I'm planning on writing about the differences between the rich (those that do not own capital and do not rely on the exploitation of the working class) and the bourgeoise (those that do)
I would like to hear any fellow communists / socialists mention their opinions here, I'd love the discussion!
posted
The rich sectors of the proletariat even though they sell their labour out of necessity still support the hegemony of capitalist super-exploitation of 'third-world' colonies and racial division of labour. Historically speaking in America settler "proletarians" have done more to sabotage proletarian revolutions from arising because they've worked alongside the bourgeoise. They're henchmen of the oppressor class, opportunistically taking any deal by the rich to divide the poor and oppressed if it meant that their "native-born" people be given better pay, stealing jobs from poor immigrants, indigenous people, the black population, Mexicans, and Chinese.
In this sense the history of settler "proletarian" history shows 4 distinct classes.
The bourgeoisie, Settler "native born" Euro-Americans, European new-immigrants, and at the bottom of the barrel the colonized.
Settler "communism" will always lead towards this path (revisionism) if it does not put the voices of the unheard in frontlines. We need to empower those who are proletarian in pure form, that being colonized people and 'third-world' colonized people. Without this, the revolution has already failed
Forum:
Report Topic
Permalink