Purely reactionary, petit-bourgeois populism.

The near-majority of the population is college-educated to some extent (42%). Class isn't about education, it is about hierarchy in production and property relations.
And 51% of people 25-34 have completed tertiary education, so this is a generation too:

1. bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/…

2. data.oecd.org/eduatt/populat…
@MaoistBidenism See below:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tristam the Social Democrat🌹

Tristam the Social Democrat🌹 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TristamPratori1

Apr 24
Have these writers considered that democracy seems to be breaking down because of material changes in society, not because of abstract and immeasurable ideals?

This is a weak critique and is filled with lowballing.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
''...unconcerned with individual rights.''

Has Jonathan Haidt considered that this extremely narrow bourgeois view is the problem, because it denies the necessary role of collective action in maintaining democracy?
To a leftist, it is not really that hard to see that this democratic sclerosis goes back to economic inequalities and class-based society.

But this is mind-blowing to these mainstream intellectuals.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 21
He's correct in some sense, but the decisions of developers and real estate interests of where to build those units matter, too!

It might not be profitable to build in one area and the opposite in another, market forces are entrenching a type of inequality between locations.
The problem is that a surplus nationally is not always a surplus in each area.

But it does demonstrate we have the capacity and ability to build units as such, but allocation and investment decisions ignore the things that are necessary for people.
This is also why the ''redistribute units'' stuff can also be misleading.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 19
Starbucks workers are actual proletarians, they sell their labor to Starbucks in return for a wage.

Farmers are petit-bourgeois, they own property.

This style thinking where the working-class is only macho and avoids ''feminine'' things such as Starbucks is outdated.
Modern capitalism is a service economy, not an industrial economy.
I'm fine with farmers being in leftist politics.

In practice, farmers and labor have often formed coalitions because instability in agriculture tends to leak over into industry and reduce wages.

But, farmers are not definitionally working-class, unless they are tenant farmers.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 18
Labor is called the ''value'' because the labor process itself represents the scarcity of goods and services.

The labor process creates the want for commodities, and the existence of human labor is a necessary condition for commodities. Imagine if everything was automated.
Marxism is economics is based on sociological analysis, that should help clear the confusion.

Its not really that confusing. Its just a way of thinking of how a society works, but it misaligns so much with other forms of thought because its framework of analysis is unique.
Marginalism is the opposite of Marxism in that sense, its not sociological.

When marginalist neoclassical schools talk about economic facts, it talks about them as objective laws of the market and not as how human beings relate to each other and build their societies.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 22
One thing that really irks me is the tendency to take all the wrong conclusions from modern social problems.

I hear moderate commentators talk about democratic crisis, and in the very same breath they rally to the defense of established institutions such as capitalism.
This is totally the wrong lesson from history.

The moderate right-wing approach of defending democratic institutions as bundled up with other established hierarchies is just so wrong. The problems of the latter metastasizes into the former.
Nationalism (often seen as the avatar of anti-democratic trends these days) is a symptom of a larger problem.

The national cope is the logical consequence of a badly organized labor movement and the relative weakness of transformative social movements.
Read 12 tweets
Mar 16
The left has, but that’s just my opinion!

The left has always warned that the social inequalities of capital combined with the contradiction between globalized production and national states will bring countries into conflict.
Meanwhile, a socialist had to run twice just to kick the “normie liberal” politics into gear.
We see this with the conflict between BRICS and the older powers. Capitalist globalization at its apex has reversed tune and has begun to degenerate into conflict between old and incumbent powers, the development of global production brings national states into competition.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(