No.524771
because liberals think the system is only 'bad' because of 'evil' agents in it
No.524772
>>524723because they get fabulously wealthy by designing unmanned murderdrones then they want to tell us how to build a more 'rational and ethical' society
No.524774
>>524772disliking some bourgeois more than others is certified leftoid behavior
No.524775
>>524774most software people aren't even bourgeois though.
No.524776
>>524723"go home" makes me think theyre complaining about gentrification
No.524778
>>524774then the position is even dumber
No.524779
>>524723Basically people don't want decisions to be made by an unaccountable intellectual elite.
No.524781
tend to have petty bourgeois ancap brainworms and dream of being the next zucc
No.524784
>>524783>Complaining about gentrification is the dumbest shit ever.I agree, but…
>I really can't even see how a communist society could really solve the problem.You clearly don't know what communism is.
No.524787
>>524784>You clearly don't know what communism is.Doesn't sound like you do either or you'd have something to say.
>>524785Browner than you Brad.
No.524789
>>524787spiritually white
No.524792
>>524787You think overcrowded cities happen just because? What does the separation of town and city even mean to you?
No.524795
>>524723Because they deserve it.
No.524797
>>524723because they are boring, know it alls.
No.524798
Their jobs are unnecessary
No.524799
>>524798Their jobs are necessary
No.524803
>>524787>Browner than you Brad.gb2pol then with the rest of the self-hating brown people
No.524806
Proles are promoted to fight amongst themselves rather than improving their lot as a whole. The poors are fed nativist and neo-luddite slop to fight against people forced to relocate to a new town and state to have a stable income while the tech workers grow to resent the locals and further isolate them from each other, pushing the chance for revolution and acknowledgement of mutual needs into the impossible.
No.524810
>>524806The majority of tech workers in the US are not remotely proletarian.
No.524811
>>524783the solution is just for everyone to live in a dozen or so megacities that are all equally as nice as each other
No.524814
>>524799>t. software engineer>>524802Cool artwork.
>>524803>>524805On a scale from one to ten, how is Burger "racial" politics retarded?
No.524833
>>524810Tech workers are trading their intellectual labor power for wages. Explain how that is not proletarian.
No.524835
>>524814On a scale from one to ten, how White are you right now?
No.524837
>>524833>proletarian is only when selling your labor and nothing elseread uygha read
No.524839
>>524837Is this your retarded 'if you own a house you're not proletarian' again?
No.524848
>unironic yuppies ITT
This place is never beating the stereotypes.
No.524855
>>524783The solution is simple: better distribution of workplaces, public spaces, cultural places, entertainment spaces etc. Basically, "gentrifying" everywhere else with non-profit-based urban planning. Of course, not everyone can get a nice view from their windows, but that's a very minor problem and Marxist communism was never about equality in this sense anyway.
No.524857
>>524776Basically this and it's a valid complaint.
>>524781 also adds fuel to the fire, and I say this as a comp sci student myself. Plenty of shitbags in the field. However, blaming labor aristocracy before the bourgeoisie unfortunately is cultural brainwashing done by the elite to shift the blame elsewhere lest they get the guillotine. Shit happens.
>>524837If you're the "if you're not immediately destitute upon losing your job then you're bourgeois" retard, please put on a flag or name so I can filter you. Thanks.
No.525004
>>524723They usually drive up the housing costs anywhere they move into.
>be technerd >californian >”dude can’t pay anything bro”>”houses too expensive bro”>porky moves tech jobs to Texas because cheap labor>technerd moves to Dallas because “cheap” >technerd rents place for $900 a month (in California it would be $2,500 a month) >kulak sees more technerds come to Dallas >kulak raises rents
>locals mad>blame Californians and technerds No.525005
>>524810They don’t own the means of production. Even if they make $100,000, they still have to pay student loans and are far more subject to business cycles
No.525006
>>525004>They usually drive up the housing costs<literally explain its landlords that do itwhy is this thread fucking FILLED with liberals?
No.525008
>>525005>what is the petit-bourgeoisieyeah retard someone who makes $100,000 is the embodiment of the reserveless proletarian
No.525012
>>525011are you going to say immigrants drive down wages too?
No.525014
>>525012no because employment expansion can be accomodated indefinitely thorough fiscal expansion, making wage-decline the fault of government policy rather than migrants.
No.525015
>>525005You are completely wrong. The PMC bourgeois DO own means of production. The PMC bourgeois hold most of the rental properties. The PMC bourgeois are far less subject to the business cycle. Their worst case scenario is the usual proletarian condition.
Degree holders are bourgeois speculators. Degrees are fictitious capital.
No.525016
>>525015the vast majority of degrees are worthless, the only reason people have them is that government policy pushes most people to go to college because it keeps them off the unemployment statistics for 4 years.
No.525017
>>525014>making wage-decline the fault of government policyits not inherent to capitalism but rather governments should simply just increase wages!! of course!!!!!!!!
