A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
The way I see it: as the rate of profit falls, these groups are proletarianized as finance and monopoly capital tries to pad their margins to compensate. As material conditions change, so do class interests and relationships.
The importance of class relationships under particular material conditions is exemplified by the PRC's flag: 5 stars. 4 for the peasantry, proletariat, petite bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie. One large star for the Communist Party that united them.
Contradictions can sharpen to the point where even the prior ruling class will relinquish some of their power and adapt to a new mode of production in order to prevent complete and total collapse. While there will always be a contradiction between the interests of capital and labor, capitalism as a system will degrade to the extent that plenty of reactionary classes and even the capitalists themselves will see more advantages under a socialist system (hopefully 🤞)
Look at how many of the old feudal regimes in the world have been transformed into constitutional monarchies with basically symbolic powers. A similar thing may happen after the death of capitalist as a world system too.
There are no landlords in the flag. I wonder why 🤔🤣
intelligentsia and petite bourgueoisie usually don't own infrastructure that would stop the revolution...do you think a chief programmer in oracle owns vital infrastructure like servers and stuff? a used car salesman doesn't own factories, a lawyer usually is not the owner of the judiciary or court buildings
I think their referring to the fact that these highly skilled laborers are bribed by the loot of imperialism, and if a revolution occurred, that loot would necessarily be taken away, so how do you replace them if they refuse to work.
This is pretty much fact. Every American's purchasing power comes from the economic hegemony the U.S controls that oversees exploitation of Latin America, Africa, SE Asia, etc. As Parenti said, those nations aren't "poor"; they're rich..the people are poor.
Toronto Book Launch for "Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism?"
I believe @spectre is building on the conversation this is a part of
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
@confidant6198 you may be looking for the term intellectual labor aristocracy
Re intelligentsia, they are only reactionary because they are selected by capitalist institutions to be reactionary. As in only intelligentsia with reactionary ideas have their research funded. So that can easily be alleviated by seeking out and funding intelligentsia whose ideas advance socialism. Imagine if Grover Furr got funding and was heavily publicized.
The petite bourge are willing to accept lower pay as long as there is lowered operational risk. This is where state owned enterprises go a long way in managing the petite bourgeois by giving them consistent business. As an example, the soviet union and the PRC allowed for private enterprises, because the majority of the economy was state owned.
Similar to the intelligentsia, the labour aristocracy are chosen for their position based not only on competence but also their tendency towards reaction. But even so, a lot of the labour aristocracy are apolitical and materialistic, because a lot of their work necessitates interaction with material reality.
What is the difference between the intelligentsia and the petit bourgeoisie?
Intelligentsia maintain a portion of the means of reproduction of society. Scholars, professors, researchers and the like. It's important that bourgeois ideas and constructs are reproduced and reinforced to uphold capitalism, and their work requires a higher level of skill. Thus, they are historically better compensated and enjoy a higher level of privilege. Still generally workers - they don't own the means of production.
The petite bourgeoisie on the other hand do own the means of production, and do exploit labor to make profit, but operate at a smaller scale than the large bourgeoisie and their labor remains essential to their operations. Small businesses and the like.
Both groups, along with highly technically skilled workers (labor aristocracy) have similar interests in that they have more to benefit from collaboration with large bourgeoisie and imperialist forces than most workers do. This isn't a constant, however, as the contradictions of capitalism sharpen.
Intelligentsia maintain a portion of the means of reproduction of society. Scholars, professors, researchers and the like.
So if a scholar is also a marxist-leninist and teaches at an university they are automatically intelligentsia? Even if they support ML/Communist ideas?
Small businesses and the like.
This one is really difficult for me to grasp, it's probably my ignorance and lack of knowledge, but why would someone who is a small business owner that doesn't employ any other worker be bourgeois? Are freelancers and struggling artists who are trying to get their foot in the door of an industry also in that class? I hope I don't come off as aggressive (I just read back what I wrote and it sounds a bit like that, but I swear it isn't :D)
So if a scholar is also a marxist-leninist and teaches at an university they are automatically intelligentsia? Even if they support ML/Communist ideas?
Yes, inteligentsia is a subclass of working class, your political ideology alone does not change your relation to means of production.
So if a scholar is also a marxist-leninist and teaches at an university they are automatically intelligentsia? Even if they support ML/Communist ideas?
I assume it works like the Engels situation. He was part of the bourgeoisie, but acted like a class traitor as far as I understand.
So, that professor imo would be part of the intelligentsia, but, if he actually teaches ML ideas, acts as a "traitor". In this case, unlike Engels, the professor is not part of a different class and exists more as a faulty tool than a class traitor.
Take this answer with a grain of salt though.
I am not yet educated enough to even attempt to answer your second question😇
Thanks for the reply!
I assume you mean like lab equipment and the like? These are some random thoughts for whatever it’s worth. And I’m rather familiar with the US academy so that’s what I’m referring to.
In the Soviet Union, excessive wage leveling, corruption and corrosion caused by the second economy and the failure to crack down on it, and a failure to maintain a living and vivid dialectical materialist science and living practice of constructive critique, in particular in regards to the CPSU and the party line, contributed to the reactionary character of these classes. After the revolution, doing better on these points will help keep these classes more loyal.
As for the revolution, the key is to secure the class power of the proletariat as expressed through mass organizations and the communist party and the proletarian state apparatus. New intelligensia etc. can be grown by public education. Political Commissars can ensure officers and the like stay in line during the revolutionary period. The key is to make opportunists conform to the revolution because it is in their best interest, and to weed out committed reactionaries and remove them from positions of power, and help them all grow past their false conciousness.
Sean Fain and the Biden administration stole the election from him the last time, but he is trying again. https://www.willforuawpresident.org/statements/2026-campaign-statement