top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (299 children)

Careful about stuff like this. The word "oligarch" always presents some liberal conditions by distancing the fundamental issue of private property from attention. Middle-class people are integral to this system because they have a vested material interest in maintaining property as well as the violence necessary for it to exist; they aren't "oligarchs" any more than the thousands of multi-millionaires are.

It is also contradictory to socialism to attribute systemic inequities exclusively to the actions of select individuals, not a system of power organized around property.

Edit: I'm seriously disappointed by the amount of uneducated mansplaining going on here, I won't be responding to any more comments from this community.

  • source
  • hideshow 299 child comments
  • [–] [S] 30 points 4 months ago (288 children)

    In general, I'd argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you're in the former category then you're a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you're in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 288 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (122 children)

    Greetings, Comrade!

    I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not "oligarchs," but the bourgeoisie; not "workers," but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.

    Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.

    The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.

    The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through "surplus value." Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice a scheaper, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 122 child comments
  • load more comments (165 replies)
  • [+] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›