3 ms·
It's pretty egregious. Every time there is a discussion on HN that involves wealth (wealth inequality, trends for different wealth levels, intergenerational wea
by sudosysgen 5y ago
It's pretty egregious. Every time there is a discussion on HN that involves wealth (wealth inequality, trends for different wealth levels, intergenerational wealth, wealth taxes, etc...), people end here up basically redefining bourgeoisie and proletariat three levels down into the comment thread, and getting it slightly wrong in different ways each time.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThat's because a bunch of people who have houses in nice school districts, drive nice cars, have plenty of PTO, can afford a maid/babysitter, etc, etc, would rather redefine bourgeoisie than acknowledge that they're part of the bourgeoisie per the standard definition. Current social trends toward redefining words on a whim for rhetorical and ideological convenience certainly exacerbate the issue.
- sudosysgen 5y agoBut that in and of itself is not even being bourgeois, it's middle class in the standard definition.
- animalgonzales 5y agoAmerican definitions of "class" are just a way to obscure the lines between the owners and the workers. Most middle class people are petite bourgeoisie or labor aristocracy proletariat