If you're feeling left out it's probably because you defend billionaires who would mince you into fertilizer

Are you though?

Do you own the means of production and employ people to operate it, paying them a fraction of the value their labor produces?

Are you able to live comfortably without working for the foreseeable future? Do you exert outsized control over municipal, regional and state government far beyond your “vote” if you live in a place that claims to be a democracy? Does that control come from your power over the means of production that you control?

Supporting a society controlled by the people described above does not make you a capitalist, being one of the people described above does.

I do not agree with you, gayhitler420. That sounds as polarized as US politics.
- Does lemmy.ml/c/rimjob_steve exist yet?
  Edit: nope :(
Are you able to live comfortably without working for the foreseeable future?
I'm pretty sure that's just a strawman version of capitalism. Plenty of capitalists who had their life's work taken during a communist revolution and were at best told they could come back as a manager worked plenty hard. Didn't save them.
- No, capitalism is the system that creates this. Capitalists are the ones living comfortably at the top of their piles of money while we work to make them that money.
  And yes being a capitalist didn't save them from having to work like everyone else, boohoo evil commulism.
- may i see them?
Oxford English Dictionary defines a capitalism as :
a person who supports capitalism
a person who owns or controls a lot of wealth and uses it to produce more wealth
The dictionaries say otherwise. But sure, if "capitalist" just means a person thats very succesful and uses their power for the bad, then they are obviously not good to society but that doesnt make the system of capitalism any worse...
- I don’t think you’re being disingenuous here and English is a crazy language, so here’s the definition google came up with:
  noun: capitalist; plural noun: capitalists a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
  In the sentence
  I’m a capitalist who doesn’t defend billionaires and also doesn’t feel left out…
  The word capitalist is a noun.
  But even if you were to pull up a dictionary definition of the word that says otherwise, in the context of the economic and political system of capitalism there’s three hundred years of writing that define capitalists under capitalism as various groups of bourgeoisie.
  I think we can dispense with petty arguments over the dictionary definitions of words given what we’re discussing. If it will make you feel better I can refer to capitalists as flying purple people eaters.
  
  Alright, Im fine with that definition, thanks for clarifying that.
  However, if I invest part of my money (eg. into stocks or ETFs) as you do if you want to start saving money, that would make me a capitalist, wouldnt it? Your previous comment kind of made it seem like all capitalists are evil and rich af...
  
  I think if we just go by that dictionary definition, you being a wealthy person who invests in trade and industry to make a profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism would by definition make you “rich af” and would align your interests against those of the people whose labor allows trade and industrial production.
  The people whose labor allows trade and industrial production want to get the highest pay and best living conditions possible, you, as a wealthy investor in the concerns that employ and pay them want the most profit possible. The raw materials of trade and production are fixed quantities so any profit must come from paying the worker less than their labor produces.
  Does that make you evil? I don’t know.
  You used the example of an etf and I wanna talk about stock and securities trading briefly. A person with enough money can invest it in the market in such a way that it causes huge changes and can basically write their own ticket. Small time (retail, if you’re familiar with the lingo) investors take on quite a bit more risk and while they might hope their bag goes up or down they don’t generally have any control or say over what happens to laborers or industries and certainly not any power to control markets.
  There’s an argument to be made that the move to replace pensions with invested retirement funds was explicitly intended to align retail investors and working people with the interests of the very capitalists who needed them to accept lower wages and reduced benefits, but this tea…
  I do take issue with using dictionary definitions though, because they tend to be truncated and devoid of the background and context that allow for understanding and use of words in conversation or correspondence. This one, for example doesn’t explain what the principles of capitalism are, only that they must exist because capitalists are people who invest according to them. This definition doesn’t even describe capitalists as a class, which is fundamental to understanding the overwhelming majority of ink spilled in the last few centuries about them and the system they are in control of!
  
  Im not wealthy by any means, though the wealth cant be the deciding factor, can it?
  If Im a student with a savings plan (one where you put aside money every month and invest it [not sure if thats the correct Engkish term]) so it grows over time, am I a capitalist in your opinion?
  The raw materials of trade and production are fixed quantities so any profit must come from paying the worker less than their labor produces.
  The finished product is worth more than what their labour produces, otherwise they could just sell the product themselves. Because the organization, strategy, marketing and the needed capital for all of that are values in itself.
  A quick question about that trading example, as far as I know market manipulation is illegal so using that to your advantage wouldnt worky right?
  
