What is the proletariat and who are the proletarians?

5 837 126
What is the proletariat and who are the proletarians?

It's probably hard to find a person in our country who hasn't heard the word "proletariat," but not everyone knows what it means. The average person associates proletarians with workers depicted on posters. Those familiar with Marxism only through the Communist Manifesto believe that proletarians are wage laborers who own no property.

Moreover, some might argue that proletarians in the old sense no longer exist: dispossessed workers with nothing to lose but their chains are a thing of the 19th century, Marx is obsolete, and socialism is no longer needed. And these people would also be wrong. Leftist laymen also cannot clearly define the term: some classify all wage workers as proletarians, others only those who earn their living through physical labor. And this, too, would be incorrect.





The working class includes all those who earn a living by selling their ability to labor. Two strata can be distinguished within the working class: the labor aristocracy and the proletariat. The labor aristocracy differs from the proletariat in that it earns its wages by exploiting other workers.

In the modern world, the labor aristocracy includes top managers and the majority of workers in the so-called "First World" countries. The majority of a top manager's salary is derived from surplus value generated by the labor of other workers. Meanwhile, the high standard of living in First World countries is supported by the labor of workers in developing countries. Thus, a proletarian is a worker who does not benefit from exploitation.

In his notes to Marx's Capital, Engels refers to, for example, trade workers who do not produce surplus value as proletarians. In general, for Marx and Engels, the working class and the proletariat were often synonymous. Today, however, the working class is polarized due to rising prosperity and the global division of labor. The proletariat today is a part of the working class, not a synonym for it.

Moreover, many modern experts believe that the very concept of “proletariat” has remained, rather, in stories and is associated, to a large extent, with the Soviet era and one of its main slogans: "Workers of the world, unite!" But in any case, the question of terminology is debatable, especially when the trail of history is mixed into the matter.

126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. -13
    25 November 2025 20: 49
    In OUR history, I understand the proletariat as a conscious minority that has the right to dictate its will to the unconscious majority, including through violence. Because only irreconcilable class struggle leads to universal equality and the suppression of counterrevolution…
    1. +5
      25 November 2025 20: 54
      Now translate this into normal state language, I didn’t understand what you wanted to say.
      1. -11
        25 November 2025 20: 59
        Quote: Sanya Tersky
        Translate this into normal state language, I didn't understand.


        It depends on which Cossacks you are from - Grebensky, Agrakhan, Mozdok, Lower Terek or some other Cossacks... hi
    2. P
      -1
      26 November 2025 00: 21
      The proletariat is a category of attitude towards assets. Not towards consciousness.
  4. -7
    25 November 2025 20: 50
    In the 19th century, Marxism and "Capital" were a coherent and strict system. Because money was only gold. Or a strict gold parity for paper money. That is, the money supply of the entire globe was fixed and limited. (Gold mining merely compensated for its wear and tear and loss, and partly for jewelry.) Under such conditions, all sorts of crises of overproduction were strictly inevitable.
    *****
    And now Marxism is just an example (a historical example) of the mistakes of the proud human mind. Because money supply - They'll make as much as they want. And no cyclical crises of overproduction. And so on and so forth.
    But could Marx have imagined? Could he have imagined that gold, which had been money for thousands and thousands of years, would cease to be money and become a simple commodity, like copper or aluminum or lumber?
    1. P
      +3
      26 November 2025 00: 22
      So you missed the financial crises that are directly related to the crises of overproduction? And you're also not noticing a new world war?
      1. -5
        26 November 2025 00: 54
        Quote: Pandemic
        So you missed the financial crises that are directly related to the crises of overproduction?

        And the financial crises and the 1st and 2nd world wars are just part of the countermeasures... uh, "global capital"... to mix Marxism with food for sparrows -))))
        Marxism... is now as useful as the linear tactics of Frederick II the Great are "useful" in the current NVO.
        1. P
          0
          26 November 2025 00: 57
          The ruling class of the Russian Federation destroyed the Union strictly according to Marx. Modern wars are according to Marx, even AvtoVAZ and Sberbank are robbing the population according to Marx.
  5. 0
    25 November 2025 20: 55
    You might also discuss the term "caveman" in detail...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +4
      25 November 2025 21: 56
      Perhaps in the future the term "capitalist" will be discussed as a historical term, like a king or a prince, although they still exist in some places, such as the English crowned pedophiles.
      1. P
        +3
        26 November 2025 00: 23
        depends on how quickly they are defeated and buried
  6. +9
    25 November 2025 21: 04
    proletarians are hired workers who do not own any property

    No. Those who have no source of income other than the sale of their labor. Therefore, if someone owns property but doesn't generate income, they are still considered proletarians.
    1. -4
      25 November 2025 21: 17
      Quote: paul3390
      Thus, if one has property but it does not generate income, one is also a proletarian.

      Hmm, what if the property generates income by the very fact of its existence - for example, you don’t have to pay for a rented apartment, but its value increases?
      And the formula about "not using the labor of other workers" is also slippery - even digging the ground with a shovel - someone made the shovel, and you make money with it...
      Quote: paul3390
      Those who have no other source of income other than selling their labor.

      And here it’s slippery - a top manager may not have any other income except from selling his labor, and his mansion does not bring in any income - he is clearly feel not a proletarian?
      1. +5
        25 November 2025 22: 24
        So you can count the needle and thread here too—after all, with them you can sew your pants yourself instead of paying a tailor? Pure income. There should be some measure in everything.

        He thinks he's not a proletarian, but in reality, he is, just very well paid. And if he loses this lousy job, what will happen to his little mansion? That's the thing...
        1. -3
          26 November 2025 08: 21
          Quote: paul3390
          He thinks he's not a proletarian, but in reality, he is, just very well paid. And if he loses this lousy job, what will happen to his little mansion? That's the thing.

          So, a turner who rents out his grandmother's apartment, lets his son-in-law use his car as a taxi in exchange for a tank of gas, and sells zucchini grown by his wife at the dacha is not a proletariat, but a top manager who lives exclusively on his salary is a proletariat?
          And the turner, due to the fact that he is an exploiter, cannot go out into the streets to smash the government, and the top manager - obliged as a proletariat want to overthrow the government for the sake of revolution and socialism?
          You decided to refute MELS belay ?
          It's your choice, but their position on the proletariat is somehow more familiar to me and, most importantly, more realistic.
          1. +3
            26 November 2025 09: 12
            Once again, there should be a measure in everything; there is no need to take things to the point of absurdity by trying to force any situation into a rigid framework.
            If someone lives primarily on a lathe operator's salary, is it worth picking on their extra income from selling zucchini? A manager owes nothing to anyone; it's their own business whether they consider themselves proletarian or creative middle class. It's their problem.
            1. -3
              26 November 2025 09: 25
              Quote: paul3390
              Once again - there must be something in everything measure, there is no need to take things to the point of absurdity by trying to fit any situation into a rigid framework.

