Just wanna expand on this¶

Just wanna expand on this. There's a deeply counterproductive impulse among "Orthodox Marxists" to pare class down to a simple proletariat-vs-bourgeoisie dialectic, and subordinate other social relations to the realm of not-quite-class. https://t.co/kj3Micrmq6 The reason Marxists have historically defined class based on access to the means of production is because that production is what shapes the entire economy, and through that, the whole of society. But it doesn't just end at "do you or do you not own the MoP." For example, one major factor dominating the mode of production is the acquisition of raw materials, the need for which necessitates regimenting access to land. This dynamic drives the settler-indigenous relation, which is just as much a class relation as proletariat-bourgeois. Another factor that modulates Prole v. Booj is the determination of what kind of labor any given subpopulation is even allowed to perform. The concept of a precariat as a distinct entity from the classical proletariat is the ability to access wage labor in the first place. The oppressed social classes comrade Persephone was referring to are cohorts that are, for various reasons, disproportionately barred from the "legitimate economy," and relegated to scraping together the means of survival at a higher rate than the dominant cohort. There are too many subtle and overt mechanisms enforcing this ostracism to examine here, but suffice to say, they comprise just as powerful a set of social and economic forces as those regimenting ownership over the means of production. The reason it's important to identify these cohorts as classes specifically is because these relations drive revolutionary movement, due to their barring access to the means of survival. People who barely survive under the status quo are the ones who fight to abolish it.