How do you guys rectify your ideology with the fact that the majority of the actual working class is very right wing...

That isn't even possible per definition. Petit bourgeoisie is the managerial class.

I've never heard a bum or homeless complain about capitalism.

Nope, per definition, petit bourgeois just means someone who owns private property yet doesn't hire any other worker i.e. a mom and pop store.

The managerial class is the CEO or section manager, and this class has much more wealth compared to the petit bourgeois.

I don't, they're wrong

So what are small middle managers who employ other people within a company structure but don't own anything themselves? Also proletariat?

Yes.

Managers are also proles per communism definition.

CEO, actors, doctors, all proles.

That landlady? A bourgeois.

youtube.com/watch?v=zE7xBOtWJrQ

Happy being wrong, I suppose.

Class relation has jackshit to do with wealth.

So what differentiates you from a bourgeoisie oppressor?

This is not much of a problem.
Arguably not so much, when you look at just economic positions. Most working-class people support increased social spending. But the challenge is to change minds and win more support for policies that are objectively in the best interests of the working class. We're lucky that just experiencing the grim reality of modern capitalism is an effective redpill.

Attached: r11w2_2bt_ff.gif (514x423, 10.6K)

Given that I wouldn't trust you on communist definitions, I permit you to continue being wrong.

In america the're very reactionary, but out side burgerland it's much different. as an american there is no hope for socialism in america, not with how far right this county is. no one on the left or right cares about big business or job guaranty, it's all social issues. back in the day (probably before the 90s) socialist could side with democrats on some subjects but now nobody cares about economic issues or how they even work. the only hope i see at this point is ether leftcom or accelerationism.

Attached: e74fb4b3f8bf87e06a2d0f194a55e341.jpg (540x720, 64.81K)

You'll never win the support of the working class if the left continues it's policy of undercutting workers by importing third worlders that will work long hours for cheap.

youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
no true leftist

Well, that's not my definition, that's Marx's.

whyyyy
I mean, he's right but…..ugh

It's not.

Trump's voter base was mostly upper-income workers ("middle class") and he was behind Clinton in the popular vote - large cities, with the largest concentrations of workers, largely reject right-wing politics.

People saying the actual working class are mostly apolitical are mostly right. Service industry leans 'left' within mainstream politics while blue collar workers are a mixed bag (with factory workers leaning left compared to the current neoliberal order)

I'm guessing he's an ML.
Their definition of Petty Borgs goes a bit further, form what I've seen.

lol fuck off trade tards are just aspirational petty booj psychos whose greatest dream is to own a small business selling refurbished snowmobiles and retiring int a gated all-white suburb
the real working class is pissing in bottles in Amazon warehouses and sleeping in their car between shifts at Applebee's.

He was spouting nonsense alluding to no further development of class definition into the modern era, so CEO's are now proles according to that user. This isn't even a spiteful response, just that he's definitely not an ML and is even further from any kind of leftist if service labor is wholly exempt now from further class distinction and inquiry

Pretty much this. Why can't the working class be college educated people with at least 130 Autism Level?

I'll take your source pls

Yeah, that's the problem. I think you're right, btw.

It's just I think you're talking past eachother because he's not where you are at yet. I don't think the professional managerial class was as developed in Marx's time as it is today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory#Class_structure
I. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

II. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

CEO, actors, doctors who sell their labor powers and own no private property, by definition, are proles.

Nah, he's not a communist at all is my guess, considering he just pulled as a justification.

It isn't about the oppressor/oppressed dynamic, firstly. That's a Nietzschian view.
Marx considers it a historical necessity to either avoid potential calamity, or to obtain the most complete development of man.

I've no means production are have my surplus labour extracted, rather than extracting it from others. What part of "blue color worker" you didn't get it?

I'm not a contractor, nor a independent worker, much less was I demeaning other forms of work. I was merely providing a background to my experiences.

the fire rises brother!

Attached: socialism uk.png (1334x668 119.51 KB, 85.91K)

This goes way beyond contractors and independent professionals. The labor aristocracy differs from the petty bourgeoisie in that it doesn't directly own the means of production, but it DOES own investments and accumulate wealth. In America, roughly half of all workers fall into this category (thought this is falling, hence the panic of the declining middle class).

They demand the stock market rise and they demand property values go up and they demand inflation be tightly controlled, because they need see a return on their investments to retire comfortably (or, if they get lucky, open a small business selling artisan cupcakes). They demand taxes on income, property, and capital gains remain low to reduce the costs of investing and maximize their investments. They have no interest in unions, social programs, or regulations because they can afford to do without these things.

In all these ways and more, they are materially opposed to any working-class oriented form of politics. They may be morally convinced to support small reforms or other opportunist actions, but the material contradictions render them revolutionary inert.

And thus, you can't judge the revolutionary spirit of the working class based on the backwardness of the labor aristocracy. Of course they are reactionary - they are the beneficiaries of reactionary politics.

I wasn't talking about the "labour aristocracy". I'm talking "regular" workers, people that can barely live paycheck to paycheck. In my personal experience they are notoriously reactionary, they constantly act against their best interests and are hopelessly retarded.

I'm aware that class relations has nothing to do with wealth, but also I was wondering because, for example, the IWW does make a distinction between managers and workers. They draw the line at hiring power, which makes sense to me. I dunno.

Because like they are both revisionists and change Marxist idea into something that is more or less rich bad, poor good.

As someone who grew up in the silicon valley, it seems like too many of those people are reactionary bugmen who Think Elon Musk is jesus and wouldn't be opposed to fascism as long as it were organic and pastel-colored. I'm sure some of them could be converted if they read some Cockshott, though.