Rich entertainers

What class are famous actors, musicians, sports players etc.?

They aren't capitalists, but with that kind of money there's no way they can be called proletarians. Their interests would obviously align closer to the bourgeoisie's than the proletariat's.

Are they petty bourgeois?

Attached: jennifer_aniston_brad_pitt_divorce.jpg (2000x1080, 235.96K)

They sell their name and image and make money from the products other people slap on it. That sounds pretty cappy to me.

Proles or petit bourgeois. Bourgeois wrt ones who own huge clothing lines and shit like that.

The surplus value of their labour is stolen by bourgeoise media companies.

I think their alignment in general mostly suggests petit bourgeois - in essence, pretenders to bourgeois who still actually have to work and whose money/power is thusly a bit more fragile than that of bourgeois.

And?

They're lumpen proles son

Artisians, mostly, in terms of mode of production.

However, their role in society can be very different. At any rate, they are completely irrelevant in grand scheme of things.

Those who are well payed are labor aristocrats.Those who engage in stock trade, investments or worse selling their merchandise, are bourgeois.

literally puppets

Unproductive ==LEECHES==

How does one stop being (Petit) bourg if you're that rich hypothetically?

It's possible, but unlikely. You just need to not own any capital, and then you are not bourgeoisie. But most of the time, if you are that rich, it is very likely that you own at least some capital.

They are labor aristocrats, petite bourgs, or bourgeois.
If you like these people, or see them as good, you're embarrassing and it's a shame that you aren't made fun of for your stupid ideas.
Celebrities are total rich faggots, who can at best atone for or remediate the damage they cause. Every dollar they make over their worth is a dollar they stole from someone who works, fuck them. Their entire culture will be an embarrassment on the human race for centuries, just like nobles have dirtied people even today, with little bits of their backwards and stupid ways of life drifting into the future. It is disgusting how many backwards people have tainted everything.

Celebrities are tools of the bourgeoisie to spread their ideology and to narcotize the minds of the masses.
They are cancerous bastards which deserve no mercy.

Petty bourgeois. Their money isn't secure as they still have to work for it, but they get their value (possibly more than it is actuallt worth) for it.

It is not secure though, a bad scandal or allegation can break their career, as can changes in weight, looks, etc. and they always have to work on maintaining a certain physical and public image, even when not directly working on producing media.

So taking a vow of poverty is the only way to become an ordained socialist?

Spend it all. Michael Jackson died $400 million into debt, and had to sell most of his assets when he was at one point a billionaire. In his last days he was in the process of being evicted and had to borrow even more money to pay for healthcare.

seems like many in hollywood are "woke" and sympathize with socialist ideals, as long as they get to keep their wealth and live in secluded, gated communities and continue to create worthless propaganda films

No, I never said that being bourgeois meant that you couldn't be a socialist. Hell, Engels himself was bourgeois. Also, being poor or rich has nothing to do with being bourgeois. Bourgeois means you own capital, that's it. Of course, those who own capital are, the majority of the time, rich. But the two are not the same.

Attached: Friedrich_Engels.jpg (429x511, 62.79K)

Yeah but couldn't under those terms a shoe shine boy be considered bourgeois?

In what way? I don't follow.

at the very least there have been nobles who have done intellectual work like mirabeau or tocqueville. there is no such thing as an entertainer or actor who has ever done any intellectual feat of note.

They own capital.

What capital do they own?

The means to shine shoes. What do you, think they just spit and use their sleeves?

Attached: portrait-ghanaian-shoeshine-boy-shoe-polish-ghana-street-child-trying-market-village-zabreme-north-east-37922615.jpg (590x900, 104.17K)

Ah, you are talking about self employed people right? In that case they would be petit-petit-bourgeois. But note that the petit-bourgeoisie are still considered working class, so they could side with either with the proletariat or the bourgeoisie when the time comes.

How are they not just bourgeois with extra steps? There are plenty of multimillionaires (say in finance) who have surplus value extracted from them which is then only extracted to be even further up the money pyramid.
Capitalism is a system based on property relations and surplus value creation. It isn't whether or not they own a sweatshop but their material position in society. Sure it could be a bit of a grey area but that's how capitalism works, they're aren't individual people that need to be targeted; the system itself is the problem.

they are not bourgouise. actors do not own the means of production.

"Labor aristocracy" is thrown around a lot but if anything Hollywood actors, journalists, and other media celebrities would definitely fit the bill

Tools aren't capital you fucking retard.