              Hmm, and who will determine the measure?
              I see one thing, you see another, Exxx sees in me bourgeois - as a hungry official with a salary of 40,000.
              If there are no such clear criteria, then in the event of a revolution, the workers—proletarians with incomes two or three times greater than mine—will come to dispossess me. Which is, in essence, insanity, not Marxism...
              And this is an irresolvable contradiction.

              Quote: paul3390
              Is it worth picking on his additional income from selling zucchini?

              And revolutions are made without regard for additional income - those who have it, in principle, did not go to destroy the gendarmerie departments.
              1. +2
                26 November 2025 09: 44
                Do you think life can be confined to a strict framework? That's a dubious proposition.

                As for the pogrom of the departments - really? A significant portion of the revolutionaries were not poor at all. Moreover, there were plenty of nobles among them.
                1. -3
                  26 November 2025 11: 19
                  Quote: paul3390
                  As for the pogrom of the departments - really? A significant portion of the revolutionaries were not poor at all. Moreover, there were plenty of nobles among them.

                  So, the "leading role of the proletariat" is a lie of Soviet propaganda?
                  Quote: paul3390
                  Do you think life can be confined to a strict framework? That's a dubious proposition.

                  If a theory doesn't strictly confine facts, then that theory is, at the very least, unproven. So why do we need Marxism as a doctrine, at all?

                  You are more anti-Soviet than I am. lol Honestly. I'm an anti-Soviet trying to convince a Sovietophile that he's wrong and that Marxism is a working theory. lol
              2. +2
                26 November 2025 12: 37
                Hey, are you talking about me? You're mangling my nickname, aren't you? I don't see you as a bourgeois, calm down. A servant of his interests, a guardian, that's true. Yes
                And how they did. Even nobles and merchants participated in revolutionary activities. If not physically, then with money.

                And Marxism needs some minor adjustments, it has become outdated.
                1. -5
                  26 November 2025 12: 47
                  Quote: Essex62
                  And Marxism needs some minor adjustments, it has become outdated.

                  Should we cross out the proletarians?
                  "Rich proletarians overthrowing power" - sounds a bit obscene, don't you think?
                  1. 0
                    26 November 2025 12: 52
                    There's no need to overthrow her; why are you so eager to spill blood? What was democracy invented for? With such approaches and thoughts in your wild little head, you definitely won't build communism. You need to vote more actively. Let ours get 200%. Well, who else but him? wassat ?

                    P.S.: I didn't consider myself poor in the Soviet Union. I had enough to live on, and life was interesting. And I had no intention of overthrowing the government, even though I was working class.
                    1. -4
                      26 November 2025 13: 17
                      Quote: Essex62
                      There's no need to overthrow her, why do you always want to spill blood? What was democracy invented for?

                      Certainly not for this - the overthrow of the ruling class. lol
                      MELS are spinning in their graves at the suggestion to seize power democratic by...
                      Quote: Essex62
                      With such approaches and thoughts in your wild little head, you definitely won’t build communism.

                      Exactly with such and they tried to build it - that's why systematic shooting was carried out.
                      1. 0
                        26 November 2025 13: 25
                        Didn't get it? Oh well.
                        No one even tried to build it. There were no crazy people among those in charge. We don't count Nikita; he's a provocateur. Marked number one. Socialism, to the maximum, was attempted. Something quite viable emerged. A first in world history! Both Ilyich and Vissarionovich created a very specific, stable structure.
                      2. -6
                        26 November 2025 22: 39
                        Quote: Essex62
                        a very specific stable structure was created.

                        The "stable structure" collapsed within 40 years - even Khrushchev-era buildings last longer.
                      3. 0
                        27 November 2025 08: 36
                        It didn't collapse, it was deliberately destroyed. They played on the base emotions of boys speculating in books. A flaw in education, a slackness. They believed it was a success too soon. Well, the average person isn't ready yet; their selfish nature is just pouring out of them.
                      4. -1
                        27 November 2025 09: 33
                        Quote: Essex62
                        It didn't collapse, it was destroyed on purpose.

                        It doesn't matter whether it's done on its own or on purpose - if the system doesn't have "foolproof" - its necessarily they will break it.
                        Which is what happened in the USSR.
                        And now people like you whine about "some vile people came from somewhere and destroyed everything," forgetting that the MSG was accepted into the party back under Stalin. And if the party was incapable of weeding out the scoundrels and villains within itself—protecting itself—then what can we say about the rest of the country?
                      5. 0
                        27 November 2025 09: 46
                        Of course, when the number of scoundrels became too great, people like me couldn't cope with the onslaught. It's not the party that's at fault, but the convictions of the average citizen, or at least the average party member.
                      6. -3
                        27 November 2025 09: 54
                        Quote: Essex62
                        It's not about the party, but about the convictions of the average citizen.

                        The beliefs of the average citizen were of absolutely no importance. What good are your beliefs if all Did they have any equipment? Regardless of anyone's beliefs, the party destroyed the country quite calmly. If two of the country's five leaders turn out to be scoundrels over the course of a miserable 70 years, that's a sign of the country's insecurity and instability.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        when there were too many scoundrels,
                        - Where did they come from? If the party raised a "new man" - but for some reason the result was scoundrels, villains, self-seekers, and "we had no orders!! (C)???
                      7. +1
                        27 November 2025 14: 53
                        And they stopped mowing and weeding. And those who saw all this bourgeois boom and wanted it weren't allowed. I'm telling you, they've gotten complacent; the old men in the Politburo are tired. They wanted to see a society of "a united Soviet people." But that's not how it works. The IVS warned us.
                      8. -2
                        27 November 2025 15: 26
                        Quote: Essex62
                        And they stopped mowing and weeding

                        And who was to blame? The CIA didn't give it to her?
                      9. +2
                        27 November 2025 18: 24
                        He seems literate. I wrote it. Grandfathers in the Kremlin and general relaxation. They decided that the "united Soviet people" was ripe for the taking. And yet, right under their noses, Soviet schoolchildren were speculating in books.
                      10. -1
                        27 November 2025 18: 27
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Grandfathers in the Kremlin and general relaxation.

                        So, the "Leading and Guiding" CPSU screwed the country over?
                      11. +2
                        27 November 2025 18: 40
                        The top brass, no doubt. They were barely scraping by, what was there to direct? And the average communist was left with the job of raising his hand and paying dues. Any attempt to point out any discrepancies between words and reality was suppressed. Well, it was convenient for them to think everything was fine, everyone was Soviet and loyal. Plus, the party structure, with its strict centralism, didn't allow even honest mid-level leaders to deviate from the general line. I don't know if I was still a kid in the 70s, but in the 80s I encountered this constantly. That's why I stuck as a candidate.
                      12. -1
                        27 November 2025 21: 14
                        Quote: Essex62
                        The top, without a doubt. They were barely crawling, what direction was there to direct them.

