Man reactionaries are so obsessed with barristas its insane

It’s incoherent splitting along cultural lines with no basis in Marxism, ie splitting and wrecking

Proletarians are proletarians because they only have their labor to sell. It's their relation to capital, not the form of work they do within capitalism that makes them proletarians. Also the meme assumes that coffee defys the laws of thermodynamics and is made from nothing.

This is like saying an apprentice carpenter is not working class because they're merely putting together finished materials, and really the sawmill operator who created the lumber is working class.

"Being a worker is when you're a white straight man in overalls who hits metal with hammers in a steel mill for a living."

• Karl Marx, "How to tell real workers from blue haired woke SJW's", 1883

deleted by creator

No basis, if there was then anybody who didn't actually make a thing would fall into this category.

Delivery driver? Fuck you bourgie. :bateman-ontological:

Stocker in a grocery store? Fuck you bourgie. :debate-me-debate-me:

Cashier anywhere? Fuck you bourgie. :maybe-later-kiddo:

Any job that has you filling out paperwork about a thing but not actually making a thing? Fuck you bourgie. :youre-laughing:

Its all nonsense.

Unexamined misogynist conception of work romanticizing the working class as traditionally masculine jobs and reactionary anger directed at traditionally feminine/androgynous jobs.

From Bullshit Jobs

But even when it comes to factory labor, there is something of a darker story. The initial instinct of most early factory owners was not to employ men in the mills at all, but women and children: the latter were, after all, considered more tractable, and women especially, more inured to monotonous, repetitive work. The results were often brutal and horrific. The situation also left traditional male craftsmen in a particularly distressing situation; not only were they thrown out of work by the new factories, their wives and children, who used to work under their direction, were now the breadwinners. This was clearly a factor in the early wave of machine-breaking during the Napoleonic Wars that came to be known as Luddism, and a key element in allaying that rebellion seems to have been a tacit social compromise whereby it came to be understood that it would be primarily adult men who would be employed in factory work. This, and the fact that for the next century or so labor organizing tended to focus on factory workers (partly simply because they were the easiest to organize), led to the situation we have now, where simply invoking the term "working class" instantly draws up images of men in overalls toiling on production lines, and it's common to hear otherwise intelligent middle-class intellectuals suggest that, with the decline of factory work, the working class in, say, Britain or America no longer exists-as if it were actually ingeniously constructed androids that were driving their buses, trimming their hedges, installing their cables, or changing their grandparents' bedpans. In fact, there was never a time most workers worked in factories. Even in the days of Karl Marx, or Charles Dickens, working-class neighborhoods housed far more maids, bootblacks, dustmen, cooks, nurses, cabbies, schoolteachers, prostitutes, caretakers, and costermongers than employees in coal mines, textile mills, or iron foundries. Are these former jobs "productive"? In what sense and for whom? Who "produces" a souffle? It's be cause of these ambiguities that such issues are typically brushed aside when people are arguing about value; but doing so blinds us to the reality that most working-class labor, whether carried out by men or women, actually more resembles what we archetypically think of as women's work, looking after people, seeing to their wants and needs, explaining, reassuring, anticipating what the boss wants or is thinking, not to mention caring for, monitoring, and maintaining plants, animals, machines, and other objects, than it involves hammering, carving, hoisting, or harvesting things.

I work in a factory, and if you don't think barista work is basically the exact same thing as food processing, metal working, or creating a fucking baseball, I have a curb I want to introduce your teeth too.

:uncle-ho-2: was a pastry chef on a ferry in europe before he lead the liberation of Vietnam. do not underestimate the revolutionary potential of the treat engineer

deleted by creator

Making linen into coats is labor but making beans into a drink isn’t?

:fedposting:

posting Sam Elliot memes unironically

The sentence is death. :brace-cowboy:

Is there literally any kind of Marxist basis for this asshole’s position?

no, proletarians are simply those who have to sell their labour to live. And even if this guy was right, and baristas were not proletarians, who cares?

1. No, there's no Marxist basis for this.

2. If "agents of circulation for the Suplus[sic] value" do not count as labor, then truck drivers and rail workers don't count as labor. But those jobs are masculine-coded, so there's no way this guy would ever use this same nonsense argument against them.