No? Classes aren’t simply categories of people, they are social relations to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Socialism works, and is far more effective at meeting people’s needs than capitalism.
Well, modern class structure is way more complicated than just owners versus people who sell their labor. Making simple claims about extremely complex systems is all you’re doing. Shit is straight out of the populist handbook. Workers can own substantial capital through pensions and investments, managers can have significant control without ownership, and small business owners can simultaneously be owners and laborers.
I don’t see how any of what you said invalidates what I said. I’m keeping it simple because this is Lemmy, and I’m not going to type out a summary of the entirety of Marxist theory on social class without reason. Of course workers can own some capital and the petite bourgeoisie exists, this has been known for centuries, and isn’t new. Complexity has increased, but that does not diminish the fact that society is generalized into capitalists and workers, even if subcategories exist.
Essentially, society has never been composed of people who only own capital and people who only sell their labor. This has also never been the Marxist position either, so you’re fighting a strawman neither of us believes.
Yeah I’m only halfway through blackshirts and reds, I’ll get there. Your link does discuss people who only own capital and only sell their labor. Being slaves and masters. You haven’t clearly explained how removing classes could look. Capitalism provides the ability to blend, climb or fall. You haven’t talked about how to remove classes or how that turns into a utopia of equity and friendship. You’ve made the same nebulous populist statements that have put dictators into power historically. What is the value making the distinction between subclasses brings?
The point is that variations exist within classes, they aren’t rigid binary lines but instead a bimodal distribution.
As for removing class, by collectivizing all production and distribution. There’s no such thing as a “utopia of equity and friendship,” nor have socialist countries been ruled by dictators. The achievement of a classless society is one where all production and distribution is held in common through gradually appropriating property under a socialist government.
Socialist countries have never been run by dictators? Your explanation also lacks any concrete method or actual steps. Again, it’s just blatant oversimplification and populism.
No? Classes aren’t simply categories of people, they are social relations to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Socialism works, and is far more effective at meeting people’s needs than capitalism.
Well, modern class structure is way more complicated than just owners versus people who sell their labor. Making simple claims about extremely complex systems is all you’re doing. Shit is straight out of the populist handbook. Workers can own substantial capital through pensions and investments, managers can have significant control without ownership, and small business owners can simultaneously be owners and laborers.
I don’t see how any of what you said invalidates what I said. I’m keeping it simple because this is Lemmy, and I’m not going to type out a summary of the entirety of Marxist theory on social class without reason. Of course workers can own some capital and the petite bourgeoisie exists, this has been known for centuries, and isn’t new. Complexity has increased, but that does not diminish the fact that society is generalized into capitalists and workers, even if subcategories exist.
Essentially, society has never been composed of people who only own capital and people who only sell their labor. This has also never been the Marxist position either, so you’re fighting a strawman neither of us believes.
Yeah I’m only halfway through blackshirts and reds, I’ll get there. Your link does discuss people who only own capital and only sell their labor. Being slaves and masters. You haven’t clearly explained how removing classes could look. Capitalism provides the ability to blend, climb or fall. You haven’t talked about how to remove classes or how that turns into a utopia of equity and friendship. You’ve made the same nebulous populist statements that have put dictators into power historically. What is the value making the distinction between subclasses brings?
The point is that variations exist within classes, they aren’t rigid binary lines but instead a bimodal distribution.
As for removing class, by collectivizing all production and distribution. There’s no such thing as a “utopia of equity and friendship,” nor have socialist countries been ruled by dictators. The achievement of a classless society is one where all production and distribution is held in common through gradually appropriating property under a socialist government.
Socialist countries have never been run by dictators? Your explanation also lacks any concrete method or actual steps. Again, it’s just blatant oversimplification and populism.