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

    • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Peasants are a separate class. Always have been.

      Some people are being way to simplistic in their analysis of class. It's not just own shit/do shit. Nobles are different from Bourgeoisie, Proletarians are different from Peasants.

      This is the nuance you lose when you get your theory from the internet instead of books.

      • leftofthat [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        instead of books

        name this book, sir! (please?)

        What would be a good resource for "Nobles are different from Bourgeoisie, Proletarians are different from Peasants"

        • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1 should make clear that the class systems of Feudalism and Capitalism are distinct. You can find further references to this in Capital.

          Really, any of his works should make clear that he saw his time as one of transition, where the bourgeoisie was still establishing its hegemony in much of Europe. The Bourgeoisie was a separate class which was in the process of overthrowing the nobility.

          Bourgeoisie originally just refered to free, urban townspeople in European feudal society.

          The primary difference, if we stick to "means of production" was that nobles owned land, while the bourgeoisie owned tools and workshops. Both are forms of productive capital and can be used to extract surplus value (though, initially most Bourgeoisie extracted it from themselves), but the key difference is that land is not a commodity. It's a finite resource (unless you're Dutch). This meant wealth was finite for nobles, but for the Bourgeoisie, it was something that could be created. This kicked off a series of transformations in the bourgeoisie, including the increased reliance on wage labour. This would transform the bourgeoisie into modern capitalists, and capitalism would eclipse feudalism.

          So, clearly relations to the means of production as a definition for class doesn't just come down to own/work. Different forms of ownership and ownership of different things can have huge impacts. As can relationships to government, the church, and other centers of power outside the primary means of exploitation.

          • JuneFall [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I appreciate your post and it got a lot of good elements in it. I would like to highlight how the movement in Berlin to withdraw the housing market from capitalist control can be seen as reaction to the struggle against the neoliberal marketization and privatization which enables the conversion of capital to land and vice versa. As such the struggle naturally has to not be happy with small steps, but has to remain as goal to abolish capitalism as only then will the attacks of capital against the materials necessary to reproduce to generate a profit stop.

        • RedDawn [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I remember principles of communism by Engels being a little Q&A pamphlet and one of the questions is “so the proletariat hasn’t always existed?”

          Edit: link, it goes into the difference between proletariat and other working classes that existed in pre capitalist economies https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm