Envix said:

---

The Ecstatic said:

GerryD said:

---

Communism is when world leader MSNBC tells me is bad.

---

Envix said:

---

Envix said:

---

Icon said:

Envix said:

---

I disagree with this. The middle class is practically deputized capitalists. The billionaires need second-hand slave ownership to be possible for the American Dream to continue enticing people to drop all morals for money. The suburban home-owners, with retirement accounts invested in the stock market, count on CEO's continuing to exploit every environmental and human rights loophole, to maintain the life they've built off the crumbs of capitalism. They benefit from systemic inequality, mainly through inherited privileges. (stable housing, access to higher education, connections). Those people are just as likely to resist policies that level the playing field.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

The distinction is where the wealth primarily comes from -- the capitalist class (haute bourgeoisie) derives wealth from owning and controlling the means of production; the proletariat from their own labour; and the petite bourgeoisie from a combination of their own labour and the labour of others

It's certainly possible for a member of the petite bourgeoisie to accumulate enough wealth that they become out-and-out capitalists, but until that happens their class positions are much more precarious -- although they exploit the labour of the working class, they are still being exploited by the capitalist class

Edit: and, at least historically, the observed tendency is that this precarity will turn the petite bourgeoisie towards fascism in order to further exploit the working class, rather than towards revolutionary politics

---

Icon said:

shivas.wisdom said:

The distinction is where the wealth primarily comes from -- the capitalist class (haute bourgeoisie) derives wealth from owning and controlling the means of production; the proletariat from their own labour; and the petite bourgeoisie from a combination of their own labour and the labour of others

It's certainly possible for a member of the petite bourgeoisie to accumulate enough wealth that they become out-and-out capitalists, but until that happens their class positions are much more precarious -- although they exploit the labour of the working class, they are still being exploited by the capitalist class

Edit: and, at least historically, the observed tendency is that this precarity will turn the petite bourgeoisie towards fascism in order to further exploit the working class, rather than towards revolutionary politics

---

I think the more important distinction is they're exploiting others, not that they're also being exploited. I assume that's why they're paid more, to wipe their tears and sell their loyalty in exchange for precarious privileges. Restructuring shouldn't stop at billionaires; every possibility of exploiting labor for profit needs to be uprooted or you've just mowed the grass.

No one with a home should have extra income to spend until everyone has a home and debt free. That should be the minimum bar to begin reallocation from.

---