Can someone explain to me what "bourgeoisie"/"proletariat" is in simple terminology?

Can someone explain to me what "bourgeoisie"/"proletariat" is in simple terminology?

I always had an idea these terms are vague because they represent two different sides of same coin.

I mean, someone can be proletariat in one facet of their life and be bourgeoisie in another, no?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat
marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeoisie
edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/reading-list-for-aspiring-ultra-lefts/)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No

Not 100% accurate but basically
Bourgeoisie are those that don't need to work for a living, live off rent or shareholders or own a factory stuff like this.
Proletariat are those that need to work/sell their time and labour or starve.

Essentially

Bourgeoisie = Owns the means of production (Namely factories that produce the goods we need/want to live)

Proletariat = The faggots who don't (aka almost everyone on Holla Forums)

While maybe not as black and white basically you're a bourg if you own the means of production

(Polite sage)

employer and employee
It's mostly used such way by retards who want to say "I like this, I don't like that" in more refined way

But isn't "means of production" just another way to say "labor"?
By that logic, everyone who is able to achieve any kind of labor, owns them privately by his own existance.

No.

Why not? not saying this is how most people get rich but why can't someone be a worker and then get lucky and get rich and buy a factory?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

The means of production are factories, land, tools, etc. Labor isn't a means of production.

Well not really on the Prole, not owning means of production you can still be petite bourg

Sure but you can't simultaneously be a prole and bourgeois. They are mutually exclusive categories.

I must have missunderstood what you wrote,

well, everyone owns SOME kind of means of production.
I would assume you guys have a hammer and sickle somewhere nearby, and you could use those tools for production, right?

Waste of fucking time. You're obviously not here in good faith.

A CEO of miccy dee's wont use all of his equipment to flip burgers and therefore create value. Most of that lies on the employee's. While the initial investment may be high the labour of the employee's exceeds the cost of the equipment quickly. This is a basic principle of capitalism

Not necessarily, it'd be really inefficient to use hand tools and to still out-compete those who do. You technically may posses a mean of production but it will likely never out-compete a actual company and therefore not lead to a lively hood.

Means of production under capitalist private property means that the individual that owns them can't occupy and/or put them to production without exploitiong others. What you own and use for production without exploitation is personal property.

People itt are using babbys first class analysis level of the terms.
Basically the terms are used to illustrate that the way society is currently organized there are two competing sets of interests that are in conflict. The interests of the working class and the interests of the property owners. Whether one "belongs" to one class or another or what the exact border between one or the other is really doesn't matter. The point is just that there are two competing interests that result in what's known as class conflict. The interests of individuals can be completely non-aligned with the interests of their class.
People say something or someone is bourgeois if that something or someone furthers the interests of property owners.

The natural follow-up question then becomes: but what is class then? What is it about property ownership that creates a conflict of interest? Why is property ownership specifically interesting?
At that point you need to enter into actual political economy. Somebody else can pick up from here, or you can look into any one of many introductions to marxist economics.

The words are Latin; bourgeois is the middle class and proletariat is the working class. What those mean here depends on how many levels of idpol the thread is on

It hasn't referred to the middle class since the fall of the Ancien Regime…

...

communists once again proving their intellectualism

Bourgeoise own means of production. MoP is usually a factory, land, or other thing that produces goods.

Proletarians don't own mop and must sell labor in exchange for compensation. This usually means various laborers and such.

"bourgeoisie" are upper class and/or rich. They are usually born into wealth and led lives of luxury and muh privilege.

"proletariat" are lower class and/or poor. They are usually born into working class families and led lives of struggle.

aren't you relatively "rich" considering you have a computer?

that's probably the worst definition ITT so far, go read a fucking book (or at least wikipedia articles if you have ADD)

what do you call non-working leach that sits on their ass and shitposts all day collecting welfare?

Bourgeois don't work.
Proletariat does.
Bourgeois chose who works and who doesn't.

A Holla Forumslack.

A robot or Holla Forumsack

Relative to what? My city? My country? The globe?

