Anonymous #1 4d

me when i don’t understand the history of class development. it’s out of the burghers and bourgeoisie that we witnessed the rise of the financial and capitalist class. most people did not dwell in the cities in feudalism, they instead lived amongst the commons. said commons which were gradually enclosed and sold off to a growing bourgeoisie. this dispossession birthed a new class, one who had to sell their labor for a wage in order to afford to live in the cities, financed by capitalists

1

Anonymous _orangutan 4d

that is what differentiates a proletarian, someone who works for a wage, from a peasant who often shared ownership in the feudal mode of production. the bourgeoisie is virtually the same now as it was then, motivated by two things, accumulation of capital, and profit.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 4d

I know. Still, I prefer the term because it’s not marxist. The marxists have been discredited and trying to use communist terms is like trying to make fetch happen - the negative association with the Soviet Union is unbreakable for the present. Better to find new, more specific words to describe the same thing.

5

Anonymous _orangutan 4d

the “epstein class” obfuscates their bourgeois origin. it’s good for populism ig, but populist movements lack discipline and often collapse because of it. the issue is and always has been the private ownership of land and property, regardless of who may occupy that position

1

Anonymous #1 4d

they are specific, and reflect historical reality. the communists are correct. the epstein class rhetoric is just convenient for this period and in no way highlights that the issue with this class of people comes from their exploitative social relations. it’s certainly good for driving people into the DSA-Democratic party coalition, but that’s about all it’s good for

0

Anonymous _orangutan 4d

The main benefit of “epstein class” is that it narrows the scope and avoids marxist associations. Everyone lives in cities now - class development is irrelevant. Everyone thinks they’re part of the bourgeoise and so saying you want to get rid of the bourgeoise makes everyone think you’re going after them.

5

Anonymous #1 4d

history is irrelevant, you’re right. lmfao

1

Anonymous _orangutan 4d

Yes. For the purposes of moving the masses, histories - even correct histories - are not relevant to the majority of the population. The term bourgeoise might satisfy scholars, and it might be more technically correct, but it lacks the note of illegality and wrongness that Epstein class has by its association with a prominent, wealthy pedophile whose wealth shielded him from justice.

2