It makes sense why so many of the authentic anti-communist powers in the 'cold war' were social-democracies. While dissolution of the Middle Class by bourgeoisie capitalism expropriates them to become proletariat, it also inherently benefits the cause.
The Middle Class must go in order for people to accept socialism. Natural selection will weed out the 'anti-communists' and those who exhibit the weakness of not revolting in order to survive.
are we going to ignore that "middle class" isn't a Marxist category. This essentially is an income range where some are proletarian and some are laboor aristocracy and some are petit bourgeois.
There definitely is plenty of middle class that gains from, from a socialist program, consider that there would be a debt jubilee.
Besides the most reactionary faction in capitalism is finance capital by leaps and bounds.
it's a third wordlist theoretical blind-spot.
Charles Darwin is spinning in his grave, 'anti communism' isn't a biological trait natural selection can select against.
This is 'God will smite the wicked' but with pseudo science, which makes it worse.
I think he's responding to this means.tv video which objected to the term "middle class" for similar reasons. But this can just be a casual way of referring to what you're talking about, the petit-bourg and labor-aristocratic factions within the working class.
How so? There's a big difference between a first-worlder with a car and a house and a third-world worker who's slaving away in an open-air pit mine. The means.tv types who reject the settler / labor aristocratic theory just seem like they're trying to win people over to a Bernie Sanders program.
"labor aristocracy" is a flat out brainlet take. There are plenty of reasons why class consciousness didn't take root in the west (in the US alone, the CIA subverting communist groups, the red scare making communism literally illegal, trade union members forced to sign waivers stating under penalty of perjury they weren't communists, ent sho on), "it's because they make more money!" smacks of jealousy and has no actual proof aside from correlation = causation. You have to literally be retarded to think making material conditions better for the proletariat is what's stopping the revolution, and even dumber to think making conditions worse is revolutionary.
and yes I'm aware of how spicy a take insinuating jealousy on someone else's part is re:leftism, I simply cannot come up with another explanation for so many people here clinging to somenthing solely because it's theory.
The CIA certainly did a number on communist groups but you have to look at it materially otherwise you rely primarily on conspiracy theory (although these conspiracies to destroy communists were certainly real). It's not about "they make more money." The U.S. in particular made it a matter of state policy to give every white man with a pulse a mortgage on the basis that debt-encumbered homeowners don't go on strike. You buy a house and put down a mortgage, and if you pay it off you now own an asset – and your politics becomes very concerned with maintaining the value of that asset. Homeowners in the U.S. organize as a group in many places against public housing, for example. "Not in my backyard." This is true even if these homeowners work for money wages.
Then people started flipping houses as a form of speculation, which destroys the housing market so now a lot of people can't access it: a contradiction betwen use and exchange value. But that's how you get a re-proletarianization of Western workers to an extent.
Maybe it's because we are historical materialists and have seen it happen again and again. The base of every reaction is made up off the middle class or whatever you want to call a the priviliged-but-not-ruling group. These are not a novel creation of capitalism but existed in every class society. The proper bourgeoisie are just far too few to oppress the proletariat, they need their slave drivers. Many of them would be worse of under socialism at least initially which means being anticommunist is in their self-interest, but even disregarding that, purely being better relative to others if of value to people, that's just psychology.
the problem with your theory is that it only applies to the US. In Europe, we never had 'red scares' on the scale of intensity of in the US, and yet we still have the same problems, albeit not as bad. Also: Are you even a Marxist at this point?
it's still better then third world-dism, which assumes that emiseration makes people revolutionary. That's almost reminiscent of purgatory cleansing the soul.
Marx pointed towards the proletariat as a revolutionary class because he thought they had the power.
Can't it be said that evolution will select humans or proletariat with the psychological traits most capable of giving them the will to rebel in order to survive?
While those who refuse to do so, even in-spite of the conditions would be selected out?
Yes, because a miner in Australia making 200k per year with three investment homes, two 80k cars and a jet ski is the same class as an 8 year old cobalt miner in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
because this is the typical worker in the first world
Fairly typical in Australia correct.
I don't think it's emiseration but an increasing rate of exploitation. They're basically saying that subsistence farmers in the third world are being rapidly proletarianized and entering into the chain of commodity circulation and into capitalist social relations where the rate of exploitation becomes basically infinite. Like, that's most of the international working class at this point, and one out of every four *people* in the world live in what are basically unplanned shanty towns.
