LOL WUTSelf-proclaimed “communists” on Twitter claim small business owners “are not part of the working class”

submitted by kingc-way245The Blackface of White Supremacy from imgur.com

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IMissPorn 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Yep. "Bourgeois" means middle class and always has. That's who they hate, not the elites.

I really don't get it, but one can hardly expect a failed ideology to make sense.

[–]xoenix 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Bourgeois means infidel. Anyone who doesn't believe in communism is bourgeois. As Martin Latsis (senior Cheka officer) said:

We are not fighting against single individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in materials you have gathered for evidence that a suspect acted or spoke against the Soviet authorities. The first question you should ask him is what class he belongs to, what is his origin, education, profession. These questions should determine his fate.

It was a malleable term used to wage unrestrained democide. And as Lenin said:

Three-quarters of mankind may die, if necessary, to ensure the other quarter for Communism.

There was no limit.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well yeah basically. The way communism morphed into a social movement it basically took on the same meaning as infidel.

Original meaning of the word should be pointed out though as the city dwelling middle class the rose up following the industrial revolution and the breakdown of the agrarian lord and serf relationship. Bourgeois in that sense filled power vacuum left in the wake of the industrial revolution that would have been held by the Lords before. And just as it would be stupid to consider all Lord/Serf relationships equal it's equally stupid to assume all Bourgeois/Proletariat relationships are equal.

Very early communist discourse when it was still academic and before it became a populist movement is quite interesting and has some good insights in how their society was changing. Once it became a populist movement it basically got increasingly stupid and rabid.

[–]Dzonatan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's really simple to understand once you view the masquerade for what it is: Narcissistic Midwits hating their betters who they will never surpass.

Narcissism is a disorder for a reason, it collides with the reality that said narcissist may not be all what he think of himself and real world make them painfully aware of it every single day. They pick up "tear down" narratives because that's the only way their dysfunctional asses can climb up the social hiearchy.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Capitalism is espoused by poor members of the proletariat who truly believe they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Communism is espoused by well-off enough members of the petit bourgoisie who truly believe they are temporarily embarrassed members of the ruling class.

[–]xoenix 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Just remember that "capitalist" is a slur invented by communists which to them means monopolist or oligarch.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It really wasn't.

Here is a right-wing author (hates Keynes, doesn't understand Adam Smith, loves Ayn Rand) explaining the origins of the word capitalist.

People were using the words “capital” and “capitalistic” centuries before communism existed. It originally derived from the word “caput”, Latin for “head”, as in head of cattle. (This is why we use the same word for the main city of a state, where the head of state rules.) The word "capitalist" itself was first used by the French judge Étienne Clavier in 1788, thirty years before Karl Marx was even a twinkle in his dad's eye.

Marx himself almost never used the word "capitalist". The idea that "capitalist" was invented by communists as a slur, or that it means either monopolist or oligarch, is even more wrong than the idea that a man can turn into a woman by putting on a dress and lipstick.

Sometimes I think that the only people more stupid than communists are anti-communists 😢 At least communists understand capitalism.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I really don't get it

It's complicated, but I think that the primary reason is that in a democracy, or near democracy, the bourgeois are the social class that most wants stability and opposes revolution. They have more to lose than the working class, little or nothing to gain, and unlike the elites, not enough financial or social capital to seamlessly transfer into the elite in the new order (assuming they avoid being hung from the nearest lamp-post).

Without the bourgeois supporting the capitalist class, the revolution would be a shoe-in.

This is not entirely unfair. Think about how middle-class America are satisfied with "Medicare for most" rather than demanding "Medicare for all", their attitude being "I've got mine, so fuck you". Same with the laptop classes (upper middle-class professionals who could easily transfer to working from home with no cost) who were happy to see the entire lower middle and working-class country go to hell to save themselves from catching a cold. Look at how fast they abandoned their principles of body autonomy ("my body my choice") when it came to vaccines.

There is something of a similarity between the bourgeois relationship to class struggle as "white moderates" had to Martin Luther King's racial struggle, those people who all agreed that racism was bad but for the sake of a quiet life (that is, the whites quiet life) black folks should just shut the fuck up and accept it. The difference was that MLK never quite gave up on "white moderates", while radical Marxists did decide that the bourgeois were the enemy just as much as the capitalist class.

While there is certainly some truth to this, the bourgeois are not exactly natural allies to the working class, but neither are they natural enemies. Especially the petty bourgeois (lower and mid middle class).

Relations between the bourgeois and working classes are complex. Marx himself was middle class. The middle class have, sometimes, been some of the strongest agents of reform for the benefit of the working class.

(There is an old joke from the Soviet Union about Stalin and his hated rival Trotsky. After one particularly strong disagreement, Stalin shouted at Trotsky, "What do you know of socialism? I am a true son of the workers, you are nothing but a privileged bourgeoisie! We are nothing alike!" Trotsky replied "There is one way that we are alike. We are both traitors to our class.")

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The middle class is a buffer, or bulwark, between the rich and the poor. The rich both hate and need the middle class. They hate new money, middle class people that try to join their ranks. That's why they tax the hell out of the middle class, and allow the poor to rob and kill the middle class, so they struggle to move up. This is described in 1984.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The middle class is a buffer, or bulwark, between the rich and the poor.

