Chana

None because I'd funnel the excess to organizing just like a lot of us already do.

It's not just the amount of money a person has, it is their relation to production and how they have interfaced with society at large. A committed communist that wins the lotto doesn't stop being a communist. But the other person that makes themselves a millionaire is pretty likely to have done so through exploitation, like owning a business, or has inherited it from an even richer family member and was raised in that culture. Bourgeois climber-ism doesn't just infect the rich, either. "Hustle culture" is basically a farcical emulation of bourgeois ideology, of course it usually just means a person is exploiting themselves for others even more, but it teaches them a psychology of cynical self-interest.

The person that becomes a billionaire over time through owning businesses is someone that woke up every day and chose power and further enrichment over doing anything else at all. Every day, they choose that power over feeding the children, over housing every person. And they are politically active in their class, ensuring permanent indebtedness of the population, preventing things like sufficient healthcare in order to make their line go up. These are beasts of capital. They are rich through their relations to production, their ruthless self-interest and callousness to everyone else. To liberalism, those rich appear "changed" by the money, not their underlying approach to getting it.

The P-8A Poseidon is made by Boeing and maintained (sometimes manufactured) by IAM members. It is a derivative of the 737.

This is just a handy fact to remember when anyone wants to provide blanket solidarity to all imperial core unions.

I'm putting my best 36 MBAs on this pronto

The coolest folks in DSA are the anti-imperialists and they piss off all the liberals within and outside of DSA by saying things like, "we should cut ties with the genocide factory" or, "we should not publicly attack other socialist protects targeted by our country's imperialism".

I think it's because Lemmu is made up mostly of Redditors. But I do think it's better than Reddit for toxicity, overall.

Get this into the CoC right away: pizza is a sandwich.

It's a sandwich because it was invented by Anglos and involves dough.

Marx and Engels talk of the labor aristocracy as a bourgeois-ified working class of dual character. Sometimes they call this the middle class. Not long after Lenin and those similarly critical of the British and German revolutionary potentials described these relations as petty bourgeois, and this continued throughout the Bolsheviks to include basic all subsequent Marxist Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc., and even modern folks that just call themselves Marxist.

The PMC is a much later term. It's from the 70s. But they are definitely described in their own way by Marx et al in their early form.

Indoor or outdoor?

It only takes a year or so on the job before they cover up egregious things by management and make workers distraught via discipline and firings. The apparent "true believers" are mostly just putting on a show with fake smiles and enthusiasm and if it is in a larger meeting the true audience for this is management, showing off how well they can manipulate the workers (even if they are, in reality, failing to do this).

In reality there's a multidimensional gradient of class characters, we just focus on one dimension between proletarian and bourgeoisie and divvy it up into discrete categories. On this dimension, individuals fall somewhere between the two extremes. When there is a single owner that just makes money by owning stuff, well yeah that is bourgeois. Though most owners do try to meddle more than that, we don't always call them workers or petty bourgeois because they are primarily owners. Similarly, a worker may monitor a team and it's performance and report this up the chain. This person is not solely prole in their relations, they are also fulfilling a part of the bourgeois role, but they may not have any ownership stake or control. We call them a worker because their relations are primarily as a worker.

But in between there is a lot to investigate. Management tends to be paid in wages and not a substantial portion of ownership, but we do practically separate them from the proles in general because their allegiance is to the owners and they act accordingly. A given manager's role might be 50% organizing production (a prole role) and 50% monitoring workers and driving down variable capital costs (an owner's role). Even though they don't make money directly from ownership, their own position and wages are predicated on ensuring that gravy trains jeeps moving to the owners.

It is not invalid to say these people have a petty bourgeois character, which is a mixture of owner relations and worker relations. This is the same sense in which many professionals and academics are described as such. Their own relations to production create an alignment with the owner class rather than the working class.

To be super clear, both definitions of petty bourgeois have been defined and used by Marx and those in his orbit. The owner-workers (like a small shop owner) and those akin to management.

HR are only workers in the sense that management are workers. HR is actually just a new subdivision of management that does the least fun parts of the job while also providing the illusion that anyone in that role at the company has your back.

Any time someone says, "go to HR with that problem, it sounds serious" just remember that HR is almost definitely passing along everything you say to your managers.

Hell yeah I bet that feels great