are computer touchers considered proletarian? if so, why do they seem to lean libertarian and meritocratic, and work against their own class interests for capitalist aspirations? e.g. taking anti-union positions because it may "hamper innovation" or their rockstar 10x engineer persona.
Also when will AI finally break programmer chuds (inshallah)
>>30232>le "labor aristocracy" and le "astroturfing"see when youre some retarded amerifat ideologue who pushes "we are le 99%" garbage you need to patch the glaring flaws in your ideology by making up some shit about "labor aristocracy" (and then define it almost indistinguishably from petit bourgeois/middle class anyway) or that propaganda is some literal brainwashing contraption
ohh if only workers with considerable reserves and property werent propagandized then theyd totally seek to destroy class society like the rest of the proletariat ohhhhhh!!
>>30235whats with pseuds and their obsession with saying "means of production" in the abstract
they just own considerable reserves that could be put into capital (whether they do or not is irrelevant to class analysis), its that simple
>>30237pick up volume 2 & 3 and theories of surplus value
>productive propertymeaningless nitpick. i just said enough reserves can be invested. you arent doing proper analysis if you account for individual choice. capitalism is pretty simple: profit or die
if you can earn from revenue (reserves) and choose not to do so you simply suck at competition, it doesnt make you proletarian
>they are different but also have the same class background and class interestslol?
>owning (property) is not the same as owning (property)thanks, very cool
>>30231>are computer touchers considered proletarian?No. Mao said We must first eliminate those worker-aristocrats in the ranks of the proletariat who have been bought by the bourgeoisie. A handful of worker-aristocrats has indeed enjoyed a higher standard of living at the charity of the bourgeoisie. They are no longer members of the workers’ ranks, but renegades of the proletariat.
>>30237>well they arent petit bourgeois if they dont have productive propertyWrong. Engels said the worker who owns a little house to the value of a thousand talers is certainly no longer a proletarian.
>owning a house that you live in isn't the same as owning capital.Wrong. Engels demonstrated that under capitalist dictatorship, home-ownership is bourgeois. Let us assume that in a given industrial area it has become the rule that each worker owns his own little house. In this case the working class of that area lives rent free; expenses for rent no longer enter into the value of its labor power. Every reduction in the cost of production of labor power, that is to say, every permanent price reduction in the worker’s necessities of life is equivalent “on the basis of the iron laws of political economy” to a reduction in the value of labor power and will therefore finally result in a corresponding fall in wages. Wages would fall on an average corresponding to the average sum saved on rent, that is, the worker would pay rent for his own house, but not, as formerly, in money to the house owner, but in unpaid labor to the factory owner for whom he works. In this way the savings of the worker invested in his little house would certainly become capital to some extent, but not capital for him, but for the capitalist employing him.
Therefore, under the actual conditions of capitalist dictatorship, where the vast majority of workers are denied home-ownership and remain at the mercy of landlords, home-ownership drives down real wage, the proletarian further immiserated in direct proportion that the home-owners and the capitalists exploit them with capitalist home-ownership.
>>30238>meaningless nitpick. its really not. capitalists own capital not property.
>i just said enough reserves can be invested.literally the first time you mentioned it
>if you can earn from revenue (reserves)also the first time you brought that up. reserves generally means savings not investments. you didn't distinguish between the amount of reserves you just said "reserveless". its entirely possible to have reserves and not have a significant amount that it is worth investing(ie you would lose more on flat fees than the profit)
>the same class background didn't say that either, labor aristocracy and petit bourgeois both have incentives to keep capitalism, and both are the first to be effected during an economic crises and pushed into the working class, and both tend to be reactionary. but only one owns capital.
a labor aristocrat with enough reserves to make a return on investment is by definition a petit bourgeois - they both own capital and have to work.
>>30242we are clearly talking about substantially valorizable property dumbfuck. goes to show the state of leftoids that this even needs to be spelled out
>>30240>comparing baristas to programmerskill yourself dipshit
>>30246>we are clearlyno you are not clear at all
>substantially valorizable propertyoh so like productive property?