                        - rotted
                        Quote: Essex62
                        did not allow even honest middle managers to deviate from the general line

                        - rotted.
                        Quote: Essex62
                        The ordinary communist was left with the function of raising his hand in favor and paying dues.
                        . [b]=
                        Quote: your1970
                        The beliefs of the average citizen were of absolutely no importance.


                        You fully and completely confirm my bare statement of fact - the USSR perished from within due to the decay of the system of power and the betrayal of the elites.
                      13. +2
                        28 November 2025 10: 15
                        Not the system of power as such, but personnel. There are various reasons. And not only from within; external pressure played a significant role.
                        Our conclusions are the same, but our views on the existence of socialism as a viable system are different. Personnel, and only personnel, decide everything.
                      14. -2
                        28 November 2025 12: 20
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Views on the existence of socialism as a viable system vary. Personnel, and only personnel, decide everything.

                        For a system to be viable, it must have the personnel to support it. The USSR solemnly abandoned its management personnel (and you confirm this), which is why it was unviable.
                        Moreover, since political competition is impossible in a socialist society, even if the communists come to power now and form the USSR in the second half of the 2th century, in 50 years they will become ossified, rest on their laurels ("Well, they won't re-elect us!"), and everything will go to hell again.
                        Only in a more terrifying version
                      15. +1
                        29 November 2025 09: 43
                        Yeah, so the capitalists don't turn bronze? lol Well, yes, we're watching. As for re-election, you can tell your grandmother about that; she'll be interested.
                      16. -1
                        29 November 2025 10: 42
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Yeah, so the capitalists don't turn bronze?

                        They are getting bronzed, but there is a nuance: competitors are nipping at their heels. lol Sometimes strongly (Sarkozy and the South Koreans are waving their handkerchiefs from prison), sometimes not so much.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        If you get re-elected, tell your grandmother about it; she'll be interested.
                        that's how it is with us NOT capitalism is ours a mixture of capitalism with the remnants(!) of socialism.
                        You still haven't understood this???!!!!
                        People around the world insure their homes (in the US, 99,4% of real estate is insured), but here it's a whopping 4%. And as soon as it burns or sinks, people start demanding a full replacement from the government. And so the government builds, replaces, and resettles.
                        This is socialism in its purest form - impossible under capitalism.

                        The Dolina case - everywhere in the world you are responsible for your own actions and bear full responsibility - signed - free.
                        And we have socialism in its purest form - "Grandma was deceived, she changed her mind, her money was stolen, she lost it - we'll return Grandma's apartment." A paradise for swindlers, led by old ladies...

                        That's why there is only one party and no one to choose from....

                        We are still at least 50-70 years away from capitalism.
                      17. 0
                        29 November 2025 22: 05
                        The whole "grandmothers" thing is nonsense; it's not socialism. The courts rule against these same unfortunates. And I seriously doubt that these so-called scammers from the outskirts are ripping off both the grandmas and the buyers. They're too professional and efficient.
                        Socialism has nothing to do with it. The fighters need loyalty, and they maintain it with small handouts.
                        We have capitalism at its most brutal. Savage and vicious. 80-90% of property belongs to a single clan. The small fry are squandered, benefiting the rich. And your kind does its part, along with the "people's representatives" and lobbyists.
                      18. +2
                        29 November 2025 22: 13
                        There's no competition whatsoever. The only problem is that they've placed a drone on the worker's back, and he's living off his labor, and he's simply cutting into the budget.
                      19. -2
                        29 November 2025 23: 36
                        Quote: Essex62
                        There is no competition whatsoever.

                        So our CPSU hasn't gone anywhere.
                      20. -1
                        29 November 2025 23: 30
                        Quote: Essex62
                        About grandmothers this is all bullshit, this is not socialism.

                        Once again, you don't get it - what if a person subscribed AT 1) capitalism - then he goes under the bridge into a refrigerator box
                        2) socialism - then he says, "I didn't understand what I signed," and the court returns her apartment (and now the cars have followed the same pattern).

                        The difference is that under capitalism, a person is responsible for himself, but under socialism, he is not responsible for anything and everyone owes him something.
                        This is the base - we have capitalism with remnants of socialism..
                        By the way, that's why from the We don't have capitalism: everyone's afraid that everything will be taken away, out of habit with socialism—that's why no one invests in developing THEIR OWN, but just runs for scrap metal. If the EU had socialism, they'd nationalize 300 billion in half an hour, but they've been afraid for four years that their property will be taken away. That's the basis of capitalism...

                        Quote: Essex62
                        80-90% of the property belongs to one clan.
                        Even before, 90% of property belonged to one clan - the party. And the common man had no way to influence this property.
                      21. +2
                        30 November 2025 08: 27
                        Nothing of the sort. The property did not belong to private individuals. No need to make things up.
                      22. -3
                        30 November 2025 09: 51
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Nothing like that. Didn't belong to me. individuals belay property. No need to make it up.
                        - Once again, you don't understand what was written. I wrote it in Russian -
                        Quote: your1970
                        even before, 90% of the property belonged to one clan - PARTIESAnd an ordinary person could not influence this property in any way.

                        Where are you at my saw the statement Private faces???
                      23. +1
                        30 November 2025 15: 34
                        Today it belongs to private individuals, whereas back then it didn't even belong to a party—a malicious insinuation. Collective, public, but not private at all. Don't you notice the difference?
                      24. -1
                        1 December 2025 08: 24
                        Quote: Essex62
                        back then I didn't even belong to the party, malicious insinuations.

                        The Party decided to buy VAZ, the Party negotiated with Fiat, the Party paid in foreign currency (which only the Party could handle in the USSR), the Party distributed the products, and the Party sold the products at six times the cost. Even the VAZ workers were partly Party property—where would they go if they had a residence permit?
                        Who could have influenced AVTOVAZ - besides the party?
                        So who owned AvtoVAZ? The people, or what???!!! And the state was the party.
                        Did the public's (like the owner's) opinion matter, like, "the heater faucet is leaking"? Yeah, a lot - they just told the public, "later someday..." and that's it.
                      25. +1
                        1 December 2025 09: 19
                        You're getting off topic. Did individuals make billions from selling "public property," or did everyone in the party work for a salary? Not to mention the other negative phenomena that accompany capitalism. Note, exclusively negative ones.
                        For the hard worker. And the parasites and freeloaders (blochers, managers, swindlers) live happily ever after. You like this arrangement, I don't.
                      26. -1
                        1 December 2025 09: 54
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Not to mention the other negative phenomena that accompany capitalism. Note, negative only
                        for a hard worker.

