Petty Bourgois

[BabylonHoruv]

Yeah, I spelled it wrong. Pick a better word for capitalist if you don't like it. On to my main point.

I see the petty bourgois considered not a revolutionary class on most discussions on Anarchist and Marxist boards. However Marx himself was a self employed man, he was petty bourgois.

Because the petty bourgois are more self sustaining than the proleteriat (another word that is a nightmare, if this revolution is going to be accessible to an english speaking working class we need better terms) they have the opportunity to engage in revolutionary activity without immediately endangering trheir own livelihoods. The bosses aren't going to fire them becuase they don't have bosses. Revolution of the proleteriat has to be a roughly all or nothing affair, if part of the factory goes on strike they just get fired, revolution of the petty bourgois can build up from one to a few to several to all.

[Rusty Shackleford]

these words are not that hard to grasp. i may fumble in the use of them but still. i get the concept pretty well.

and, these words are not going to hinder a revolution IMO.

is it not like a church? Millions of people go to them and they use fancy words too, sacrament? evangelism? Eucharist? and the upper people probably use the terms ecclesiastic and so on. yet it does not hinder the infection of the masses with religion.

people can still grasp the ideas without knowing EVERYTHING. not everyone is going to take the time to read Capital/Das Kapital (i have not yet. but then again i have not read much yet.) or the countless pamphlets and books that relate to the idea.

thats just my take on the words.

as for the petit-bourgeois, someone else can probably answer that much better than i.

[BabylonHoruv]

Das Kapital is an easy book, and I am not faulting Marx for using these words. I am faulting modern revolutionaries. The majority of the proleteriat don't consider themselves proleteriat, they consider themselves "working class" which is, in my opinion, a far better word to use in an english speaking nation. Rather than sounding academic it clearly conjures up exactly what is meant. I still don't know exactly what a lumpenproleteriat is, and the word itself is long enough that a lot of proles will have glazed over eyes by the time you finish saying it.

I didnb't really start the thread to talk about terminology, but i will if that is what people prefer. Ironically Petty Bourgeois are much more likely to use these sorts of words than proleteriat are.

[Rusty Shackleford]

ill take a stab at it.

im guessing the reason the petty/petit bourgeois would not be revolutionary is in their name, they are capitalists, not matter how large or small.
their livelihood comes from the fact that they employ people under them to work the capital that they themselves own to turn a profit.

there may be some that do have interests in revolution but it would seem pretty hypocritical.

as for the proletariat begin endangered when taking action. "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. they have a world to win." - Marx; The communist Manifesto that pretty much sums it up.

Now, the business owners, yes they may have no bosses to fire them, but how many people would take them seriously if they themselves are contributing to the enemy of the class they are appealing to? It can give them more freedom to do what they will but in the end, it still seems hypocritical, but im sure theres and exception.

[BabylonHoruv]

I had assumed Petty bourgeoise included the self employed, artisans and so forth who own their own means of production without employing others. If it does not I don't know the term for them, as they do not survive on selling their labor as the Proleteriat do. These are the people I am referring to who tend to find the easiest time being revolutionaries.

Also, contrary to rhetoric the Proles do have more to lose than their chains, They have the food which feeds themselves and their families, they have their houses (usually rented and thus making them that much more dependent on their wage) they have also, all the conveniences they are told they require by consumer society, their cable televison and internet, their various hobbies, take away their income and they lose all of these things.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I had assumed Petty bourgeoise included the self employed, artisans and so forth who own their own means of production without employing others. If it does not I don't know the term for them, as they do not survive on selling their labor as the Proleteriat do. These are the people I am referring to who tend to find the easiest time being revolutionaries. as i said, i took a stab at it. i also stand corrected in that it does include the self employed and in a case where they do not employ others. So, in that case, i guess you could say they would have an easier time being revolutionary. how sincere it would be i do not know. Since their ability to make money is non-exploitive then all they would have to be willing to is to give up their profits for social good. i doubt thats very likely because (in my view) handicraftsmen and the like keep such work because it can afford them higher profits.

