be fired, for instance if they were to grope a nurse. They do not have the same power as a capitalist.
I do not appreciate your rude tone, btw. But I'm not surprised since it's likely you're unemployed and unhappy with your life choices.
>>2642551>>2642556>there are still peasants in India and East asia. They are tied to land in the traditional feudal arrangementlmao youre superimposing these categories wrongly to describe a bunch of shit hole farmers and herders using ethnic political favour to acquire privileges and access to land and markets to compete better. their aim is further commercialisation of their petty production, for profit, which makes it bourgeois, not ""feudal""
>it's likely you're unemployedmiddle classer parasite projecting. CEOs can lose their jobs too, theyre working class!! theres a reason marx & engels constantly referred to workers as "reserveless" you ape
>>2642556>Neurosurgeons can be fired, for instance if they were to grope a nurse. They do not have the same power as a capitalist.Here's some class analysis from a Communist doctor regarding well paid medical professionals. I hope you find it interesting.
It's a 3 parter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJpnf9i1DjYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eBv6tZShbUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiyvmnKmnvo >>2640291>Can someone tell me about whether there are classes inside the proletariat other than the lumpenproletariat, the labor aristocracy, and the managerial class?In various particular conditions different sections of the working class differentiate and relate in different ways, or may not be proletarian at all. For instance the labor aristocracy presents very differently in a peripheral state like Sri Lanka compared to imperial core states like the US or France, where they are arguably closer to the petty bourgeoisie than any real working class and more numerous proportionally than in the periphery. For another example: in Haiti, the workers within Port au Prince are distinct from workers everywhere else in the country due to the economic structure of the country and politically dominate oftentimes to the detriment of other workers and the rural peasantry. Their vacillation due to extractive relations with the countryside makes them an unreliable social base even for reformism, as we saw with Aristide. Nobody will ever be able to genuinely hand you a universal diagram of what the working classes are in the way you're asking, because that's not how that works. The proletariat is defined by concrete economic relations that must be analyzed in each context, down to the local level you're at. This is why sharpening the blade of analysis is so important for each of us. I was tempted to write another "Boring." reply and move on, but genuinely discussions like this would be a lot more interesting if you actually attempted to present
your own class analysis for others to critique.
>Is there a pyramid for it?It's not a simple hierarchy, no. Class relations constantly shift based on economic conditions and social relations, and even acknowledging that, viewing one class as simply "above" another is an overly simplistic framework. The bourgeoisie dominates capitalist society, but why and how does it maintain this position? Not simply by propaganda and "ideological control", that's for sure. No regime exists that way. The proletariat globally is more numerous and exist at every point of production. Why are they not at the top of the hierarchy? Don't the majority rule?
>Is there a similar differentiation on the classes constituting the bourgeoisie?The bourgeoisie is internally differentiated, yes. As to how it's differentiated, see the first paragraph of this post.
>What'd the lower middle class be defined, as a term? Can someone tell me more about the view on the middle class in general?Here's where I think we're getting to the actual reason why you posted this absent of any class analysis of your own. You're looking for reassurance about your class position and relation to production, desperately hoping that someone will spoonfeed you a sound-enough excuse to uncritically ignore the "middle class'" relation to imperialism and production. "Middle class" is a bourgeois economist term lumping together various disparate sections of the upper working class and petty bourgeoisie along the lines of a tax bracket, rather than an actual class. Basically, it's not a term particularly useful to Marxism. Again, you're gonna have to do your own homework on this one. What is your concrete relationship to production? What do you own? What do you produce? If you or your parents own land, what is the relationship of land to production where you're at? Do you sell your labor-power, and if so are you the primary producer of value in the commodity you manufacture? If you sell your labor-power in a job outside commodity production (I'm a teacher, for example) what is the relation of that role to production and the state?
>>2640931You know it doesn't really help to post this pic because the people you're criticizing don't understand the difference between these things. It's all just "capitalism" to them.
>>2640291>picDo Marxxxists really believe this nonsense?
Prostitutes are proletarians
>>2642860Wrong. Whores are not proletarian under Communist law because whores exist against Communist law and morality.
http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/13/content_1384114.htmArticle 66 of Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security states A prostitute or a person who goes whoring shall be detained for not less than 10 days but not more than 15 days and may, in addition, be fined not more than 5,000 yuan; and if the circumstances are relatively minor, she or he shall be detained for not more than five days or be fined not more than 500 yuan. A person who, at a public place, touts for prostitution or invites another person for whoring shall be detained for not more than five days or be fined not more than 500 yuan.
>>2642860onlyfans whores are turbocapitalists doe
>>2643014>>2642881Sex workers (duh) are basically no different from musicians, actors, painters, they provide entertainment.
>>2643091
Ok
That doesn't change their position within the class system of capitalism
>>2643096
None of that counters my argument
>>2643101
Ok
They are still proletariats
>>2642860Prostitutes are lumpenproletarians, or otherwise a part of the working class which can't be counted on to support socialism. They sell a form of labor power, true, but over the course of many transactions, peddling their "product" like a small business owner; they never have to co-operate with any fellow workers, and the best market conditions for the sex trade are when exploitation of labor is high and the exploiting classes have money to blow.
