The video where Molyneux grazes class consciousness

Sad story. Doesn't change their class interests.

They are pretty much the embodiment of the working class though, being a wageslave for some corporation is nothing to aspire towards, working for yourself and providing your own product and building your own value is a much better alternative.
Though you give me the impression of one of those retards who thinks that every small business owner has employees and doesn't do most of the work and produce what they provide on their own.

Fucking off yourself

Fucking kill yourself you dumbfuck.

t. neet living on welfare.

Correct?

no one owns private property because private property isn't real

Private property is a social relation between the owner and the deprived.

You're the guy that gets blown out by the dumbfucks who say "lol stalin wants to make you use a communal toothbrush", and it's really sad that you can't understand the difference between a someone buying tools to help them do their own work and a factory owner who makeshif a ludicrous amount of money because he has a piece of paper backed by state violence.

Not entirely.

There are families of working class (white collar obviously included) people who keep property they don't live on because it's been in the family a long time/they use it for storage. There probably are upper income working class individuals who own some property like this, too.

That said, it's kinda comical that people are piling on you for opposing small business. People itt seem to not be drawing much of any line between contracting, freelance work, and running a small business with employees and profiting off of their labor. Small business owners very frequently are squarely petit bourgeoisie and may own multiple homes and even hide assets away like good little porkies in case someone sues them.

There's a considerable difference between that and self-employment.

there's nothing to expect from this. this thread is pointless.

You need to realize, and I agree what I'm about to tell you causes much confusion, socialism defines private property somewhat differently than than the popular sense of the term.

This misidentification of the proletariat with the "working class" is pretty dumb. The distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeois is ownership of the MoP, not whether someone works or not. Non-workers and the broader category of the non-productive can be part of the proletariat (lumpens, stock brokers), and workers can be part of the bourgeoisie (peasants, the infinitesimally small amount of people who innovated their own ideas for business innovation instead of hiring others who did). Now, Capital tries it's damnedest to kick the productive out of the bourgeoisie in replacement of those who can exploit surplus value the hardest, and also continually gnaws at the bodies of those without work within the proletariat, but that's not the same as all proletariat working or all bourgeoisie not working.

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with this place?

Please read a book ffs

Has Molymeme been following the memes?

It depends if the business doesn’t hire anyone and the only person who works there is the owner then it could be categorized as a co-op.

Peasants aren’t bourgeois. Go kill your self. Peasants are some of the most exploited people on the plant. They do the most important job (growing food) and get very little money. The often work a lot more then most people do in order to make sure the crops don’t go badd.

...

Anything over 25 employees shouldn’t be considered a small business.

He get’s so much wrong but so much right. I think where he goes wrong is that he sees the state as separate from the capitalists who use it. He also ignores the fact that people sell there labor to a capitalist and don’t get the full value of there labor.

In the US anything under 500 employees is considered a small business.

I'm sorry, does peasant mean something different than I thought it did? I always thought it referred to those who owned (by which I mean "don't pay rent or profit for", not necessarily formally own) and worked their own land. There are people who work on farms that are exploited - especially within the context of modern agriculture - but those folks aren't what is meant by "peasant", except in the frequent case where capitalism requires peasants to take loans to survive and then the system changes to them working for a bank, like was seen in several contexts throughout the US (Shays' Rebellion, Greenback and Populist parties and the Free Silver Movement, the Dust Bowl).

Peasants own the farms the live on, but they work the farm themselves and don’t hire anyone to work it for them because there to poor. If they do then there not a peasant. With the invention of modern agriculture the number of peasants in the first world has significantly decreased. However they still exist.

Yes, precisely, and that means they're bourgeoisie, since they own their MoP. Bourgeoisie doesn't mean "rich" or "exploitative" or "unproductive", it means "owns MoP".

No Bourgieous means you own the MOP and you hire outher’s labor to work it for you.

Huh, that's news to me. I always thought the peasants were part of what was meant by the "petit-bourgeoisie" (they quite often share their reactionary attitudes, for one), but I guess it makes sense if they're a third class besides bourgeoisie and proletariat. Thanks for the clarification.