How do you identify a person's social class?

[benhur]

Those who work, but don't sell their labor. But they do sell things, as in internet business, but have no employees working for them. What class are they?

Those who don't work, don't sell anything, don't have workers, but they simply live off ancestral property. Are they neither proletarian nor bourgeois?

Those who work and earn so much money, that they invest in small business of their own. So on the one hand, they sell labor, but they also have a small business which is managed by a small team he's hired. They're both workers and bourgeois, then?:confused:

[Invincible Summer]

Those who work, but don't sell their labor. But they do sell things, as in internet business, but have no employees working for them. What class are they?

So, for example, online merchants or possibly even eBay sellers who earn money by simply selling things on eBay? Or day-traders, even?

I'd say they're petty-bourgeoisie. A similar situation would be small-businesses (which are petty-bourgeoisie) that are family-owned and, from my observation, do not have one "boss," but everyone is simply a worker in the business.


Those who don't work, don't sell anything, don't have workers, but they simply live off ancestral property. Are they neither proletarian nor bourgeois?

You mean people who live off inheritance and just do nothing? That's a tricky one.


Those who work and earn so much money, that they invest in small business of their own. So on the one hand, they sell labor, but they also have a small business which is managed by a small team he's hired. They're both workers and bourgeois, then?:confused:

Small-businesses are the core of the petty-bourgeois.

[JimmyJazz]

Those who work, but don't sell their labor. But they do sell things, as in internet business, but have no employees working for them. What class are they?

Selling/trading has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. It's a lie (albeit a common one) to say that the presence of trading/selling indicates the presence of capitalism. Capital indicates the presence of capitalism. One's relationship to the means of production/capital determines one's class, not whether one is engaged in buying and selling (even for profit).

Or to give a slightly more in-depth answer: simply buying and selling things for profit would qualify you as a capitalist under merchant capitalism, but not under the modern kind--which is defined by the means of production themselves having become capital:


II. Capital and Capitalism

Capital in Pre-capitalist Society

Between primitive society founded on a natural economy in which production is limited to use values destined for self-consumption by their producers, and capitalist society, there stretches a long period in human history, embracing essentially all human civilizations, which came to a halt before reaching the frontiers of capitalism. Marxism defines them as societies in which small-scale commodity production prevailed. A society of this kind is already familiar with the production of commodities, of goods designed for exchange on the market and not for direct consumption by the producers, but such commodity production has not yet become generalized, as is the case in capitalist society.


In a society founded on small-scale commodity production, two kinds of economic operations are carried out. The peasants and artisans who bring their products to market wish to sell goods whose use value they themselves cannot use in order to obtain money, means of exchange, for the acquisition of other goods, whose use value is either necessary to them or deemed more important than the use value of the goods they own.


The peasant brings wheat to the marketplace which he sells for money; with this money he buys, let us say, cloth. The artisan brings his cloth to the market, which he sells for money; with this money he buys, let us say, wheat.


What we have here, then, is the operation: selling in order to buy. Commodity–Money–Commodity, C–M–C which has this essential character: the value of the two extremes in this formula is, by definition, exactly the same.


But within small-scale commodity production there appears, alongside the artisan and small peasant, another personage, who executes a different kind of economic operation. Instead of selling in order to buy, he buys in order to sell. This type of person goes to market without any commodities; he is an owner of money. Money cannot be sold; but it can be used to buy, and that is what he does: buys in order to sell, in order to resell: M–C–M’.


There is a fundamental difference between the two types of operation. The second operation makes no sense if upon its completion we are confronted by exactly the same value as we had at the beginning. No one buys a commodity in order to sell it for exactly the same price he paid for it. The operation “buy in order to sell” makes sense only if the sale brings a supplementary value, a surplus value. That is why we state here, by way of definition. M’ is greater than M and is made up of M+m; m being the surplus value, the amount of increase in the value of M.


We now define capital as a value which is increased by a surplus value, whether this occurs in the course of commodity circulation, as in the example just given, or in production, as is the case in the capitalist system. Capital, therefore, is every value which is augmented by a surplus value; it therefore exists not only in capitalist society but in any society founded on small-scale commodity production as well. For this reason it is necessary to distinguish very clearly between the life of capital and that of the capitalist mode of production, of capitalist society. Capital is far older than the capitalist mode of production. The former probably goes back some 3,000 years, whereas the latter is barely 200 years old.


What form does capital take in precapitalist society? It is basically usury capital and merchant or commercial capital. The passage from precapitalist society into capitalist society is characterized by the penetration of capital into the sphere of production. The capitalist mode of production is the first mode of production, the first form of social organization, in which capital is not limited to the sole role of an intermediary and exploiter of non-capitalist forms of production, of small-scale commodity production. In the capitalist mode of production, capital takes over the means of production and penetrates directly into production itself.

