I have a lot of suggestions, but for starters, what do you know so far, and what do you think you’re lacking in?

It’s both, actually. I use Petty Bourgeoisie when speaking with non-Marxists sometimes, though it makes little difference.

It’s both, actually. I use Petty Bourgeoisie when speaking with non-Marxists sometimes, though it makes little difference.

No problem!

The “fun” thing with the petty bourgeois as they relate to Trump is how classes relate to fascism. Fascism materially arises from a frustrated petty bourgeoisie aligning with the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat along nationalis and xenophobic lines.

In case anyone is curious, this is a wrecker account. They post vaguely left wing memes, then blatant Antisemitism. Lemmy.ml has had multiple such users in the last week or so attempting to derail everything, notice that this account is less than an hour old.

The joke here is just misogyny.

Trump die-hards are largely petty bourgeois, ie small business owners. They can make their own time.

Because he isn’t outdated. People have built upon him, but the foundations he and Engels laid out remain true.

What evidence am I supposed to provide here, exactly? I’m asking for clarification.

Both wrote about economic systems before economics was even a thing.

Lol. Lmao, even.

and our society, have advanced dramatically in the 140+ years they’ve been dead.

In what manner has this proven Marx wrong?

Long, boring, hard to pay attention to.

There are simpler, shorter, and easier works by Marx, Like Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital, as well as Value, Price, and Profit.

Why not?

Read Marx, everyone.

The great “Communism Understander” has logged on, everyone! Make way!

Liberals - “Who could have called this?!”

Leftists - “We’ve been saying this for centuries now.”

Scratched Liberals - “Yea but you deserved what you got”

Citation needed.

Ah yes, you also said you need a central party control for socialism.

I did not.

You said they had socialism, I said they didn’t. You didn’t prove anything. If you wanna go into how elections were run and how candidates were chosen then we can but the picture you provided was accurate for just a brief period in the USSR. I can’t remember if worker councils were dismantled during Lenin or Stalin but by the time they occupied Estonia they weren’t a thing. In the USSR the higher ups in the party controlled the means of production, they also controlled who people can vote for while making sure that vote didn’t change anything.

The Soviets were never disbanded until the end of the USSR. You have no idea what you’re talking about, nor what constitutes Socialism. It’s clear that you’re anti-Marxist.

you claimed that you only need to fight the bourgeoisie and practice central planning to be socialist

I did not.

Like I said you need democratic worker control for socialism.

The USSR did, as I proved and you simply said “no.”

Are you capable of addressing what I said without resorting to anecdotes?

I’m guessing you aren’t an anarchist because that’s mostly about unjust hierarchies, not conflating the word authoritarian.

I’m a Communist that works with and speaks with Anarchists.

Socialism and capitalism is about who controls the means of production. In authoritarian countries that would usually be the state or ruling party making it no better than the bourgeoisie of a capitalist country and in socialist ones it would be the workers. I know of no country where the workers control the means of production. Workers having democratic control over the means of production is absolutely essential for socialism.

Then you need to study up on AES countries, as there have been and continue to be Socialist countries, despite them not being Anarchist.

A state largely governed by a Communist Party that practices strong central planning and works against bourgeois control is Socialist. As an example, the USSR, where there were large implementations of democratization:

And large reductions in wealth disparity:

Despite overall GDP growth: