/lit/ - Literature

Aren't immigrants mostly working class?

that would be pro-working class in a capitalist system, where you would be worried about jobs. I imagine in a communist system, the more workers the better.

>>5203310
not really. usually upper-middle. it's a conspiracy by the media. they're usually people who were discriminated against for being successful in their country so they go elsewhere to start over.

>>5203271
>ITT: plebs who never read Marx

if you think about the final goal of socialism, creating a global marxism, the immigration MUST be open, i think.
but marxism doesn't make sense at all, the State will always fuck with the working class, it doesn't matter who's there.

Because Marx believed that the whole world, or at least all civilasations, would revolutionise together he said workers from all countries should come unite in their struggle. He favoured the abolishment of the state, and which would make immigration control unattainable. He also specifically said that there should be no states to keep workers from immigrating. He in essence favoured no border immigration.
Explicit in Marxism, this is a popular view among communists. Such as Woody Guthrie's song "This land is your land" is about open immigration. Also the CPUSA favours a friendlier immigration policy. Marx was anti nationalist, so he thought all people were equal, regardless of ethnicity or race, etc. As long as the working class controlled their working conditions, and shared their wealth he was happy. Today he would probably be critical of democrats or liberals, because he thought that liberals would cushion the working class and further prevent revolution. Liberals weaken the effects of capitalism, and raise the standard of living for the poor, preventing them from realising their fate, and thus organising. Pretty much he wanted the capitalists to have their way until they ruined society and the workers would be so fed up they would revolutionise and take control of the factories.

>>5203372
>Liberals weaken the effects of capitalism, and raise the standard of living for the poor, preventing them from realising their fate, and thus organising. Pretty much he wanted the capitalists to have their way until they ruined society and the workers would be so fed up they would revolutionise and take control of the factories.

You've put it into words, thank you, this crystallizes why I'm so frustrated with present day leftists.

>>5203364
>the State will always fuck with the working class
>it doesn't matter who's there.

what if the state were made up of the working class. check and mate. but seriously. let's not ban lobbyists. but rather consider it treasonous for any corruption no matter how small. we strip them of their property. we exile them to alaska or perhaps texas. term limits on supreme court justices. and one 6 year term for presidents.

>>5203341
Ye... no.

>>5203396
Not that liberals are "left" per se. Besides the scenario works only till the revolution and doesn't guarantee any long term change.

>>5203399

>unwashed masses running the state
>ever

>>5203341
That's certainly a sizable group of immigrates, but for the majority of history, the most common masses of immigrants were poor and working class. No media conspiracy.

>>5203441
was only kidding.

:)

>>5203396
>>5203396
Prevents them from realising what fate?

>>5203583
It prevents them from realising that they're simply a tool of a capitalistic society. It is a easing of the effects of capitalism, without getting rid of the real problem. Marx predicted that things would get so bad that the working class would rise up violently. Today liberals don't allow things to get this bad, by giving welfare, and unemployment, things that would not be found in a purely capitalistic society. Thus the liberals prevent a communist revolution by cushioning the working class, not letting them fall the full extent. It in essence bolsters up capitalism rather than allowing the revolution to take place.
I'm not exactly in favour of a communist revolution, but this is simply why Marx was critical of liberals. He thought they helped the working class, and by helping them weakened them. It may be why a lot of corporations are today supportive of democrats. Because they prevent communism, or workers uprising. They give them a longer leash, but never let them free.

What is internationalism.

If you're pro-worker you're necessarily anti-immigration, but not anti-immigrant.

Feminism and immigration exist only to please the corporate masters.

It would be interesting to see his reaction after you clarified that by "immigration" you didn't mean "workers following opportunity to new countries" but "London and Paris and Calcutta are now the same cities".

Did he enjoy British or French literature? Or was he really all about the proletarian soup pooling at the bottom?

>>5203659

>>5203659
>If you're pro-worker you're necessarily anti-immigration

That's like saying "if you're pro-worker you're necessarily anti-car"

You don't want to destroy valuable manual hoeing jobs with unemployment-causing rotary hoes, do you?