also, contrary to rhetoric the Proles do have more to lose than their chains, They have the food which feeds themselves and their families, they have their houses (usually rented and thus making them that much more dependent on their wage) they have also, all the conveniences they are told they require by consumer society, their cable televison and internet, their various hobbies, take away their income and they lose all of these things.
If they get fired, they can find more work, the way it is now, you just have to graduate high school to find work, if that. but them getting fired exposes their co-workers to class consciousness. as for families, that should definitely be taken into consideration though. but theres no sense in not trying.

i think everyone has the potential to be revolutionary. it just depends on how sincere they are and how much they are willing to give up. class is a huge factor, and the class one is in has a profound effect on their views. there still may be one or two dissenters.

[el_chavista]

I had assumed Petty bourgeoise included the self employed, artisans and so forth who own their own means of production without employing others...they do not survive on selling their labor as the Proleteriat do. These are the people I am referring to who tend to find the easiest time being revolutionaries. :thumbup1:

Also, contrary to rhetoric the Proles do have more to lose than their chains :confused:, They have the food which feeds themselves and their families, they have their houses (usually rented and thus making them that much more dependent on their wage) they have also, all the conveniences they are told they require by consumer society, their cable televison and internet, their various hobbies, take away their income and they lose all of these things.

Proletarian comes from the Latin word "prole" (offspring), meaning those ancient poor Romans who didn't let heritage but their own offspring to Roma. In the Marxist sense, those who have no means of production.

But the petit bourgeoisie social layer has become more complicated. For instance, non stockholder CEO's even have the control of the enterprises they manage, but they aren't actually capitalists.

[Vincent P.]

Do you guys imply petite-bourgeoisie includes freelancers? :confused:
I plan give private lessons as a summer job and I'm a bit of a freelance guitarist for the very reason that I'm a bit reluctant - or to be more precise, violently refusing (exept in cases of near-absolute necessity like this summer) - to get exploitated by capitalist.

This summer I work 12-14 hour a day, 4-5 day/week al almost the minimal wage to pay my first year of college. I have little to no time for myself, let alone class struggle, as my weekends are spent sleeping and doing necessary stuff which can't be done during the week. My future plan: prepare some private language and guitar lessons, so that I'll be able to own the whole outcome of my work (BIG moral satisfaction) and have better work conditions (20-25 bucks per hour, so that I'll have to work 20-30 hours/week instead of this summer's 50-60 hour/week. I don't mind taking an extra part-time job if I lack clients, or to being paid less than I am now.).

All this to end up like many great thinkers like Spinoza: having a stable, independent job which permits you to survive while leaving you lots of extra time to give yourself to what you love: socialism, philosophy, physics and music in my case.

Can you blame me for not wanting to work at McDo?:rolleyes: Let's-be-all-throat-deep-in-shit pseudo-solidarity has limits.

[BabylonHoruv]

Do you guys imply petite-bourgeoisie includes freelancers? :confused:
I plan give private lessons as a summer job and I'm a bit of a freelance guitarist for the very reason that I'm a bit reluctant - or to be more precise, violently refusing (exept in cases of near-absolute necessity like this summer) - to get exploitated by capitalist.

This summer I work 12-14 hour a day, 4-5 day/week al almost the minimal wage to pay my first year of college. I have little to no time for myself, let alone class struggle, as my weekends are spent sleeping and doing necessary stuff which can't be done during the week. My future plan: prepare some private language and guitar lessons, so that I'll be able to own the whole outcome of my work (BIG moral satisfaction) and have better work conditions (20-25 bucks per hour, so that I'll have to work 30-40 hours/week instead of this summer's 50-60 hour/week. I don't mind taking an extra part-time job if I lack clients, or to being paid less than I am now.).

All this to end up like many great thinkers like Spinoza: having a stable, independent job which permits you to survive while leaving you lots of extra time to give yourself to what you love: socialism, philosophy, physics and music in my case.

