Marxism is muddying the waters

How convenient for you to cal Bill Gates middle class, a worker who had to pay dues to higher ups all his life. Who did he pay taxes to? Who did he get loans from? you're just a tool to misdirect attention from those in power, attacking the middle class instead of the rich. Attacking the manager instead of the owner. Bourgeois. Learn your own etymology you pawn of the rich.

Your average communist won't care about those distinctions, which so broad that anyone can be branded as a bourgeois whenever the the ruling class sees fit.

convenient tho isn't it that a movement to take from the rich doesn't even target the rich. Marxism removes competition from the rich. the elites, those upstart middle-classmen.

self bump. marxists learn what their own words mean

They're fairly clear distinctions though there has been a lot of talk since marx about class distinctions. Utilmately those distinctions are there to describe a dynamic between the two classes. In the first few chapters of capital it goes through the mechanisms in the economy that create such a divide between the two groups.

The dilemma of marxim is that you need strong elite to lead proletaria against elites. It's basically Subversion tactics for dummies

where are the elites in those groups? do nobility operate "own" factories? do factories pay dues and take loans? who is this other group that factory "owners" must appease through property taxes and and loans? who could be rich enough to give a factory owner a loan including interest? are you that brain numb that you think some owner of where you work doesn't have a higher boss? a RICHER boss?

Factory managers are considered proletariat because they dont own the machinery. You're idea of class is based around salary while the marxist version is based around the use and ownership of labor and capital

then you would agree that the rich are international banking cartels, as they own all the money and who it goes to and when. Not the legal "owners" of the means of production. But rather their masters. yes?

Here's an example. The owner of a factory doesn't own the machinery, because he/she/other is in debt to lenders that allowed them to buy the machinery. the lender is ultimately the owner.

Lenders, shareholders, and the owner are all classified as bourgeois - they are all extracting surplus value from the employees and profiting. The owner wouldnt take the loan if he didnt think he could profit from it.

One thing I notice about the right is that they have an inability to hate in the abstract. It always has to be some group of people you hate. The descriptions of proletariats and bourgeois exists purely to describe the systematic dynamics by which the first is abused by the latter. Theres no hate for business owners but rather the system that allows them to exploit workers.

so you lump the workers who own factories and manage them and put in long hours only to pay dues to government and lenders, as the SAME THING as the people they pay money to in order to operate? that comes across as a very obtuse understanding of the world as it exists right now. Even as workers pay dues to owners, owners pay dues to gov and lenders. who is the most rich? who is the most powerful?

and to your ad hominem: I'm not on the right political spectrum. I'm not partisan. I'm anti-authoritarian, pro-individual. and if you really gave a fuck about those things you would look closer at what you're really saying and doing.

Wrong. Marxism pits the middle class against the poor/working class. The rich always get richer.

thats exactly what i said. etymology. you're being tricked by word games.

self-bump with respect to atleast they put thought into their post even if it's common.

Couldn't you consider the ultra-wealthy financial capitalists as developing into a separate class from the rest of the bourgeoisie? Like the landlord class of the feudal mode of production? Do debtholders have the same relations to the means of production as those who own them?

If you own a factory you are not a worker. If you are managing the factory for a set of shareholders then you are a worker. Whats so hard about this?

And the issue is a systematic one. Low level business owners would replace elites if given the chance - and I dont hold it against anyone. The issue is the system not the people

Im totally cool with debating if the original classifications given by marx are still relevant today. But I think the semantic discussion of who is elite and who isnt goes against what ultimately the problem is and that is the dynamic between labor and capital that exists even if you got rid of all elites.

marxism and leftism is about power nothing else stop trying to rationalize it in any other way

youtube.com/watch?v=qZvjNJxzevM&t=
youtube.com/watch?v=EmroKlAJMsM&t=

youtube.com/watch?v=p6LUjUbikkk&t=

None of this has anything to do with Marxism. Marxism is a rearrangement of capitalism for more productivity. Adam Smith and Marx went to the same school and are virtually similar in philosophy.

Well-off city commies in Russia went to the country side and killed millions of poor farmers (who were just previously serfs) because they detected some sense of "being well off". They don't care, as long as someone has amassed wealth or property, they think there is a boogeyman oppressor and kill indiscriminately.

This, Marxism is a civilization all disease that seeks to break down all societal structures by praying on poor, unlikeable people with inferiority complexes

Civilizational*

marxists are an intellectual elite waging a war against everyone. the marx mumbo jumbo is all lies to gain power. once they gain power, all that stuff is tossed and they begin their war on the people. class war has largely been abandoned in favor of 'race war' aka BLM

It's always so funny when Zig Forums tries to discuss actual politics. Dumb asses reveal the lack of education. Stick to complaining about the latest conspiracy. Was this one about the resetting the world or something?

the system itself can be surmised as your "Low level business owners would replace elites". c'est la vie, such is life. but you're conscripted into fighting against your own interests. If you own a factory you have workers, you must manage this factory and that is what you spend your time doing, the reason you have to manage it is because you couldn't afford to buy the factory, so in the same way as a worker pays rent to live in an apartment or house owned by someone else, a factory owner has rented that space and that machinery from someone else, they aren't the rich, they are workers just like you with the promise that one day they will overcome debts and truly make profit. that isn't the fate of most, they're in the same position as you are, beholden to banks, working their asses off, trying to repay the lenders, the loaners, who actually own all of that property. The lenders are the real owners.

And those same people in 1991 killed indiscriminately until they owned all the major businesses in Russia. I dont think they were ideologues

Marxism is fucking gay. Like dick-in-ass gay.

feel free to add to the conversation. you're invited.

Attached: gaySS.jpg (383x335, 36.42K)

And how do you suppose that Marxism is going to solve these problems? Unionizing only seems to address the dynamic between worker and boss, but does nothing about the bankers and debtholders. Rioting and smashing windows just ruins the lives of small business owners. Democracy has been bought by the bankers, and revolutions will always be co-opted by narcissistic opportunists.

Jesus Christ you are fucking retarded. I'd tell you to read Marx but that's pointless if you can't read.

Hahaha when wasn’t it

Attached: BFBFB022-39CA-407D-907B-638DF28B5B20.jpg (640x788, 76.75K)

welcome. let me know when you catch up

And yet it's the bourgeois and intellectuals who speak on behalf of the proletariat to push their ideology. Ironically being out of touch and completely ignorant to the lives and thoughts of the average worker. It's almost funny how it always seems to end up that way.