Dude, communism is not a pluralist society. Immigration is therefore not a problem,
no matter how many people come in (and I guarantee you most want to get out, not in).
Don't feel happy and integrated, problems with authority, religious issues ?
How about 5y of re-education camp ? Still problems ? How about 10y gulag ?
Still not integrated ?
How about building a whole town in Siberia using your hands and a shovel ?
Another 20y later you're either dead or 100% commie, most likely both.

>>5203271

In _Capital_, Marx makes mention of immigration to cite the tricks of the bourgeoisie, which class was simultaneously willing to ban emigration to prevent a rise in wages and wield imperial power to cause Irish immigration for the same purpose. Thus was Ireland converted into sheep-walks for British landlords by the expropriation of the Irish peasant and small-farmer, and British industry fattened on the cheap labor flooding the towns.

Of course, with the growth of poor-laws and multiform social welfare programs, surplus population in the imperialist states means more dosh from the taxpayer, and the taxpayer, in the final analysis, is primarily bourgeois. They are happy to use social welfare to pay for those they employ (even if only occasionally), as then the tax system merely includes the middle-classes and better paid workers in paying the wages of big capital's workers. The prospect of paying for the needy without exploiting them, however, is too horrible to consider.

For that reason, immigration is a tricky business for everyone. In the centers of industry, immigration has the wild support of big capital. In the more comfortable countries, immigration is a horrible bugbear that terrifies the more pampered workers and middle-classes and even the big bourgeoisie that have all the surplus population they want for exploiting. Bourgeois immigration policy is not always and everywhere the same.

The position of the proletariat will also depend on place and time. The structure of capitalism means immigration will happen no matter what, with the only question being on whose terms it takes place. In the case that immigration is very easy, legally or otherwise, the proletariat can only hope to negotiate the conditions under which immigration takes place. In extending wage protection and unemployment benefits to all immigrants, the rug is pulled from under the feet of potential employers, and the least damage is done to the working class position as a whole.

The opposite case is also possible where illegal immigration is unusually difficult. In such cases, the position of the proletariat becomes one of combating legal immigration and enforcing the most severe penalties for employers of illegal labor.

The thing is to study the dialectic in the place and time we find it. No one position is in all cases sufficient, and policy must change over the course of class struggle.

>>5203427
> Working class is inherently uneducated
hmm I wonder what kind of a system causes this

>>5203396
You are frustated at leftists for increasing the standard of living for everyone because.. ?

>>5204102
They've done nothing to change the exploitative and imbalanced playing field of 21st century capitalism.

Instead of raising the working class off the floor, they've merely tossed them a pillow, "You should be a bit more comfortable down there now".

>>5203889
>dat Althusser

>>5204081
>and the taxpayer, in the final analysis, is primarily bourgeois.
Empirically incorrect and a misrepresentation of Marx.

>>5204124
How so?

>>5204147
The bourgeoisie's income is derived primarily from skimming the proletariat, and more importantly, the core source of bourgeois income, capital gains, are taxed far below what income is in high brackets.

>>5204164
>A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a cost amount that was lower than the amount realized on the sale.

>"Long term" capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income.[1]

>>5203271
>I'd imagine if one was so pro-working class, they might be led to be anti-open-immigration.

>>5204180
>A capital gain is a profit that results from a disposition of a capital asset, such as stock, bond or real estate, where the amount realized on the disposition exceeds the purchase price. The gain is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price.[1]

>>5204112
The democratic party and other liberals today, are used as a tool of the corporate heads to prevent worker uprising.
>Instead of raising the working class off the floor, they've merely tossed them a pillow, "You should be a bit more comfortable down there now".
Instead of achieving workers rights, they offer a sedative. The rich are happy because they can continue to exploit the working poor, and the poor thinks that they have received a justice, when in fact they haven't. It is a genius idea of the rich to use this method. Whenever a "liberal" gets support from the rich, you can be sure it isn't the real deal.

>>5204184
Well it would mean that you would have to pay immigrants proper wages and give them befits, wouldn't it? How you can you honestly call that pro-worker?

>>5204164

Yes, profit and wages exist in dialectic antithesis, and capital gains are taxes at lower rates than income. This does not alter that the majority of tax dollars come from the bourgeoisie. Even income taxes, taking the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie together, primarily target these two. The amount of money that comes out of profit and wages together, goes back in a greater portion to wages through various social programs. This is perfectly in line with Marx's theory of wages, specifically what constitutes the general wage of the working class taken as a whole, which includes unemployment insurance and other social programs.