                        Hmm, have you tried opening your eyes? I don't understand—taking the oligarch's position is a bit of a stretch, but here's the rub. For example, the SVO started, and the oligarch automatically became poorer due to the fall of Gazprom shares, for example—but it didn't affect the worker at all. He still gets his salary...
                        No, well, it's clear you don't feel sorry for the oligarch, just as you don't feel sorry for the state with its stake in Gazprom. The problem is that THEN, after a while, it gets to the workers.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        And the parasites and parasites (blokhers, managers,scammers) live happily ever after.
                        Didn't you know of any like that in the USSR???? And for whom were so many places built "with good company, walks in the fresh air, regular meals, and high-quality security"? lol ?? !!!
                        "In the late 80s, on the territory RSFSR 85 general regime colonies were deployed, 100 - enhanced, 198 - strict, 24 - special regimes, 40 penal colonies and 13 prisons. In addition, the correctional labor system included 60 educational labor colonies and 174 pre-trial detention facilities."


                        Quote: Essex62
                        And the parasites and parasites (blokhers, managers, swindlers) live happily.

                        Haven't you listened to Tsoi? He was exactly that kind of "loafer and parasite" - he worked a phony job, but got paid like a jackass in the boiler room.
                        And how the political officers/trade union organizers and other senseless "organizers" of all stripes were parasites - the current ones are far from them simply due to the small number of the current ones compared to the USSR ones
                      27. +1
                        1 December 2025 11: 32
                        Well, there used to be colonies for people like that, and today they're the main ones. They're the ones who answered for it. Yes And trade union organizers performed a very useful function. And they weren't always relieved of their main duties, very rarely. Political officers, too, are a questionable year.
                      28. -1
                        1 December 2025 12: 50
                        Quote: Essex62
                        And not everywhere, very rarely were they released from their main work.

                        Bugaga, if the number of employees was 50 or more, both the party organizer and the trade union organizer were released.
                        And where they weren't exempt - for example, Klava from the trade union committee in "Office Romance" - she didn't do her job (she was an accountant!!)
                      29. +1
                        1 December 2025 12: 54
                        You're trying to explain and justify everything with this movie. At our motor pool, at the factory, and at the oil field, the union organizers toiled just like everyone else. I don't know where you got that 50-person figure. That party organizer, yes, was a liberated party organizer.
                      30. -1
                        1 December 2025 13: 08
                        Quote: Essex62
                        You are trying to explain and justify everything with this movie.

                        I'll give you the first example I come across - one that's easy to verify, one that wasn't filmed by anti-Soviet elements in Hollywood, and one that you've seen at least 20 times, guaranteed.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        In our motor transport company, at the plant and at the oil field, the trade union organizers worked hard just like everyone else.
                        - And what does this prove? That the plant's trade union staff was sitting in their offices while their boss was working on the machine?

                        Quote: Essex62
                        That party organizer, yes, was released.
                        and they forgot about the freed Komsomol organizer lol
                      31. +2
                        3 December 2025 10: 04
                        Well, no. I was a Komsomol organizer, turning screws, in the frost and heat in the taiga, just like everyone else. wink
                      32. -2
                        3 December 2025 10: 20
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Well, no. I was a Komsomol organizer, turning screws, in the frost and heat in the taiga, just like everyone else. wink

                        And it turns out you are a kulak belay - Komsomol organizer liberated I officially received a base salary of 128 rubles, plus 13 rubles if I was working at a northern level. When I was a large organization or at a regional level, there were additional payments. Overall, not much...
                        Well, that is, in general, at the current level of 25-30,000...
                        And you worked for the long ruble lol lol lol
                        Just kidding, I believe you - that you worked for the idea.
                      33. +2
                        3 December 2025 10: 29
                        Why for an idea, for a ruble, and yes, for a very long time. Only I worked, you see the difference. As an engineering and technical worker, I got 110 rubles plus a bonus, and I had to do that when I got home. But I pawned my pillow, and the family didn't suffer.
                      34. -2
                        3 December 2025 10: 48
                        Quote: Essex62
                        only I have worked,you understand the difference.

                        My father, the head of the PMK, had Armenian day laborers come and build houses for the workers. They brought stack Leftist laborers built a turnkey two-apartment building in three weeks, received wages for five or six people each, and left. In two years, they built a street of 30 houses.
                        The PMK construction team built 6 houses in 2 years, practically on time according to the standard.
                        My father was charged with a crime - pure theft of socialist property!!! - in order to provide housing for workers.
                        Besides my father, there were three construction companies and three purely construction firms—no one was willing to stick their heads in the noose. The workers didn't have housing—well, who cares, we'll build, and then someday...

                        My father didn't take a single penny from the day laborers - guaranteed.

                        The question is, how rotten has the system become if it depended on the possibility of getting a prison sentence for good, high-quality work?
                      35. +1
                        3 December 2025 17: 38
                        Well, we've already discussed this. There are standards and a wage scale. Of course, it's theft. Regardless of the intentions, which aren't even obvious. That's how you paved the way to wild capitalism. Some standards needed to be revised, that's obvious. Without touching the fundamentals. The old-timers at the top have become ossified, which is what the sneaky disguised ones took advantage of. Like Chubais. The gerentocracy ruined the Union. An agent in the Kremlin and the accelerated destruction of socialism are already a consequence of the lack of turnover. They believed the bastard, after all.
                      36. -1
                        3 December 2025 17: 50
                        Quote: Essex62
                        That's how you paved the way to wild capitalism. Some regulations clearly needed to be revised.

                        The USSR has always had a salary cap for specific professions. And it was impossible to do anything about it. They tried raising the standards for, say, Armenians, but it led to Novocherkassk. Then the local construction crews would have run away (who would work for 5 rubles?).

                        These Armenians destroyed everything THE BASES socialism at the root - they wanted to earn money but could not be paid - this is not capitalism.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        Which are not yet obvious.
                        Was it necessary for workers to live in three barracks for at least six to seven years? And fight over who would get a house?
                        You're arguing now like a nightstand with eyes from the Central Committee.
                      37. +1
                        4 December 2025 00: 05
                        No, that's not true. The motives of those breaking the law are not obvious.
                        I don't remember anyone fighting. The point is, the line isn't alive. laughing We worked and waited for our apartment.
                        The cooperative movement in Stalin's USSR tolerated such "Armenians," but within reasonable limits. There was plenty of room to run. Just cross the street and there it was, "required." Another obvious advantage of socialism.
                        The people working in my team were people who wanted to make money, and they did. The working conditions were truly extreme. We're not talking about the workers here. Everything can be resolved. Capitalism isn't about Armenian day laborers. We're not talking about them, or the baker, the hairdresser, or the cab driver. We're talking about those who appropriated the people's property. And don't write that it was "party-sponsored." We'll just go in circles.
                      38. -1
                        4 December 2025 07: 13
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Capitalism isn't about Armenian day laborers. We're not talking about them, or the baker, the barber, or the cab driver.