No, that would be armed, violent men (police, army, national guard, personal body guards).

If the rich had their way, there would be no middle class except maybe a very small number of artisans and entertainers that need to be paid well and allowed a comfortable life. Everyone else would be a serf.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not just a military term

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Everyone wants to be elite

No one aspires to be middle class

These communists want to be the vanguard party, the nomenklatura, the new elite, or join the current rich jewish elite.

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's crazy though. Middle class, i.e. a comfortable but not lavish life, is what these poor "workers" should aspire too. Because that's a realistic goal, it's not like these are peasant farmers for the most part.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do disagree there. Aspiring to be rich is a good thing and a big part of capitalism. The rich do not want upward mobility though.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah honestly the progressive left abandoned any pretense of giving a shit about small business owners long ago. God forbid they had the audacity to complain about being negatively affected by COVID lockdown, or to own real estate.

In my city everyone complains about how bad the downtown core is while also castigating any business owner who complains about crime and theft as elitist.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Leftism" in America is 95% preformative virtue-signalling by a bourgeois middle class which doesn't even recognise their own bourgeois middle class nature. Their understanding of socialism and communism starts and ends with "wealthy exploiters (which we definitely aren't) are bad!"

(Which means that they understand about a thousand times more about socialism and communism than do the reactionary right. But I digress.)

Their attitude to small business owners manages to combine the sneering contempt of the elite capitalist class they aspire to be with the righteous anger of the genuinely oppressed working class, without actually being either oppressed or working class.

Consequently they are constitutionally incapable of recognising when small business owners aren't exploitative, or when they are getting a raw deal.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Being a commie is fun until your parents cut off your trust fund.

[–]cephyrious 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Well, they are both. They are working for the small business they own and 100% of the value of their work goes into their own hands. I'm amazed communists don't have some sympathy or even admiration for that set-up.

[–]topiary2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They are not human.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, the money isn't going into their hands for doing nothing. Of course the Tumblr Tankies will hate them.

[–]topiary2 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They will gladly suck off multi million dollar conglomerates but will work hard to destroy any normal person from business ownership.

The irony is it is the best chance of anyone "owning the means of production"

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If we're going to go by basic communist ideals, sure. Business owners are "exploiting" their labor since they "don't work" but collect profit from their employees.

Of course reality isn't quite as simple as this. First the idea of "exploitation", yeah that can be a problem,, exploitation happens, but employment isn't exploitative in and of itself. It's a transaction. You feel that you are exploited? Why don't you quit and find another job? Why don't you ask for more money? Oh you think that employment is exploitative by nature? Lol ok, you're fired, you're free! Are you happy? Oh you want money? Well comrade you can make your own money, seize your own means of production!

I'm more sympathetic to communist ideals when it comes to large bureaucratic corporate entities since I do feel they're essentially filling the roll that nobility once held. But even these aren't entirely evil or exploitative they just need to be hemmed in with regulations and anti-monopolial laws.

Also worth noting that when the communist movement was at its peak it was still the industrial revolution and workers protections basically didn't exist.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, that also ties to why the communists seen in OP are not communists, they're anti-work idiots. Small businesses like that, often with the people who own it doing most of the work, are inherently the most communist jobs of all because the owner is the one doing all of the work- and if they do happen to have to employ someone, that person likely has a larger piece of the pie than a person at Walmart would. It's as close to the means of production being seized as you can get. That's the goal you should want.

The "communists" who say these are people who are as bad as the others basically says they view communism as Santa Claus and believe they are the main character who gets to live a life of decadence while the rest of the world toils to support them. Karl Marx would spit on them, and they will be first against the wall before even the people they despise when the revolution they espouse comes.

[–]alladd 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This stuff was cute in high school but now a lot of these political cosplayers are entering their 30s and 40s meaning they probably have friends and family who run successful businesses...and they're still on Twitter doing this.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL, like these fucktards know what "working class" is.

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kulaks

[–]AriShekelsteinDDS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not saying the current system is perfect by any means. Just to make that clear.

That being said, they would rather tear it all down and replace it with something worse, if it means they get more neetbux and get to torment and harass other people. They won’t even call the guy with his name on the side of his truck, who shows up to fix their heat, “working class”. That’s because anybody who makes money by showing any actual initiative in life is an enemy to them. And any dollar that ends up in anyone’s pockets but their own must have been the result of some ill gotten gain.

They rail against “capitalism” (if that’s how you want to define the current system, while missing two big ironies:

1) These people are often some of the biggest conspicuous consoooooomers out there. 2) The current system is what literally allows these useless fucks to exist. If a communist takeover happened tomorrow, they’d all be dead within a month. And that’s being generous.

Of course, what they really believe, but won’t say out loud, is that they’d be the ones in charge under “communism”. And they’d gleefully torment anybody who doesn’t toe the ideological line.

Think about it: these people fashion themselves as revolutionaries, but they wouldn’t dare utter an opinion that wouldn’t be out of place in the halls of government, Fortune 500 board rooms, and editorial meetings of most large news networks.

They loved COVID times, because they had an excuse to stay home and could virtue signal over wearing masks and getting experimental shots.

Communist societies are all about obedience, and being obedient is the one thing these people are good at.