this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
989 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

45884 readers
1542 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just a reminder but the bourgeoisie are the "middle class", and that the CEO who was killed is part of a capitalist oligopoly.

The bourgeoisie haven't been targeted here, an aristocrat has.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 weeks ago

Aristocrats were an offshoot of feudalism, the bourgeoisie are the Capital Owners. The "middle class" is the petite bourgeoisie, who are Capital Owners that must labor, ie small business owners. This was the bourgeoisie, not an aristocrat.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The aristocrats were largely disposed of via bourgeois revolution. Now there is a haute bourgeoisie, like Brian Thompson (net worth >$40M), and a shrinking petite bourgeoisie, A.K.A. the middle class.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Absolutely, I just meant that the inhuman monster who was killed wasn't bourgeoisie, he was an aristocrat. These are rich families that stay rich by exploiting the poor and (few remaining) bourgeoisie.

In end stage capitalism you're oligarchy, poor, or soon to be one of the two.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 weeks ago

He wasn’t an inhuman monster, he was a product of the capitalist system. When he dies, someone else replaces him, as the the system demands.

And, in Marxists terms anyway, he was not an aristocrat. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy hundreds of years ago. Capitalism is a different mode of production from feudalism. He was a member of the capitalist class, he was bourgeois.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

he's probably the closest thing that americans can have to an aristocrat; but, traditionally, aristocrats had more relative wealth and influence than this ceo did.

marxists & leninists have definitions for lots of words that have been adopted by everyone of the last century+ but pop culture likes to redefine those words every few years and seeing the pop culture definitions clash with the accepted definitions is a really common sight here, given pronounced m/l userbase and i love seeing it because it keeps reminding me that i'm so americanized that i can understand that aristocrats like this ceo are more bougie that the bourgeois. lol

and in a sense, he is an aristocrat because he has significant enough influence in government policy to permanently enrich himself and his allies just like the aristocrats of the past did and his children will likewise hold similar wealth and influence, effectively creating a modern day feudal dynasty.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

Surprised cowbee didn’t post this but I think you need this: Leftist Reading List