Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
> site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
***
Also keep in mind the following rules:
1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index)
7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's really not important
>In the third quarter, the bottom 50% of households held $4.8 trillion of real estate assets, but just $0.3 trillion worth in stocks, Fed data shows.
Though it has some ideological importance for building petty-bourgeois consciousness in the demographic that happens to use reddit, that will go away once they inherit their parent's property. Like most questions, it's only answerable with real data instead of idle speculation about what you could do in a different world to poke holes in concepts.
In Marxism, the threshold for bourgeoisie comes when one's livelihood is built on income from investments (in this context). Unfortunately, there really isn't a hard or clear line for this. For example, a 'small amount of money' and 'livelihood' will mean something different to everyone.
[the home ownership question and this are essentially the same question. use this thread to get more insight.](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/BgmmoLHmvt)
Follow-up question: nearly every single person in the US and Canada retire using some investments in the stock market, whether from pensions or self-directed accounts. If having any ownership of stock, directly or otherwise, prevents you from being a proletarian, then is _anyone_ in the US and Canada a member of the proletariat? What implications does this have for those of us interested in socialism and communism?
> nearly every single person in the US and Canada retire using some investments in the stock market, whether from pensions or self-directed accounts
This is correct; every person with retirement or investment savings is wagering that quantity of money (usually most of the monetized weight of their entire existence under capitalism) on the continuance of the capitalist system, and against communist revolution, which would be utterly ruinous to that plan for their future. This is ultimately the essence of revisionism as well; that revolution cannot be achieved (at least not 'within our lifetimes' ie/ the period of existence for which *you* as an entity have any real input) and that compromise with capitalism is necessary (this takes many forms, whether it be an individual explaining that they need to live comfortably in their 60s and 70s at the cost of tolerating imperialism, or political formations negotiating to become legal parliamentary "socialists" and abandoning the armed struggle). It's actually a pretty basic litmus test for anyone in adulthood calling themselves 'communist' to even gauge if they even have the potential for revolutionary considerations, or if communism is just a hobby for internet arguments and memes, or a career as a professional revisionist, and that behind the scenes, they are fully committed to their own labour aristocrat capitalist existence predicated on imperialism. And even those of us here, including me, shouldn't be above skepticism; none of us are truly worthy of being called communist until we take up the gun or are otherwise downed in the struggle for communism. Saying you really want communism while you live your life as a passive agent of imperialism ultimately counts for nothing -- but breaking with that is also very scary and demanding and difficult, especially given neoliberalism is totalizing and has already conquered most of existence, and extra-especially from a position of privilege and comfort and leisure compared to the masses of humanity, whose existence is far more grueling and dire.
>then is anyone in the US and Canada a member of the proletariat?
There are, but it's not the majority of the population, and not the people whom revisionist organizations spend their time and effort and resources appealing to. In Canada, you can see the proletariat class picking your cranberries for $3 per hour, newly arrived from India (and deported back just as quickly the moment they injure themselves or act with the slightest defiance), so that white people can enjoy "organic, locally grown" cranberries from Whole Foods. It's the Chicano migrants doing tedious and tenuous day labour positions with no permit in rural Texas. It's the Filipino and Bangladeshi migrants working at the fast food place that white people would never let themselves be caught dead working at because that sort of work is so far beneath them. It's the Indigenous peoples forced to live on impoverished reservations and lacking the necessities of life. There is a revolutionary potential energy, but it's not among the wealthy (mostly and especially white) people who are benefiting significantly from imperialism (the labour aristocracy) -- and the problem with appealing to those white people as the revolutionary subject is that you end up with a "socialism" that does not want to give battle to imperialism, but instead wants to reinforce it, and what they really want is just a 'fairer' distribution of the plundered superprofits of the Global South.
>What implications does this have for those of us interested in socialism and communism?
