Seriously, what end could splitting hairs over “peasants” or “artisans” possibly serve (And are those hundreds of years old terms even relevant in our world with our technology?)? Even the petit bourgeois is oppressed by the owning class, the system convincing them that a “middle class” exists is part of the fucking con, and the whole fucking point is to see how irrelevant these semantics are and fucking unite so that we can have a better society for everyone… 🤦‍♀️

You haven’t read marxist or anarchist theories very well if this is what you think.

Artisans are any one man business. They don’t have employers to exploit them that’s why they are an important class in marxist analysis.

Petty bourgeois aren’t middle class necessarily; it refers to small business owners. They are exploiters of the workers beneath them while being exploited by others. Small time land lords would be petit bourgeois for example. These people are in essence part of the “owner class” because they own a business or building.

Peasants are not considered to be a revolutionary class because they aren’t the proletariat. Not a problem in western societies but some countries still have peasants.

all of the systemic barriers we face (racism, sexism, ableism, querrphobia, and so on) exist to serve capitalism and those who benefit from it.

You don’t think racism affects business owners or landlords? Or sexism? Or anything else?

This is the kind of assertion given without evidence that made me leave marxists behind. I am sick to death of people claiming all these problems are because of capitalism. If anything capitalism has helped address some of these issues like sexism because women not working is bad for the system. In fact not fully utilizing people because of prejudice in general is bad for capitalism which is all about efficiency and exploitation.

Edit: also policy regarding peasants is one area where marxism and anarchism differ significantly from what little I understand of anarchism.