  According to the goofy dictionary definition were working with, wealth is a requirement.
  That definition doesn’t talk about the relationship between wealth and extracted profits because getting to the bottom of that relationship ultimately ties the two together. There’s no space to explain that if you own productive capital, you’re by definition wealthy.
  If we wanted to examine your retail investment portfolio under a broader definition, you could possibly be considered the most petit-ist of bourgeoise under some circumstances, but generally if you have to work for a wage or are expecting to have to work for a wage once your education is over then you’re not a capitalist. Participating in the securities market doesn’t change your relationship to the means of production.
  If you made your living as a securities trader, that might be a different story.
  I’m not sure what you’re saying about the labor and selling it themselves, but the organization, strategy and marketing are all labor that went into the production of the goods. The capital in the form of facilities and equipment are fixed costs like the raw materials used in production, so any profit from the sale is necessarily coming out of the value of the labor.
  Good to know that market manipulation is illegal, surely there’s no examples of markets being manipulated in our recent memory!
  
  you forgot to show the adjective definition, which is what he is using in his sentence. and you are the one dispensing in petty arguments by continueing the arguement unti you get final say.
  
  I did not forget, I purposefully excluded it because were talking about the definition of the word capitalist in the sentence:
  I’m a capitalist who doesn’t defend billionaires and also doesn’t feel left out
  In that sentence the word capitalist is used as a noun, not an adjective.

Right? There are pros and cons with every system. People disagree based on value judgements not based on misinterpretation of facts. People in their echo chambers will have you believe that everyone on the other side of the political spectrum all thinks the same way “the same people who say X also say Y!” Rarely is that the case. Most people are actually centrists who have their own independent beliefs on a wide range of topics.

Not everyone on my side of the political Spectrum thinks the same way. But if you are pro capitalist. You simply aren't thinking. Capital, markets, and currency. All existed before capitalism. The only thing capitalism did was justify the wealth and power of the wealthy and Powerful Beyond being simply born to wealthy powerful people. Now you get to be a wealthy powerful person by having capital. Which ironically just so happens to be most common among people born too powerful people. New boss same as the old boss. Funny how that works.
- I hate capitalism, I just don't know of a better alternative. Nordic socialism is just capitalism with a big government. Soviet socialism failed miserably (it turns out, it is very hard to plan an economy). I have never heard a solid plan for communism that works on a national scale, never mind a plan for transitioning to such a society.
  On the other hand, capitalism works reasonably well most of the time and we can just fix issues with it when they crop up (and we have a big backlog of issues to fix).
  
  Capitalism does not work reasonably well most the time. Unchecked it leads to countless busts and Booms that leave the average person destitute. You really should look into the history of the early 20th century. The only reason we even still have capitalism. Is because of two massive world wars. Slaughtering and grinding up many tens of millions of people. As well as passage of basic Social Security nets. We've largely at least abandoned the spirit of. If if not in practice as well.
  Capitalism has been a failure at every level. Constantly. That isn't a justification or Praise of leninism. There's a lot of other ideologies on the Socialist side Beyond leninism. And they don't require large National level government. Look into them sometime.
  
  Is there any system that is more fair and/or gives you more freedom? I havent found any.
  On a hypothetically completely free capitalist market, I can sell and buy whatever I wish and the value that I get when selling directly correlates to the value I'm bringing to the buyer. If I generated a lot of value, I have more capital so I can also buy more value using that capital. Sounds fantastic in theory.
  
  In an unregulated free market, you could buy milk, drink it and fucking die because it had poison in it.
  
  Yeah of course thats why there are regulations in place. Nobldy would trust that milj seller again though, so for cases that are not as bad as a human life being ended, the system would still work...
  
  Regulations?? No way. I said free market.
  
  Whats your point then? That a completely free market is bad? Yeah, thats why we dont have one.
  
  Of course not! Free markets are great, they allow me to make money however I please. But if you're gonna regulate my business, at least leave me the opportunity to exploit my workers to some extent. I won't be made obsolete by some stoner beatniks who think they can run my business better than I can in some high-falutin' democracy. I own this place. It's mine. I bought it with my own bank account.
  
