It weakens capitalism? Maybe so, but there absolutely cannot be stasis, which has been the death knell of all revolutionary social-democratic movements to date including that of the Bolsheviks. It is not that the measures which you specify are necessarily wrong, but that they can never be enough. Yes, we need democratic institutions and grounds upon which we can rally workers and weaponise their discontent so that we can overcome the system which produces that discontent and begin the next stage of history, but stopping halfway will always lead to disaster and the darkest reaction. More demands must be made, and it must be clear that Communism does not demand an end to history and unlimited fun beyond this, but as a doctrine it instead yells at us that we must use our knowledge and responsibly own up to the problems which we have and keep sorting it all out while always finding ways to take care of bigger things rather than cowering behind superstition and self-irony. Social-democratic measures can only be thought of as a stepping stone and bloodsuckers from all over the fucking planet will be trying to remove that stone from beneath our feet.
Petite Bourgeoisie
THAT'S NOT WHAT PETIT-BOURGEOIS MEANS YOU FUCKING DOLT, THIS IS BASIC SHIT
"Being a worker is when you do real work like mining or trucking or working as a chimney sweep. Being petite bourgeois is when you make even less than a trucker but it's not real work because you work in an office."
-Carlton Marskism
Membership in the working class entails
1. Needing to survive on a steady salary. You may have capital from investments such as a 401k, but unless you can quit your job and survive off passive income, you are a member of the working class.
2. You must be in a subordinate position. You cannot be a manager.
3. You must be in a precarious position. If you make a ridiculous high salary like a top programmer or doctor, you are not a member of the working class.
Keep that up, and you might get reported by the likes of
What happens if I'm an architect and my boss tells me to design some blueprints for some shit and I put a lot of time, work, and effort into it and get paid a high salary? Does that mean I'm not a member of the working class? Just cause of my salary? That sounds awfully un-marxist.
There are a lot of gray-zones and Marxists argue within themselves what the boundaries are.
But no, suddenly getting a paid a bit more for a project does not remove you from the working class. Don't be petty.
If you thought about this for five seconds, you'd see how dumb it is. Imagine that there's a programmer who makes $100k/year at a steady job. That's a lot of money. By 3, he's not working class. Now imagine he can't live off of his passive investments. In fact, he lives in San Fransisco, so he hasn't even saved much. By 1, he must be working class.
The working class isn't a secret club available only to those that have suffered sufficiently based on some metric you pulled out of your ass.
kill yourself revisionist scum
By definition $100k is not a lot of money if you live in San Franscico, or any part of the West.
$250k on the other hand means that in about ten years of savings, you are a millionaire and your interests with a teacher making $60k a year are markedly different.
There is a reason why trade unionism never spreads to the "workers" who make nearly a magnitude more than the average worker.
We cannot ignore this difference and must be part of our analysis when organizing workers.