Can you blame me for not wanting to work at McDo?:rolleyes:

This is exactly my point. The self employed (petite Bourgeoise) are the ones most likely to be able to be revolutionary. Poor enough that they don't benefit from the current system, but self sufficient enough that they can work for it;s overthrow and still have a livelihood. It also ties into the other point, which vacant picked up on, that using academic terms that are not easily and immediate understood makes for confusion. Self employed and small business owner, are two different things, people hearing petitie bourgeoise, even if they are familiar enough with the term to have an idea what it means, could quite easily be thinking of one or the other of these and understanding it differently than the person who used the term. And if i9t is used to refer to both the self employed and the small business owner it is not precise enough.

[Vincent P.]

Absolutly. I'm not owning anything but the product of my work, I'm working solo. It's not as if I was one these small compagny owner with 2-3 employee which we could indeed qualify as Petit-bourgeois. What I'm doing is socialism-in-one-man.

But I'm pretty sure some people here do want to keep the definition of petite-bourgeoisie fuzzy. Petty-bourgeois (badly englicized term from the original french petit-bourgeois, small bourgeoisie, which is much more meaningful than petty bourgeoisie which could also be interpretated as pseudo-bourgeoisie or near-bourgeoisie, hence the misunderstanding) is one of the fetish insult of some marxists here... kinda like the anarchist's "facist" I guess :p.

[#FF0000]

This is exactly my point. The self employed (petite Bourgeoise) are the ones most likely to be able to be revolutionary. Poor enough that they don't benefit from the current system, but self sufficient enough that they can work for it;s overthrow and still have a livelihood. It also ties into the other point, which vacant picked up on, that using academic terms that are not easily and immediate understood makes for confusion. Self employed and small business owner, are two different things, people hearing petitie bourgeoise, even if they are familiar enough with the term to have an idea what it means, could quite easily be thinking of one or the other of these and understanding it differently than the person who used the term. And if i9t is used to refer to both the self employed and the small business owner it is not precise enough.

Uh, no.

I copied this totally from Prairie Fire from this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-worker-more-t110840/index.html) thread.



The petty-bourgeoisie ( in this case, the farm owners,) struggles under the weight of competition with the bourgeoisie for markets and profits, which is why sections of this class are often radicalized during revolutionary periods. However, after the bourgeoisie has been removed through revolution, and the threat to their small buisnesses and enterprises has been removed, they have no desire nor economic need to socialize their own buisness or abolish their own exploitive relations with their own workers. The petty-bourgeoisie are employers and exploiters in their own right, and for this reason the emancipation of the working class is generally not in their class interests, hence they settle for the bourgeois revolution, but can never play a leadership role in a socialist revolution.

[#FF0000]

Do you guys imply petite-bourgeoisie includes freelancers? :confused:
I plan give private lessons as a summer job and I'm a bit of a freelance guitarist for the very reason that I'm a bit reluctant - or to be more precise, violently refusing (exept in cases of near-absolute necessity like this summer) - to get exploitated by capitalist.

This summer I work 12-14 hour a day, 4-5 day/week al almost the minimal wage to pay my first year of college. I have little to no time for myself, let alone class struggle, as my weekends are spent sleeping and doing necessary stuff which can't be done during the week. My future plan: prepare some private language and guitar lessons, so that I'll be able to own the whole outcome of my work (BIG moral satisfaction) and have better work conditions (20-25 bucks per hour, so that I'll have to work 20-30 hours/week instead of this summer's 50-60 hour/week. I don't mind taking an extra part-time job if I lack clients, or to being paid less than I am now.).

All this to end up like many great thinkers like Spinoza: having a stable, independent job which permits you to survive while leaving you lots of extra time to give yourself to what you love: socialism, philosophy, physics and music in my case.

Can you blame me for not wanting to work at McDo?:rolleyes: Let's-be-all-throat-deep-in-shit pseudo-solidarity has limits.

Nobody's going to call you less of a socialist for being petit-bourgeois...

[BabylonHoruv]

Uh, no.

I copied this totally from Prairie Fire from this thread.

heh, no nests, but just to make it clear which post i am responding to.