I say basically a lot
The rate of exploitation is quite often higher in first world countries, than it is in third world countries, first world workers have higher productivity levels, which makes this possible. Your comment about shanty towns makes it sound like worse conditions = more revolutionary. This doens't seem to be true, i think that stuff like future prospects play a role as well.
communism is socialism that uses class as the great enemy Nazism is socialism that uses race as the great enemy
Is that not just worse economic conditions they were goaded into, then? Doesn't that illustrate my point?
By the very nature of wage slavery, it cannot be that the workers would not be better off without capitalists. If they could not be exploited, they would not be exploited, and if some enterprising capitalist fielded workers at a loss to combat radicalization, he would simply be outcompeted by capitalists that don't care, of which there are many.
The only example otherwise I can think of is people who have to actively oppose anticapitalists or get thrown out on the streets, like the CIA or preindustrial militaries like you alluded to.
This but unironically
But no seriously, "investment homes" breaches into the territory of being a capitalist, that is quite literally rent seeking behavior
WAit do miners really make 200k in aus? I need to change jobs jesus
This orwelian dystopian censored nightmare grows worse.
is google literally censoring any and every possible reference to hitler at all now?
and modern liberals are cancer I hate how the left hyjacked the word to disguise their garbage
Nope, evolution acts on genes, political positions aren't genetic. This has been refuted very very thoroughly. Biopolitics, is a liberal spook.
If you want to have a evolutionary metaphor for communism, you have to look at societies as a hole, not individuals. Basically a communist society would be more efficient because it does not have a ruling class that wastes surplus on unproductive upper-class nonsense, and it would not suffer from the damages of class war.
Socialism is when the gubernment does a thing. Checkmate gommie.
nothing is inherently reactionary, that's absolutism, unruhe is retard
Isn't he middle class
It's hyperbole. It's not wrong to say that reactionary tendencies manifest themselves in the middle class at a significant rate. Generational wealth accumulates in some of these families. Private schools, tutors, and Harvard are in their sights.
btw, his scar is from his skyrim cosplay.
last time I saw this guy there was a Zig Forumsyp raid on Zig Forums laughing at him over his debate with Richard Spencer (?). He's lookin' good.
Yes we do live in a two class society (those who make money from capital and those who don't) but in practice there is a middle class of better educated proletarians who really don't want to seem associated with the "dirty peons" bellow them. And these people do have some significant differences, mainly that they already have a lot (or at least more than others) of bargaining power at work, thus not benefiting from unionisation or other kind of worker solidarity. Also what said.
class -> relation to the means of production, income ranges are not materialist.
Arguing that a income-range is a class is liberal idealism.
politics is not subject to natural selection, that is retarded biocentrism.
middle class as political force only exists in soc-dem capitalism with unions as their political structures. The middle class has already gone away, and the result is largely negative.
We should never be instrumentalised to argue for a worsening of the conditions of working class. that would be allying with neo-liberalism quest to increase exploitation.
we should instead always seek to improve the material standing of the working class at the expense of the capitalist class.
class conciseness, is dependant on relation to the means of production and the rate of exploitation, not income level.
proper materialists are not fooled by money mystifications.
You are ignoring observable reality in favor of theoretical axioms. In imperialist countries (where the "middle class" are always large relative to the third world) the middle class is extremely chauvinist and reactionary.
Ordinary people are very much enchanted and under the spell of these mystifications, especially the highly educated and skilled.
Invention of the white race > settlers
there is no white proletariat
Race war is cumming
class relates to the means of production, income ranges are not materialist. class conciseness, is dependant on relation to the means of production and the rate of exploitation, not income level. Arguing that a income-range is a class is liberal idealism, and money calculations represent a mystification of material reality, and for a materialist analisis these mystifications must be de-mystified. politics is not subject to natural selection, that is retarded biocentrism. middle class as political force only exists in soc-dem capitalism with unions as their political structures. The middle class has already gone away, and the result is largely negative. We should never be instrumentalised to argue for a worsening of the conditions of working class. that would be allying with neo-liberalism quest to increase exploitation. we should instead always seek to improve the material standing of the working class at the expense of the capitalist class. The book settlers is a left-deviation. Race war is right-wing masturbation fantasy (can we get that word filter back please)
t. Hasn't read any Gramsci, cultural hegemony effects the subjective conditions under which people live in and think in