Doesn't make sense..

[StoneFrog]

I just don't think how some seem to determine the proletariat. I mean there are some cases which a person can be doing the exact same job but be classed differently if he/she sells what is produced by their labour directly, instead of the bourgeoisie doing so.

Lets take a computer programmer 'Bob' for instance, he can either work for a big corporation and sell his labour to them and produce this software they want. This would class him as a proletariat. If he sat in a basement isolated for months on end and produced the same software and sell the software to the company, now he becomes a petit-bourgeoisie. So the proletariat is classed not on their effort put in nor their capital but their relationship directly to the bourgeoisie.

Now i have seen this disputed before and people say oh but the computer and electricity he used to make the software is capital, then majority of people in developed world are not proletariat. They have capital but don't use it to produce.

Maybe someone can explain this a little better for me if im on the wrong track here. But this seems to be more common in modern jobs.

[TheSamsquatch]

If Bob has to bust his ass all month long to just make rent, i consider him proletariat. Not to say this applies to any and everyone, but generally if you have to really worry about bills and you have to actually put in as much work as you can in say a month, then yeah.

[¿Que?]

If he works for a corporation, he's using the corporate capital. If he uses his own computer, that's his capital. Classes are defined with respect to their relation to the means of production.

EDIT: Sorry for the late edit. But also, working for a Corporation, he's likely to have less control over so called intellectual property and things like that. The corporations will have exclusive rights to your software to do whatever it wants with it.

[meow]

if you dont hire others and if you arent directly hired then you are probably petit bourgeois (according to marxism). however self employed workers are just as much workers even if they arent classically prol.

[StoneFrog]

If he works for a corporation, he's using the corporate capital. If he uses his own computer, that's his capital. Classes are defined with respect to their relation to the means of production.

EDIT: Sorry for the late edit. But also, working for a Corporation, he's likely to have less control over so called intellectual property and things like that. The corporations will have exclusive rights to your software to do whatever it wants with it.


Yes but proletariat is classed as someone whom has no capital of their own to produce, so all the people whom have a computer and access to electricity are now petit-bourgeoisie? Because they now have the capital to produce?

If he sold it to the same company he may loose all intellectual rights as well.

Basically im reading more Marx and trying to figure it out more.

[Animal Farm Pig]

If we're determining class by relationship to means of production, then street corner buskers and shoe shines are technically petit bourgeoisie. Maybe I am understanding things incorrectly. Maybe it's a problem with this type of class analysis. I'm not particularly concerned; I figure I can recognized the oppressed and exploited when I see them.

[¿Que?]

Yes but proletariat is classed as someone whom has no capital of their own to produce, so all the people whom have a computer and access to electricity are now petit-bourgeoisie? Because they now have the capital to produce?

If he sold it to the same company he may loose all intellectual rights as well.

Basically im reading more Marx and trying to figure it out more.
This (http://www.macalester.edu/courses/russ65/statistics.htm#1)is a really crappy site showing internet statistics. It states that only 1/4 of Americans are online. There are several problems with this site, mostly that I can't find a year for the statistics, and in fact I used to work for the company that put out the stats and it was a total corporate shithole. Point being, according to this website, a good 3/4 of American's don't even have the internet.

The website alos doesn't clearly define what they mean by having internet access, as they never specifically state anywhere that I could see, "in the home". So it could be even less. What I'm getting at is that you may be thinking internet is more accessible than it actually is.

While your second point may be true, there is also a chance that he might sign a distribution deal only, in which he would retain full intellectual property rights. It's hard to say, I've never tried to do this.

[StoneFrog]

This (http://www.macalester.edu/courses/russ65/statistics.htm#1)is a really crappy site showing internet statistics. It states that only 1/4 of Americans are online. There are several problems with this site, mostly that I can't find a year for the statistics, and in fact I used to work for the company that put out the stats and it was a total corporate shithole. Point being, according to this website, a good 3/4 of American's don't even have the internet.

The website alos doesn't clearly define what they mean by having internet access, as they never specifically state anywhere that I could see, "in the home". So it could be even less. What I'm getting at is that you may be thinking internet is more accessible than it actually is.

While your second point may be true, there is also a chance that he might sign a distribution deal only, in which he would retain full intellectual property rights. It's hard to say, I've never tried to do this.

I wasn't talking about internet, you don't need internet to program necessarily. But never the less are those whom do have access now petit-bourgeoisie?

[¿Que?]