  It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.
  
  Democratic socialism, Social democracy, original libertarianism of the non Rothbard variety, even pragmatic anarchocommunism. As long as they aren't dogmatic ideologues.
  A completely free market has never, and will never exist. Further markets, and currency existed before capitalism. Capitalism didn't make them possible. Finally capitalism demands you sell for as much as the market can bare, not what is fair for the value you added. Of which capitalists generally add none. Without labor nothing gets done.
  Under capitalism people that generate most of the value get the least of the capital. It's just a more abstract way of defining and justifying oligarchy. Other than Divine Birthright.
  Don't get me wrong. I'm all for rewarding people who come up with new processes and ideas to increase efficiency etc. That's not really what capitalism does.
  
  Would you mind elaborating on the "original libertarianism"? What doed that mean exactly? Could really find much...
  
  It's more commonly referred to as left libertarian these days. However it far predates right wing libertarianism. And for myself at least. I personally feel that calling original libertarianism left libertarianism, and right wing libertarianism right wing libertarianism gives right wing libertarianism far too much legitimacy.
  Libertarianism is and always has been a left-wing ideology. These so-called right wing Libertarians(neo-libertarians) have much more in common with liberalism than libertarianism. And equally ironic. Those that we call liberals{neo liberals) in the United States for instance. Often have more in common with actual Libertarians than "right-wing" Libertarians do in many instances. Though there's still a good dosage of capitalist and even fascists under the moniker of the Democrats too.
  The whole situation is super complex and wildly cloudy due to bottomless pockets for propagandists unfortunately.
  
  Soviet socialism failed miserably (it turns out, it is very hard to plan an economy).
  Did you actually check? Because based on a bunch of metrics I saw the USSR did pretty well compared to the feudalism that came before it and the capitalist "democracy" that came after its illegal and undemocratic dissolution.
  
  I know (and have discussed it with) plenty of people who lived in the former USSR. Everyone I spoke to agreed that it was a mess.
  Of course, there is clear selection bias in who I spoke to (they are people I am friendly with and most of them reside outside of Eastern Europe) and all of them only experienced the Soviet system after it had gone through Stalin.
  
  Here is an illustrative anecdote since we are trading those:
  I miss free housing, social justice, positive constrictive ideology, bearable work relations (or would it be more proper to say conditions?).
  Age is....far above 30.
  I admit, I haven't encountered social justice or ideology in my very early ages, but I had opportunity to feel benefits of free housing (since my family got a nice 3bd-room flat in their possession), and...my parents worked much less than I do, and never worked at home.
  https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/sxdi3q/comment/hxtgsbd/
  Here is data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1128057/russia-opinion-on-dissolution-of-the-ussr-by-age/
  Note that the people who were adults before its collapse overwhelmingly want it back, and that Russians only supported its continuation back in the 90s referendum at 55ish percent compared to much higher percentages in the non-Russian SSRs.
- The data shows that economic freedom is associated with greater life satisfaction . That doesn’t mean that every billionaire is a good guy or that corporations don’t break the law.
  
  Uh, no shit. Economic freedom means not being destitute. Of course that makes you happier than not. What are you trying to prove, here? Do you think economic freedom is synonymous with capitalism, or only possible through it?
  
  The way they measure economic freedom is based on how free you are to start a business and things like that.
  
  So, freedom to exploit?
  
  There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics. First you lose points by linking to a supposed study behind the paywall. Second you lose points by that study being conducted by The Fraser institute. A solidly right wing group. With a less than credible reputation.
  I apologize for only attacking the messenger on this. Though that should be enough to dissuade anyone from trusting it. But you didn't link to anything that actually proves your point that we could read to argue against their flawed methodology, definitions, sampling, and data Gathering strategy. I'm sure we could attack and pick apart those endlessly. But I'm not going to pay 30 bucks to do it.
  
  This is a study by an independent researcher from the University of North Dakota. The economic freedom index is published by the Fraser institute. There is no alternative index at this time. Here is a link beyond the paywall. Here’s a few others as well:
  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-015-9616-x
  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-017-9543-6
  You’re welcome to share your own studies on economic freedom and happiness btw. . I’m “not thinking” yet i am the only one sharing scientific literature.
  
