And? That doesn't make them or him wrong.
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
50 points (83.8% liked)
Memes of Production
1641 readers
251 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
It's like those smug people who are like "You hate capitalism and yet partake in a capitalist economy, hmmm, interesting."
Wouldn't you know it, I literally just saw an ml pulling that in another thread from someone who (I assume) posts on a "buy from EU not china/USA" type community (which is valid, support more local stuff as much as possible) and "claims to be anti capitalist"
Legit, how is one expected to live if you don't buy anything?
Do what you can… Barter, trade, be communal. Every dollar not spent is an act of resistance. Every dollar you earn but don’t pay tax on is an act of resistance (also illegal). Every pirated film or song. Every dollar handed to a homeless person. Take pride in what you don’t need rather than what you can accumulate.
Does taking the money from people who have enough disposable cash (or not enough sense) to Doordash and then spending it on 9mm rounds count?
Ehhh no. Bourgeois isn't just somewhat privileged and went to college. Bourgeois kids are trust fund kids. Like never have to worry about money ever. Definitely not a majority of any political philosophy. There aren't enough of them.
So was he.
It's kinda crazy when you think about it. So many of the world's great thinkers led a privileged life. Never had to worry about making rent, yet instead of resting on their laurels they put themselves to work trying to figure out how to make things better. Such a coincidence that those with ability also had the opportunity. Would be a shame if we had lowly serfs out there capable of such greatness, only to never receive the opportunity to realize their full potential.
It's hard to reason about and critique grand societal systems while your head is clamped in an every-tightening vice; and that's intentional.
Marx’ middle classes were, in his era, what we call the upper class or Epstein class today: the ruling class of capitalists. Today’s middle class is what Marx would call the proletariat. So the meme, while funny, is mistaken.
- Marx’s “upper class” were simply the aristocracy, whose power was mostly political or symbolic rather than economic. This class no longer has a solid analog today.
- “Middle class” were the new merchant class, the wealthiest non-aristocrats who owned land and the means of production, accumulated generational wealth, and often didn’t work except to see to their holdings, who today we would call the Epstein class.
- “Lower-middle class” were business owners and landlords of moderate wealth but not quite enough to stop working entirely, who today we would call the upper-middle class.
- The proletariat were those without wealth, land, or other significant holdings, who today would be considered middle class or below.
upper class was basically royalty and nobility, which doesnt exist nowadays
middle and lower middle class are modern bourgeois and petit-bourgeois
Right, among the middle classes, who Marx treated together as the ruling economic class, the haute bourgeoisie were the bankers, tycoons, etc, and the petite bourgeoisie were the smaller merchants who aspired to obtain full bourgeoisie status. They were often management in larger companies, or owners of smaller companies, yet they were people of means with moderate wealth and status in town, and thus not comparable to today’s lower-middle class. Again in Marx’s era the “middle classes” were only called that due to aristocracy being “upper.” So when Marx refers to the middle classes as bourgeoisie he did mean it in the oligarchic sense, since the middle classes WERE the capitalists of his time.
the upper and middle class merged together.
Cant have political power nowadays without economic power
There is no middle class. Never has been. There is nothing between the ruling class and the working class except possibly the criminal class.
those who can't or don't work, the lumpen
Genuinely, the only moral class under capitalism.