/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>673328
Proletarian I guess, does it really matter? An owner-operator would be petit bourgeois (arguably).

>>673328
you only really get six figure pay once you have seniority. at US regional airlines you wind up being paid less than you'd earn working at mcdonalds while having to sleep on far more pissy matresses in towns which have only advanced beyond the 1860s in one respect: that they've got an airstrip from the 1930s.

but at the same time, being able to invest the time and money into becoming a pilot and offset those shit early prospects makes for a clear distinction from those who just get stuck at the local mcdonalds. but realistically, not enough to mark you as bourgeois. so the real answer is: essentially proletarian, but if you resent that they get a cool job and eventually get less shit pay, that's fine so long as you support them when they're on strike.

>>673328
Pilots are bourgeois and will be abolished
Communist aircraft will be owned and flown collectively by the passengers

>>673362
This
>>673328
Shut the fuck up gloid

The times when air line pilots were considered some demi-god caste are long over. With the emergence of new budget airlines they are basically glorified bus drivers.

>>673328
Being a proletarian is when you have a low salary and the lower it is the more proletarianistical you are.

>>673636
>Being a proletarian is when you have a low salary and the lower it is the more proletarianistical you are.
Maoism third worldism in a nutshell

>>673328
>Is a pilot proletarian? labor aristocrat?
???
Youre acting like the second doesnt imply the first.

>a pilot has a six figure salary in most developed countries and the training required can also be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So? How is that related to previous questions?

they can be advanced proletariat or petty bourgeois
there needs to be proper research done into the job markets first to say for sure though

>>673383
don't most pilots come from upper class backgrounds? esp. in the military?

>>673328
PMC, little to no revolutionary potential or proletarian character. Just like managers, cops, cryptobros, streamers and ethots.

They are militant workers and when pilots go on strike, the government sides with the airlines every time. It's an international job market and they are "glorified bus drivers" these days. Here's a story for you.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210403224411/https://thesocialist.org.au/1989-pilots-dispute/

>the training required can also be hundreds of thousands of dollars
You can do it cheaper than that, a commercial pilot's license and instrument rating can be done for $50k, so cheaper than a college degree. Further training is usually paid by the employer.

>>677424
and engineers and scientists and actors and technicians and hvac installers and so on

You need to let go of this shit OP.
Your class and your actions can be different. A pilot, who doesn't own stocks, is proletarian. He works for a wage in a company he doesn't control or own. That doesn't mean he will vote or act in the interests of the whole proletarian class. He can be bourgoies minded because of his social association with the petit bourgoiesie.

A labour aristocrat is an iffy term. Originally it was used to define paid off union bosses and leaders, people who ought to be proletarian but got so rich and powerful that they started to act as an aristocrat of the labouring class.

Your class and your consciousness or actions don't neccecarily align. Some high paid prole may be brainwashed to be reactionary. They may be brainwashed to think that they are better off in capitalism than after a revolution.
You don't need to categorise people based in income. The categorizations exist as relations to production, and any sub categorisation such as labour aristocracy exist as categorisations of behaviour. One pilot may be reactionary the other may be class concious and communist.

>>677626
>You don't need to categorise people based in income. The categorizations exist as relations to production
yes but by that logic some capitalists can have gommie attitudes

>>677628
They can

>>673548
>Communist aircraft will be owned and flown collectively by the passengers
Same with trains (because small vehicles and trucks will be abolished).
Passengers will get out and push the train in a beautiful display of collective struggle. No drivers no masters.