  First their SSL certificate is misconfigured second my DNS here at work is blocking access to it for now.
  Second. Economics psychology Etc are not any sort of hard science. They struggle to even show correlation sometimes. Let alone causation. And statistics is certainly not a science in and of it self. Making your confident claim of scientific literature adorably naive at best or wildly spacious at worst.
  Combined with the fact that I have strong doubts that this study includes actual honest studies of socialist economic structures. Typically it's just "leninism bad hurt durr". Which I agree with. But Leninism==socialism. Did they actually go out and survey communes? Or honestly categorize social democracies? Most of these so-called BS scientific studies don't.
  And honestly I could link you any number of studies showing the countries with strong support for labor and protections for labor have a much higher satisfaction than countries that don't. The problem is I don't believe you're being honest. And that that would be a waste of time. But you are welcome to go to Google and search if you're interested.
  
  You seem to be really good at coming up with excuses why you can’t access the data or why the data isn’t admissible for this or that reason. And awfully good at coming up with reasons why you cannot produce any data. Too much so IMO for someone that makes the claim of others of being intellectually dishonest and that they cannot think for themselves.
  But it’s okay. Why don’t we just agree to disagree? That was my original point. Some people have centrists views on the economy where they believe in socially progressive causes, free markets and strong institutions. That this view is both rational and supported by data. That disagreements are based not on misinterpretation of facts but on differences in values.
- All you have to do is go find people who came from nothing and built themselves a good, comfortable life. Ask them what they did to be successful. Decide whether you're willing to do that amount of work - then do it, or don't.
  I don't understand why this is so complicated for people... You don't need money to be content with your station in life. I was happy when I was young and poor, and I'm happy when I'm late 30's and solidly upper middle class. Maybe I'll make the millions someday with a great idea, and maybe I won't.
  I don't care about billionaires as long as they keep signing my 6-figure paychecks. Better than the $5/day I got bailing hay as a kid on the farm where I grew up.
  
  Define nothing. And then Define wealthy. Then we'll talk. Bill Gates did not build from nothing. Jeff Bezos did not start from nothing. Elon Musk did not start from nothing. Harlan Crow did not start from nothing. The Koch brothers did not start from nothing. The Mercers did not start from nothing. Peter Thiel did not start from nothing. Mitt Romney did not start from nothing.
  A ton of people who pretend to start from nothing. Started out with more access and resources than many people could imagine. More than many people will ever see personally in their lifetime.
  No one making minimum wage in the United States can afford their rent anywhere in the United states. Millennials and younger are struggling to even buy homes or be financially secure. Most Americans are a single emergency medical or otherwise from being bankrupt. It's the biggest indicator of your future wealth and success is who you were born to.
  The reason you don't understand why this is so complicated for people. Is because you don't understand the basic supposition being made. Most people don't and that's the problem. The fact that most people use the phrase "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" out of context and unironically should be a massive indicator of how uneducated people are on the subject. But everyone is capable of understanding if they want to. Please do some reading on the subject. Even a small amount. It won't take much to help get you up to speed.
  https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/full-time-minimum-wage-workers-cant-afford-rent-anywhere-in-the-us.html
  https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-house-home-real-estate-mortgage-rates-rent-debt-boomers-2022-9
  https://www.norc.org/research/library/most-working-americans-would-face-economic-hardship-if-they-miss.html
  
  I expected you to be a pro-capitalist shill but then you pull out this. Bravo. I misjudged you. Going back to where you said you support capitalism, I think your idea of capitalism is just outside the bullseye. Like you obviously understand a lot, I don't need to explain much to you. I think your inaccuracy comes from linking currency with capitalism, which a lot of people do. They're not the same thing. Keeping in mind I'm going to keep things in the most basic terms, capitalism, socialism, communism, are all different forms of distributive justice. Capitalism says, whomever contributes the most capital to an endeavor deserves the most distribution, labour is just a cost. Socialism says, whomever contributes labour deserves the most distribution, and communism says everyone deserves equal distribution regardless of labour and capital. You're really close to the bullseye though, so close I'm not sure my comment is even worthwhile.
  
  think your inaccuracy comes from linking currency with capitalism, which a lot of people do.
  To quoth my first post in this thread.
  Capital, markets, and currency. All existed before capitalism.
  Also, I'm generally anticapitalist. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? I'm of the school that thinks we should abolish the concept of unlimited private property in favor of something like personal property with much more reasonable limits. And think capitalism should only be allowed with regards to unique items that aren't generally "necessary" for society. Paintings, tchotchkes, etc.
  Also your definition of communism is a bit exclusive of actual Libertarians and anarcho-communist. Isn't it? I think you are referencing leninist theory? Which has never held up in practice. The rest of it though generally tracks.
  