If we're determining class by relationship to means of production, then street corner buskers and shoe shines are technically petit bourgeoisie. Maybe I am understanding things incorrectly. Maybe it's a problem with this type of class analysis. I'm not particularly concerned; I figure I can recognized the oppressed and exploited when I see them.
You're also talking about labor that doesn't lend itself to the accumulation of capital, really. But if the shoeshine boy is raking in a profit, then yes, it seems he would be petty-bourgeois.

[#FF0000]

Absolutely nothing is 100% with social sciences. People don't always fit so nicely into social categories.

[¿Que?]

I wasn't talking about internet, you don't need internet to program necessarily. But never the less are those whom do have access now petit-bourgeoisie?
But you do need a computer. It is unlikely people these days will buy a computer for anything but the internets.

I'd say no for the same reason as the shoeshine boy. It doesn't accumulate capital.

The petty-bourgeois is under constant threat of becoming proletarianized. I know this much.

[StoneFrog]

Absolutely nothing is 100% with social sciences. People don't always fit so nicely into social categories.

I agree, but i take something special from the Anarchists "Question everything"


But you do need a computer. It is unlikely people these days will buy a computer for anything but the internets.

I'd say no for the same reason as the shoeshine boy. It doesn't accumulate capital.

The petty-bourgeois is under constant threat of becoming proletarianized. I know this much.

You'd be surprised, even though the newer generation only uses a small % of their computers capabilities many still know how to use the rest. I have a computer which is on a closed network not connected to the world wide web.

Can you elaborate a bit more on your shoeshine boy?

[¿Que?]

I agree, but i take something special from the Anarchists "Question everything"



You'd be surprised, even though the newer generation only uses a small % of their computers capabilities many still know how to use the rest. I have a computer which is on a closed network not connected to the world wide web.

Can you elaborate a bit more on your shoeshine boy?
TBH, not really. It was my response to animal farm pig.

[Tablo]

Way I see it is that class distinctions are pretty concrete in Marxists theory. They make sense. Some self-employed(petite-bourgeois) are well off and some are starving. That is why I don't focus too much on class distinction. Obviously class is extremely important in determining the revolutionary potential of an individual, but I think it is more dependent on who is more desperate and hungry than their Marxist class designation.

[Animal Farm Pig]

You're also talking about labor that doesn't lend itself to the accumulation of capital, really. But if the shoeshine boy is raking in a profit, then yes, it seems he would be petty-bourgeois.

Shining shoes is shitty work, and it doesn't lend itself to the accumulation of capital. I've never met a shoe shiner who is raking it in. Still, technically they own the means of production. What I was hoping to demonstrate is that if you only use relationship to the mode of production to determine class, you can wind up with some crazy results.

So, I'm not in any way trying to challenge or be difficult, but how can we treat those who own the "means of production" but are still really fucking poor? Like you said, if the shoeshine is raking in money, he can be petit bourgeois, but what about all those who are not?

I'm really not very strong in "theory" as such. There is a very good chance I'm am ignorant of some analysis that deals with this problem. There is also a very good chance that I have simply not understood well enough the theory that I have read. Nonetheless, this is what my instinct is--

The shoeshine is not so different from proletarian labor. The proletarian worker sells his labor on a market for labor at the market price. The shoeshine does the same thing. The only difference is that the shoeshine has a rag and some polish that together cost less than $10. This cost is so trivial that I could become petit bourgeois tomorrow if I wanted to.

Let's imagine if the shoe polish itself were very very expensive, like $1,000 per container. Maybe then, I could be petit bourgeois. It would be uneconomic for a person to shine their shoes themselves. They would be dependent on the folks who had the means to purchase shoe polish if they wanted to have shiny shoes. The shoeshine could charge a higher price and perhaps start raking in the cash.

I'm now thinking about the woman who lived near my old house. She set up a small hot-plate at the local corner convenience store and cooked amazing tacos for $0.50 each. At a restaurant, I've paid $1.50 or $2 per tacos that weren't as good. In both cases, the person producing the tacos owned the means of production, but in the case of the restaurant, the restaurant owner also owns the dining area. That's much more expensive than whatever my local friend paid to be able to stand in front of the convenience store. There's a good chance that the restaurant owner also made more money.

Also, I think about peasants. A peasant with one hectare of land is often just scraping by. He does, in theory, own the means of production. Still, I think there is a vast difference between a peasant with one hectare of land in comparison with someone who owns ten or one hundred or a thousand hectares.