                        Capitalism is also about them. Because if the grabbers are de-privatized, they'll get their share, too. And they're guaranteed to get their share—no matter your theories about leaving small and medium-sized owners alone. They tried twice in the USSR, and both times it turned out it wasn't possible. Their influence on others was too great.
                        Citizens don't see the owners of Russian Railways/Norilsk Nickel - their return will be discussed for 5 minutes - it won't directly affect them in any way, but the bourgeois in a Mercedes - the owner of 3 stores - looms before their eyes: "What did we shed blood for and make a revolution for?? So that this mug can continue to drive at us??" (C).
                        Well, and corruption schemes - I wrote about them earlier.
                        The question of whose property is it? is the most important. China looked at the attitude of the Soviet population toward no-one's/party-owned property—in China, there is no people's (or rather, no-one's) property, and China is thriving. The CCP has completely abandoned the fundamental principle of Marxism—ownership of the means of production. The "communist" brand remains, covering up conventional state capitalism.
                        Do you want the country to prosper? It won't happen like it did under the USSR.

                        The joy of Chubais being crushed live on Red Square with an asphalt roller will last for half an hour.
                        And in a day, people will say, "But we lived better under Putin..." - and that will be your downfall. Now no one will say, "But our grandchildren will live well" - now everyone is spoiled by their own.
                      39. +1
                        4 December 2025 10: 41
                        With proper socialism it will be.

                        The owner of three shops in a Mercedes is also a parasite. Well, he's not a hard worker, is he?

                        They won't say anything. Because justice will be upheld. And the principle is "he who doesn't work, neither shall he eat." Don't judge everyone by their own selfish nature.

                        And let's finish, I think.
                      40. -2
                        4 December 2025 11: 19
                        Quote: Essex62
                        They won't say anything. Because justice will be upheld. And the principle is "he who doesn't work, neither shall he eat." Don't judge everyone by their own selfish nature.

                        They already said this in the USSR before the war: "Life was better under the Tsar!" And not the traders and speculators, but the factory workers.

                        Quote: Essex62
                        And the principle is "he who does not work, neither shall he eat." No
                        Then the party organizers and political officers should have been impaled—they didn't work, but they ate well, and that would have been fair.


                        Quote: Essex62
                        The owner of three shops in a Mercedes is also a parasite. Well, he's not a hard worker, is he?

                        Quote: Essex62
                        With proper socialism it will be.
                        What kind of proper socialism will there be if you've already slapped the owner of 3 stores?
                        And after this there will be a state-owned store with diluted sour cream, sugar wet for weight, sausage cheese, and meat bones, counting and weighting...
                        It still doesn't occur to you that in 70 years of Soviet power the state was never able to curb trade - even with draconian methods??!!!
                      41. +2
                        27 November 2025 13: 43
                        And if the party was unable to weed out the scoundrels and villains within itself


                        Humanity has never successfully weeded out careerists, scoundrels, and villains. Such systems haven't been created yet. There are no good tools for identifying scoundrels.
          2. 0
            27 November 2025 13: 38
            That is, the person renting out the apartment
            and the person who rents out a car is a petty bourgeois and a rentier if this is his main source of income.
            1. -2
              27 November 2025 13: 47
              My opponent thinks YES and then NO.
              Quote: cast iron
              If a person lives primarily on a lathe operator's salary, is it worth picking on his additional income from selling zucchini?

              Quote: paul3390
              Thus, if one has property but it does not generate income, one is also a proletarian.
              1. +1
                27 November 2025 13: 53
                If a lathe operator sells zucchini in his spare time, and this business brings in significantly less than his main job at the machine, then he's not a capitalist. Absolutely. What's the contradiction with the statement that if there's property, it doesn't generate income? I don't see any contradiction. In the bourgeoisie, property generates income, often at the expense of others. If you're a rentier and rent out several apartments, but you enjoy going to work, you're still a rentier—a petty bourgeois. Another thing is that 99% of rentiers don't do any lathe work and go to work.
                1. -2
                  27 November 2025 15: 22
                  Quote: cast iron
                  I don't see any contradictions

                  Then read it in full
                  Quote: your1970
                  That is, a turner who rents out his grandmother's apartment, lets his son-in-law use his car as a taxi in exchange for a tank of gas, and sells zucchini grown by his wife at the dacha - not the proletariat, top manager living solely on salary - proletariat?
                  And the turner, because he is an exploiter, cannot go out into the streets to smash the government, while the top manager is obliged, as a member of the proletariat, to want to overthrow the government for the sake of revolution and socialism?
                  Have you decided to refute MELS?
                  It's your choice, but their position on the proletariat is somehow more familiar to me and, most importantly, more realistic.
    2. 0
      25 November 2025 21: 18
      Thus, if one has property but it does not generate income, one is also a proletarian.

      After the revolution, apartment owners were considered petty bourgeois, which is logical: today my apartment isn't generating income, and tomorrow I'll rent it out to "foreign specialists." So, comrades, rent back what was privatized to the state, otherwise you won't build communism :)
      1. +5
        25 November 2025 22: 24
        When you start to rent out, then you'll become a rentier. But for now, alas for you...
      2. +2
        26 November 2025 07: 39
        Quote from invisible_man
        After the revolution, apartment owners were treated to the petty bourgeoisie

        And who did they classify those who lived in Khrushchev-era buildings after the revolution (Khrushchev-era buildings appeared after the revolution) as?
      3. +2
        26 November 2025 12: 43
        Bring back Soviet social security, screw it, it's privatized and won't be needed. Incidentally, it's an incentive to have children. State housing was inherited, and single parents had it taken away posthumously.
    3. +2
      25 November 2025 21: 34
      Quote: paul3390
      No. Those who have no source of income other than the sale of their labor. Therefore, if someone owns property but doesn't generate income, they are still considered proletarians.

      This is based on Marsism, and if we take a classic Russian definition, then according to Dahl's "Explanatory Dictionary," a proletarian is a bachelor, a homeless or landless person, a homeless person, a parasite. Basically, according to Dahl, a semi-homeless person of some sort...
      1. +5
        25 November 2025 22: 21
        Since "proletarian" is originally a Roman term, it seems more reasonable to interpret it from the Latin rather than from Dahl's. No?
        1. +1
          26 November 2025 08: 03
          Quote: paul3390
          Since "proletarian" is originally a Roman term, it seems more reasonable to interpret it from the Latin rather than from Dahl's. No?

          Well, that's not a fact laughing The Russian language contains many words of Latin origin that have changed their original meanings over time. For example, the words "scoundrel" and "vulgar" once meant an unfamiliar/common person and "ancient," respectively. Other Latin words with changed meanings include "prelest" (instead of "devil's deception") and "U_rod" (instead of "firstborn").
  7. 0
    25 November 2025 21: 12
    What makes sense to discuss right now???
    Questions of historical identity or modern realities???
    For example, I love/respect history and find much that is necessary and important in it, but our surrounding reality, current events, are making noticeable changes in all areas of our lives, leading to the need to create new rules and apply them everywhere!
  8. +5
    25 November 2025 21: 15
    Originally, in ancient Rome, the meaning of the word proletarius was "a person fit only for reproduction."