>>30242>>30247>join communist discussion<erm property is not capitalis this faggot really gonna do that "private vs public property" libtard debate?
fuck me this bullshit reminds me of retards asking me if a couch makes one petit bourgeois because they think theyre one of the things communists refer to when talking about reserves and this is when i know theres just no saving leftists
either people are lying about reading marx or theyre so bafflingly retarded they dont really understand what they read. the whole point of the proletariat is that theyre revolutionary and distinguished as a class because of their severance from property or reserves that can be capitalized
also i just noticed this shit thread is on /tech/ for some reason. no wonder the replies are specially stupid
>>30252>>you OWN the means of production, you have a LAPTOPthis uygha is arguing with a single reply that everyone ignored and pretending its the whole thread lmfao
>freelance programmerLMAO fucking retard bringing up the #1 example of a petit bourgeois, a god damned freelancer
>>30254freelancers were the original petit bourgeois you illiterate fucking moron
>Petit bourgeoisie involves possessing capitalwhats with ignorant amerifats and conceiving capital as literal factories and nothing else LOL
>>30254>everything the bourgeoisie have except the amount of capital to live off of the investment ofWhat a stupid fucking definition. The petit-bourgeois simply don't have
competitive proportions of land or property. Almost 20 years later and we're still ridden with "we are the 99%" vibes-based idiocy.
>>30256What’s with the angry posting
>Petit bourgeoisie don’t have enough capital to live off the investment of (meaning they still have to work to maintain the profitability of their property(ies)”<Erm what a stupid fucking definition you cunt, ackshually it’s when their properties aren’t competitiveIf their properties aren’t competitive, they go out of business, sell their properties and become proletarians.
>>30259>and become proletariansso call them proletarians when they become proletarians, not before lol
>>30257>proletarians are only the reserveless propertyless wage workers<reduce class relations down to whether you have a boss or notnot beating the illiterate allegations rofl
>>30260Yeah but if we’re defining property are something you invest in with the expectation of a greater return that you further invest, then a laptop someone does freelance coding on to earn a living, isn’t a property.
Unless you’re suggesting they’re using their laptop to acquire the capital to afford squatting in Starbucks by investing in the purchase of caffeine for greater labour power from themselves.
>>30262->
>>30248<fuck me this bullshit reminds me of retards asking me if a couch makes one petit bourgeois because they think theyre one of the things communists refer to when talking about reserves and this is when i know theres just no saving leftists->
>>30236>whats with pseuds and their obsession with saying "means of production" in the abstract>they just own considerable reserves that could be put into capital (whether they do or not is irrelevant to class analysis), its that simpleunironically kill yourself
>>30262like youre such a fucking retarded ape despite repeatedly pointing to the reserves you can accrue from this example of an educated profession with high wages you keep bringing up the fucking laptop example AND keep pretending freelancers of any kind can ever be considered proletarian
>>30265>its not real work because uhh they earn more from investing (?) than their literal wagesif i were this retarded id kill myself asap tbh
>>30266>educated professionOh okay so your pol pot.
>with high wagesOh okay so your definition depends on whether you’re jealous of the subject or not
>freelancers of any kind can ever be considered proletarianOh okay so they still have to sell their labour to survive, they work in an industry that is dominated by capital and mass production with whom they can only compete on a contract basis, but you hate educated people, are jealous of higher salaries and presumably thinking not having a boss places you as economically privileged enough to receive an invitation to Epstein’s island
It depends, OP. I'm technically a software engineer, but I have over $100k in medical debt, $20k in student debt, and another $15k or so in CC debt I had to take on just to survive. Once my debts are paid each month, and my portion of the rent is covered, I've got maybe like $100 to stretch for groceries for the entire month.
I'll never retire (I find the idea of optional retirement dubious anyways)
I have no savings
I will never own a house
I will likely get sacked in the next round of layoffs
I will very likely be working a food service or retail job in the next year or two
I will 100% be proletarianized
I come from a tiny family that owns nothing, my parents are retiring without a dime in the next few years, and I've been fucked just as hard. So while I'd say I'm technically not a proletarian currently, I'm about to be. I certainly live like one, regardless of my job title.
Most tech workers are lolbertarians howeverbeit
>>30271What are you, a baby boomer?