Anyway, I think this demonstrates why using the same word to refer to the self employed and to small business owners is confusing and not a useful practice. A farm owner may have the means and the desire to expand into a full member of the bourgeoisie. A craftsman, artisan, or freelancer who does not emply others has neither the means nor the inclination to expand into a member of the bourgeoisie, however, as they are not dependent on the exploitation of their own labor to survive they can also not be considered a part of the proleteriat.

[Vincent P.]

The petty-bourgeoisie ( in this case, the farm owners,) struggles under the weight of competition with the bourgeoisie for markets and profits, which is why sections of this class are often radicalized during revolutionary periods. However, after the bourgeoisie has been removed through revolution, and the threat to their small buisnesses and enterprises has been removed, they have no desire nor economic need to socialize their own buisness or abolish their own exploitive relations with their own workers. The petty-bourgeoisie are employers and exploiters in their own right, and for this reason the emancipation of the working class is generally not in their class interests, hence they settle for the bourgeois revolution, but can never play a leadership role in a socialist revolution.
Only the bold parts could be revelant to my condition, and the second part could be revelant only in the case that by socialization you mean collectivisation, which isn't the case in anarcho-mutualism.

Oh and BTW I'm not an a-mutualist. It's much, much better than capitalism and if I could live long enough live in such as society I would be more than hapy, but I'm still taking a-communism as my ideal.

[Il Medico]

Yeah, I spelled it wrong. Pick a better word for capitalist if you don't like it. On to my main point.

I see the petty bourgois considered not a revolutionary class on most discussions on Anarchist and Marxist boards. However Marx himself was a self employed man, he was petty bourgois.

Because the petty bourgois are more self sustaining than the proleteriat (another word that is a nightmare, if this revolution is going to be accessible to an english speaking working class we need better terms) they have the opportunity to engage in revolutionary activity without immediately endangering trheir own livelihoods. The bosses aren't going to fire them becuase they don't have bosses. Revolution of the proleteriat has to be a roughly all or nothing affair, if part of the factory goes on strike they just get fired, revolution of the petty bourgois can build up from one to a few to several to all.
Based on some things I have read on the subject and my own observances, I doubt the petit-bourgeois will be around by the time the proletariat develops enough class consciousness for the revolution to start. The petit-bourgeois are the small time competitors of the bourgeois. They are a group which is continually being forced into one of the two classes. Most going into the working class or proletariat. My family on my dad's side used to be petit-bourgeois in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. However, they have since been pushed into the working class. My dad seems to have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the "American Dream" is a falsity. However, as more and more become part of the working class they will realize the bourgeois oppression and join the cause of proletariat. Their introduction could also lead to greater class consciousness among the proletariat themselves, as they see these better off people "not making it", they may start to realize how big of a lie the 'work hard and succeed' line is.

As for your objection to bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, and proletariat, who cares what you think? You sound like my republican father. Just because the word is big, doesn't mean the English speaking proletariat can't understand it. This is a huge insult to intelligence of people in the working class. :glare:

[( R )evolution]

I have not read through all the posts so I am sorry if this answer has been giving before. Petit-bourgeois are in no way a revolutionary force because they are aspiring to be bourgeois so thus they share the same values and sometimes agenda as the bourgeois. Why would they support a workers revolution if they aspiring to become the owners and exploiters of the workers. They are counterrevolutionary. But most petit-bourgeois do not remain so, most fall back into being proletariats because there business fail.

[( R )evolution]

Yeah, I spelled it wrong. Pick a better word for capitalist if you don't like it. On to my main point.

Being a pompous prick is not a good way to start here.

[BabylonHoruv]

Based on some things I have read on the subject and my own observances, I doubt the petit-bourgeois will be around by the time the proletariat develops enough class consciousness for the revolution to start. The petit-bourgeois are the small time competitors of the bourgeois. They are a group which is continually being forced into one of the two classes. Most going into the working class or proletariat. My family on my dad's side used to be petit-bourgeois in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. However, they have since been pushed into the working class. My dad seems to have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the "American Dream" is a falsity. However, as more and more become part of the working class they will realize the bourgeois oppression and join the cause of proletariat. Their introduction could also lead to greater class consciousness among the proletariat themselves, as they see these better off people "not making it", they may start to realize how big of a lie the 'work hard and succeed' line is.

