3 ms·

When the bourgeoisie speak, they are not speaking for the benefit of the proletariat. I do enjoy the byline!

by nullindividual 3y ago

heyodai 3y ago
[flagged]
readthenotes1 3y ago
Andreeson is hardly bourgeoisie.
- vb6sp6 3y ago
  [dead]
- MrRolleyes 3y ago
  [dead]
- leoszliard 3y ago
  In what respect?
- nullindividual 3y ago
  Perhaps you're looking at the 18th century definition of 'bourgeoisie', which commonly means middle class. However, the clue was the use of 'proletariat' which is the wage-earning class while 'bourgeoisie' would be the class which owns the means to production, in a Marxist context.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Yep. Though he's not really rentier, either--he's more like meta-rentier, and probably closer to aristocracy (though I don't know marks isn't well enough to know if he had that as a separate group)
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Perhaps you're looking at the 18th century definition of 'bourgeoisie', which commonly means middle class. Its the same class that became the capitalist ruling class; just prior to the effective displacement of the titled nobility as a center of power as a distinct class the bourgeoisie was a relatively narrow elite that was the middle class between the titled nobility and the peasantry, in much the same way that the petit bourgeoisie under capitalism is a relatively narrow elite when looking at society as a whole, but still the “middle class” between the haut bourgeois pure/major capitalist and the wage-labor-dependent proletariat.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
There is wealth and power accumulation in every known human social system. Capitalism just makes the wealth and power contingent on having delivered value to a large number of people, were “value” is judged by those same people. The problem comes when the people do not judge value correctly, such as when they weigh positive first order effects over much worse Nth order effects (for example obesity inducing foods). Tearing down the current system would not address the problem of wealth or power concentration, it would just change where it is concentrated. Better regulation is needed. Definitely removing the ability of the wealthy to directly influence regulation is needed.

When the bourgeoisie speak, they are not speaking for the benefit of the proletariat. I do enjoy the byline!

heyodai 3y ago

[flagged]

readthenotes1 3y ago

Andreeson is hardly bourgeoisie.

vb6sp6 3y ago
[dead]
MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]
leoszliard 3y ago
In what respect?
nullindividual 3y ago
Perhaps you're looking at the 18th century definition of 'bourgeoisie', which commonly means middle class. However, the clue was the use of 'proletariat' which is the wage-earning class while 'bourgeoisie' would be the class which owns the means to production, in a Marxist context.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Yep. Though he's not really rentier, either--he's more like meta-rentier, and probably closer to aristocracy (though I don't know marks isn't well enough to know if he had that as a separate group)
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Perhaps you're looking at the 18th century definition of 'bourgeoisie', which commonly means middle class. Its the same class that became the capitalist ruling class; just prior to the effective displacement of the titled nobility as a center of power as a distinct class the bourgeoisie was a relatively narrow elite that was the middle class between the titled nobility and the peasantry, in much the same way that the petit bourgeoisie under capitalism is a relatively narrow elite when looking at society as a whole, but still the “middle class” between the haut bourgeois pure/major capitalist and the wage-labor-dependent proletariat.

pfannkuchen 3y ago

There is wealth and power accumulation in every known human social system. Capitalism just makes the wealth and power contingent on having delivered value to a large number of people, were “value” is judged by those same people. The problem comes when the people do not judge value correctly, such as when they weigh positive first order effects over much worse Nth order effects (for example obesity inducing foods). Tearing down the current system would not address the problem of wealth or power concentration, it would just change where it is concentrated. Better regulation is needed. Definitely removing the ability of the wealthy to directly influence regulation is needed.