[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

 No.1788235

>the petty bourgeois can't be revolutiona-
<From the standpoint of capital, therefore, what with hindsight appears to be part of a normal business cycle looked more like a dangerous secular trend toward stalemate-or worse-at the point of production, with all that implied for profits and the attendant social function of capitalists. This perception is, again, consistent with the evidence available then and now. But it is inconsistent with modern assumptions about the social power and cultural authority of "big business." That is probably why the obvious question seems practically impertinent: what could workers bring to bear in their struggles against employers that created the stalemate of the late 188os and early 189os? To put it another way, what resources did capitalists lack?
<
<If we follow the lead of the new labor historians and look more closely at the struggles for control of the workplace that began in earnest in the 188os, the significant variable appears to be the stance of the communities in which the struggles took place. When local officeholders, constables, editors, and small shopkeepers acted in solidarity with striking workers-and this seems to have been the norm-large employers were unable to impose their will on the labor force or to reshape the labor process, even if they imported external forces of law and order. Only when such solidarity was missing at the outset or undermined by protracted strikes, were the large employers able to reduce wages, break unions, and reconstruct the labor process.
<
<In this sense, the microeconomic problem was inseparable from the macroeconomic problem, or, in the parlance of the late nineteenth century, the economic problem entailed a social question. For the stalemate at the point of production was enforced by a larger deadlock that clearly involved more than capitalists and workers. At the very least it involved the loyalties of a middle class that was still rooted in and defined by petty proprietorship, not by occupational ladders within large bureaucratic organizations. It involved a middle class, in sum, that apparently had not acknowledged the permanence or legitimacy of large capital, a class that could, therefore, side with striking workers against large capital.
<
<The middle term in the urban-industrial stalemate was also the middle term in the larger standoff that characterized American society in the late nineteenth century. The solidarity of petite bourgeoisie and striking workers might look anomalous from the standpoint of the late twentieth century, but at the time it was no more anomalous than the political coalition of jackleg farmers and industrial workers that was forged in the late 188os and early 18gos. What all three functional groups shared-what allowed them to act in concert, seemingly as one class between 1889 and 1896-was a commitment to dispersed assets, competitive markets, and control of the property in one's labor power as the condition of self-determination.
<
https://edberg.substack.com/p/note-on-labor-republicanism
Anyways, unite all the all forces which can be united, so the phrase goes.

 No.1789348

bump.

 No.1789375

>>1788235
>communist parties organizing workers don't matter, what matters is petit bourgeois support!
>no, it doesn't mean that strong parties, unions, organizations attracted petit bourgeoisie to themselves, it means that petit bourgeoisie is the true power behind success of communist movements!

Yeah, your research is a word salad

 No.1789699

File: 1710016205997.gif (1.55 MB, 367x498, thanos-thanos-talking.gif)

>class collaboration is socialism
Ok ᴉuᴉʅossnW

 No.1789707

Petty porkies have potential, same as peasants

 No.1790009

i dont think you understand what revolutionary potential means or what material analysis even entails in the first place lol

 No.1819826

File: 1712859514706.jpg (147.55 KB, 999x1200, GGd5e0rXYAANEmZ (1).jpg)

The notion that the petty bourgeois formed the bedrock of fascism was generally disproven already.

 No.1819898

>>1788235
are you the same tankanon who owned a finance company and thought small private businesses would be a part of communism?

 No.1819951

>>1819826
When and how?

 No.1820038

>>1790009
Material analysis is just analysis lol.

 No.1820169

File: 1712872287153.jpg (60.29 KB, 671x500, 772ee2148cd7cfa4de0fd09080….jpg)

> Trust me guys, the small wolfs are totally deers who will help us and won't even try to grow up into big wolves who will eat our face!

 No.1820172

>>1788235
So… uhh how smoll is your smoll business tankie anon? I forgot if you said in the other thread.

 No.1820174

>>1819898
Pretty sure he is.

 No.1820199

>>1820169
petty porks are important for the revolution, specially since capitalism tends to proletarize them
are you aware of the fact that mao, guevara, castro, lenin, trotsky, marx, engels, proudhon, etc. were not working class?

 No.1820243

File: 1712875669668.png (479.28 KB, 500x722, imagem_2024-04-11_19474331….png)

>>1820199
They were not from working class origins, but later in their lifes they lived without possessions and, in most cases, had nothing but their own food to eat, their inteligent books, and each other as comrades. As long as you follow the path of the proletariat when in adulthood, you have nothing to fear, and cannot be called a sinner kulak.

 No.1820263

File: 1712876559279.jpg (97.81 KB, 400x300, delet.jpg)

>>1788235
>can't tell the difference between the petit bourgeois within a semi-feudal society decades ago vs the petit bourgeois within a modern capitalist society today
ngmi
And it isn't that the petit bourgeois is a revolutionary class, they are not within a capitalist society. They can aid the revolutionary class (the proletariat) to a certain degree if the conditions warrant it ie it is a semi-feudal society or imperialized society that constantly stifled their growth yet they will still seek to eventually betray the proletarian revolution due their inherent class interests aligning them against the proletariat because once you get rid of the big bourgeoise or comprador bourgeoise guess who is wants to be the next big thing. Also, the petit bourgeoise isn't always cut and dry as a force, there is a thing as petit bourgeois consciousness that can hide within the intentions of those who claim to support a socialist revolution.

 No.1820285

>>1820243
>ut later in their lifes they lived without possessions and, in most cases, had nothing but their own food to eat, their inteligent books, and each other as comrades.
<As long as you follow the path of the proletariat when in adulthood,
Personal austerity is not what defines the 'path of the proleteriat', it's WORK.
Try it some time..

 No.1820371

>>1788235
There is a huge difference between self employed and petit porkies. In many cases self employed are exploited by large corporations and doing worse than actual proletarians.

 No.1820374

>>1820285
I will assume you understand the general concept

 No.1826963

The Nazis didn't have that much success in inclusion of the small Germ ynafarm owners, it's said.

 No.1827758

>>1788235
>unite all the all forces which can be united
cool fascism faggot


Unique IPs: 17
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ Return / Go to top /