So, yes, the taxpayer is, in the *final* analysis, *primarily* bourgeois.

>>5204193
Read this.

http://www.std.com/~raparker/exploring/tseliot/works/essays/reflections_on_vers_libre.html

>>5204193
The "petty bourgeoisie" today is really a combination or proletariat and bourgeoisie; small business owners, for instance, often work their asses of as proles, even if they gain bourgeois perks. The pure bourgeois class, the haute bourgeoisie, doesn't pay a lot; by Warren Buffet's own admission, he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does.

>>5204201
/d/ is always complaining about the dominance of futa, though. It's on topic, but homogenous.

>>5204191

Because it prevents the employer from hiring at lower than minimum wages and benefits, which equally prevents any other than regular wage-competition. Illegal workers can be employed in preference to legal workers, which places increasing strain on unemployment insurance and social programs.

Of course, as I have mentioned, the opposite case is possible. Illegal immigration might be impossible or difficult due to whatever factor, in which case a policy against legalization of immigration is preferable.

There a no absolutes in methods of struggle. Any a priori position for or against legal immigration would be senseless, and would be to throw out dialectics.

>>5204229
This seems like a favoritism of workers by nationality, rather than of workers in general.

>>5204201

The petty bourgeoisie is the the petty bourgeoisie. This is a technical term, not a negotiable common-place like 'middle class.' The fact that the middle class, as the term is today used, includes the more pampered elements of the proletariat does in no way alter the distribution of tax burden.

Further, the better paid proletarians tend to be better paid for the expenses or their education, commute and/or the rarity of their specialty. Their wages are subject to the vicissitudes of the 'law of wages,' not the whim of the tax system. This is a basic point of Marxist theory; wages can only be relatively decreased by taxes.

>>5204193
You've not substantiated your point at all. Consumption taxes are reappropriations of wages. Income taxes are too, they are not levied on the bourgeois.

The "social wage" is a redistribution of the wage from individual to general labour in order to ensure the reproduction of labour power in general: it does not derive from taxes on the bourgeois.

In fact, all taxes, as surplus value, are derived from the activity and exploitation of productive labour.

>>5204273
If petty bourgeoisie were a technical term, there would be a very clear distinction between it and haute bourgeoisie, but there is not. Similarly, there is not a clear distinction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. There is a general distinction between owners and workers, but there is certainly not a technical one, and the closer you get to the division the more blurry things become. Does a family owned and operated store, make the family bourgeoisie?

>>5204260

Different nations have a different place in the division of labor in the world market. Different conditions require specific policies to account for them. Are we to adopt an a priori position on immigration and abandon dialectics, as with Bernstein?

>>5204309

It makes them petty bourgeois -- literally, petty property holders.

>>5204276

Of course all taxes ultimately are paid by labor exploitation, but that rather misses the point. The taxes paid by the bourgeoisie have already been appropriated, they are already the result of exploitation. When the tax system distributes this in the form of social wages, this is money back in the pockets of the workers.

In the discussion of expanding social programs, we are speaking purely of wages.

>>5204349
The majority of taxes are paid directly out of wages, either in consumption or income forms.

>>5204349
>It makes them petty bourgeois -- literally, petty property holders.
That's not "literally" petty bourgeois; it's not about owning property. In any case remember what Marx wrote about them. It's an intermediary class, pulled one way and then the other. A lot of ink has been spilled by contemporary Marxists trying to figure this group out. Trotskyists would all but eliminate them, including most "middle class" occupations in the working class, Poulantzas enlarged the category to the point that his working class was a tiny minority incapable of political power.

From the Manifesto:

In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

>>5204349
>It makes them petty bourgeois -- literally, petty property holders.
Ah, so a cooperative would be petty bourgeois?

>>5204396
Plus as someone who plans to move over there eventually the language is fun to learn, but when it comes to reading it wont be as usefull as other languages

Seriously though Åsmund Frægdegjevar

>>5204434
Trotskyites and their Kulak allies have sabotaged this thread! Stay alert, comrades...

>>5204383

Yes, it is. The term originally denotes a person that owns property in a town, does it not? Even so, it certainly denotes a certain relation to the means of production. One either appropriates a living through the sale or labor power, by the ownership of property, or a mix of the two.

