Disney's latest star with toxic diva tendencies displays the gross class divide in Hollywood with many veteran actors struggling to live while she demands money for every hour she is streamed.

submitted by rundown9 from (insidethemagic.net)

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]captainramen🇺🇸🛠️ MAGA Communist 🛠️🇺🇸 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Must have missed the part where Marx taught that the working class' enemy is a young actress

Yes, you did.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms.

At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. [e.g., sabotaging AI]

Lenin was even more explicit

It has not occurred to them that state capitalism [i.e., technological progress, AI] would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time [AI] became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a “Left Communist” will recoil from these words, and what “devastating criticism” he will make to the workers against the “Bolshevik deviation to the right”. What! Transition to [AI] in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?

Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists”. And that is why we must deal with this point in greater detail.

Firstly, the “Left Communists” do not understand what kind of transition it is from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country the Socialist Republic of Soviets.

Secondly, they reveal their petty-bourgeois mentality precisely by not recognising the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism (e.g., AI replacing government bureaucracy) in our country.

Thirdly, in making a bugbear of “[AI]”, they betray their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically.

She occupies the same position as that of a house slave did 150 years ago. The house slave wears a goofy costume, Zegler does it sporadically, Starbucks 'workers' 15 hours a week; the house slave shares the consciousness with the master, because like the master they merely manage what is already produces, they produce nothing, they merely rearrange it; more often than not they are willing to side with the master over the field slave, cause more often than than not they fuckin. But the field slave's labor is the only labor necessary to keep it going.

They do not want to give up their privileged position.

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

Adding your own words into a Lenin quote? How disingenuous. Lenin goes on to say exactly who constitutes the petty bourgeoisie…

The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declamations. Today, however, the purely rhetorical attitude to this question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can rouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois hydra now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that, instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.

She is not a profiteer. She is not a small business owner. You are misunderstanding the definition of the petty bourgeoisie.

Your Marx quotes are butchered as well. Leaving out key points and adding your own. Here’s where Marx proves your outlook to be a win for the bourgeoisie.

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

2 camps. Not the way you constantly divide different kinds of workers.