It’s not anti-Marxist, Engels was Bourgeois and allocated profit to fund revolution. If you can assist in communal development by hooking into the profit motive of the global economy, that’s okay. (We should however, cross-reference someone’s class interests with the politics they are espousing. Their class background could be the source of Revisionism.)
In Imperialist countries there’s very little difference between wage-laborers and the petty-bourgeoisie “proper” (as in, propertied), it mostly boils down to lifestyle choice (within similar opportunities), risks and gambles.
In many economies, there are nationalities (or castes, religions - Pale of Settlement) that are gate-kept from the wage-work ladder, these are the small business (often immigrants) selling food at metro stations or outside stadiums, the (historically) Black windshield washers, shoe-shiners, and other such “hustler” work. These are indeed petty-Bourgeois relations but they are enforced in a semi-formal, lumpenized form. The bottom of the petty-Bourgeoisie can be lower economically than minimum-wage work, because even minimum-wage work can be turned into a privilege (Diploma, GED).
Marxists need not be Proletarians, however, their overall life’s work needs to be working toward the eventual emancipation of the Proletariat (exploited segment of the workforce).
Most Imperialist countries, have little to no Proletariat “proper” (exploited laborers, realistically paid less than the global average value of labor or around less than $5-6 USD, min-wage in Haiti is 10% of this). Un-exploited wage-laborers, often referred to labor-aristocracy or (dated) “servants”, make the bulk of an Imperialist country’s workforce.
Implying unions are inherently revolutionary. (Nearly all US unions are already giving money to the stock market to grow their pensions, them for personal benefit, you in this case for communal development geared for NatLib struggles).
Implying unions develop communities outside of creating Imperialist communities in Imperialist states.
Any money you take from the stock market would be accumulating wealth already accumulated by the Bourgeoisie. If you could somehow create a permanent syphon to 3W or 4W resistance groups from the market then that’s cool.
Purchase land and give it up to the nations it was stolen from == cool.
It’s not anti-Marxist, Engels was Bourgeois and allocated profit to fund revolution. If you can assist in communal development by hooking into the profit motive of the global economy, that’s okay. (We should however, cross-reference someone’s class interests with the politics they are espousing. Their class background could be the source of Revisionism.)
In Imperialist countries there’s very little difference between wage-laborers and the petty-bourgeoisie “proper” (as in, propertied), it mostly boils down to lifestyle choice (within similar opportunities), risks and gambles.
In many economies, there are nationalities (or castes, religions - Pale of Settlement) that are gate-kept from the wage-work ladder, these are the small business (often immigrants) selling food at metro stations or outside stadiums, the (historically) Black windshield washers, shoe-shiners, and other such “hustler” work. These are indeed petty-Bourgeois relations but they are enforced in a semi-formal, lumpenized form. The bottom of the petty-Bourgeoisie can be lower economically than minimum-wage work, because even minimum-wage work can be turned into a privilege (Diploma, GED).
Marxists need not be Proletarians, however, their overall life’s work needs to be working toward the eventual emancipation of the Proletariat (exploited segment of the workforce).
Most Imperialist countries, have little to no Proletariat “proper” (exploited laborers, realistically paid less than the global average value of labor or around less than $5-6 USD, min-wage in Haiti is 10% of this). Un-exploited wage-laborers, often referred to labor-aristocracy or (dated) “servants”, make the bulk of an Imperialist country’s workforce.
So if I buy stocks from Xiaomi and Apple and use the money to fund unions, that’s ok?