Being bourgeois or a prole is about your relationship to the means of production not necessarily your income level.

but everyone has means of production

It's all about who works. If you have an income from property, you are bourgeois. Can be rent, serfs, stock, etc.

A kind of lumpenprole.

Everyone owns a factory and employs people to produce commodities?

means of production don't simply mean "factory", it means any non-physical tool that can be used in order to produce something of value

too lazy.

In a way we could say so, but not many make living from renting them.

I thought this was helpful.

...

could you define the word "many"?

my idea is that everyone fits in the first 2 chategories
we all "work" on some level, even the fat rich bitch CEO controlling the company and coordinating and lobying and beeing sleezy political puppet
and we all decide our salaries

The distinction between proletariat and bourgeoisie is that of those who make their money by selling their labour for wages and those who make their money by extracting surplus (profit) on the basis of ownership.

It has nothing to do with income/how rich you are.

You're reducing complex social relationships to meaninglessness. Nobody gives a fuck about the guy with a hammer making a chair a week out of his garage. We're concerned with a systemic structual analysis of our current economic system which is dominated by commodity production on a massive scale. Can a single person presumably build a house by themselves? Sure. Can this single person then produce enough houses by themselves in short order to turn a profit? Unlikely.

marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat

marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeoisie

For the off chance you are here in good faith, which you are definitely not. Saging this shitpost.

A substantial number.
The vast majority of people sell their labour power to make a living, while those who do earn money through possessing said means of production and "renting" them are much less numerous.

you should at least make a minimal effort to learn what you're asking about on your own before coming here with a low-quality post

I was just asking honest questions, no need to condescend…

I mean, if more people just opened up to questions from wider public, the leftist stereotype of arrogant all knowing smug fag would just be erased

Also, just in case, you might be interested in "Wage, Labour and Capital", some parts answer your question in bigger detail than posts here, the work itself isn't terribly long.

he specified this tool in question could produce something of value. in that sense he's completely correct. what ends up counting as value producing labor and this by extension what sort of property we are concerned with is socially-determined. To just simply say, as many sewer socialists do that all we're concerned with are factories is reductive.

I was a bit more harsh than I should have been perhaps, but this sort of information is available on wikipedia and places like that for the most part. We just get too many of these sorts of threads to the point where sometimes it feels like people are relying on leftypol for answers instead of reading (something you really shouldn't do tbh).

I'm self employed and possess my own means of production. I do not employ anyone.

What am I?

to be clear, I'm also not advocating that you go to wikipedia to learn about socialism either because a lot of people do that too. It's just if you're serious about learning about what's going on in the world, politically, you're going to have to put more effort in than most are prepared to. Especially if you're interested in a more radical position. It's a shame, but that's how it is. This board's quality suffers as a result.
Here's a reading list I'm going through. If you're interested. It's long, but if you just want an intro, the intro section is decent from my experience
(edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/reading-list-for-aspiring-ultra-lefts/)

petty bourgeois. these categories do get blurry in places though.

petite bourgeois, not anywhere near as much of a gotcha as you seem to think

Depends, sometimes 'self-employed' in reality just means having many employers. But a genuinely self-employed people are neither prole nor bourg. Rather they form a minor class of their own like smallholders.

Both >>1589168 are wrong btw. Petite bourgeoisie are those who employ on a small scale.

I'm a solo game developer who makes small games for mobile devices. I make everything in my games myself.

What kind of value? Use? Exchange? There's a reason Marx began his description of capitalism with the commodity.

Then you're in the only class that will be present in communism. aside from it then no longer being a class because there are no longer class distinctions to be made.

I was using value as Marx used it. It should have been obvious from what I was saying that I was not referring to use-value

Lies. Petty bourg also includes those who employ no one and still own private property.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE

Lumpenproletariat are those who can't work - criminals, NEETs, etc.
Proletariat work with tools they don't own, and don't get to keep all of what they make.
Petit-Bourgeoisie work with tools they do own, and whatever they make is theirs.
Bourgeoisie don't work at all, and make their living by taking from the Proletariat that use the tools they own.