No.525019
>>525015>The PMC bourgeois DO own means of production. How the fuck does a programmer working for IBM at $80k a year, and still can’t afford a house own the means of production?
No.525020
>>525008That’s not the petit bourgeoisie, you retard. They don’t own the MOP. They are still at the throat of porky and can’t make business decisions.
No.525022
>>525017they don't increase wages, they increase employment. what's inherent to capitalism is that capital will act to countermand this for political reasons.
why are glowposters so consistently shit
No.525023
>>525022<just hire more people!!!lol
>why are glowposters so consistently shitsays the social democrat
No.525027
>>525023if anyone has good faith questions i'll be happy to answer (or you could read Kalecki), but i'm not dignifying this clown with any more (you)s. this is the last one, enjoy it and then kill yourself.
No.525028
>>525027->
>>525025you are a retarded liberal who is a leech on the communist movement and should stop associating with it :)
No.525031
>>525020>They don’t own the MOP.lol its amazing how you braindead faggots are so confident in your ignorance
yup people earning absurd amounts of money in cushy white collar jobs are part of the mass of reserveless proletarians kept in precarious conditions and thus have just the same revolutionary potential as them, because all you need to be proletarian is to sell your labor, duh!
this is what passes as analysis to you halfwits?
No.525033
>uyghas will keep replying to them
No.525036
>>525019Such is the state of many petite-bourgeois. An unsuccessful petite-bourgeois is still bourgeois.
A petite-bourgeois who invests in a low value degree, by means of credit or property, is still bourgeois.
No.525045
>>525033you dont read beyond quote farmingg so its not like i expect you to actually come up with actual replies tbh
>>525036pseuds here apply the same liberal logic of defending the small business owner but with bourgeois countries or well paid workers lol
No.525085
>>525045Small business owners actually own capital, well paid workers usually don't.
No.525091
>>525085Their degrees are capital
No.525099
>>525036A degree is a certificate and proof of training. It isn’t the means of production, it’s proof on knowledge. Would an apprenticeship be considered “owning the means of production”?
No.525101
>>525091Degrees are not capital.
No.525108
>>525099A degree is the fictitious representation of the real means of production—i.e., bourgeois labor power, which the degree-owning bourgeois sell to other capitalists for profit.
M: Bourgeois invests in degree, be it by credit, owned property, or subsidy garnered from proletarian blood (be it public funds from taxation or private funds).
C: Bourgeois now owns their degree (fictitious capital) and their bourgeois labor (means of production).
M': Bourgeois uses the surplus value from the sale of their bourgeois labor to invest in capital of various forms, like a higher degree or rental property.
>B..B..B..BUT I HAVE A DEGREE AND I CAN'T SELL MY BOURGEOIS LABOR FOR PROFIT, OR AT ALL. THE CONTRADICTIONS OF CAPITALISM RENDER MY CAPITAL WORTHLESS. I OWN NO CAPITAL.This is the inevitability of the petite-bourgeoisie.
>Would an apprenticeship be considered “owning the means of production”?Yes.
>>525101Degrees, like stocks, have been proven to be the fictitious representation of real means of production. Like stocks, degrees have market value, dividend yield, etc., but under different names.
No.525110
support bourgeois states on leftypol, no one bats an eye…
criticize rich firstoid pmcs and society loses theyre minds…
No.525112
>>525108Labour power is not capital. If it was, the proletariat would be bourgeois, since the very thing that makes one proletariat is selling your labour power.
No.525113
>>525108>Degrees, like stocks, have been proven to be the fictitious representation of real means of production. Like stocks, degrees have market value, dividend yield, etc., but under different names.What authors think that degrees are "fictious capital", or consider "tech workers" to not be proletarian, but " petty bourgeois".
What is the point of those definitions, but to separate and divide the working class for not good reason?
Is like saying that in the DotP the people are given the right and are incentivized to become petty bourgeois, hold a degree, be it in medicine, technology, etc.
Those "degree holders" can do useful and priceless work to society that requires specialized skills and not depends of the exploration of one class to the other.
The kulak takes advantage of the poor masses, doesn't create anything of value, manipulate the market to sell overpriced products, rent the land, etc.
The degree holder does not necessarily any of those to survive. He sells his workforce to the bourgeois, petty bourgeois, the state, etc, in capitalism.
Idk if made my line of thought clear, what do you think?
No.525117
>>525113Stop replying to this revisionist troll. He's just pretending to be retarded.
No.525123
>>525112>Labour power is not capital. The degree is the capital which is owned by the worker capitalist, not the worker capitalist's labor power. The worker capitalist does not own their labor power because they must sell it to complete the cycle of M-C-M'; however, the worker capitalist DOES INDEED own the surplus value extracted from ownership of their degree; for, the sale of the bourgeois' bourgeois labor power is the means of valorization of surplus value afforded from said capital. The worker capitalist's degree allows them to sell their bourgeois labor under bourgeois conditions, at the expense and to the detriment of the proletariat. Pretending that the working class is entirely homogeneous and not comprised of the proletariat and petite-bourgeois is philistine liberalism.
