I think that what we mean by "race" is related to but distinct from some ancient Greek philosopher speculating on "the different orders of man" in the same way that Marx's use of "class" is related to but obviously different from what a book on the English peerage means by it
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae
I agree we have different ideas of what “race” does and possibly should mean: when I say race I’m referring to any type of ethnic classification system, whether benign, hostile, or even theoretical. My point is that there are a lot of different ways to classify and divide “race”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But there’s no such ambiguity in regards to labor vs. capital.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You’re the second person I’ve seen recently make this distinction and I genuinely don’t see the utility, in your scenario an old retired lady with an antique shop that doesn’t turn a profit and has no employees has more social power than a billionaire CEO beholden to shareholders
3 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @jaylikewhoa @arthur_affect and
Very important to remember when all that doctrine was written. "Capitalists" as originally defined are consolidated in few families and mirror old-timey nobility fairly well at a time where that transition was ongoing. It was never built for modern tardocapitalism.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MudDude4 @arthur_affect and
The bourgeoisie were middle managers flaunting tacky new money tastes in the original French. It’s all theory that needs some kinks worked out to apply to contemporary culture. As an “independent contractor” an Uber driver would be an owner-operator, in this scenario, capitol.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jaylikewhoa @arthur_affect and
And, for the record, you'd think that in a country with structural racism with historical roots in literal slavery everyone would agree that structural racism is the most obvious example of classic class distinction in the marxist sense, at least for black Americans as a group.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MudDude4 @jaylikewhoa and
I mean, queer rights, maybe, but for black people and women it's the most apples to apples thing in terms of societal structure perpetuating itself despite historical changes. With all the muddling of corporate capitalism it's the most purely marxist structure in US society.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MudDude4 @arthur_affect and
Vis a vis women Engels (the more woke of the two) addressed the role of sexism within the capitalist world, that the housewife was the original oppressed worker. Which is again both accurate in some situations and outdated in others.
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @jaylikewhoa @MudDude4 and
Yeah,
@nberlat went into how Firestone - the most insightful of the 2nd-wavers - talked about how in her view capitalism is a descendant and mutation of patriarchy, not vice versa2 replies 2 retweets 13 likes
None of this shit maps onto the capital/worker construct completely cleanly but the parallels are obviously there
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @jaylikewhoa and
A lot of people have tried to argue that anti-queerness can't be a form of class exploitation ("what the hell profit does a straight guy extract from hurting gay people") but they're not thinking it through Under patriarchy cishet women are the proles and queerness is lumpenness
1 reply 3 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @jaylikewhoa and
You don't send the cops to brutalize disabled homeless people who can't work because you genuinely think they're holding out on you and that there's a lot of profit to be made from putting them back in the workforce You do it because the system demands its borders be patrolled
1 reply 6 retweets 31 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.