    "The only significance of the proletariat for the state was expressed in the production of offspring—future citizens of Rome." - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пролетариат
    1. +2
      25 November 2025 22: 26
      the wild beasts that inhabit Italy have burrows, each has his place and his refuge, and those who fight and die for Italy have nothing but air and light, they roam the country like homeless wanderers with their wives and children, and commanders lie when before the battle they call on soldiers to protect their native graves and shrines from the enemy, for none of such a multitude of Romans left their altar, no one will show where the grave mound of his ancestors is, no! - and they fight and die for someone else's luxury and wealth, these "masters of the universe," as they are called, who cannot call a single clod of earth their own!

      Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus...
  9. +2
    25 November 2025 21: 35
    .
    Those who are familiar with Marxism only through the Communist Manifesto believe that proletarians are wage workers who do not own any property.
    In fact, the proletariat is considered by Marxist-Leninist ideologists to be the main driving force of the revolutionary movement. The proletariat still exists today; it's the toilers in factories and mills, and this fact is hard to refute. But recently, the proletariat has changed dramatically. Just look at the economic situation in Europe. Europe is deindustrializing. GDP is not growing. Factories and plants are closing. Over the past couple of years, fertilizer production in Europe has completely shut down. The chemical industry is on the brink of collapse. There are mass layoffs at Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Porsche car factories. Meanwhile, not a single worker has taken to the streets in protest, and trade unions are keeping silent. However, the toiling peasantry has taken to the stage. Just remember the tractor marches of European peasants on Brussels and the piles of manure outside government buildings. Just remember the French peasants pouring slurry on the presidential palace and city halls. It's enough to recall the German farmers who blocked Berlin with their tractors for a week in late 2023 and early 2024. It seems the classics of Marxism were gravely mistaken in appointing the proletariat as the driving force.
    1. P
      -1
      26 November 2025 00: 27
      You're completely illiterate. Those driving tractors aren't peasants, they're farmers. The difference is like that between an old woman selling her pies and a McDonald's franchisee.
      1. +5
        26 November 2025 09: 06
        You are completely illiterate, the people driving tractors are not peasants, but farmers.
        Your literacy is simply off the charts. It's clear you definitely attended six years of high school. The reference book says... A peasant is a rural resident whose main occupation is agricultural work (farming and livestock raising). And the fact that in the US peasants are called farmers, in Germany they're called bauers, in Spain they're campesinos, in Mexico they're charro doesn't change the fact that they're peasants.
        1. P
          0
          26 November 2025 14: 25
          The difference between a peasant and a farmer is that he exploits himself and his family without hiring labor, obtaining the product and selling it himself. There are no farmers there, and you are illiterate.
          1. -1
            27 November 2025 00: 02
            The difference between a peasant and a farmer is that he exploits himself and his family,
            Someone who exploits themselves and their family is not a peasant or a farmer, but a slave on a cotton plantation. I've already addressed your literacy concerns. You formulate your own conclusions so unsubstantiatedly and accuse your opponents of illiteracy that it suggests you have a mental illness. Nowadays, there are many medications for stabilizing mental health, so I advise you to use haloperidol at full strength. Increase the dose or frequency of administration.
            1. P
              +2
              27 November 2025 00: 08
              A slave cannot exploit himself, since he does not dispose of the product of his labor.
              1. -1
                27 November 2025 00: 58
                A slave cannot exploit himself, since he does not dispose of the product of his labor.
                This is all just empty talk. The working collective farm peasantry never had control over the products of their own labor. At the same time, the working peasantry was exploited on the collective farm, along with their families. By your logic, they were slaves.
                1. P
                  +1
                  27 November 2025 22: 48
                  A collective farm is a private enterprise that, in addition to the contracted products, sells its own produce and then divides the profits among the shareholders. Where do you think these labor days come from? Again, you know nothing and don't understand anything, yet you're barging in with your opinions and emotions.
                  1. -1
                    28 November 2025 07: 37
                    I repeat, you don’t know or understand anything at all, but you’re jumping in with your opinions and emotions.
                    We're no match for you, those literate armchair theorists. On VO, everyone has a right to their own opinion, and you're a NOBODY here to judge anyone or force your opinion on anyone. I once again advise you to increase your medication dosage to stabilize your mental health.
                  2. 0
                    4 December 2025 15: 33
                    A kolkhoz is a collective enterprise. Where is the private individual owner and exploiter? And they sell their produce to the state at fixed prices.
                    1. P
                      0
                      4 December 2025 18: 40
                      It's entirely privately owned, just like a joint-stock company, for example. The owners are shareholders who operate themselves. The collective farm doesn't deliver all of its output; some are contracted, and some are sold independently, for example, at collective farm markets. Income is divided based on labor contribution to profit, hence the accounting of workdays. This is precisely why they weren't paid a centralized pension for a long time, as these enterprises didn't contribute to state pension funds and paid their own pensions.
                      1. 0
                        4 December 2025 22: 04
                        Private, in the USSR? Because the workday and collective farm pension are private? Hmm. request
                      2. P
                        0
                        4 December 2025 22: 06
                        It's quite private. A state farm is a different matter.
                      3. 0
                        4 December 2025 22: 12
                        Speaking of the collective farm market, by the way. A place where collective farmers sold the produce of their farmsteads, rather than the collective farm itself trading. Everything was handed over to the state, except for seeds, fodder, and workers' wages in kind. Everything, you see. And a private owner in the Soviet Union, whether in fact or in essence, was a candidate for travel to unwelcome places and friendship with a saw or shovel. Personal property belonged to the individual, and that was all.
                      4. P
                        0
                        4 December 2025 22: 30
                        1. Collective farms were quite capable of trading at markets and selling their products to catering establishments. 2. You don't distinguish between private and personal property. I suggest you first study the material.
                      5. 0
                        4 December 2025 23: 29
                        I can tell very well. Because there was no such thing as private property in the USSR. It's an axiom. Don't try to make things up and force one hedgehog to another. You write nonsense and then you're just getting out of it.