The quote from the Manifesto merely intimates that the petty bourgeoisie is unstable. Petty bourgeois might be forced to sell their labor power and become proletarians in bad times, or grow to become large enough to exploit labor power themselves.

Very specifically, a proletarian must sell his labor power to capital for a wage in whatever form. No sale of labor power, no proletarian.

>>5204377

Marx's theory of wages is that wages alternate around the level of subsistence, the minimum required to support that general type of worker. Sales tax is merely the combat between the workers and the employers over the accidental excess. You are correct, however, that sales tax almost exclusively targets the working class.

Is the portion of income tax paid by the working class plus sales tax the majority of taxes in general? Do the majority of taxes paid go to social programs or to bourgeois interest (unrelated to social programs)? Does any portion of unemployment insurance go into the pockets of bourgeois, other than at the point of purchase?

>>5204396

They would be share-holders in a capitalist enterprise, assuming they made a return on their investment, and reinvested that return to expand their capital. You can not perform the most elementary of capitalist functions and say you are not a capitalist.

Do you think those share-holders would have proletarian praxis? Do you think they would be likely to fight for higher taxes on business, for example? The entire point of using these terms is to explain relations to the means of production and aid in identifying class interests.

>>5204094
We have the internet now, anyone with any intelligence can educated himself. If you are ignorant and uninformed of social/economic issues then you have no system of oppression to blame anymore. Egalitarian socialists are chasing their tails. Meritocratic, technocratic socialism is the only way forward.

But yes, anyone purporting to support workers should be anti-immigration.

>>5203422
>>5203441

Maybe I'm wrong but I think he was fairly obviously making a joke.

>>5204534
Many workers benefit from immigration, though. This is what we're saying -- any simplistic answer is wrong. Spanish workers wouldn't benefit from being unable to migrate. Soviet workers didn't benefit from being generally unable to migrate, and so on.

>>5204543
Hey, you can never know here.

>>5204494
So you think the Zapatista coffee cooperatives don't have a proletarian praxis?

>>5204568

Their praxis is limited by their market concerns. They own their own means of production, produce commodities, and sell commodities. They certainly aren't exploiting bourgeois, but their interests will not in all cases because they cannot align with those that live by the sale of their labor power.

They obviously have a direct interest in driving up wages. Yet, they also have an interest in competing on the market, limiting competing production, enforcing nationalist policy that goes against the interests of the proletariat.

Their interests must tend toward reformist policy, and it is only to that extent that they are reliable.

>>5204603
>they have an interest in enforcing nationalist policy

Elaborate, since they are declared enemies of their national government.

>>5204543
butterface is an autist though

>>5204616

A poor choice of words, on my part, as I am not familiar specifically with these coffee cooperatives. In a general sense, cooperatives would seem to have interests in limiting foreign imports, for example, that increase the price of whatever goods.

In this specific case, where the cooperative is an exporter, their interests would not seem to tend towards nationalism.

Ultimately, their property influences their praxis.

I wonder how you might define a cooperative, or the workers that operate it?

>>5204660
They are aligned with the Zapataista Army of National Liberation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation


Oh, there are many types of cooperatives, some a lot less inherently prole than others. My definition in this sense is simply an enterprise which makes no distinction between owner and employee.

>>5204494
>Do you think they would be likely to fight for higher taxes on business, for example?

Rich liberals like George Soros have been known to fight for higher taxes on businesses. Why not them?

>>5204692
When you want to drop the book, just remember this feeling you get for remembering not finishing your shit and living it haunting a part of your mind until you eventually come back. Remember and feel this feel that tells you that you fucked up.

Then go back to your reading, if you've really had your daily dose, just put the book somewhere you're sure to encounter it later, like in the fridge, on the keyboard, in your handkerchief box. It'll recall you on your priorities when you're obviously procrastinating

>>5204692
There's a bit of a misconception common among Marxists that the bourgeoisie is incapable of morality, or that where they do have morality, it is devised by sneaky experts to make a special morality that favors the bourgeoisie 100%. For instance, a Marxist would probably tell you that Soros favors this because it will guarantee him more profits in the long run, or because he wants to placate the workers. To be sure there are haute bourgeoisie who have no morality to speak of, such as Pat Robertson and the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump, and that statistically speaking the bourgeoisie tends to care less about their fellows than the proletariat does (that's been substantiated by many studies), but it is an error in judgement to assume all the bourgeoisie must be utterly conniving and amoral.