>>30246>comparing baristas to programmersDon't be dense, it's rhetorically the same discussion. Haz only picked baristas to charge it with the timely culture war-isms.
The point is to cause purity spirals.
>>30271>You preach explicit inter-class solidaritydespite your buzzword laden post this part is true. this thread is painfully american lol
>>30272>>30270its incredible how in a decade we switched from "salary is all that matters so the 1% are to blame" to "salary literally doesnt matter at all so there can be wealthy proletarians". like maybe use your brain a little idk
>>30276>Most tech workers are lolbertarians howeverbeityeah and all the retards in this shithole would sooner blame "propaganda" and "the marketplace of ideas" than admitting educated professions behave the way they do for a tangible reason (class)
>>30275>gig workers with even more precarious conditionsbeing a poor petit bourgeois doesnt make you not petit bourgeois, it just means you suck at being petit bourgeois. a freelancer is CLEARLY not engaging in any proletarian association because of their position
>I feel uneasy calling them petty bourgeoisbecause you think this shit is some moral judgement and not communist analysis lol
>I also fail to see them ever organizing or becoming revolutionary in any capacitythe leftard brainrot is preventing you from arriving at the most obvious conclusion
>>30292>they’ll become proletarianised while kicking and screamingLiterally so what? There’s like this weird delusion in this thread that the American proletariat didn’t vote for Trump en masse because his rhetoric encourages them to kick and scream just as loud about
accepting already being proletarianised. Ditto most of the western world voting for right-wing reactionaries broadly making the same pitch that reserves and treats be restored for all if we just get rid of those darn taxes on rich folk and the immigrants frittering them away.
Really fucking bizarre to try to claim that this or that industry’s workers don’t pass the purity test while for other workers substituting it for the vibes test.
>>30237>>30242>>30247Are you seriously doing the productive-unproductive proletarian-petit bourgeois distinction that only the biggest pseuds (including Infracels!) make? 😂
>>30259>>30265The CEO works just as hard as the factory workers, just because he makes 2 billion times more than them is simply a differentiation within the working class itself, let the factory workers and CEO struggle together!
>>30290Pseuds love doing the bit about "oh their consciousness is just false guys, it's not like they have any material incentives in bourgeois society to not be revolutionary". They don't even understand what "false consciousness" even means in regards to the proletariat. Many proletarians think that their competition with other proletarians is the fundamental logic behind why their real wages keep them poor, so bourgeois society weaponizes these national, gender, ethnic, etc. differences that reaffirm this logic and prevent them from organizing against the bourgeois interests which keep them immiserated in the first place.
Everyone wants to get by in bourgeois society, so what distinguishes the proletariat is that they're unable to get by under bourgeois society, their income and lack of reserves and property doesn't even allow them that comfort. If they lose their job, they can't get by, they don't have any safety nets. The petit-bourgeois can always get by only insofar as they don't drop into the proletariat during a crisis. This is why their demands are always democratic bullshit like taxes on the wealthiest, free social amenities, which are not revolutionary because they don't threaten the very foundations of bourgeois society, getting those demands ultimately preserves it instead and allows them to save more. Meanwhile the proletarian will still be proletarian.
99% of imbeciles here think "wage slavery" is a euphemism, some flowery philosophical language, and not a scientific term describing concrete conditions of existence which their moronic hypotheses don't even account for…
>>30296>tantrumYou have multiple posts explaining how your privileged petit-bourgeois wage worker and a proletarian don't share the "relation to production" or whatever misunderstanding of basic marxism you troglodytes have given how their relationship to capital and its revenue is fundamentally different. Yours is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis you can't even defend without vibes.
>>30298>>30299>still concerned with voting Don't you have some DSA meeting to attend?
It's incredible how it's always only petit-bourgeois retards who are absolutely incapable of understanding their own position in bourgeois society.
>>30302>the point of class is analysing its relations to capital and productionYou didn't even finish reading the post and then went and did the exact same retardation I just pointed out. Apparently salary is not part of your relation to capital and production somehow?