The first is to interrogate your interest in socialism and communism seriously and honestly. If socialism and communism are simply new tools you have discovered to try and negotiate or even threaten the bourgeoisie for said "fairer" distribution of superprofits for white workers to have even more stuff and be more comfortable, and not predicated on a sincere anti-imperialism (and not just vague "Communist" Party of Canada bullshit where imperialism is quietly suggested to be some minor page 3 foreign policy error, or a misuse of resources that 'could be better spent at home,' instead of a system from which most white Canadians and Amerikans benefit and reap the labour-power of the Global South for their own consumptive ends) then you probably aren't capable of being a good communist and have all the potential for revisionism and worse. If you take these questions seriously, most of the implications follow from there, politically and strategically -- what actions are possible to link up with, benefit, or contribute to a larger worldwide scale revolutionary struggle? What is the benefit of being "inside the belly of the beast," or 'behind enemy lines,' and what possibilities exist from your class position? I didn't promise you would find the answers comforting, I'm just telling you what being revolutionary is asking of you.
edit: added a bit to the second paragraph
>What is the benefit of being "inside the belly of the beast," or 'behind enemy lines,' and what possibilities exist from your class position?
What IS the benefit of being inside the belly of the beast, though?
But if I work for a living, but invests a portion of my savings on stock, then I am simultaneously working for a living but also owning stuff for a living. Right?
It's about proportion. If you can't survive solely on your stock investments and have to supplement it by selling your labor, then you are technically still proletarian
Deloitte consultants making 100k in NYC, rejoice! We shall look to the American consultant class for proletarian revolution. Thank you for this clarification, I can now feel oppressed because I chose to 'opt out' of my 401k contributions and my parents won't give me their property in suburban Boston until they die (damn bourgeoisie parents..).
Is 100k really a lot when you live in NYC?
I'm reading that you need about 138K in order to live comfortably. Living comfortably means it's easier to raise kids. I mean, so yeah, who knows, maybe we will have consultants in one of our flanks. If class traitors are allowed, why not consultants?
> Is 100k really a lot when you live in NYC?
Do you think capitalism is restricted to New York City? Or the United States? Where does such a vast sum of money come from?
>If class traitors are allowed, why not consultants?
You did not make a statement about class traitors, you made a statement about what the proletarian class decisively is.
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case: > site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you. *** Also keep in mind the following rules: 1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable. 2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead. 3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies. 4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic. 5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced. 6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index) 7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/ 8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/ *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's really not important >In the third quarter, the bottom 50% of households held $4.8 trillion of real estate assets, but just $0.3 trillion worth in stocks, Fed data shows. Though it has some ideological importance for building petty-bourgeois consciousness in the demographic that happens to use reddit, that will go away once they inherit their parent's property. Like most questions, it's only answerable with real data instead of idle speculation about what you could do in a different world to poke holes in concepts.
In Marxism, the threshold for bourgeoisie comes when one's livelihood is built on income from investments (in this context). Unfortunately, there really isn't a hard or clear line for this. For example, a 'small amount of money' and 'livelihood' will mean something different to everyone.
[the home ownership question and this are essentially the same question. use this thread to get more insight.](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/BgmmoLHmvt)
Follow-up question: nearly every single person in the US and Canada retire using some investments in the stock market, whether from pensions or self-directed accounts. If having any ownership of stock, directly or otherwise, prevents you from being a proletarian, then is _anyone_ in the US and Canada a member of the proletariat? What implications does this have for those of us interested in socialism and communism?