>>5204692

Higher taxes on their business would lower their competitive advantage, making it more likely that their business would become unprofitable, lose its ability to expand, and eventually become insolvent.

They *could* fight for higher taxes on business, particularly progressive taxes that targeted only the higher capitalists. The point is that their property concerns place a limit on their ability to struggle against property. Can it really be said that they have proletarian praxis?

>>5204731
Fighting for higher wages is proletarian praxis (ESPECIALLY when accomplished by unions instead of the state), but I don't think fighting for higher business taxes in general is. That's just taking money out of the hands of the individualist capitalists and putting it in the hands of the national capitalist. Now the national capitalist might give more crumbs to the workers as a way of gaining support for increasing it's power, but fighting for a stronger state is not fighting for workers, it's just fighting for the less disagreeable capitalist.

>>5204717

Aw, thanks, you gave me a reason to post it again.

I don't think Marx ever implies that bourgeois can't be moral -- Robert Owen, for example, was well known to him. Rather, bourgeois morality (from the proletarian point of view) is limited by fundemental bourgeois interests.

Isn't one of the needs of even the high bourgeoisie a living surplus labor force? Where the employed proletariat has no money to spare, someone has to pay for the excess. Couldn't that need manifest itself in the more noble form of charitable sentiment.

>>5204731
>making it more likely that their business would become unprofitable, lose its ability to expand, and eventually become insolvent.

Profit is somewhat overrated. Market power is more important and the most powerful company may not be the most profitable. Look at Amazon for example. It was unprofitable for a long time (and possibly still today) but has a staggering amount of market power.

>>5204784
>Isn't one of the needs of even the high bourgeoisie a living surplus labor force? W
Then why do people like Friedman support a negative income tax?

>>5204808

True enough, and cooperatives are all the more able to tolerate a lower rate of profit, as the primary interest of the share-holders would simply be to pay themselves a certain 'wage.'

I'll concede to the two of you on this, and I see your point. Many thanks.

>>5204828

HELLO?

>>5204797

>>5204828

Wasn't Friedman just a reactionary intellectual? I don't know that licking the big bourgeois boot is the same thing as being the bourgeois.

>>5204834
PLZ RESPOND

>>5204848
Would you say that Friedman is a good representative of the bourgeois ideology?

>>5204862

Depends on the stage of the industrial / commercial cycle. There's a time for Friedman and a time for Keynes, a time to sow and a time to reap. He's a decent enough example of bourgeois ideology in the boom, however.

I don't really see how a negative income tax is less a form of support for the surplus labor force than is an expansion of social programs. The only difference seems to be precisely where the money comes.

>>5204890
The idea of a negative income tax today is being propagated as basic income. Surely that would affect usable labor force?

>>5204862

WOULD YOU LIKE TO TYPE EROTIC STORIES TO ONE ANOTHER?

>>5204899

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't see what you mean. It would affect the usable labor force in the sense that it would raise the minimum level of wages required to employ, but this could be easily enough counteracted by mandatory employment seeking. In fact, that would almost be required for such a system.

How is that anything but cosmetically different from expanding social programs and tying these to mandatory employment seeking?

>>5204928
>In fact, that would almost be required for such a system.
I doubt it, we already have unemployment compensation. Basic income/negative income tax is determined solely by your income.

Just to be clear, mods, this is the real thread.

>>5204942

HELLO?

>>5204904
I don't think you can be erotic, Rei.

>>5204955
That's clearly not Rei

>>5204955

I AM NOT REI.

I AM THE MUCH MORE EMOTIONALLY BALANCED HUMAN BEING ENTITLED "KYO".

I WILL REPEAT, IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS NEW INFORMATION: WOULD YOU LIKE TO TYPE EROTIC STORIES TO ONE ANOTHER?

>>5204955
pizza-rama kink-arama?

>>5204967
idk do you have a sample

>>5204942
>I doubt it, we already have unemployment compensation.

