My only gripe is the lack of a clear ask. But perfect is the enemy of good.
Economically, the BDS movement is making demands of so many companies that there’s hardly a large firm or other organization in the country they don’t have a problem with. But if you are saying you’re going to boycott everyone, it means you’re not really boycotting anyone.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...:
The bourgeoisie are literally the middle class [1].
That being said, I don’t have a problem with people standing up for what they believe, even when it has no practical impact. It’s good character building. I would expect that Sundar is similarly unbothered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_class#Bourg...
There is even a funny article here: https://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-bourgeoisie-primer
There is more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/hilk3e/trying...
So, if you want to play it safe, you can say, "it's the upper middle class that own the businesses and factories"
I'll give it to you
The "no" is incorrect. Some people use it to refer to the upper middle class. But this betrays the term's original Revolutionary as well as Marxists roots, and I'd argue, is inherently incorrect.
The main reason we blur these lines is because we want to call our poor middle class. And our rich don't want to admit that we're rich.
> it's the upper middle class that own the businesses and factories
I.e. everyone with a 401(k). (Two fifths of Americans have no material shareownership.)
If you don’t own equities or real estate in America, you’re poor. If you do, you’re middle class or rich. And if you’re middle class or rich and confused which you are, if you have ever chartered a private plane you’re rich, if you haven’t you’re the bourgeoisie.
At least something I agree with you, it quite makes sense