Message from @Firefly
Discord ID: 476549059239477258
Is a definition of it
Even if you make a lot
You do not possess a title
Yes
The core interests of the class of proletariat are opposite of the class of haves.
Some members of proletariat are paid well
And would like to save the status quo
And stand with the opposite class
But most are not
Most have a contradiction of interests with the ones who posses a title to profit of others work
Like in USSR there would not be rent, mortgage or utilities bills
Because there is no title to extract profit from it.
There is no necessity in it.
I'm also in favor of a type of socialism where managers do get paid very well.
You can possess mansions, cool cars, good quality of life
As long as you don't have a title to extract from other people's work
Other types of socialists like to make absolutely equal wages, but I'm in opposition to it
Good quality work must have a good quality pay
An inventor must have an income equivalent to the surplus of production from the invention.
If you made an invention that made most people life easy you have to have anything you like
Some call our type of socialism "elitarist" but we must indeed care of elite.
Elite is different from the class of bourgeoisie as long as it does not have a title to exploit the working class.
Elite must also be free from the need to exploit to prosper.
Elite must prosper without exploitation.
im 16
Based
<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***fuckpoorpeople69#8282 was banned***
Feminism gay for other reasons
How are the clinton a related to Israel
African fascism?
Fucking kek
figures that liberia is fascist
who wants to join vc
lmao @ them equating lumumba and garvey to hitler
If you use an extremely twisted definition of 'working' every system 'works'