I think you are going in on the wrong foot here. Distinction between petty bourgeousie and bourgeoisie is not relevant here. The commenter is saying landlords being leeches is why small business owners are skimping on paying good wages (which in turn causes the “labour shortage”). This is fundamentally wrong because it is based on false assumptions. Supposing a small bussiness owner is given possession of their rented land, there is no guarantee that the money they save will be used to pay better wages. In reality the guarantee you can guarantee the opposite. They will pocket the difference because that is how the logic of capitalism functions. They will just pay the market wages for the labour anyway.
The talk of which classes will or should be antagonised and which won’t be is detached from the topic.
Good point!
The petite bourgeoisie as a whole has bourgeois aspirations and most will likely act against the interests of the proletariat, but I’ve never heard any communist seriously claim that they need to be executed (although it depends to what degree they fight back during a revolution; if they try to retain their capital through violence, it will have to be violently expropriated). They will need to be re-educated for their new proletarian role, and the feasibility of doing so depends on many factors, but there’s no need to kill someone who doesn’t resist
Yep, that’s what I was trying to get at! Thanks!
I would specify that the manager at the McDonalds, while not bourgeois, does serve their interests and is a class traitor that also needs to be done away with
they don’t need to be done away with, they need to be rehabilitated so they can continue as a regular worker
I mean them as a group done away with. Class traitors need to be dealt with using methods to ensure they will contribute to society in the future but must be viewed with great suspicion
agreed
While true, I think communists need to acknowledge the coercion at play here too. I’ve personally worked for plenty of managers in my life who sympathize with the workers they are tasked with supervising, but their hands are just as tied by their higher ups to do anything about it. If they don’t fulfill their function they’ll be replaced as well, and it’s not like a lot of these people’s are living glamorous lives either.
Just something to keep in mind when we find ourselves in dialogue with members of the management class.
I feel very suspicious of them. Why would they have chosen to become a manager in that case?
Better material conditions of course. Benefits. A manager with an expensive chronic illness is gonna need that health insurance. A manager with kids to support is gonna need that employer-sponsored savings account.
We need to recognize and emphasize the coercion factor that divides the working class, not focus so much on the moral failings that come from that.
Sounds about right to me. I’ll chip in with some more theory if you don’t mind.
Of course I don’t mind!
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/1191649
I might’ve got a bit carried away.
I appreciate it!
