4 ms·

It seems like employing others without failing is the condition they find is linked to higher happiness and wealth, rather than just trying to employ. I'm okay

It seems like employing others without failing is the condition they find is linked to higher happiness and wealth, rather than just trying to employ. I'm okay with that insight. Employing others is riskier, but gives happiness and wealth advantages to the tiny 2% that succeed. A question I have: of the 2%, what fraction comes from money and privilege, what fraction comes from the middle class, and what fraction comes from the lower class? I think class matters here. I think we'd also find class has to do with employer success rate as well. Another Q: if and when we have a Queer Autonomous Communist Revolution, what happens to that bourgeois 2%? Gulag driven re-education, right? C'mon, Queer Autonomous Gulags! (/S, but not fully)

BlueTemplar 3y ago
That "bourgeois" is (or at least used to be) a synonym for city-dweller, and even today is still associated with even small business or even just home ownership, might be a constructive direction to consider ?
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  In Marxist theory, the bourgeois is the class that owns property, and uses that property to extract wealth from workers. Their main concern is protecting the private property that allows them to maintain dominance of the system. It used to denote a middle class stratum between the peasants and the aristocracy, or even just city dwellers. However, I use it in the Marxist sense, to refer to the current capitalist leadership and ownership class, which emerged during the industrial revolution. Homeowners and small business owners are petit bourgeois - little bourgeois/middle class. This is different from the haute bourgeois - high bourgeois/upper class. During times of stability, the petit bourgeois want what the haute bourgeois want, and aspire to become haute bourgeois. During times of instability, the upper class tramples the middle class, turning them into an enemy. I think we're entering a time were petits no longer really expect the hautes to help them. And I think that's a good thing, since that makes petits more likely to help revolutionize!

BlueTemplar 3y ago

That "bourgeois" is (or at least used to be) a synonym for city-dweller, and even today is still associated with even small business or even just home ownership, might be a constructive direction to consider ?

barfbagginus 3y ago
In Marxist theory, the bourgeois is the class that owns property, and uses that property to extract wealth from workers. Their main concern is protecting the private property that allows them to maintain dominance of the system. It used to denote a middle class stratum between the peasants and the aristocracy, or even just city dwellers. However, I use it in the Marxist sense, to refer to the current capitalist leadership and ownership class, which emerged during the industrial revolution. Homeowners and small business owners are petit bourgeois - little bourgeois/middle class. This is different from the haute bourgeois - high bourgeois/upper class. During times of stability, the petit bourgeois want what the haute bourgeois want, and aspire to become haute bourgeois. During times of instability, the upper class tramples the middle class, turning them into an enemy. I think we're entering a time were petits no longer really expect the hautes to help them. And I think that's a good thing, since that makes petits more likely to help revolutionize!