But see, now she doesn’t have time to organize or even attend a Revolutionary action of any kind!
The first rule of a successful abuse of power is to make people too busy trying to survive to worry about what your policies are
The Jan 6ers made the time. Not sure how many jobs they have.
A lot were retired, some police and other minor tyrants, and some were just full time white nationalist organizers.
Trump die-hards are largely petty bourgeois, ie small business owners. They can make their own time.
Had not heard this term before, so I learned something new today. Thank you. And yes, this explains a lot.
No problem!
The “fun” thing with the petty bourgeois as they relate to Trump is how classes relate to fascism. Fascism materially arises from a frustrated petty bourgeoisie aligning with the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat along nationalis and xenophobic lines.
Petit* bourgeois, it’s French so you spelled it like it sounds.
It’s both, actually. I use Petty Bourgeoisie when speaking with non-Marxists sometimes, though it makes little difference.
The language that famously has three+ silent letters per word?
Read Marx, everyone.
Why would I want to read some crusty old dude that is outdated?
Political theory has moved on since Marx yet people still cling to him like a religion (like a cult).
No, but thank you though.
Why not?
Long, boring, hard to pay attention to. I read philosophy and theory sometimes but it’s few and far between for those reasons. I really have to be in a special mood to sit down and read something that dense.
Edit: I’m not the original commenter
Long, boring, hard to pay attention to.
There are simpler, shorter, and easier works by Marx, Like Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital, as well as Value, Price, and Profit.
Reading Marx is like reading Adam Smith. Both wrote about economic systems before economics was even a thing. All ideas start somewhere but our ideas, and our society, have advanced dramatically in the 140+ years they’ve been dead. They’re more interesting for historical purposes than economic ones.
But it’s also hard to know what contemporary economists are arguing without reading those foundational writers
Das Kapital described crypto before digital computers were even an idea. His work is still relevant.
Both wrote about economic systems before economics was even a thing.
Lol. Lmao, even.
and our society, have advanced dramatically in the 140+ years they’ve been dead.
In what manner has this proven Marx wrong?
You’re very good at saying you’re right and very bad at providing evidence. The best thing about lemmy’s size is I can recognize which usernames to disregard immediately after enough encounters.
What evidence am I supposed to provide here, exactly? I’m asking for clarification.
The books Marx wrote are the evidence. If you read them then you’d see why they are obviously relevant today. Of course, reading and understanding serious literature takes more effort than trolling on public forums.
All of Marx’s main concepts, surplus value, classes and class struggle, alienation, are just as relevant today as when they were written. Much like Newton, Marx built the solid foundation that scientific socialists stand on today.
Right, but nobody tells anyone interested in physics to read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. If you’re interested in history, sure. If you’re interested in physics, read a modern physics textbook.
It’s always hilarious when illiterates proceed to make clowns of themselves by discussing things they haven’t read.
¿Porque no los dos?
If you work 40 hours a week and you STILL can’t afford to pay basic living expenses, then your economy sucks.
