476
submitted 3 weeks ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] orioler25@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 30 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Sedan@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (71 replies)
load more comments (148 replies)
[-] Sedan@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Careful about stuff like this.

We are not speaking of liberalism; we are speaking of the bourgeoisie, which is a parasite on society.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
476 points (99.2% liked)

Socialism

6803 readers
2 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS