this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
5 points (85.7% liked)
Communism101
1431 readers
2 users here now
This is a community for those who are new to or unfamiliar with communist, socialist or simply leftist philosophy. Ask basic questions here and learn about what we stand for!
Rules:
- Keep things SFW!
- Keep posts and comments civil.
- Don't attack someone for not knowing "enough" about communism or leftism.
- Civil discussion and debate is welcome, trolling and hate speech is not.
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, inciting crime/violence, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actors are not part of the bourgeoisie. They control no methods of production or productive capital. 5% of them are labour aristocracy at best while the other 95% are living paycheck to paycheck trying to survive.
Bourgeoisie does not mean “rich”, the class structure is built around your position in relation to productive capital. If you do not control the capital, no matter how rich you are, you cannot be part of the bourgeoisie.
This reflection is truly accurate, if you're not owner of methods of production, you're working class.
This presumes that the richer ones won't still carry the bougie's water like they do control capital, though. Richie fucks don't often step down off the gilded plinth, in my experience.
A valid point to raise; I'd always figured extras, and small-timers were doing that kind of thing as a 'between jobs' endeavor, rather than that actually being a job for them-- and holy fuck, my heart. I can't imagine trying to scrape it as a small-time actor without other avenues of work lined up.
Most of the rich actors that I’ve seen seem to be pretty supportive of this strike luckily, not sure how long that will hold though
Good points, but I thought that capital could be just having large sums of money and not necessarily equipment that workers use to produce goods? Would the amount of money the 5% own not be considered capital then?
Not really, because methods of production essentially create that money. For example what is more worthwhile? A machine that creates products worth 1 million dollars a year, or a million dollars cash? Obviously the machine as it allows a capitalist to essentially endlessly fill their pockets.
Capital trumps money every single time (money can also be used to purchase capital but itself is not capital). It can be used as investment as well, which acts as capital because it accumulates interest and return, turning it into productive capital. But money itself is not capital.