this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
86 points (98.9% liked)
Slop.
851 readers
510 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Noob doubt, who is the capitalist here? All of them seem to control their means of production?
I think it's intending to obscure the capitalist relation. The farmer is petty bourgeois (and practically non-existent, agriculture in many countries is extremely proletarianized these days). The loom worker is proletarian, the capitalist A is turning 4 dollars in wool, 1 dollar in tax, and 2 dollars in labor power for 1 dollar in profit. The sewer is also proletarian, the capitalist B turns 8 dollars in raw materials + 1 dollar tax + 2 dollars labor power into 1 dollar in profit.
Capitalist A and B both make 1 dollar in profit per commodity produced, and so redirect that towards expansion of production with the remainder of their money after covering their necessities. Both proletarians along the supply chain had 1 dollar stolen from them per commodity produced in surplus value, and the "Marxist" at the end is a strawman.
Finally, cost of maintaining the tools used and purchasing new ones I am assuming is a part of the "raw materials" category.
The farmer is petty bourgeois, edit: see cowbee.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
The farmer is petite bourgeoisie, the other two are proletarian and each have 1 dollar stolen in surplus per commodity created. Capitalists are kept out of frame to obscure that this is happening to many, many workers at the same time for each capitalist, resulting in massive profits (presumably).
Now that I realize the correct interpretation of the image. I'd like to point out that the way that the way that the loom and sewer text is written is wrong, the workers do not own the output, they do not pay to the capitalist and keep the rest, the capitalist pays them for their labor and owns the output.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Yep! They are trying to frame surplus value extraction as "workers paying the capitalist," but the only reason they would pay anyone is if they did not own their instruments of labor. It's all speech meant to frame a more voluntary arrangement than it really is.
I thought it was one person doing all the work, rather than 3 separate people. The first two having the same clothes except the hat, same hair, close enough skin color, and the art styling being so simplistic, combined with any differences just thought of as "AI" generating images doing that. After your comment I realized that wasn't it.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Yea it's a limitation from trying to force AI image generation into an argument.
Yeah, as an infographic, it obscures the capitalist
Owning your own means of production you use to do your own work is not capitalist in the first place, it's just work. A plumber isn't a capitalist for owning his wrench.
the capitalists aren't even in the picture and they make and sell the looms and sewing machines and they own the land the shepard rents to raise the sheep.
Owning your own instruments of labor is petite bourgeois. It's labor, but labor that isn't exploited by a capitalist, and in this fashion the class character of the petite bourgeoisie is more individualist than the collectivist proletarian on average.
Can I query this a bit more? It seems a bit broad a distinction
I don't see a tradie who owns his own toolset, but still is dispatched out to worksites for a larger construction company as a petty bourgeois. Nor do I see the WFH copywriter who uses their own laptop for a salaried job as petty bourgeois.
The way I see it here is that they own their own tools but this is a push of the equipment costs back on the employee. The employee cannot simply repurpose those tools to start generating their own income (they can't work a whole job site on their own, they can't develop a complete retail website on their own). They are still exploited by capital
The petite bourgeoisie is a more nebulous class. In the example above, with the farmer, this appears to be the classic petite bourgeois farmer that sells commodities they directly produce with their own tools. Thus, my broad simplification does apply to the example, but of course each case has to be analyzed in and of itself.
For the WFH'er, the laptop is technically an instrument of labor, but there's 0 independence from their employer on this basis, and laptops are an assumed societal guarantee (even if they aren't provided by society at large) in a similar way phones are. Think shoes, clothes, etc, all used for labor but not considered capital employed by capitalists.
For the trade worker, it depends on the degree of independence. An independent tradie that sometimes works with larger orgs is petite bourgeois firmly, but one that exclusively works with the larger firm and is employed by them regularly straddles the line between proletarian and petite bourgeoisie. You described very well how the bourgeoisie often takes advantage of the petite bourgeoisie and pushes them towards proletarianization, but the fact that they own the instruments of their labor gives them independence and a better ability to stand on their own, an advantage over workers that only have their labor-power to sell.
The petitie bourgeoisie is unique in that it is caught between aspirations of independence, and the increasing pressured towards proletarianization. It is a class that exists between two classes and constantly is pushed towards the proletariat by bigger business. That's why independence is such an important factor in their class outlook, and the biggest, most general characteristic is that they both labor and own the instruments of labor, not whether they employ others or not.
That's certainly a take. I feel like you're conflating artisans and petty boug here. Could you point me to where I can read more?
Artisans are a sub-category of the petite bourgeoisie. They sell commodities they fashion, not their labor power for a wage or piece-wage, and those that do are not true artisans in the class sense, but the character of labor, and thus are proletarian artisans rather than traditional artisans.
Prolewiki's articles on the Petite Bourgeoisie and Artisans backs this up:
This coincides with the class outlook of self-employed people, who seek individual autonomy over collective bargaining (on average), whereas proletarian workers tend to come to the class outlook seeking collectivization. Artisinal reaction was covered by Marx. Independent artists struggle against proletarianization in a similar way to small business owners and other self-employed individuals. They can also be allied with the proletariat, due to their precarious social position.
I see, thank you as always for your clear and detailed explanations. You're a true gem.
No problem! You asked a great question, and I've seen discussions surrounding artisinal and trade labor more frequently recently so it's been on my mind. Thanks!
So you agree they aren't capitalists then.
You are correct, but we need to pick our battles and know our true enemies and, much like workers aren't all the same, neither are these people. Us arguing against someone owning a sewing machine to make clothes, or tools to do plumbing, or what have you, is not going to be helpful to the movement. Again, the capitalists aren't pictured at all in the shitty meme.
Sort of. The petite bourgeoisie strives for independence, rather than collectivization, under normal conditions. This is why they often resist socialization, and can be reactionary. Their distinction from the proletariat requires that we treat them in their own distinct way, but we can ally with them just like we can ally with the peasantry. A failure to correctly handle the petite bourgeoisie allows fascism to fester, as the class that becomes most reactionary in crisis is the petite bourgeoisie as they risk being cast into the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie proper is the enemy, but just like how the proletariat can ally with the peasantry and petite bourgeoisie, so too can the bourgeoisie manipulate the petite bourgeoisie towards their own ends.