A capitalist is one who owns capital. In modern society, the main form that capital takes is in the MoP. Thus the modern capitalist class is the group of people who monopolize the MoP. A "proletarian" is someone whose relationship to the MoP is that of propertyless laborer.

In merchant capitalism, the term "proletarian" is meaningless, as the merchant bourgeoisie do not employ wage labor, they simply circulate already-produced commodities (buying low and selling high) to increase their capital.

[Blackscare]

Honestly I'm not opposed to prosperity (within reason) as long as it's not gained though manipulative and coercive means. depending on where you stand on trade, that may or may not apply to small scale ebay type operations.

[ashaman1324]

Those who work, but don't sell their labor. But they do sell things, as in internet business, but have no employees working for them. What class are they?
hmm...
worker i think, he works to resell the goods.


Those who don't work, don't sell anything, don't have workers, but they simply live off ancestral property. Are they neither proletarian nor bourgeois?
im not sure what you mean on this one.
they dont work or sell anything, but have the capital to survive...
i think you mean if a farmer only grows enough crops for his own needs, and is self supporting, i consider him a worker. because he doesn't exploit anyones labor and works to pay himself by eventually harvesting the crops hes worked to grow.


Those who work and earn so much money, that they invest in small business of their own. So on the one hand, they sell labor, but they also have a small business which is managed by a small team he's hired. They're both workers and bourgeois, then?:confused:
hes exploiting the small team by not splitting the profits equally.
this one kind of answers itself.

[davidasearles]

At the boundary between the two classes it is not that definite, especially with the ever increasing concentration of capital.

But who's a capitalist and who's not is even less clear when the capitalist process of the exploitation of labor almost runs on auto-pilot, A dollar is sent off in investment with the main instruction given, bring back more. Especially when so many workers receive retirement wages through 401(k) programs the difference between a capitalist dollar and a worker dollar becomes indistinguishable.

[Post-Something]

Those who work, but don't sell their labor. But they do sell things, as in internet business, but have no employees working for them. What class are they?

Petite Bourgeois


Those who don't work, don't sell anything, don't have workers, but they simply live off ancestral property. Are they neither proletarian nor bourgeois?

They stand outside of class in a way. But they are Bourgeois.


Those who work and earn so much money, that they invest in small business of their own. So on the one hand, they sell labor, but they also have a small business which is managed by a small team he's hired. They're both workers and bourgeois, then?:confused:

Petite Bourgeois.

[Janine Melnitz]

Post-Something probably has it right (I say "probably" because I'm not too clear on the second case, or idle people in general...which calls to mind...)

Someone living on the dole/disability/what-have-you?

Also: Civil servants. This is something that's bothered me about Marx's class definitions; a public librarian creates no surplus-value, while a star football player generates tons. So the latter is proletarian, and the former is not? Seems absurd.

[Charles Xavier]

If they own things and recieve their whole take from the backs of some else's labour than they are bourgeioisie.

If they own things but they are still required to work in their business meet they are petty-bourgeiosie. Like a shop keeper, a family owned farm, or artisan or mechanic who runs their own shop.

If they are employed in order to make a wage and has nothing to sell other than his labour, then they are proletariat.

If they beg, steal, commit crimes or prostitute themselves, they are lumpen proletariat.

[griffjam]

Those who don't work, don't sell anything, don't have workers, but they simply live off ancestral property. Are they neither proletarian nor bourgeois?


That's an aristocrat.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If they are employed in order to make a wage and has nothing to sell other than his labour, then they are proletariat.


If they ... prostitute themselves, they are lumpen proletariat.

Would you be kind enough to explain the distinction?


If they ... commit crimes ... they are lumpen proletariat.

Nice to see Stalinists have such respect for bourgeois legality.

(Note, I'm just pulling your leg on this one, even though you have worded it badly)

[Charles Xavier]

Would you be kind enough to explain the distinction?



Nice to see Stalinists have such respect for bourgeois legality.

(Note, I'm just pulling your leg on this one, even though you have worded it badly)


The distinction is people who are so desperate to survive will resort to the only option left to them, which is to beg or rob or have sex on the street, rather than work for a wage at a workplace.

Like robbing people for a living is what I'm referring to. Being a hood in a mafia.

I fail to see how I mentioned Stalin.

[benhur]

That's an aristocrat.

What do you mean by aristocrat? It's my situation, and I can tell you I am no aristocrat.;)

[benhur]

If they own things and recieve their whole take from the backs of some else's labour than they are bourgeioisie.

If they own things but they are still required to work in their business meet they are petty-bourgeiosie. Like a shop keeper, a family owned farm, or artisan or mechanic who runs their own shop.

If they are employed in order to make a wage and has nothing to sell other than his labour, then they are proletariat.

If they beg, steal, commit crimes or prostitute themselves, they are lumpen proletariat.