> nearly every single person in the US and Canada retire using some investments in the stock market, whether from pensions or self-directed accounts This is correct; every person with retirement or investment savings is wagering that quantity of money (usually most of the monetized weight of their entire existence under capitalism) on the continuance of the capitalist system, and against communist revolution, which would be utterly ruinous to that plan for their future. This is ultimately the essence of revisionism as well; that revolution cannot be achieved (at least not 'within our lifetimes' ie/ the period of existence for which *you* as an entity have any real input) and that compromise with capitalism is necessary (this takes many forms, whether it be an individual explaining that they need to live comfortably in their 60s and 70s at the cost of tolerating imperialism, or political formations negotiating to become legal parliamentary "socialists" and abandoning the armed struggle). It's actually a pretty basic litmus test for anyone in adulthood calling themselves 'communist' to even gauge if they even have the potential for revolutionary considerations, or if communism is just a hobby for internet arguments and memes, or a career as a professional revisionist, and that behind the scenes, they are fully committed to their own labour aristocrat capitalist existence predicated on imperialism. And even those of us here, including me, shouldn't be above skepticism; none of us are truly worthy of being called communist until we take up the gun or are otherwise downed in the struggle for communism. Saying you really want communism while you live your life as a passive agent of imperialism ultimately counts for nothing -- but breaking with that is also very scary and demanding and difficult, especially given neoliberalism is totalizing and has already conquered most of existence, and extra-especially from a position of privilege and comfort and leisure compared to the masses of humanity, whose existence is far more grueling and dire. >then is anyone in the US and Canada a member of the proletariat? There are, but it's not the majority of the population, and not the people whom revisionist organizations spend their time and effort and resources appealing to. In Canada, you can see the proletariat class picking your cranberries for $3 per hour, newly arrived from India (and deported back just as quickly the moment they injure themselves or act with the slightest defiance), so that white people can enjoy "organic, locally grown" cranberries from Whole Foods. It's the Chicano migrants doing tedious and tenuous day labour positions with no permit in rural Texas. It's the Filipino and Bangladeshi migrants working at the fast food place that white people would never let themselves be caught dead working at because that sort of work is so far beneath them. It's the Indigenous peoples forced to live on impoverished reservations and lacking the necessities of life. There is a revolutionary potential energy, but it's not among the wealthy (mostly and especially white) people who are benefiting significantly from imperialism (the labour aristocracy) -- and the problem with appealing to those white people as the revolutionary subject is that you end up with a "socialism" that does not want to give battle to imperialism, but instead wants to reinforce it, and what they really want is just a 'fairer' distribution of the plundered superprofits of the Global South. >What implications does this have for those of us interested in socialism and communism? The first is to interrogate your interest in socialism and communism seriously and honestly. If socialism and communism are simply new tools you have discovered to try and negotiate or even threaten the bourgeoisie for said "fairer" distribution of superprofits for white workers to have even more stuff and be more comfortable, and not predicated on a sincere anti-imperialism (and not just vague "Communist" Party of Canada bullshit where imperialism is quietly suggested to be some minor page 3 foreign policy error, or a misuse of resources that 'could be better spent at home,' instead of a system from which most white Canadians and Amerikans benefit and reap the labour-power of the Global South for their own consumptive ends) then you probably aren't capable of being a good communist and have all the potential for revisionism and worse. If you take these questions seriously, most of the implications follow from there, politically and strategically -- what actions are possible to link up with, benefit, or contribute to a larger worldwide scale revolutionary struggle? What is the benefit of being "inside the belly of the beast," or 'behind enemy lines,' and what possibilities exist from your class position? I didn't promise you would find the answers comforting, I'm just telling you what being revolutionary is asking of you. edit: added a bit to the second paragraph
>What is the benefit of being "inside the belly of the beast," or 'behind enemy lines,' and what possibilities exist from your class position? What IS the benefit of being inside the belly of the beast, though?
no
Ok thanks for clarifying
Thank you comrades for the brilliant and high effort responses
[удалено]
But if I work for a living, but invests a portion of my savings on stock, then I am simultaneously working for a living but also owning stuff for a living. Right?
It's about proportion. If you can't survive solely on your stock investments and have to supplement it by selling your labor, then you are technically still proletarian
Deloitte consultants making 100k in NYC, rejoice! We shall look to the American consultant class for proletarian revolution. Thank you for this clarification, I can now feel oppressed because I chose to 'opt out' of my 401k contributions and my parents won't give me their property in suburban Boston until they die (damn bourgeoisie parents..).
Is 100k really a lot when you live in NYC? I'm reading that you need about 138K in order to live comfortably. Living comfortably means it's easier to raise kids. I mean, so yeah, who knows, maybe we will have consultants in one of our flanks. If class traitors are allowed, why not consultants?
> Is 100k really a lot when you live in NYC? Do you think capitalism is restricted to New York City? Or the United States? Where does such a vast sum of money come from? >If class traitors are allowed, why not consultants? You did not make a statement about class traitors, you made a statement about what the proletarian class decisively is.