Questions for real socialists tm

Karl Marx has said numerous of times in his books that the polrtaret will expand to such a degree that communism would be inevitable. So my question is why is the opposite happening? Why is the working class in the western world so small and the middle class so big?

Attached: images.png (255x198, 7.81K)

Other urls found in this thread:

It's almost like the western bourg intentionall minimize the working class by exploiting the third world whenever possible in order to secure super profits or something.

Attached: 1529704527325.jpg (245x245, 27.75K)

I would hardly call China third world.

Read a wikipedia page before posting you retard

Attached: 83790612-B4C9-4D1D-A806-6A3F4E231EF0.png (191x201 7.03 KB, 79.98K)

Please explain.

China is still largely third world. The fact that they can openly challenge America just shows how weak they and their cucked citizens are.

Wot? This makes no sense mate.

How weak America is is how I interpreted what he said

Class is based on one’s relationship the means of production, not how much money you have. The fact still stands that 95% of people survive by selling their labour power to a tiny minority of people (i.e. capitalists) who extracts surplus value from them.

t. Marx

Even if things get better for the proles at the end of the day the more things change the more they stay the same.

In Marx's time:

I'm Sorry OP. You have faggot syndrome. Luckily it can be solved by reading and using your brain. If you haven't caught on yet, the memearrows mean that those statements are wrong.

Middle class is working class.

Depends on whether they are first world or not really.

Attached: 1529470875552.png (481x511, 130.41K)

The current proletariat is the biggest in human history both in absolute numbers as well as in percentage. How many peasants do you know?
As the other posters told you, read a book. I can't believe you keep coming here since almost a year now, have asked all kinds of stupid questions and still don't know the basics of Marxist theory?

I would say they are semi-proletarians. First world workers are not forced to sell their labour to survive, but the social ramifications are immense if you are a welfare queen. So they are pressured to sell their labour as well, but not as much as a Third Worlder who either has to work or die, or hustle some money through other means.

>on my board?
Where have the days gone where absolutely nobody would take mister Unruhe seriously.

Do you think Jason is the only advocate and representative of TWism in the world?

No, but he's the best meme we had back when people still didn't take his shit seriously

Kill yourself this board doesn't belong to delusional armchairs like you and neither does it belong to Unruhe fanboys. And tbh Revolution really is way more likely in non western countries that aren't radical police states already.

No user that's not how it works. Read Marx.

Actually it's been more like 2 years now.
I only know like 4 peasants, everyone else is middle or working class.

The fact you can be poor, jobless(not by your own choice), and not an outlander living off the grid is proof we are better than any system that can before.
I actually agree.

Sometimes. Labour unions in the us make sure of that.

So does that make us a big fish in a small pond or something like that?

Where do white collar workers fall under that? What about professors at universities? What about owners of charity organizations like salvation army? Do whore count as merchants? What about Thots, do they fall under royalty?

Came before

Why are they so cucked?

Attached: 1WQMZf.jpg (680x793, 27.5K)

Wealth ideally represents buying power.
Some people prefer extra free time over buying power.
In all systems, you will have an unequal distribution of buying power, simply because not everyone needs the same.
A level of egalitarianism is an extra effect, not necessarily a goal unto itself

We got a live one here, boys!

Maotist-turd-worldists are slowly turning into neocons, just like the Trots before them

Depends on relationship to MoP.
>white collar workers
>owners of charity organizations
If pimped out, worker. If independent, one among the rare (only ~6% of jobs in USA) class of self-employed. If also a madame, capitalist.
Only if they own land, through it slaves bound to that land, and a separate military upper class of slaves to conquer land from rival royal houses.

Unemployed in the Third World usually means no access to welfare benefits. You are being sent delusional, white middle-class kid if you think that the situation is even remotely comparable between a Third World and First World unemployed person. Also so much people in the Third World are not even proletarians yet.
t. someone who spend a year in a Third World country
Straight-out lie. Less than 20% of the people on welfare work in additional jobs. Not counting the ones on the black market, but clearly "overwhelming majority" is something you put out of your ass.

You know unemployment is actually higher in the 3rd world, in large part responsible for their instability and economic stagnation, right?
>USUALLY means no access to welfare
Indeed, some types of welfare even exist in most of the 3rd world that don't in burgerstan, like universal healthcare. And the fact that welfare, foreign aid, other charity, debt, and sponging off family/friends exists is why unemployed and underpaid alike can survive in both the 1st & 3rd worlds. Furthermore, in spite of its better funding in the 1st-world, welfare is severely underutilized by those eligible, with participation rates such as the merely awful 50% for child food aid, and the horrifying 10% for disability compensation:
That depends on your definition of "welfare". For instance, 32% of TANF went to working households, but 74% of EITC went to working households, and 56% of state/federal welfare money overall went to working poor:
This lines up with the fact that of Americans below the official poverty line, 2/3rds of those able to work did:
Given the amount of doctrinaire lies and ideology you're recycling untouched from both Maotist-Turd-Worldism and burgerstani neocons, you're a mouthpiece at the very least.