Thanks, but what about people who do neither, that is, their ancestors have accumulated quite a lot, and PRESENTLY, they don't exploit workers to expand wealth, nor do they sell labor to survive. So if they're neither prole nor bourgeois, then what are they?

[griffjam]

A member of the aristocracy. The landed gentry. The holders of hereditary titles. The "nobles" of Europe. The ruling class during feudalism. The people that the American founding fathers resented. The people who owned land when land was the only means of production. An antebellum southern plantation owner. The people the serfs worked for (Peter Kropotkin's father). The people that the bourgeoisie used the workers to revolt against during the French Revolution.

[Charles Xavier]

Thanks, but what about people who do neither, that is, their ancestors have accumulated quite a lot, and PRESENTLY, they don't exploit workers to expand wealth, nor do they sell labor to survive. So if they're neither prole nor bourgeois, then what are they?

Bourgeoisie... they don't work for a living they just sit and collect interest or speculate

[Decommissioner]

I often wonder what class I would fall into.

All of my livelihood and income relies upon my shitty service industry job, which would make me a proletarian. But I also run a small DIY venue with some friends. We are all equal co-owners, but we do not personally profit off of the money, all the income goes to rent and bands' gas money, plus other expenses. Since there isn't really any sort of mechanism in place that could keep us from pocketing the money (since we are not yet listed as a non-profit organization), does that make me a petite-bourgeoisie?

And if so, would that make me a proletarian and a petite-bourgeoisie at the same time?

Also, say I started a record store. I know for sure this would land me as a petite-bourgeoisie, but I have no qualms with this as I do not intend to hire anyone for wage labor. If this does happen, my friends and I will start it as co-owners and we will share the profits without parasitically exploiting workers. My worry with this is how will this affect my ability to partake in leftist organizations? Will my voice not be counted along with the workers even though I am a genuine communist? The way I look at it, what we would be doing is something all workers will be allowed to do after the revolution, only without having to deal with the chaos of the markets.

The possibility of starting up a record store hinges on whether or not I get this tour bus driving job, so it's not as though I just have money lying around and have the leisure of throwing it into big risky investments of that nature. As of now I still live paycheck to paycheck.

[Z.Hume]

They are entrepreneurial (regarding your first question), and would therefore exploit, at some level, a member of labor. I think, ultimately, it was part of class subdivisions that Marx, nor Lenin, accounted for (in the US we'd call them "lower-middle class" and "upper-middle class", whatever those mean). The way I determine it is by a sort of "Oppression Scale": In the chain of resource-product how many members of the labor community rely on this entrepreneur? From the people who harvest the cotton, to the textile workers to the shipping centers, to the website that sells the logo'd T-shirts, how many people rise/fall at the whim of the omnipotent administrator?

Beyond that, I can't get more specific. There's a term, "Lumpenproletariat", and it refers to those Marx saw as unemployed and not actively supporting, through labor, their community. From the unemployed, couch potato who lives without, to the "relaxed gentleman" who resides within his ancestors' gains, they are both a threat to the proles, the labor class. One refuses to work for the common society, the other doesn't work because of capital gain. I consider the bourgeoisie to be those, actively pursuing ends that cause the means to be the oppression of the largest class, the working class.

[CommieCat]

The surplus labor army, or the 'unemployed' =/= lumpen proletariat, but the lumpen proletariat makes up one of its three divisions (floating, latent & stagnant). And likewise, Marx divided the lumpen proletariat up into three divisions: those able to work, orphans and pauper children & those unable to work (Marx notes as those victims of industry, the sick etc).

There is a common misconception that the lumpen proletariat = criminals. But its more complex than that.

The person's incorrect definition above of lumpen proletariat would include, for example, land-lords, which is pure nonsense.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm#S4

[CommieCat]

From the unemployed, couch potato who lives without, to the "relaxed gentleman" who resides within his ancestors' gains, they are both a threat to the proles, the labor class. One refuses to work for the common society, the other doesn't work because of capital gain.

The funny thing is, that this is exactly what the capitalist says: you who do not work, are of no use (i.e. $) to me, therefore you are an enemy of society (which is also why the classical economists (apart from Malthus) were hostile to land-lords). Yet capitalist relations both create and require a surplus labor population. You've fallen for bourgeoisie ethics.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The distinction is people who are so desperate to survive will resort to the only option left to them, which is to beg or rob or have sex on the street, rather than work for a wage at a workplace.

And what is the working class but those so desperate to service that they have to perpetually sell the only commodity they possess - labour-power. A prostitute is no different from a factory worker, they both sell their labour-power (to a capitalist or a pimp), are put to work (working within the factory or performing sex acts), are paid a wage and generate surplus-value for their employer.


I fail to see how I mentioned Stalin.

You didn't.

[Floyce White]

An upper-class family owns things that are used by others. A lower-class family does not.

For sure, upper-class individuals busy themselves with forever "making businesses" and "doing business."