How can one define the evil rich versus the hard working new rich? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 days ago by ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/communism@lemmy.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34730043

For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.

How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?

Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.

Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn't welcoming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 days ago

Firstly I would drop the moral framing[1]. It’s a fool’s errand to try to distinguish good, moral bourgeoisie from bad, immoral bourgeoisie[2].

The first division Marxists generally make within the bourgeoisie is between petit bourgeoisie and haute bourgeoisie. That division somewhat correlates with what you are describing, but really mostly doesn’t correlate.

The idea that the “hard working” “self-made” “job creators” are moral scions should just be dropped down a mine shaft.

[-] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Thanks for the comment and links. Will read them later tonight.

Based on what you said, how do you divide bourgeoisie and proletariat then? Those who control the means of production and those who profit is extracted right? Would the example where no one is extracting and all workers are paid well still be proletariat? I’m sure it can’t be as silly as proletariat + paid well = bourgeoisie. Both examples I provided come from dirt poor families.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

how do you divide bourgeoisie and proletariat then?

Sometimes the two wikis even agree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

The proletariat […] is the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work).

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Proletariat

The proletariat is the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose only possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work) and owning no capital of their own nor the means of production and are forced to sell their labour power to survive.

Both examples I provided come from dirt poor families.

Where they came from couldn’t be less relevant.

[-] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

Got it, thank you Davel

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025

3 points (60.0% liked)

Communism

1774 readers

56 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

ComradeClucky@lemmy.ml