cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34730043
For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.
How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?
Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.
Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn’t welcoming.
Firstly I would drop the moral framing[1]. It’s a fool’s errand to try to distinguish good, moral bourgeoisie from bad, immoral bourgeoisie[2].
The first division Marxists generally make within the bourgeoisie is between petit bourgeoisie and haute bourgeoisie. That division somewhat correlates with what you are describing, but really mostly doesn’t correlate.
The idea that the “hard working” “self-made” “job creators” are moral scions should just be dropped down a mine shaft.
Thanks for the comment and links. Will read them later tonight.
Based on what you said, how do you divide bourgeoisie and proletariat then? Those who control the means of production and those who profit is extracted right? Would the example where no one is extracting and all workers are paid well still be proletariat? I’m sure it can’t be as silly as proletariat + paid well = bourgeoisie. Both examples I provided come from dirt poor families.
Proletariat works for money and does not profit from the labor of others. Bourgeoisie does not work for money and extracts profit from the labor of others. Petite bourgeoisie work for money and extracts profit from the labor of others.
That’s as tl;dr as is physically possible 👍
how do you divide bourgeoisie and proletariat then?
Sometimes the two wikis even agree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat
The proletariat […] is the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work).
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Proletariat
The proletariat is the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose only possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work) and owning no capital of their own nor the means of production and are forced to sell their labour power to survive.
Both examples I provided come from dirt poor families.
Where they came from couldn’t be less relevant.
Got it, thank you Davel
Reposting @freagle@lemmygrad.mls comment so you can see it:
Proletariat works for money and does not profit from the labor of others. Bourgeoisie does not work for money and extracts profit from the labor of others. Petite bourgeoisie work for money and extracts profit from the labor of others.
That’s very clearly define. Thanks for linking that!
Btw why didn’t I see that? Is my instance not federated with theirs?
Lemmy.dbzer0.com is defederated with Lemmygrad.ml.
Huh, I didn’t know that.
The defederation is not mutual, BTW.
Also I didn’t know haute bourgeoisie was real lol. I thought that was just a term from the horrible movie metropolitan.
