Even marxists don’t simplify the classes as much as that diagram suggests. It’s missing peasants, artisans and the petty bourgeois. It’s also never been as simple as capitalist vs working class. Capitalists regularly fight amongst themselves as do the working class. This whole idea of class struggle being the only struggle is so oversimplified it’s kinda silly.
I don’t think it’s honest to frame it in generational language either btw. Though that is a component of it.
Imagine that - an infograph gives a concise summery of a larger idea… 🤯
Either way - it is really that simple and splitting the working class in to splinter groups is just another division, which again - only serves the owning class. Them fighting amongst themselves is irrelevant, they’ve been united enough to maintain this system for centuries because they have the same goal - stay in power, make as much money as possible. If that happens via collaboration one week, then they’ll collaborate that week, if it means they need to go to war the next week, then they will, and have been, doing exactly that.
In contrast, as long as the working class stays divided (along race, gender, ability, and even “work level” or whatever you’d call the division you’ve brought up) we will never be free.
I’m the furthest thing from a class reductionist, and I think intersectionality is vital, but all of the systemic barriers we face (racism, sexism, ableism, querrphobia, and so on) exist to serve capitalism and those who benefit from it. That doesn’t mean those systems don’t need addressing, but part of doing that is understanding why they exist, and how they serve to divide us.
Seriously, what end could splitting hairs over “peasants” or “artisans” possibly serve (And are those hundreds of years old terms even relevant in our world with our technology?)? Even the petit bourgeois is oppressed by the owning class, the system convincing them that a “middle class” exists is part of the fucking con, and the whole fucking point is to see how irrelevant these semantics are and fucking unite so that we can have a better society for everyone… 🤦♀️
Seriously, what end could splitting hairs over “peasants” or “artisans” possibly serve (And are those hundreds of years old terms even relevant in our world with our technology?)? Even the petit bourgeois is oppressed by the owning class, the system convincing them that a “middle class” exists is part of the fucking con, and the whole fucking point is to see how irrelevant these semantics are and fucking unite so that we can have a better society for everyone… 🤦♀️
You haven’t read marxist or anarchist theories very well if this is what you think.
Artisans are any one man business. They don’t have employers to exploit them that’s why they are an important class in marxist analysis.
Petty bourgeois aren’t middle class necessarily; it refers to small business owners. They are exploiters of the workers beneath them while being exploited by others. Small time land lords would be petit bourgeois for example. These people are in essence part of the “owner class” because they own a business or building.
Peasants are not considered to be a revolutionary class because they aren’t the proletariat. Not a problem in western societies but some countries still have peasants.
all of the systemic barriers we face (racism, sexism, ableism, querrphobia, and so on) exist to serve capitalism and those who benefit from it.
You don’t think racism affects business owners or landlords? Or sexism? Or anything else?
This is the kind of assertion given without evidence that made me leave marxists behind. I am sick to death of people claiming all these problems are because of capitalism. If anything capitalism has helped address some of these issues like sexism because women not working is bad for the system. In fact not fully utilizing people because of prejudice in general is bad for capitalism which is all about efficiency and exploitation.
Edit: also policy regarding peasants is one area where marxism and anarchism differ significantly from what little I understand of anarchism.
This whole idea of class struggle being the only struggle is so oversimplified it’s kinda silly.
There’s nothing wrong with a simplified model if it gets you the results you’re looking for. And for the vast majority of the working class thinking in simplistic terms such as capitalist vs. worker would improve their lives tremendously.
The more complex models might be useful for explaining how things change and evolve. But mainly complexity is introduced by capitalists (or capitalist simps) to sow discord among workers and keep us from organizing effectively.
Why are all the marxists coming out of the wood work? Y’all can’t run a society for shit. Why are you still here and existing?
China was one of your experiments that went wrong. Go and build a working model for a socialist or communist society and I might listen. Until then you have nothing to add. Anarchists had better luck than you guys and you killed them for it.