>If it was, the proletariat would be bourgeois, since the very thing that makes one proletariat is selling your labour power.A lumpen prostitute sells their labor power. A petite-bourgeois lawnmower sells their labor power. All CEOs sell their labor power.
No.525126
>>525123> the worker capitalist DOES INDEED own the surplus value extracted from ownership of their degree> A petite-bourgeois lawnmower sells their labor power. All CEOs sell their labor power.I argument that that is not the case at all. CEOs and petite-bourgeois, both of them don't "own the surplus value extracted from ownership of their degree".
They take advantage of speculation, heritage, rent, value extraction from the workers in the capitalist system, etc.
The ""average"" CEO gains $836,600, this salary is not gained because his labor value is so incredible higher then the average worker, nor because his degree, but because he, as a part of the high ranks of the corporation structure, extracts the surplus value of the working class.
Also, on the question of "degrees" as capital, i found this definition:
>Human Capital
>“Human Capital” is slightly different from “natural capital” and “social capital” inasmuch as it is generally used in bourgeois economics to refer to human capacities which are subsumed under capital: the skills and knowledge of employees, the trust between employees and the effectiveness of the division of labour within the workforce employed by a given capital, which can be used to make profit. In other words, all those values which are commanded by a given capital, but which cannot be property because they are human. “Human capital” thus fails to be capital because all its elements remain the ‘property’ of the individual workers whose intellectual and physical powers constitute it, and these workers may choose whether or not to contibute these assets, and take them with them when they resign; on the other hand, “human capital” is subsumed under capital to the extent that the given capital brings together such a concentration and combination of human capacities that the ‘whole is greater than the sum of the parts’. Thus, “human capital” is contained within the workforce employed by the capital, but its ownership and value-form is contained in the ability of a company to retain and utilise the skills of its employees. Note that that knowledge and skill of employees which are not or cannot be used for profit (e.g., the employees' union-organising, their hobbies, sporting skills, interests in music and literature, etc.) are not “human capital”. “Human capital” differs from “labour power” because labour power is the use of much the same human capacities indicated by “human capital”, and is measured by the hour. “Human capital” also includes those capacities which arise from the collectivity brought about by bringing a number of workers together in one productive enterprise. See also Human Capital.https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm
>The labour-process, turned into the process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power, exhibits two characteristic phenomena. First, the labourer works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labour belongs; the capitalist taking good care that the work is done in a proper manner, and that the means of production are used with intelligence, so that there is no unnecessary waste of raw material, and no wear and tear of the implements beyond what is necessarily caused by the work.
>Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the labourer, its immediate producer. Suppose that a capitalist pays for a day's labour-power at its value; then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse that he has hired for the day. To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. By the purchase of labour-power, the capitalist incorporates labour, as a living ferment, with the lifeless constituents of the product. From his point of view, the labour-process is nothing more than the consumption of the commodity purchased, i. e., of labour-power; but this consumption cannot be effected except by supplying the labour-power with the means of production. The labour-process is a process between things that the capitalist has purchased, things that have become his property. The product of this process belongs, therefore, to him, just as much as does the wine which is the product of a process of fermentation completed in his cellar.https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm No.525141
>>524723Crypto inter class hatred thread. But I'll give my perspective as a software engineer.
1. Usually nerds or not artsy types
2. Higher incomes/acquisition power than art hoes
3. High demand means large # of transplants to an urban area
4. Landlords raise prices to squeeze tech salaries, etc aka gentrification.
That's pretty much it.
The people complaining about tech bros being more right wing don't realize that the petit booj hippies running all the art programs in the area are borderline fascist many times. People hate techies because they get higher salaries, come in large numbers, and don't participate in arthoe shit or disrupt it with their more conservative presence. That's literally it. Moralizing it is so fucking dumb I can't even begin to care.
So called leftists calling anyone who makes above subsistence wages "Petit bourgeoisie" will seemingly never fall out of fashion. lmfao
No.525217
>>524723because software fucking sucks ass
No.525295
>>525141This. Grifters on social media exaggerating how cushy their jobs are while ignoring the instability of it made it worse. Rates go up, layoff time.
>>525217But also this, though blame lies with porky for demanding that it suck.
No.525297
>>524774This is probably the most incoherent comment I've seen here. If you want to talk about how Google employees are still lucky enough to be in the top 10% of Americans with benefits and lots of superprofits from monopoly rents. "Liking some more than the others" is just a lazy excuse not to analyze the differences and conflicts between bourg national and international. Mao conscripted petit bourg and national bourg to the anti-imperialist struggle. You don't just leave a wrench laying on the ground when the empire's coming at you with a gun. You whack that bastard before he draws.
No.525740
People can't tell the difference between devs/knowledgable users and hypemen, because they use discourse-brain inducing centralized social media like twitter where they get to forget they are using a technology, particulary one made by tech hypemen to disrupt existing options like RSS.
We will see less of this pretty quickly since the window of time that was conductive to brewing these types has passed.
Unique IPs: 29