Like my base assumption is that she's wrong. If you think the PMC is an actual class then you're also only one step away from 🤡
https://twitter.com/jacob__posts/status/1367492298783744001?s=19
Like my base assumption is that she's wrong. If you think the PMC is an actual class then you're also only one step away from 🤡
https://twitter.com/jacob__posts/status/1367492298783744001?s=19
Haven't finished yet but I think it's pretty good so far. At the part where they're talking about microdosing being co-opted into enhancing productivity and centering around work instead of the taking-you-out-time culture it used to have
It is really good, but this guy's upset they didn't stick to the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie dichotomy that's literally never existed in Marxist theory.
He's also upset they discuss culture as something separate from economic class. They don't actually, they constantly tie it back to the economic role of the PMC. But he's convinved that class disappears once you leave the workplace, so consumption can't be class related.
Huh? Mao directly cites Marx and Lenin as uncovering and explaining the proletariat-bourgeoisie principle contradiction
And yet Mao recognised the existance of more than two classes in Chinese society.
Of course there are. I’m confused what the issue here is. No one is saying there is only the proletariat and only bourgeoisie. There is labor aristocracy, petit-bourgeoisie, lumpenprole, new gradients that emerging even now as a result of present material conditions. But the principal contradiction is defined by the relationship of the proletariat, the exploited, and the bourgeoisie, the exploiters. What’s so hard about that to understand
What do you mean by this?
Marx presented the Bourgeoisie/Proletariat dichotomy as something that's emerging.
"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."
Notice the use of the present tense. The peasantry was still being shaped into the Proletariat. It hadn't vanished completely. Same with the nobility, the clergy, etc.
Later Marxists, especially those in developing countries, continued to define the peasants as a separate class. Even a century after Marx, Capitalism hadn't fully solidified the two class system.
Marx's "two camps" lives on, even when "two great classes" is not an accurate reflection of reality. It's not uncommon for peasants to join the proletarian camp politically. In the developing nations, even the bourgeoisie can be part of the proletarian camp.
Given that the two class system was always a prediction of the future, and never an established reality, we don't have to dogmatically cling to it in our analyses. It's possible to identify classes and subclasses in developed nations, as it was in the semi-feudal nations.