  I just want you to know - you have Asperger's syndrome. (entirely unrelated to your points - all of which are objectively wrong and don't warrant a response.)
  You wanted me to get up to speed - but you may not have been aware you are slow... Hope this helps.
  
  lol objectively one of the dumbest replies I've ever seen. But whatever. A full on autistic person could reason circles around you let alone someone with HF-ASD. Because after all you can't address a single point. All you got is calling names.

Capitalism is what allows billionaires to exist. If you are pro-capitalism, you are pro-billionaires. They are the real capitalists because the are the ones with real capital (and capital = power).

Even if you support better worker pay, trans rights, healthcare or what have you, you are just asking big money for it, not actually taking it. They are the ones deciding in the end.

If you support capitalism, then yes, you defend billionaires.

Counterpoint: Nope.
- So, you support a system that inherently creates an upper class of obscenely rich people, yet are opposed to those people?
  A system set up to enrich the owner of a business, while its workers lose out, creates exactly the people you claim not to defend.
  
  No, I'm not opposed to them... I just don't support them. They can support themselves, and I can support myself just fine. I make more money from them than I would without them, and they make money from me they wouldn't have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
  I've never been forced to take any job... I just manage my skillset in such a way that makes it both rare and valuable. I've worn many hats over the years, and I just play the game instead of removed about the rules Worked out great for me and my family so far. I'll even have some to leave my kids so they don't have as hard of a time reaching even higher than I have. That's the whole point, for me: make my kids' life better than mine, and I've done that so far.
  
  No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them.
  It doesn't work like that. They are in power, and by not opposing them, you consent to their continued power.
  I make more money from them than I would without them,
  That isn't even close to true. Capitalist extraction of surplus value is exactly how they make their profits. If they paid you the value you made them, they wouldn't have a profit. If they weren't there to extract that value, you and your fellow workers would make more - it's basic mathematics.
  and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
  This part is true, yes.
  I’ve never been forced to take any job…
  So, you're saying you're able to retire right now and never work again?
  I just play the game instead of removed about the rules
  That's a slave mindset.
  That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.
  That's cool you can think that small and that selfishly. Others, however, realise you could be living even better, and everyone else, including those with nothing, could have that standard of living, too, if we stop being complacent with mere crumbs.
  That's what you have. Mere crumbs of luxury. It's great that you're not on the street, but that is an incredibly low standard to have.
  
  Surplus value is not even close to being an accepted economic theory.
  
  Just because you don't agree doesn't make it any less true. How do you refute it? It's a basic mathematical truth. It's literally impossible for a capitalist to pay you the value you brought them, without them going broke.
  
  It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.
  Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?
  
  So, surplus value doesn't exist, simply because some capitalists can... fail to extract it?
  Listen buddy, a few people being bad at their job doesn't mean the job doesn't exist.
  I don't think you know what surplus value is. It's the portion of the value that you make for the business that doesn't go to you, but to the owner.
  Do you also notice that I said "without going broke" and your example includes going broke?
  
  Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?
  Ordinary people who labour save their money. Are they not allowed to invest that money after they earn it? What are we supposed to do with the money that we save up that’s not used for consumption?
  
  Read: "I only subscribe to the economics of the oppressor class. If they refuse to accept a basic mathematical truth that implies bad things about them, so do I!"
  
  Markets are nothing more than voluntary association. Most, if not every "obscenely rich" person got this rich because of govt interference (lobbying, govt sanctioned monopoly, corporate welfare, subsidies, etc.)
  "Organic" market economy would be beneficial to everyone
  
  Sorry, but a market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?
  
  ... by protecting your own shit.
  
  But I ain't got no shit cos a bigger guy took it all.
  
  That is less efficient and you'll eventually just end up with a state that way.
  
  That's nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I'm not sure what efficiency has to do with this.
  
  Can you show an example?
  