                        Because collective farms entered into contracts with state-owned enterprises to supply potatoes and cabbage at state prices, they could not become private.
                      6. P
                        0
                        4 December 2025 23: 47
                        So you're denying the fact) it was a completely ordinary private enterprise. The land, as the main asset, was leased in perpetuity, with the condition of its cultivation and compliance with a number of conditions (contracts for production at fixed prices, a standard charter), but the nature of the appropriation was entirely private, as were the other assets—cows, seeds, buildings, milking parlors, and so on. Moreover, for a long time, a share of the profits was distributed in kind for private trade.
                      7. 0
                        4 December 2025 23: 52
                        No, it's not private. What's so stubborn about that right? It can't be sold, bought, or rented out for personal gain. There were all sorts of properties in the USSR, but none were private. So, who's this private owner, the collective farm owner? The chairman? Well, they elected or appointed him. Who else, the district committee secretary? Well, that's a dead giveaway.
                        P.S.: We don’t take Central Asia into account, there were quite a few bai-chairmen there.
                      8. P
                        0
                        4 December 2025 23: 59
                        The collective farm could sell, buy, and lease assets other than land, which, incidentally, often happened. VDNKh, for example, was designed for this very purpose. A chairman was elected.
                        Private land tenants are still operating all over the world, there is no contradiction
                      9. 0
                        5 December 2025 00: 04
                        Who was he? What private individual? Besides, he could only do so formally; in reality, everything was regulated from above. It was collective property. Sure, they might raise the question of renting something out at a meeting, but it was ultimately the guy at the presidium table who made the final decision. And as a private individual, he got nothing from it.
                      10. P
                        0
                        5 December 2025 00: 06
                        Collective property can be private; indeed, most private property is collective. A joint-stock company is a prime example.
                      11. 0
                        5 December 2025 00: 12
                        A group of freeloaders who chipped in, but still have their own private stake? They decide among themselves who gets what margin. They're exploited here, with no voting rights. Whatever the bourgeois uncle decides. No, this isn't collective property. It's divided among private owners. If they want, they'll shut it down or confiscate their share.
                      12. P
                        0
                        5 December 2025 00: 07
                        This guy was filming at a meeting one day, by the way.
                      13. 0
                        5 December 2025 00: 13
                        Really? The district committee representative? And even with the chairman, things aren't so simple.
  10. 0
    25 November 2025 21: 41
    And when did the last proletarian disappear in the USSR?
    1. 0
      26 November 2025 04: 04
      It's a difficult question... Probably never. Proletarians will exist forever, if we follow Grandpa Shchukar's definition: "If you're a loser, you're a proletarian."
  11. +8
    25 November 2025 21: 47
    Capitalism hasn't changed a bit in a hundred years. Certain concessions have been made, but they can be revoked at any time if constant profit and competition demand it.

    Workers pay for crises, the greed, and the stupidity of capitalists; the capitalist risks only the bankruptcy of the workers. Of course, one can falsely expand the concept of a labor aristocracy, but let everyone decide for themselves how true this is. Capitalism is inextricably linked to the war of the predator and cannot cope with crises like epidemics or famines caused by climate change because it is unprofitable. The sooner the majority of non-capitalists understand how disgusting this system is and that it leads to the abyss, the better. No reform of a system based on the constant multiplication of profits is possible. The illustration of the capitalist pyramid is quite apt, with the difference that the church has somewhat retreated from its role as intermediary, although it still actively defends capitalism and holds many shares and assets, it senses a growing rebellion, hence the influx of "labor popes" in recent years. am
  12. +1
    25 November 2025 23: 26
    The concept of "proletariat" is on the same level as "labor productivity." Both were quite real in Karl Marx's time. And now, "office plankton" top the productivity charts (in the US, these are bankers and insurers).
    Thus, the article attempts to apply old definitions to today's realities, which immediately reveals its shortcomings.
  13. +1
    26 November 2025 01: 11
    Moreover, many modern experts believe
    The money they're paid to say and write whatever the client wants. Prostitutes of the pen and microphone, to put it simply.
  14. +2
    26 November 2025 02: 13
    Maximka has gone to bed. He'll be back tomorrow and tell us more about what he's read today. Be patient, comrades. For now, it's a break.
  15. +4
    26 November 2025 03: 03
    Judging by the increasing talk of the proletariat and the working class, the situation where "those at the top can't, and those at the bottom won't" is nearing its logical conclusion. After all, smart people once said:
    You can deceive part of the people all the time, and the whole people for some time, but you cannot deceive the whole people all the time.
    1. -4
      26 November 2025 08: 29
      Quote: ROSS 42
      But smart people even used to say:
      You can deceive part of the people all the time, and the whole people for some time, but you cannot deceive the whole people all the time.

      And where are the socialist revolutions in the whole world - except for the 15 countries of the socialist camp before 1991 - out of 192 countries?
      In 93% of countries, capitalists continue to deceive the people over the centuries feel
      Maybe the people who said this weren't entirely right? Or maybe they dreamed of something like that, but nothing more?
      1. +3
        26 November 2025 10: 51
        Quote: your1970
        Maybe the people who said this weren't entirely right? Or maybe they dreamed of something like that, but nothing more?

        People try to speak the truth, but the truth of words doesn't always correspond to the truth of deeds. The attempt to build socialism in the USSR required the test of time and the selection of promising and optimal paths for economic development. The fact is that capital shouldn't be given the country's resources and mineral wealth, which rightfully and inherently belong to all citizens, and the state needed to establish an oversight body independent of the leadership. The inability to objectively assess events and the distortion of socialist principles, replacing them with party principles that were ignored in favor of the party elite, produced corresponding results.
        Quote: your1970
        And where are the socialist revolutions in the whole world - except for the 15 countries of the socialist camp before 1991 - out of 192 countries?

        And who in the capitalist world today will voluntarily surrender their position – the right to enrich themselves at the expense of countries that have fallen into financial bondage and economic dependence?
        Here, former communists have set out to build a "bright capitalist future" for themselves, so that they won't be given it in their lifetime, not tomorrow... They apparently remember how far socialist progress has come...
        You are my friend and you are my brother -
        Drinking buddy.
        Don't be angry if I give you a...
        A slap on the back of the head!

      2. +2
        27 November 2025 14: 16
        In 93% of countries, capitalists continue to deceive the people for centuries.


        Before that, it was the feudal lords who deceived. And before the feudal lords, there was the slave system—also for centuries. Capitalism will also fade into history because it fails to solve its fundamental problems for society.
        1. -3
          27 November 2025 15: 24
          Quote: cast iron
          Capitalism will also go down in history because it does not solve its main problems for society.

          In my memory, "the USA has been rotting" for 55 years now and still nothing.
          The USSR disappeared into history forever in just 74 years.
          1. +3
            27 November 2025 17: 59
            In my memory, "the USA has been rotting" for 55 years now and still nothing.


            If you look at history, and not just your own memory, you'll learn that feudalism in Europe took a very, very long time to emerge. Several centuries. Just as capitalism grew in Holland, for example. Your 55 and 74 years are young. Also, why are you only considering the USSR? Maybe we should also look at China, Vietnam, Korea, and Cuba?
            1. -3
              27 November 2025 18: 25
              Quote: cast iron
              Maybe we should also look at China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba?

              China - state capitalism
              Vietnam - they have merged too much in ecstasy with the USA
              Korea - no one knows what's there
              Cuba is socialism.

              Quote: cast iron
              74 years is not enough.
              Imperialism is more than 100 years old, the USSR died much earlier.

              Are there any preconditions for the demise of imperialism? I'm sure it will endure easily and undisturbed for a couple of centuries. In any case, I won't see its collapse—unless World War II happens. But even then, it would be a step back into capitalism.
              1. +1
                30 November 2025 12: 20
                Quote: your1970
                Are there any preconditions for the demise of imperialism?

