Questions for real socialists tm

Where do you draw the line between Bourgeoisie and proletariat? Do cam whores count as both? Is a CEO who works for a charity organization and gives most of his money to charity really Bourgeoisie? If mom and pop shops are proletariat, that would mean the Kulaks were also proletariat as well. If I'm a self employed plumber, what does that make me? Are gypsies who play songs on the streets begging for money really proletariat?

Also why couldn't it be something simpler, like the way we organize ourself now, by standard of living?

Attached: images (3).jpeg (259x194, 7.76K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Aren't they just lumpenproles, sex cams is just a modern abstraction of prostitution. You're preying on the vulnerability of another prole for something plenty of people get for free.

Bourgeois= Someone who owns means of production. Doesn't matter if he gives half of his shit in charity, he's still Bourgeois. Engels was one
Everything else is proletarian with the exception of sex workers, criminals, gipsies and other like this which are lumpen proletarian.

Mom and pop shops?

Own a shop, hire people and live off of profits? Petite bourgeois.

Work for a wage? Proletarian.

What about plumbers who own their means of production?

What kind of shop? are we talking walmart or store under the house where they work too and maybe have someone employed too?
They are Petite bourgeois which makes them a wildcard.
being a Petite bourgeois in 2018 is different from being one in russia in 1930

Work tools like the one plumber owns are not means of production, and it's not the first time we tell you this

READ MARX

If they're completely self-employed and don't have their own employees, they're not proletarian nor bourgeois.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.

This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry.
Once the impulse to the introduction of machinery and the factory system had been given, this system spread quickly to all other branches of industry, especially cloth- and book-printing, pottery, and the metal industries.
Labor was more and more divided among the individual workers so that the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now did only a part of that piece. This division of labor made it possible to produce things faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual worker to simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performed not only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industries fell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.
But at the same time, they also fell into the hands of big capitalists, and their workers were deprived of whatever independence remained to them. Gradually, not only genuine manufacture but also handicrafts came within the province of the factory system as big capitalists increasingly displaced the small master craftsmen by setting up huge workshops, which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division of labor.
This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories – and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:
(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.
(ii) The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.

There's literally an archive of everything communists and socialists have ever written that an answer your constant inane questions.

People who work with their own tools like that are part of what could be best understood as the "artisans".

"Bourgeoisie" and "proletarian" aren't the only means-of-income classes in society, it's just that everything gets pushed towards them. There's still lots of remnants of other social-income groups like the lumpenproles (people who perform petty labor for money not employed by anyone else) and petty bourgs. Artisans like self-employed plumbers are part of that too. It's just that most of them aren't going to be main driving forces in social conflict the way the conflict is driven between proles and bourgs and so they don't get a whole lot of attention.

OP doesn't even need that, all he need is lurk moar and even illiterate as him would understand half of stupid questions he tend to ask here.

I was thinking corner store. Why would they have a younger lad employed to help them run it?
How so?


This strikes me as a very flawed organization system, compared to the one what I brought up.

I've been here for two years now.

It's worrying if you're been here for two years and don't have a Marxist understanding of class……

do you have brain damage?

I would be dishonerably discharged if I did. So no.

yes and you've been asking the same autistic questions, refusing to accept or comprehend any of the answers you're given.

Attached: bobby.gif (280x210, 897.98K)

Tools are not the means of productions, as I understand it, because tools are not private property nor is their only purpose for production. The MoP are things like farms, offices, factories, etc, which under capitalism are controlled privately by an individual or group of individuals, but not the working class.

A plumber does not own the means of production because their a service worker, typically, for a greater business or union. The business owner owns the business, offices, and probably even the tools the plumber uses. Similarly the business/union facilitates the jobs the plumber performs. The plumber holds no stake in the company and has their value extracted in the form of profits.

That's the rundown of why a plumber doesn't own the MoP, can anyone add on to this?

Also, if you've really been here so long how do not get this? Literally everyone here knows this, it's laid out in the CommMan and Wage Labor & Capital which are very basic (and easy to read)

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

Stalin and Mao rounded up all prostitutes and brothel owners and sent them to gulags and re-education camps respectively. While by today's standards that would be overly harsh, they certainly should not be given the "sex worker" euphemism and legalization that many self-described socialists and social democrats in the West have been relentlessly pushing for.

Attached: reeducation-camp-1956.jpg (940x726, 362.12K)

Well color me blue, a serviceman who is an irreconcilable reactionary and an illiterate - as though I needed that stereotype proved over once more

take your bourgeois propaganda and shove it

Pretty much one of the only means of survival for somebody not born into wealth in the modern capitalist economy, not much different than a wage slave

the gulags were very good though, people voluntarily signed up for them knowing they'd get rehabilitated and receive free education.