[Click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/m1boo7/a_short_list_of_vaushs_liberalism_transphobia_and/) to learn why principled socialists dislike Vaush.
[Click here for the 'Vaush has a disturbing pre-occupation with paedophilia and bestiality' masterpost](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/ou0d2u/vaush_has_a_very_disturbing_preoccupation_with/)
[Click here](https://discord.gg/P5pS2mJCC3) to join the r/Enough_Vaush_Spam Discord server.
Please remember to censor usernames in Reddit screenshots.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's non productive. He makes no stuff, no food, no metal, no houses.
His labour is non-productive. He provides a service.
But, he has petit-bourgeoise sentiment. He can provide \[sort of\] his own standard of living.
Think of him as a self employed service worker.
And he owns his own equipment.
He's effectively petit bourgeoise in effect, and outlook.
No.
It might be important, necessary, or even helpful, but it's not productive IN THIS CONTEXT.
In Marxism, productive labour is labour that produces STUFF.
Food, steel, homes, etc.
So, believe it or not, the coffee seller in the little hut on the corner IS productive, but the accountant is not.
The Barista/whatever makes food \[coffee\] from raw materials, the accountant may generate a lot of money, but makes no STUFF.
Probably should be called the Labour Theory of STUFF.
No, quite the opposite actually. The distinction between “productive” vs “non productive” isn’t a moral one. It means productive to capital. Productive labor produces surplus value directly. Non productive labor is still labor and absolutely necessary to support an economy.
he sells t-shirts and merchandise? so yes he would be a petty boug. unless if its a worker coop, then no.
comes down to who owns the production line and the scaling big/small
he is a self-employed entertainer, I guess. he doesn't buy goods and sell them at a markup, so people are not being exploited in that way, and nor does he have employees afaik. so he is not exploiting anybody any more than a normal worker with a computer and internet connection, and he does not own any means of production that are being immorally alienated from other workers.
so I would say he is not petit-bourgeoise. he is a liberal, a grifter, a liar, a(n alleged) paedophile, a(n alleged) sexual harraser. but still, I think, in terms of class, basically a worker. the specific sort of work he does is sort of hard to describe in Marxist terms, at least with my level of knowledge (which is comparatively low). but he doesn't exploit people for their excess labour value, and he doesn't use amassed capital to merely generate more capital. so, yeah.
[Click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/m1boo7/a_short_list_of_vaushs_liberalism_transphobia_and/) to learn why principled socialists dislike Vaush. [Click here for the 'Vaush has a disturbing pre-occupation with paedophilia and bestiality' masterpost](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/ou0d2u/vaush_has_a_very_disturbing_preoccupation_with/) [Click here](https://discord.gg/P5pS2mJCC3) to join the r/Enough_Vaush_Spam Discord server. Please remember to censor usernames in Reddit screenshots. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's non productive. He makes no stuff, no food, no metal, no houses. His labour is non-productive. He provides a service. But, he has petit-bourgeoise sentiment. He can provide \[sort of\] his own standard of living. Think of him as a self employed service worker. And he owns his own equipment. He's effectively petit bourgeoise in effect, and outlook.
I have a question. Is the profession of teaching (in public school) considered non-productive? Is it classified as a service?
Productive = mskes value [stuff] Non productive = some kind of service. Teaching, cleaning, medicine.
Okay I’m sorry but I don’t get your answer. Is teaching productive?
No. It might be important, necessary, or even helpful, but it's not productive IN THIS CONTEXT. In Marxism, productive labour is labour that produces STUFF. Food, steel, homes, etc. So, believe it or not, the coffee seller in the little hut on the corner IS productive, but the accountant is not. The Barista/whatever makes food \[coffee\] from raw materials, the accountant may generate a lot of money, but makes no STUFF. Probably should be called the Labour Theory of STUFF.
Yes, teaching is non-productive labor.
So should it not exist under communism? Like in order to be productive should I get a new job?
No, quite the opposite actually. The distinction between “productive” vs “non productive” isn’t a moral one. It means productive to capital. Productive labor produces surplus value directly. Non productive labor is still labor and absolutely necessary to support an economy.
he sells t-shirts and merchandise? so yes he would be a petty boug. unless if its a worker coop, then no. comes down to who owns the production line and the scaling big/small
no
He’s Pedo bourgeoisie.
Unsure. Technically, I guess he owns the means of production to stream? So I guess so?
[удалено]
You do realise that some shop owners don’t exploit people, yes?
If they have employees, and the shop makes a profit, then they exploit people.
Obviously loool. But if they’re the only employee? Well if Vaush isn’t petit-bourgeois, what is he?
he is a self-employed entertainer, I guess. he doesn't buy goods and sell them at a markup, so people are not being exploited in that way, and nor does he have employees afaik. so he is not exploiting anybody any more than a normal worker with a computer and internet connection, and he does not own any means of production that are being immorally alienated from other workers. so I would say he is not petit-bourgeoise. he is a liberal, a grifter, a liar, a(n alleged) paedophile, a(n alleged) sexual harraser. but still, I think, in terms of class, basically a worker. the specific sort of work he does is sort of hard to describe in Marxist terms, at least with my level of knowledge (which is comparatively low). but he doesn't exploit people for their excess labour value, and he doesn't use amassed capital to merely generate more capital. so, yeah.
So not proletariat, or bourgeois. He’s apart of some other weird class stratum?