  An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?
  Edit: Upon reflection, it seems that the existence of any black market proves the point.
If that were the case (which it isnt) I dont see a problem defending billionaires (and on the side also everybody's freedom and justice)...
- You can't defend billionaires and justice at the same time
  
  Why not? Capitalism is the most fair system to me.
  
  What is the metric for fairness here? And what version of 'capitalism' are we talking about?
  
  Fairness is subjective. To me it means: everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom; if a person performs well, they should be rewarded well; everyone should have the same initial possibilities in life.
  The version of capitalism I was talking about is capitalism with a regulated market. Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all). Im pretty happy with the "social market economy" in Germany where I currently live.
  
  everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom
  But how am I gonna get someone to work for me without invading their freedom to choose to do what they want?
  Hell no, man. No one will work at my shop if they're allowed to do what they want.
  Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all).
  Fuck yeah man! That's how we do it! That's what gets people working for me - the threat that not doing so will put 'em on the street! That's what I'm talkin' about!
  
  But how am I gonna get someone to work for me without invading their freedom to choose to do what they want?
  By offering them something in return...? Money for example, from which one can buy nice things.
  That's how we do it! That's what gets people working for me - the threat that not doing so will put 'em on the street!
  Not contributing anything at all wont work in any system or sosciety. Or in what system can I lay in bed all day and get everything I need for free?
  
  By offering them something in return…? Money for example, from which one can buy nice things.
  Who says I should do that? It's my prerogative to do what I can to make money. Don't try and regulate my ambition, you totalitarian communist.
  Not contributing anything at all wont work in any system or sosciety. Or in what system can I lay in bed all day and get everything I need for free?
  Absolutely nowhere, I say! Only people with gumption deserve to live!
  
  You can do what you like but you asked me how to get people working for you so I made a proposal.
  Do you actually have a point or are you just being ridiculous because you have no arguments?

You're a capitalist? How much capital do you own?

Well, a lot less after January of 2021... I was at 4.3 mil, and lost about 1.2 mil. (starting from less than zero, first child was born on Medicaid).
- Sounds like you're just petite bourgeoisie
  
  Don't be big mads because they answered your question.
  They come back and attack them. "You idiot you are only a small time millionaire" 🤦‍♂️
  
  How is that an attack? The petite bourgeoisie generally have more to gain from joining the proletariat in the class struggle, and almost none of them have caused suffering at a scale that justifies the same attitude had towards the haut bourgeoisie. (Now people who own multiple car dealerships on the other hand)
  It is only an attack if you think being a massive leech on society like Musk or Bezos is a good thing.
  
  There is nothing to be gained from "joining" you.
  Buddy, you have less influence on the world around you than my farts.
  
  You also have less influence on the world around you than your farts. You have crumbs and you think you're in charge because the people below you are worse off. You're not going to have control until you organize together with the people on your side of the class conflict.
  
  No, I'm doing really, really well. Financially and socially, me and my family. You're the miserable, impotent one.
  Think about that.
  
  https://lemmy.ml/comment/4890118
  https://lemmy.ml/comment/4895011
  Yeah, the racial resentment and chauvinism is really an indicator that you're not miserable and impotent.
  
  Grew up on a farm, had no help, just decided to go get what I wanted like literally any and all Americans can. Like I said, first kid was born on Medicaid, we were on welfare for a couple years... Got a full time job at best buy... worked through community college, got off welfare... Took me about 11 years to get that first nice paycheck job where it takes others 4...but, that's ok. Can't control everything in life, live and learn.
  Just use the available programs, and get off of them as soon as possible so you can start contributing more than you took from them. It's pretty easy if you just do it as a matter of principle. I received, now I give back. Once I've returned some orders of magnitude of what supported me, I can focus on what I leave behind.
  The fact that it was harder for me than it is for others doesn't make me bitter or anything... I'll just make it easier for my kids on the next go-round. It's all good.
  
  I think you took a statement about your class position as an insult. But I want to clarify, if you stopped working tomorrow would you have enough income for the rest of your life? If not, youre a member of the proletariat. If you could, youre petite bourgeoisie. You operate under capitalist logic but don't have enough power to actually exercise control over the wider context your business exists in. You would be a small fish at the mercy of being eaten by larger fish. Better to not live in a system where anyone is a fish.