I'll confess I can't remember any specific Marx and Engels quote for this, but Kautsky is very clear on this point. This book was published in Engels' lifetime without any negative comment:
<However numerous the class of menials [that is, domestic servants] may be, it has not, as a rule, been able to absorb the whole number of those left propertyless. The unemployable, children, old people, sick and cripples have been from the beginning unable to earn a living by entering into service. To these were added at the beginning of modern times a large number who could work but found nothing to do. For them there was nothing but to beg, steal, or prostitute themselves. They were compelled either to perish or to throw overboard all sense of shame, honor and self-respect. […]
<And beggars cannot even raise themselves in their own estimation by indulging in the self-deception that they are necessary to the social system; they have no recollection of a time when their class performed any useful services; they have no way of forcing society to support them as parasites. They are only tolerated. Humility is, consequently, the first duty of the beggar and the highest virtue of the poor. Like the menials, this class of the proletariat is servile toward the powerful; it furnishes no opposition to the existing social order. On the contrary, it ekes out its existence from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the rich. Why should it wish to abolish its benefactors?Kautsky, The Class Struggle (Das Erfurterprogramm), chapter 5, part 3:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm >>2642860No
They are lumpen
>>2642860No, they're vaginocapitalists and use vaginas as capital.
Hentai mangakas are truly proletarian.
>>2643486You're not wrong about the second part
>>2643083Wrong. You think entertainment is what defines prolerariat. Proletariat is defined by value production. You contradict Communist law. You promulagate anti-scientific capitalist notions. Only the bourgeoisie says prostitutes are proletarian. The mechanics of class relations and Communist law determines that whores are lumpen. In Communism, actors, musician, entertainers are indespensible proletarians. In Communism, whores are totally negative, declassed lumpen remnant of parasitic prostitute lumpen. In Communism, whores do not exist as typical class relation. The whore class relation has terminally broken down under Communist law and therefore whores cannot be considered good and proletarian like the proletarian entertainers.
>Productive and unproductive labour is here throughout conceived from the standpoint of the possessor of money, from the standpoint of the capitalist, not from that of the workman; hence the nonsense written by Ganilh, etc., who have so little understanding of the matter that they raise the question whether the labour or service or function of the prostitute, flunkey, etc., brings in returns. Marx says only bourgeois phillistine dare fathom that prostitutes are proletarian.
>To say nothing of the fact that on the basis of capitalist production, where the great majority of material commodities—material and palpable things—is produced by wage-labourers under the domination of capital, [unproductive] labours (or services, whether those of a prostitute or of the Pope) can only be paid for either out of the wages of the productive labourers, or out of the profits of their employers (and the partners in those profits), quite apart from the circumstances that those productive labourers produce the material basis of the subsistence, and consequently, the existence, of the unproductive labourers.Marx concludes that if whores are proletarian, then so is pope.
>>2643572>flunkeywhat are they
>>2643580Under Communism, proletarian cultural workers are not flunkeys. To liken the indespensible creators of proletarian culture to the capitalist ideology serving funkeys and to prostitutes is deeply bourgeois and anti-scientific.
>>2642553All doctors are bourgeoisie and should be sent to labor camps
>>2643156>otherwise a part of the working class which can't be counted on to support socialism. A lot of sexworkers are classpilled though
>>2643656Majority aren't.
>>2643656And? Okay? So? What of it?
>>2643659Best ones are
>>2643572>Workers that do not engage in productive labour are proletariansYou are a falsifier
>>2643663You said lumpenproles can't be relied upon, that is false, as sex workers can achieve class consciousness
>>2643665>Workers that do not engage in productive labour are NOT proletariansMissed that.
>>2643665>Best ones areBest ones are apolitical.
>>2643609How will we heal sick people?
>>2643665Class consciousness resides in party. An individual is no conscious, only party is.
>>2643665Warehouse workers arent proletarian huh?
>>2643675Are you class conscious?
>>2643665No they can't.
I've organized with "sEx WoRkEr" orgs.
They are useless, they literally just fight foreconomism for hookers.
They don't want real jobs, they just wanna sit around and jack off on camera. That sounds like gravy to me, but no we need labor to make the world work.
These prostitutes would not help post revolution. Their material interests are opposed to labor.
>>2643521Doujin authors are a sort of handicraftsman I would argue.
>>2643673youre on leftoidpol where the majority of retards think class consciousness is when you think Good and commodity fetishism is when you like commodities a lot
>>2643676I forgot to add the "not" and made a post below that.
>>2643679I understand the class system and it's analysis exposed by Marx, Engels and other communists.
>>2643680Just because they wouldn't help post-revolution doesn't mean they will help before it.
>>2643685Well, individual is not conscious. Also, individual has no will either.
gigapseuds trying to argue that literal artisans, the first fucking historical definition of a petit-bourgeois, are proletarian LMAO holy shit the absolute state
>>2643707Everythis is as it should be.
>>2643691They don't help now, I'm not marching so only fans girls get a raise
>>2643665Wrong. You are lumpen apologist who promulagates lumpen economic theory. In Communism, whores are fined by the proletariat and put in jail. As Marx demonstrated, prostitutes, like the pope, produce neither surplus-value nor any value at all, only destroying value, cannot be proletarian. Prostitutes are abolished in Communism, so prostitutes are anti-Communist. Whores do not till the soil. Whores do not feed the people. Whores, like the bourgeoisie, serve no positive role in social reproduction, holding society back by wasting social product. Whores exist in contradiction to Communist law and proletarian morality and livelihood. In famine, the proletarians build tractors and the peasants grow food, but the whore wastes food by existing.
Unique IPs: 18