                Planetary demographic crisis.
                1. -2
                  30 November 2025 17: 36
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  Quote: your1970
                  Are there any preconditions for the demise of imperialism?

                  Planetary demographic crisis.

                  And how will this affect imperialism?
                  Let's say the crisis hits Christian white Europe and Russia—all other countries are reproducing quite vigorously. Their capitalism will become their imperialism.
                  That's it.
                  ISIS will definitely not build socialism, so imperialism will simply move on and that's it...
                  1. +2
                    1 December 2025 11: 33
                    Quote: your1970
                    All other countries are reproducing quite vigorously.

                    Let's not continue with your constant demagoguery. The birth rate is falling everywhere on the planet. At an alarming rate.
                    Quote: your1970
                    Their capitalism will become their imperialism.

                    So what? Globally, demographics will gradually put increasing pressure on the economy, causing social upheavals.
                    Quote: your1970
                    ISIS will definitely not build socialism.

                    Empty talk. ISIS isn't forever. If you look at Iran, you can clearly see how evolution is unfolding. And overall, it's not just Afghanistan that decides. It may have a primitive communal system, but there's always a dominant form of socio-economic relations. Today, capitalism, tomorrow, communism.
                    1. -1
                      1 December 2025 12: 58
                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      Let's not continue with your constant demagoguery. The birth rate is falling everywhere on the planet. At an alarming rate.

                      In Africa or South America or Asia – except China? Well, well...

                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      So what? Globally, demographics will gradually put increasing pressure on the economy, causing social upheavals.
                      Let me remind you that the revolution IS ALWAYS It's the youth who do it, not the old guys from the military. And where would they come from if you have a "demographic decline worldwide"?

                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      It may have a primitive communal system, but there is always a dominant form of socio-economic relations. Today it's capitalism, tomorrow it's communism.

                      Bold, fresh, original.
                      MELS is crying out of envy at you. Especially about the step from primitive communism to communism...

                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      ISIS is not forever.
                      Oh well....
                      1. +2
                        1 December 2025 13: 20
                        Quote: your1970
                        In Africa or South America or in Asia - except China?

                        And in Africa, and in South America, and in Asia, except for China. Take off your rose-colored glasses.
                        Quote: your1970
                        Let me remind you that revolution is ALWAYS made by young people and not by old people from the West.

                        Nowadays, youth is considered to be up to 45 years old. That's one. And the increase in the percentage of elderly people doesn't completely cancel out the youth. That's two. But you know that yourself, demagogue.
                        Quote: your1970
                        Bold, fresh, original.
                        MELS is crying out of envy at you. Especially about the step from primitive communism to communism...

                        Once again you have come up with nonsense and attribute it to others, demagogue.
                        Quote: your1970
                        Oh well....

                        Wildebeest.
                      2. -1
                        1 December 2025 13: 28
                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        And in Africa, South America, and Asia, except China. Take off your rose-colored glasses.

                        And the vulgar statistics say that only you personally are seeing a decline in Africa, Asia, and America—well, their birth rates are rising. But in China, it's falling.
                        And yes, why are you bringing up rose-colored glasses? To me, increasing the birth rate in South America is deeply rooted in feng shui.

                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        Nowadays youth is considered to be up to 45 years old.
                        And tomorrow I'll be counting 60-year-olds as young people. No big deal...
                        Young people are those under 25 - no brains, no fear, no family, no pity, and not those individuals whose mothers still lead them by the hand even at 45
                        And you understand this no worse than I do.

                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        Wildebeest.

                        - Apparently you will bury
                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        ISIS is not forever.
                        ??? !!!!
                      3. +1
                        1 December 2025 13: 34
                        Quote: your1970
                        And the vulgar statistics say that only you are seeing a decline in Africa, Asia and America - but their birth rates are rising.

                        In your imagination?
                        Quote: your1970
                        and tomorrow I will consider 60 year olds to be young people

                        If medicine and other circumstances allow it, then why not?
                        Quote: your1970
                        - Apparently you will bury

                        Maybe I'll still have time. But as it is, their laws of social development will bury them without me.
                      4. -1
                        1 December 2025 13: 46
                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        In your imagination?

                        Let it be your way. What does this affect?

                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        If medicine and other circumstances allow it, then why not?
                        mmm, so you use both hands FOR? FOR raising the retirement age - once
                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        medicine and other circumstances will allow
                        ??
                        A bit unexpected - from you??!!! belay - but anything can happen...

                        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                        Otherwise, their laws of social development will be buried without me.
                        - Can you give an example of a country where development laws buried Islamic fanatics?
                        Or will we consider this acceptable - sometime later? In 200 years?
              2. +1
                2 December 2025 08: 09
                Quote: your1970
                Are there any preconditions for the demise of imperialism?


                Yes. This system is like a bicycle: stable only when in motion. Imperialism requires constant expansion, the seizure of new resources, new markets, and so on. The problem is that our "ball" has already been captured and there is no room for further expansion. They won't be able to reach "Pandora"; their reach is too short. So even in the West they admit that a change in development strategy is needed; the old one has already exhausted itself.
                They say socialism produces stagnation. Then stagnation and stability must reproduce socialism. And in the best-case scenario, the global economy faces stagnation due to an objective shortage of resources, since they are finite and close to exhaustion. And innovations like "green energy" are clearly stalling. Progress, with the exception of IT and AI, is clearly stalling. The forecasts of Western futurologists from half a century ago can only evoke a chuckle now. The future turned out not to be so advanced after all... laughing
                1. -1
                  2 December 2025 12: 22
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Imperialism requires constant expansion, the seizure of new resources, new markets, and so on. The problem is that our "ball" is already occupied and there is no room for further expansion.

                  You're wrong – there's plenty of space. The US is now taking over Venezuela, the EU is squeezing Ukraine, and China is frolicking in Africa.
                  If they get tired of Venezuela, they'll destroy Iran or Kazakhstan or Hungary.
                  If they're really pressed, they'll go after Russia or China (it would be funny if the US surrenders the Liminality and Poland to us for NOT supporting China). lol )
                  1. +1
                    2 December 2025 13: 07
                    No, not in abundance. It's precisely the lack of resources that forces "developed countries" to engage in military adventures, which are fraught with obvious risks.
                    Venezuela... remember, the US felt at home there for a long time (before Chávez came to power). So what? That country has a lot of oil, but little suitable for profitable extraction due to local conditions. Ukraine? It's already largely a spent force; Western multinationals have already "privatized" everything there.
                    In short, it's all a one-tender-task affair. Even the USSR and its resources only lasted the West (the US and Europe) a couple of decades of relative "prosperity." The cream has long since been skimmed off, and what was already divvied up is now merely being re-divided. And appetites are only growing. There are ever more new consumers (like China), while the "feed" is ever smaller. And the scramble for the remaining resources will only intensify. Yesterday's "consumers" themselves risk becoming fodder for more powerful predators. The example of Germany (which the US is already quietly gnawing at) is quite telling.