• Kaffe@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago
    1. It’s not anti-Marxist, Engels was Bourgeois and allocated profit to fund revolution. If you can assist in communal development by hooking into the profit motive of the global economy, that’s okay.

    2. In Imperialist countries there’s very little difference between wage-laborers and the petty-bourgeoisie “proper” (as in, propertied), it mostly boils down to lifestyle choice, risks and gambles.

    3. In many economies, there are nationalities that are gate-kept from the wage-work ladder, these are the small business (often immigrants) selling food at metro stations or outside stadiums, the (historically) Black windshield washers, shoe-shiners, and other such “hustler” work. These are indeed petty-Bourgeois relations but they are enforced in a semi-formal, lumpenized form. The bottom of the petty-Bourgeoisie can be lower economically than minimum-wage work, because even minimum-wage work can be turned into a privilege (Diploma, GED).

    4. Marxists need not be Proletarians, however, their overall life’s work needs to be working toward the eventual emancipation of the Proletariat (exploited segment of the workforce).

    5. Most Imperialist countries, have little to no Proletariat “proper” (exploited laborers, realistically paid less than the global average of labor or around less than $5-6 USD). Un-exploited wage-laborers, often referred to labor-aristocracy or (dated) “servants”, make the bulk of an Imperialist country’s workforce.

      • Kaffe@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago
        1. Implying unions are inherently revolutionary
        2. Implying unions develop communities outside of creating Imperialist communities in Imperialist states.
        3. Any money you take from the stock market would be accumulating wealth already accumulated by the Bourgeoisie. If you could somehow create a permanent syphon to 3W or 4W resistance groups from the market then that’s cool.
        4. Purchase land and give it up to the nations it was stolen from == cool.
  • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Individual choice from the Liberal ideology is not Marxist solution for Capitalism in decay. The response to local material condition and holistic change to society are the approach of Marxism. In realistic scenario, for-profit business operation is not evil by itself; it depends on the business context, the business ethics, and the approach to generate revenue. The Capitalists who use Adam Smith’s book of The Wealth of Nations to justify exploitation of marginalized segment of the population were only making a misinterpretation since Adam Smith wrote that personal interest should motivate mutual cooperation for mutual interest instead of profit at the cost of the other party contrary to the statement by the Wall Street Capitalists who depend hoarding of wealth by the rich 1% to utilizes the trickle down theory.

    • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Agreed, but let us talk about practicality in terms of owning a business at all.

      The sheer buy-in, heavy loans, credit, taxes/bills will easily force the most liberal-minded business-owner into a selfless ghoul dependent on making their dream achieve on the backs of others no matter what. Either it be rental property, utilities that drive the very life-force of what is around us or even a fucking dog-grooming shop; they will exploit you and the economic conditions around them will practically force it.

      That’s the most disgusting part about pathetic small business “owners”. They suffer this, that being the very constant leverage of their own livelihood against them and the sheer sunken cost of trying to make their dream work, they grow up in poverty and struggle their entire lives even and yet they will turn their back on that suffering when their condition grows convenient. It is not ignorance. It is not a casual blind-eye turned. It is a purposeful nescience of empathy and humanity itself that they will indulge in when it comes time to do payroll.

      They serve a good purpose as pavement paint.

      I just have trouble seeing the approach of Engels working today.