From an purely pedantic Marxist standpoint, that is not true. Marx identified several classes. It’s just that he saw societal transformational potential in both the bourgeoisie (a revolution he lived and was living through) and the proletariat (a revolution that he expected and wanted to happen).
Again, purely pedantically, no it is not, unless you just mean ‘the middle class does not exist’, then we are in agreement. There are many classes that still exist, but only 2 have ‘revolutionary potential’ according to Marx.
Though I (and Lenin and Mao) would even disagree with that. The ‘peasantry’ of the 20th century proved to be more than capable at staging their own revolutions.
Again, no one disagreeing in existence of more than 2 classes (many of them in decay since Marx time). And again, considering the post, the comment is valid enough. Not from a pedantic point of view, but in current circumstances it makes the point.
Existence, motion, decay and revolutionary potential of classes is an interesting topic, but I doubt that under the meme post about “middle class”. No offence.
Look, when one says “There are (as in exists) only two classes” I generally expect them to mean “There are (as in exists) only two classes.” Which is not true.
I’m not offended, it’s just that I made my pedantic point, and now you are insisting that you didn’t say something that you said. You are only technically wrong, and it’s still a better quip than mine.
Look, I’ll take the L here if it really matters all that much to you, but claiming that we can’t make theoretical mountains out of molehills in terms of theory in arbitrary instances is practically denying our Marxist heritage. If anything we should be founding and publishing newsletters against each other at this point. Surely you can spare a section of a little ol’ measly memes comment section.
From an purely pedantic Marxist standpoint, that is not true. Marx identified several classes. It’s just that he saw societal transformational potential in both the bourgeoisie (a revolution he lived and was living through) and the proletariat (a revolution that he expected and wanted to happen).
It’s true that more than 2 were mentioned, but my comment is still accurate enough.
Again, purely pedantically, no it is not, unless you just mean ‘the middle class does not exist’, then we are in agreement. There are many classes that still exist, but only 2 have ‘revolutionary potential’ according to Marx.
Though I (and Lenin and Mao) would even disagree with that. The ‘peasantry’ of the 20th century proved to be more than capable at staging their own revolutions.
Again, no one disagreeing in existence of more than 2 classes (many of them in decay since Marx time). And again, considering the post, the comment is valid enough. Not from a pedantic point of view, but in current circumstances it makes the point. Existence, motion, decay and revolutionary potential of classes is an interesting topic, but I doubt that under the meme post about “middle class”. No offence.
Look, when one says “There are (as in exists) only two classes” I generally expect them to mean “There are (as in exists) only two classes.” Which is not true.
I’m not offended, it’s just that I made my pedantic point, and now you are insisting that you didn’t say something that you said. You are only technically wrong, and it’s still a better quip than mine.
Look, I’ll take the L here if it really matters all that much to you, but claiming that we can’t make theoretical mountains out of molehills in terms of theory in arbitrary instances is practically denying our Marxist heritage. If anything we should be founding and publishing newsletters against each other at this point. Surely you can spare a section of a little ol’ measly memes comment section.