Considering that no small number of Wal-Mart employees work and require assistance, I don't think it's necessary to compel job seeking just yet. Assistance, in the U.S. at least, doesn't really cover basic necessities where they are lacking. In the event that wages actually did start to rise, I can't imagine there not being a movement towards that.

(Sorry for any typos. I'm tired, and some will probably start slipping into the final post.)

>>5205018
Assistance is meant to buttress an income, it's not meant to function as a primary source of income.

>>5205027

That is certainly the bourgeois intent, yes.

>>5205027
Just keep on rollin rollin rollin

>>5205047
Basic income would a minimum livable income everyone is entitled to, or a dividend from socially owned companies.

>>5203271
Yes. Moderate immigration and anti-muslim shit.

Social democrats, don't even try.

>mfw /lit/ posters think they're not bourgeois

pro-tip: bourgeois means middle-class. if you're educated enough to post on /lit/, you're definitely not prole.

OF COURSE KARL MARX WAS PRO-IMMIGRATION YOU FUCKING MORONS, HE WAS A GODDAMN IMMIGRANT TO THAT BRITISH SHITHOLE AND HE APPLIED FOR BRITISH CITIZENSHIP JUST LOOK UP BASIC FUCKING KARL MARX BIOGRAPHIC FUCKING HISTORY.

ITS GODDAMN COMMON KNOWLEDGE FOR FUCK SAKE, ENGELS WAS AN IMMIGRANT, HIS FAMILY WERE IMMIGRANTS ALL TO FUCKING BRITAIN AND HE PRAISED THE ABILITY IN PERSONAL FUCKING WRITINGS OF OPPORTUNITY THROUGH TRAVEL TO FOREIGN LANDS.

FOR FUCKS SAKE, TITTYING CHRIST THIS IS SHITTING SIMPLE, HOW CAN YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING THIS LONG WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THIS SIMPLE SHIT

WHAT HAVE YOU ALL BEEN DOING? WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU ALL BEEN FUCKING TALKING ABOUT?

OBVIOUSLY CUNTING NOTHING, I FUCKING HATE THIS BOARD SOME TIMES.

>>5205064

Yes...? Forgive me, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

>>5205087
That you could live off basic income.

>>5205076
Bourgeois meant middle-class relative to an aristocracy, but there's not an aristocracy anymore.

State politics is about keeping your own state wealthy. You're a capitalist if you're anti-immigration.

>>5205110
>That you could live off basic income.

I can see that it's time for me to stop posting tonight. Thanks for the discussion.

>>5205110
it meant bourgeois relative to people who paid 3/4ths of their income for rent on some tiny shack and then bought adulterated poison bread on credit because they only got paid once every 17 years. it's in capital.

>educated first-worlder
>proletarian

Stop this delusional communist shit and just become a functioning adult

>>5205076
>only bourgeois people study

Not everyone lives in shitty countries like India or USA.

>>5205128
>Bourgeoisie (Eng.: /bʊərʒwɑːˈziː/; French pronunciation: [buʁʒwazi]) is a word from the French language, used in the fields of political economy, political philosophy, sociology, and history, which originally denoted the WEALTHY stratum of the middle class that originated during the latter part of the Middle Ages (AD 500–1500).[1][2]

>>5205132
It's absurd people's capacity for reading what they want to read in something that's meant to be completely opposed. That scene in Fight Club -- "His name is Robert Paulson" -- is a nice illustration of it.

>>5205139
read capital and compare the people described as proletariat in there to somebody who makes 20k today.

Everyone in the US is bourgeoisie if by bourgeoisie/proletariat you're speaking in terms of pinpointing a group who have potential to revolt.

>>5205164
>implying Marx invented the term "proletariat"
>implying I'm a Marxist
>implying I even think of myself as a prole regardless
I'm a comfy bourgeois calling you out on your stupidity

Reminder that communists are not proletarian. Communists are, for the most part, well-off upper middle class individuals who are butthurt that they don't occupy an even more elite position in society.

>>5205179
Practicality trumps empty pedanticism.

>>5205179
are you angered cousin

>>5205186
Speaking in terms of the US -- sure. But that's not how it is the world over. It's very obvious that communistic sentiment in high amongst war-torn nations.

>>5205179
>a comfy bourgeois

die already