this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
424 points (99.1% liked)

Socialism

6847 readers
10 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Careful about stuff like this. The word "oligarch" always presents some liberal conditions by distancing the fundamental issue of private property from attention. Middle-class people are integral to this system because they have a vested material interest in maintaining property as well as the violence necessary for it to exist; they aren't "oligarchs" any more than the thousands of multi-millionaires are.

It is also contradictory to socialism to attribute systemic inequities exclusively to the actions of select individuals, not a system of power organized around property.

Edit: I'm seriously disappointed by the amount of uneducated mansplaining going on here, I won't be responding to any more comments from this community.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 month ago (165 children)

In general, I'd argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you're in the former category then you're a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you're in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Greetings, Comrade!

I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not "oligarchs," but the bourgeoisie; not "workers," but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.

Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.

The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through "surplus value." Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice as expensive, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago (119 children)

Greetings, and agreed on all points.

load more comments (119 replies)
load more comments (164 replies)
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

Careful about stuff like this.

We are not speaking of liberalism; we are speaking of the bourgeoisie, which is a parasite on society.

load more comments (9 replies)