Overall, the proletariat has turned out to be a pretty disappointing class compared to their highest heights in early 20th century Europe.

They won a lot of rights for themselves in their own respective countries, but then completely capitulated once they got democratic "representation". This makes them completely pathetic compares to peasants or slaves and of course, makes Marx completely wrong.

I think if anyone is going to overthrow the existing order, it will be intellectuals, scholars, and the middle class. Wage workers are after all, basically mercenaries when you think about it and are incapable of self-sacrifice for a greater cause.

The actual proletarian class (people who don't own substantial assets ie houses) is more left wing than ever. Don't let the capitalist media convince you low IQ geezers who don't even need jobs are the working class

>>17764843 (OP)
The Bourgeoisie invited in a Neo-lumpenproletariat made up of third world welfare bums to act as a voting bloc against domestic labor, but yall ain’t ready for that conversation :/

>>17764850
Yeah but I think the biggest flaw of the proletariat (wage workers without significant assets) is the strength Marx identified i.e that they're the majority. The proletariat is so vast and diverse its not possible for them to unite at all.

When you think of the capitalists that overthrew feudalism, this was a small group of guys meeting in coffeee shops that only had to kill or make submit a small clique in one city to one. Capitalism on the other hand is global.

>>17764863
This cannot be the answer, because they've always done this, such as the Irish against the English. In fact, if this the only thing stopping Communism, then you have a lot to look forward to because the supply of third world slaves is eventually going to stop, and probably sooner than you think. Population is falling everywhere.

I dont think it is that though.

>>17764843 (OP)
The proletariat, contrary to what Marx claimed, have no interest in establishing the communist world order or abolishing the value-form or whatever. They don't. Their only interest is maybe having a bigger say in the productive process e.g co-determination and then a high standard of living. All these things are more effectively done under liberal democracy than under revolutionary communist regimes, and neither of them inherently have anything to do with communism.

The proletariat is only "disappointing" to you because they don't, and never have had, the same interests as petit-bourgeoise middle class ideologues who LARP about their milennialist pseudo-Christian totalizing ideology being the "real movement" of the proletariat even when soundly rejected, time and time again, by the proletariat.

Give it up commietards. You lost.

>>17764876
The Irish were put to work and marginalized. The Neo-lumpenprople browns are welfare bum rapists with zero revolutionary potential because they don’t want to interrupt their flow of gibs.

>>17764882
Proles never had revolutionary potential if strictly defined as the potential to abolish the market (communism); if anything, the only class that has ever had that potential is communal peasants in pre-capitalist economies.

>Walmart is the largest private employer in 22 US states
No one wants to risk prison or death to unionize Walmart jobs.

>>17764868
But they aren't the majority. Most people in Western countries are petty bourgeois homevoters

>>17764904
Owning a home doesn't make you petty-bourgeoise.

>>17764913
NTA but pretty sure being middle class is more or less the definition of petit-bourgeoise

>>17764913
Yes it does. A majority of the expense of maintaining a basic of standard of living is housing; if you own that vs being forced to buy it your class position has changed

>>17764919
This notably explains why age is more important than income in driving political behavior and why voters are so much more hostile to economic liberalism than they were forty years ago even on the right

>>17764919
You know most homeowners have a mortgage that they spend most of their working lives paying off, right.

>>17764925
And they become more conservative as they pay it off. We even observe the dose-response curve and you think this makes my argument weaker

>>17764843 (OP)
Oh gee
>The prole
>The people so low on the rung when left to their devices they rape, murder and steal
>Completely incapable of surviving let alone building civilization outside the range of another civilization
>Comparable to slaves
Commies cannot into incentives for the same reason they bank on the coaltion of the fringes

At the end of the day communism and leftism is the most evil and dangerous all ideologies because it literally can not be honest with itself

>>17764843 (OP)
Proles are incapable of planning, organizing, etc.
That's why they're proles.

People who can do those things hold managerial rule and have saved/accumulated capital.

>>17765125
This is why it so dangerous for the elite to be creating so much enforced housing scarcity and excessive labor market competition. A serious risk of pushing capable people into the bottom class like how it was before Fordism

>>17764843 (OP)
I mean the intellectuals are also entirely steered by grants so it's not like they're going to do any revolution either.
The entire class warfare stuff is a failure, throw it all away.

>>17765133
the proles have porn, vidya, and better drugs than alcohol now, the elites are fine