#left stuff

honestly you have to kind of blame this on the discourse drift that tried to suggest that "pmc class" is a coherent class in itself and not covered already under the remit of "petit bourgeoisie" which adequately covers the fact that the petit bourgeoisie do in fact have capital which is put towards investment purposes (whether in land (i.e. a house) or other fixed assets or financial assets (e.g. stocks and shares, but also tbh fixed deposits or any interest earning monetary asset)), just not at the scale of the haute bourgeoisie. which in turn, frankly, is the kind of misunderstanding borne of a total incapability of understanding how the modern financial system works. and of course, the insecurities of the middle classes,,,

i guess, i suppose, we would all benefit from a stricter definition of terms when using them in an article - what exactly does bourgeoise mean & how are you using it? what sort of relationship to capital does it describe meaningfully? where exactly does insurance fit in the picture when insurance becomes an investment instrument - is an investment instrument a form of capital and a form of production? but of course those are complicated questions that would require more than what is an op-ed for a left-lib paper. might save some of the dogpiling heartache and at least avoid the kind of people who want to seriously argue that being bourgeoise is not just about earning above $50k a year (a serious critique spotted in the wild).