Even marxists don’t simplify the classes as much as that diagram suggests. It’s missing peasants, artisans and the petty bourgeois. It’s also never been as simple as capitalist vs working class. Capitalists regularly fight amongst themselves as do the working class. This whole idea of class struggle being the only struggle is so oversimplified it’s kinda silly.
I don’t think it’s honest to frame it in generational language either btw. Though that is a component of it.
Imagine that - an infograph gives a concise summery of a larger idea… 🤯
Either way - it is really that simple and splitting the working class in to splinter groups is just another division, which again - only serves the owning class. Them fighting amongst themselves is irrelevant, they’ve been united enough to maintain this system for centuries because they have the same goal - stay in power, make as much money as possible. If that happens via collaboration one week, then they’ll collaborate that week, if it means they need to go to war the next week, then they will, and have been, doing exactly that.
In contrast, as long as the working class stays divided (along race, gender, ability, and even “work level” or whatever you’d call the division you’ve brought up) we will never be free.
I’m the furthest thing from a class reductionist, and I think intersectionality is vital, but all of the systemic barriers we face (racism, sexism, ableism, querrphobia, and so on) exist to serve capitalism and those who benefit from it. That doesn’t mean those systems don’t need addressing, but part of doing that is understanding why they exist, and how they serve to divide us.
Seriously, what end could splitting hairs over “peasants” or “artisans” possibly serve (And are those hundreds of years old terms even relevant in our world with our technology?)? Even the petit bourgeois is oppressed by the owning class, the system convincing them that a “middle class” exists is part of the fucking con, and the whole fucking point is to see how irrelevant these semantics are and fucking unite so that we can have a better society for everyone… 🤦♀️
You haven’t read marxist or anarchist theories very well if this is what you think.
Artisans are any one man business. They don’t have employers to exploit them that’s why they are an important class in marxist analysis.
Petty bourgeois aren’t middle class necessarily; it refers to small business owners. They are exploiters of the workers beneath them while being exploited by others. Small time land lords would be petit bourgeois for example. These people are in essence part of the “owner class” because they own a business or building.
Peasants are not considered to be a revolutionary class because they aren’t the proletariat. Not a problem in western societies but some countries still have peasants.
You don’t think racism affects business owners or landlords? Or sexism? Or anything else?
This is the kind of assertion given without evidence that made me leave marxists behind. I am sick to death of people claiming all these problems are because of capitalism. If anything capitalism has helped address some of these issues like sexism because women not working is bad for the system. In fact not fully utilizing people because of prejudice in general is bad for capitalism which is all about efficiency and exploitation.
Edit: also policy regarding peasants is one area where marxism and anarchism differ significantly from what little I understand of anarchism.
There’s nothing wrong with a simplified model if it gets you the results you’re looking for. And for the vast majority of the working class thinking in simplistic terms such as capitalist vs. worker would improve their lives tremendously.
The more complex models might be useful for explaining how things change and evolve. But mainly complexity is introduced by capitalists (or capitalist simps) to sow discord among workers and keep us from organizing effectively.
Why are all the marxists coming out of the wood work? Y’all can’t run a society for shit. Why are you still here and existing?
China was one of your experiments that went wrong. Go and build a working model for a socialist or communist society and I might listen. Until then you have nothing to add. Anarchists had better luck than you guys and you killed them for it.
I mean, call me whatever you want. It’s irrelevant. Do you need my vote or not? If you don’t then ignore me. If you do then pay attention.
So are you a marxist or something else?
Which country do you live in? I live in the UK so unless you are here it’s mostly irrelevant what you vote for.
You asked the question bud. Not my fault you don’t like the answer.
So I will take it you don’t live here and I don’t need your vote.
If you only want UKers answering your question then say so in the first place.
You’re the one who asked if I needed your vote lmao. I don’t. You’re just annoyed you don’t have any leverage over me.