I think this is why so many holywood actors are like socdems, they are still subject to wage slavery. You never see producers go around touting Bernie or the like because they are the porkies in that situation. Issue is that their high life detracts them from class consciousness so they fall into liberalism.
Still, a famous tv actor in the UK, Maxine Peake, is literally a CPB member, and Frankie Boyle is a situationist.

labour aristocrats. They sell their labour but due to their position of power they can bargain for much larger wages that normal proletarians. Like athletes they are workers who sell their fame to the highest bidder. Thats where the famous dude out of work losing everything meme comes from.

Hurdy durrdy durr.

Where are you buying all this glue you're huffing?

Attached: Screenshot_20180609-100930.jpg (978x592 118.74 KB, 118.74K)

Meant for the 2nd pic to be the wiki screenshot.

Attached: Screenshot_20180609-101339.jpg (1017x533, 170.35K)

Tools aren't capital you brain damaged nitwit.

Attached: capital.png (1283x705, 86.18K)

This is why you'll die alone. Also: gif for ants.

I don't think you know what "lumpen proletariat" means

Tools can be capital, but in this case the worker owns the tools, so they don't function as capital, since the artisan does not aim to reproduce capital as such, only to live of the proceeds of his own labour. Unless he becomes a small bourgeois and starts to treat his craft as a business, and starts to employ others to profit of their labour.

Ok read the first few sentences homey with a magnifying glass for you.

Fine let's say mop of production so we can keep conversing like we're from the 1800s. But in the modern sense all of a business's assets can be considered capital. And all the tools which you say are not capital can be liquidated and turned into "money only capital" as it exists in the definition you linked.

Isn't Adam Smith older than Karl marx?

Attached: Screenshot_20180609-104011.jpg (958x490, 146.91K)

Tools aren't capital you drooling jizzmop.

reductio ad absurdum
this is why orthodox marxism is outdated

paid for by the hyphenated -Maoist gang

Why are you just repeating your same unfounded assertions? O wasn't convinced by you undersized image and nowhere did it say tools aren't capital.

If you don't want to be a retard look up the LEGAL definition of a capital asset.

Oh no! Right in my feels!

Tools aren't capital you spastic cunt swab

Y do uou just keep repeating the same three word statement withba fresh insult.

Can you prove you're not a not for me?

Put h8hyc7g^_g8 in your next response please to verify that you are human.

Bot

Tools aren't capital you cum swilling shit waffle.

You didn't include the text string verification bot.

Also why are you cum obsessed. Highly irregular for a bot.

it's a highly developed Artificial Sementeligence.

Even though they are not owners of production, they are unproductive bourgeois elites, who act as favored sons of the owners of production and acquire so much capital so as to become dominant in the capitalist power hierarchy in relation to actual proles. Many of them utilize their capital to become owners of production and property for rents.

I get the impression that those who say these overpaid leeches are "proles" are rich, trust fund kiddies themselves who seek absolution.

Or they're just media fans. You don't watch movies or listen to music?

That's why I like rap, at least they keep it honest.

Disgusting. Kys.

I think if you asked most people they'd rather see you gone.

...

I'd say that they're part of the skilled professional class. This class is itself a part of the proletariat, but the limited labor pool for their profession means that they can negotiate much better wages and working conditions than most proletarians. Celebrities however are a subgroup unto themselves within their own group, the very high prestige and pay of their labor usually gives them more common interests with the bourgeoisie than with their fellow proletarians.

They're porkies

Wildly varies depending on the person in question. There are a lot of musicians who are well off, but clearly have leftist leanings and would probably have no problem with socialism. There are musicians who are just massive capitalists though, kanye west, Dr Dre, etc. Same as actors, you've got people like Keanu Reeves who don't seem to enjoy the fame and fortune, then other shitheads.

Attached: bord.png (590x106, 21.94K)

why does it fucking matter?

They are bourgeois period.

This thread is the end result of when you're larping as a socialist but you're still a liberal at heart.

Modern capitalism is not like mid 19th century capitalism, with a porky with a top hat and monocle. The system has constantly evolved and changed in such a way that capital is no longer owned by specific people per se, but it's still a very small minority at a global scale.

...

Daily reminder that the distinction between the proletariat and the capitalist class is not a sociological one. It is not intended for categorizing a particular individual into belonging to one or the other, it is meant to show the fundamental relation which defines the capitalist mode of production.

Attached: 1482209868636.gif (270x199, 43.84K)

nobody said that