<You have multiple posts explaining how your privileged petit-bourgeois wage worker and a proletarian don't share the "relation to production" or whatever misunderstanding of basic marxism you troglodytes have given how their relationship to capital and its revenue is fundamentally different. Yours is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis you can't even defend without vibes.Burgers never cease to amaze in their ignorance and illiteracy. If you thought outside your privileged suburban fatass living, you'd understand that your relation to capital, i.e. what benefits one accrues from all accumulation of capital and generation of value, is what determines class relations under class society. The proletariat isn't a proletarian given that they're paid wages of piece rates in and of itself. That doesn't mean anything unless you're a philosophical pseud that pulls conclusions out of thin air (like you all right now). It's that
concealed within their remuneration in measly wage-labor and piecework that their relation to the wealth amassed in society under the social relation of capital, which deliberately excludes them. They have no property besides their capacity to work, money is not a means to build wealth for them but as a commodity which they can exchange for bare necessities of life which keeps them just alive enough to not starve and die (and often end up starving and dying anyway).
Proletarians don't have any stake in bourgeois society except as workers who create value, their wages aren't for accruing wealth in an attempt to live more comfortably.
That's why a propertyless, moneyless, stateless society is in their interests. >>30305>you are just le bitter!!You ignored a whole ass post with actual reasoning to push for more vibes retardation.
>selling one’s labour to the bourgeoisie for a dollar an hour is different from selling it for two dollars an hourYeah bro, this is what people mean by high salary, a single dollar more. You're just pretending to be even more retarded than you actually are for some twitter-tier gotcha. Absolute state of American fatasses.
>>30301>You're the faggots bringing upI made two posts on here pointing out the thread is topologically the barista talking point, you're doing the TingNoter bit by viewing the whole board as one person. I'm pretty sure TingNoter was also a hazoid.
Your entire debate, every side of it, is wrecker nonsense.
>>30308Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. You are incapable of arguing beyond vibes.
>wrecker nonsenseConflating literally everyone into "the masses" with no further thought put into it is the actual wrecker behavior here. :)
>>30309This retarded faggot is doing all the shit that they're accusing others of doing.
Class is more than merely a job position or just selling your labor, which you boil it down to. >>30308>topologically the barista talking point
>only CEOs are not proletarian<only baristas are not proletarian
>productive labor is what defines a proletarian<selling your labor is what defines a proletarian My man you're the retard who is arguing exactly like Infracels do. Massive projection on your part.
Meanwhile I'm actually arguing and laying down the facts here.
>>30313I'm saying you're "topologically" using the same retarded reasoning as Hazoids you illiterate troglodyte.
>>30317Lmfao.
>>30319>examples of things I didn't sayIt's quite clear you aren't saying anything at all.
>[checks tally]No way you aren't doing a bit at this point.
>>30324>cannot have solidarity with one anotherWhat does solidarity even mean? Proletarians being part of a movement doesn't automatically make the movement itself or its demands proletarian.
>obsessively "seething" about salary differentialsYou only see what you want to see.
>>30329The last part doesn’t say what you think it does, if someone is a contract freelance worker with a laptop writing JavaShit slop because it pays a bit more than employed work (while there is work) in exchange for foregoing any kind of worker protections and rights, that doesn’t change the fact that they are equally still dependent on the demand for their labour and a loss in demand for their labour is catastrophic due to the fact that out of contract there is no redundancy pay or process.
The work they do for a client isn’t necessarily a commodity they’ve invested in or produced to sell on, likewise workers who may have produced some kind of software package with the intent to profit from it have suffered the same fate as all small scale artisanal manufacturers, in that Microsoft and Google use their super profits to provide every kind of software in demand for free, feature-full at a scale that cannot be replicated by individuals with laptops at Starbucks and usually buy out any innovation or budding competition.
>>30330>but they want to be pb again!And most proletarians just want to win the lottery and not have to work again, it’s kind of the job communist parties to educate and organise people towards a much more likely goal.
And let’s face it, that’s what the seething is about ITT, that educating and organising involves talking to people who might earn more than yourself and presumably that being impossible as they start vomiting blood at the idea of sympathising with people who went to university or had a spare $500 to lose on crypto five years ago.
Unique IPs: 34