One of the supposed advantages of capitalist domination of our economies is that a group of profit seeking elites would at least put their thumb on the scale to stop economic self-owns like Brexit, instead the elites enthusiastically supported it at every juncture.
Excluding actual wars, Brexit is one of the greatest own-goals of all time. Britain and Europe had forged something their finest leaders and intellectuals considered an impossible dream: an alliance of shared prosperity.
Then Britain tore it up in a fit of nativist dipshittery.
I feel like this is a huge case of, like, the elites are less interested in being richer than they are in being locally more powerful in really petty ways, and I'm very disappointed in them.
Once you hit the point where you can pretty much do as you please any further money is just power that you can wield over others. The rich care about power; money is only one form that power takes.
But the ways in which they're becoming more powerful due to Brexit are so petty compared to what they're losing! Then again I've always thought they were fundamentally broken by their abusive schooling systems.
In a capitalist authoritarian state, the bourgeoisie are the power. They want authoritarians who will rule in their favor, the way they want. And that's what they get.
I think at the point where we're talking this kind of theory we need to be deliberate about our definition of bourgeoisie, because there's a lot of variance in definition.
This is really dumb in a "you don't understand the very basics of anything" kind of way and either it's genuine ignorance in which case I'm not interested in talking to you or it's malicious bad faith in which case I'm offended by the idea of talking to you but either way I'm done here, bye!