As for your objection to bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, and proletariat, who cares what you think? You sound like my republican father. Just because the word is big, doesn't mean the English speaking proletariat can't understand it. This is a huge insult to intelligence of people in the working class. :glare:

The first part makes sense, but is terribly pessimistic. Small businesses still provide the majority of employment in this country, so we have a long way to go before the petty bourgeoisie vanishes.

In regards to the second part, it isn't about intelligence, it is about education. The English speaking proleteriat are not educated in a way which makes these words useful. If this is to be a movement championing the proleteriat isn't it best to use the words that are commonly used by the proleteriat? That would be "working class" (the proleteriat) "self employed" and "small business owner" two words that both fall under petit bourgeoisie but which should not be lumped together and "the upper class" (Bourgeoisie)

It's not about what I think, it's about what the proleteriat thinks, and if you go into any factory in the country you'll find maybe 1-5 percent of the people there using the terms proleteriat, bougeoisie, petite bourgeoisie lumpenproleteriat etc another 25% maybe who understand them but don't use them, and the rest either understand them incorrectly or don't understand them at all. meanwhile the terms I suggested are going to be used and understood by 100% of the people in the factory.

[BabylonHoruv]

Being a pompous prick is not a good way to start here.


Sorry, can't deny my own basic nature.

[( R )evolution]

Small businesses still provide the majority of employment in this country

Could you please provide some evidence for this statement?

[BabylonHoruv]

Could you please provide some evidence for this statement?

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

According to this small businesses (under 500 employees) accounted for approx half of employees and 45% of payroll total for the private sector.

[Angry Young Man]

these words are not that hard to grasp. i may fumble in the use of them but still. i get the concept pretty well.

and, these words are not going to hinder a revolution IMO.

is it not like a church? Millions of people go to them and they use fancy words too, sacrament? evangelism? Eucharist? and the upper people probably use the terms ecclesiastic and so on. yet it does not hinder the infection of the masses with religion.

people can still grasp the ideas without knowing EVERYTHING. not everyone is going to take the time to read Capital/Das Kapital (i have not yet. but then again i have not read much yet.) or the countless pamphlets and books that relate to the idea.

thats just my take on the words.

as for the petit-bourgeois, someone else can probably answer that much better than i.

The point of all the high words is still valid. I've noticed at socialist party branch meetings that they often use phrases from the marxist dictionary. People do feel insecure if they don't feel like they're understanding a conversation, and not everybody knows what the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are. I think this is harmful because the point is to spread marxism. Just observe how, during election time, the 'respectable' parties use deceptively basic language. Branch meetings are for those who have a grasp of marxist terminology, whereas I think they should be for people who haven't, otherwise it's just masturbation.

Anyhow, a history teacher said that Marx predicted that the petit-bourgeoisie would be most vulnerable to violent reaction because they fear both free-market capitalism and socialism, as was proven by the rise of Hitler.

[Invader Zim]

I think all these terms are now bunk because they have no relevence to modern life, and i mean that in two different ways.

Firstly, as el chavista noted the social layers have become far more complicated, and employment has altered from the 19th century model Marx was working from. Secondly, I suspect that these actual terms hold very little meaning to the vast majority of people because they aren't in everyday usage. Indeed i would say that their usage is relatively specialised. I would bet that even among a group of history students at university level you would find more individuals unfamiliar with these terms than those who actually hold a coherant understanding of what they mean.

It has come to the point that I suspect that the continued employment of these terms as a pseudo-intellectual code, that only the properly read and initiated can decypher.

Sorry, I've just realised I'm ranting.


not everyone is going to take the time to read Capital/Das Kapital Smart of you. Texts of that ilk are dry as dust, and Marx is among the better writers.