I think the term bourgeoisie needs to abandoned

I think the term bourgeoisie needs to abandoned.

It makes us sound pretentious and people conflate it with upper middle class white latte sippers from the suburbs.

I propose we replace it with the phrase "ownership class".

What do you say?

Other urls found in this thread:

philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

...

I say sage

I say, free gulag for you.

Oh you mean petit bourgeios.

Caring about obscure political theories makes you pretentious by default
t. pretentious and proud

...

if we have to explain what it means most of the time to people then yes it should

I agree tbh. Words like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" have no meaning to the average prole. It's especially stupid to use them when we can easily substitute terms like "working class" and "upper class" and people will know exactly what we mean.

There are different definitions of class that people use, the mainstream ones contradict the marxist ones. Upper class, middle class, and lower class just indicate wealth, not your relationship to property. "Capitalist class" (or as op said ownership class) and "working class" are easier tbh.

But you're eventually going to run into the distinction between definitions anyway, and you'll have to say something like "Well, we evil marxists define class differently," so I wouldn't try too hard trying to hide it.

We have been using ruling class for over 2 centuries

As if Holla Forums ever cared about being "understood" by actual workers

Bourgeoisie is a fine word. easy to understand real meaning if you open a book.

Nope. "Ownership class" doesn't hold any particular meaning. Ownership of toothbrush could be considered enough to be part of this "ownership class".

Bourgeoisie is well-defined, at very least.

Not really. Working class is a particularly bad idea. It's not the work that matters - people can claim that Trump also "works" - it's the ownership of MoP that is relevant.

It's better to use words that cannot be so easily corrupted. Proletariat is one of those words.

For average person they are not something used every day

What bumfuck part of the world are you guys in that doesn't know what the term Bourgiousie? Even people I've met who don't know the word have at least heard it before or understand the concept well enough to grasp the definition.

...

I talk with actual workers using these terms all the time you Holla Forumslution

Just because you're too stupid to understand basic theory doesn't mean everyone is

I'm in the UK and it's a term thrown around liberally by pseudoleftists to describe high income white collar workers and rich people in general.

It's not a term acknowledged by our media, whom prefer to refer to just the middle class and the working class. The lack of attention to the traditional "upper class" would have you think that they don't exist at all as a class.

Most of us are workers.

Really?

Wew

Or upper class or whatever

...

I'm not saying that they're not scientific. I'm suggesting that there are other criteria we based their meanings off of. Do you have to go through the scientific method everytime you identify a plant?

We should probably move past 20th century language in general… but that's lame and obscurantist

The issue is that definitions must be consistent and complete. One way we do this is by making sure that we are specific and upfront with our choice of definitions.

We should like them to be as concrete and objective as possible. Think of the "is it socialism" flowchart. You should in principle be able to construct one for any definition and have every honest person with perfect information agree on whether something is or is not the thing you're defining. We risk missing that with imprecise terminology that requires an element of interpretation, and this is fertile ground for posionous philosophy philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

Labeling these concepts with words like "proletariat" has the advantage that people are not as likely to have heard it refer to anything else and let that block their understanding of the concept. The disadvantage is that jargon can seem obscurantist and alienating.

Much the reverse is true for "simplified phrases" in place of jargon, like "working class." It is suggestive terminology that people feel invited to paste their own preconceived concept over, and equate the two (Bacon.) However, it "feels" more approachable (though perhaps just for this reason.)

Regardless of what you call it, you still have to be just as explicit about the concept to have a working theory. So it should come down to the tactical considerations above.

Look at "socialism" which is so often used to mean "literally anything the state does" rather than "worker ownership of the means of production." This is a carefully defined term which everyone nonetheless misunderstands, and thus an excellent example of something we'd like to avoid.

Of course any change in terminology is a serious break from precedent, and the implication it must refer to something different is a barrier in itself. So changing words around would have to be well-justified.

I think it's possible to explain the concepts themselves easily, at an introductory level, without vulgar notions or using jargon until a 1-2 page glossary at the end. It's something we should be working on

This post wins five golden manbabies

It has a very specific meaning. Capitalism isn't a natural state, it's a machine with very specific parts that can be named.

Marxism isn't a vague polemic against "money" or rich people, it a pointed criticism of the way we do capitalism.

The challenge isn't using words that seem fancy but getting people to think of capitalism as just another philosophical framework for who we produce and distribute wealth, instead of the default resting state like so many people think

I live in Arizona, I know undergraduate students that don't know what it means.

I'm all for making Marxism easier to understand but as others have pointed out using different words has the potential to get corrupted.

whenever a porky is a accused they aren't working class they always claim they work for the company too, which is true often times. But it's hard for me to explain that they keep all the profits because they own the MoP using words like working class.

That arguement that porkies work too really has a lot of weight because too many proles define themselves by the fact that they have to work and not their relationship to the MoP.

One ridiculous story I saw was how Musk slept under his desk and stood at the end of the Tessa line late at night inspecting cars

Agreed. Tired of shoehorning 19th century class dynamics into 21st century ones.

i think post-left anarchism addresses this to an extent

i live in an area of America where if someone can afford to shop in a Target and not a Walmart or corner store they're called "bougie"

it really has no pure meaning anymore, especially not for the people who really need to understand it