>>383152No, you’re talking out your ass. They were rapidly ascending into the ruling class in his time and Marx often noted this.
> When the French bourgeoisie overthrew the power of the aristocracy, it thereby made it possible for many proletarians to raise themselves above the proletariat, but only insofar as they become bourgeois. Every new class, therefore, achieves its hegemony only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously, whereas the opposition of the non-ruling class against the new ruling class later develops all the more sharply and profoundly. Both these things determine the fact that the struggle to be waged against this new ruling class, in its turn, aims at a more decided and radical negation of the previous conditions of society than could all previous classes which sought to rule. They didn’t cease owning capital when they ascended either. That characteristic is still there and they are “capitalists” by that fact in and of itself. Liberalism is only the ideological lens in which individuals, either prole or bourgeoise, perceive of capitalism. That’s a complete obfuscation from the truth of the matter.
>>383153Further obfuscation.
You waffle from defining the bourgeois as wishing to “sustain the class system” to being completely in line with wanting “ liberated labour” and expect no one to notice the incongruity? Ancap ideology really is a thin veneer for socially acceptable schizophrenia.