Like I said, I am not so good with theory. But, what I can see from looking at reality is that wealth is necessary to become more wealthy. I suppose there can be exceptions, but this seems to be the rule that I see. I wouldn't call someone who is poor but is "hustling" to get by petit bourgeois, but by if you take a strict analysis of relationship to means of production, someone hustling to get by indeed is bourgeois.

Like I said, I don't worry about this too much. I figure that I can recognize exploitation and oppression when I see it. Still, if you want to attack things from a purely theoretic view... well, I think it's an interesting problem.

[Rusty Shackleford]

petty-brougeois means someone employs someone else to help them with their work(unless im mistaken and thats just full blown bourgeois, im just going to run with my current assumption though to give it a shot), but not sharing full profit with the other worker.

say bob was coding for something. there were millions of lines of code to go through and they always needed to be modified, he decides to hire steve to help him with that. since bob is working to make money off of that software, and that software makes him money, it becomes capital. because he now has steve helping him working on bob's capital(the software) he can dictate steves wages or share in the end profit. if steve is receiving less than the amount he should be(however determined) he is being exploited. if bob recieving more than he is actually putting in he becomes bourgeois. since he is also working that capital, he is petty-bourgeois.

the situation described in the OP was more along the lines of artisanry.


any computer can be considered capital in this scenario, but what really is the money maker is the source code.

[FSL]

The PC I'm having is an article of consumption.
The PC Bob the programmer, who's making software in his basement, has is capital.

Something is capital when it participates in the M-C-M' circuit, when we exchange Money for means of production (that are Commodities) to produce new commodities and sell them for more Money. In this case M'-M is our profit.

In the same manner some people will say we're all getting more equal now because we have homes or some extra cash hanging around so we're all "capitalists in a way".
Our homes are commodities we bought to consume. The houses some construction company owns are its commodity capital that it'll sell to get monetary capital.
Some guy who owns a second house that he rents to others is a sort of a small merchant. That house is capital but he probably can't live on that rent alone so he also needs to work. That makes him a petty bourgeois.

[¿Que?]

Animal Farm Pig (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28954), you're overlooking the fact that the accumulation of capital itself transforms the relations to the means of production. That's why we put a little quote next to the second M, in M-C-M'

In other words, the shoeshine boy that makes a profit has a different relation to the means of production than the one who doesn't. We're assuming of course that the profit goes to buy more shoeshine and rags and possibly to pay others to shoeshine etc.

Let's on the other hand assume that the shoeshine boy has a sick mother, and the profits go to pay her medical bills, then obviously, he is not petty bourgeois, because the relation to the means of production remain constant.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Thanks-- makes sense now!

[Obs]

Let's on the other hand assume that the shoeshine boy has a sick mother, and the profits go to pay her medical bills, then obviously, he is not petty bourgeois, because the relation to the means of production remain constant.
So - just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly - he's also not petty bourgeois if the profits go to his landlord?

[StoneFrog]

Lets see if i am understanding this right.
So the petit-bourgeoisie can be defined as someone who has accumulated a small amount of capital but not enough to live off solely, but enough to do less labour? And the proletariat is someone who can produce capital but basically goes in one hand and out the other?

Am i on the right track here?

[mikelepore]

Lets see if i am understanding this right.
So the petit-bourgeoisie can be defined as someone who has accumulated a small amount of capital but not enough to live off solely, but enough to do less labour? And the proletariat is someone who can produce capital but basically goes in one hand and out the other?

Am i on the right track here?

No. The petit bourgeoisie means small business owners who don't have employees and they do the work themselves, or they may have some employees but the business isn't large enough to permit the owner to leave the premises entirely and have employees perform all of the work. Since the owners have to perform work, the owners' incomes are neither wages nor profits in the true sense, but in a separate category.

People in the working class (proletariat) have no ownership of any workplace. They have nothing to sell but their ability to work. Selling their ability to work for blocks of time is their means of survival.

[StoneFrog]

No. The petit bourgeoisie means small business owners who don't have employees and they do the work themselves, or they may have some employees but the business isn't large enough to permit the owner to leave the premises entirely and have employees perform all of the work. Since the owners have to perform work, the owners' incomes are neither wages nor profits in the true sense, but in a separate category.

People in the working class (proletariat) have no ownership of any workplace. They have nothing to sell but their ability to work. Selling their ability to work for blocks of time is their means of survival.

So where does our shoe shiner fit into this, petit-bourgeoisie?

[¿Que?]

Since there seem to be quite a few people uncertain about the nature of Marxist class categories, I would like to shift gears a little and pose a question.

What exactly is the consequence of conceding that there are exceptions to the class categories outlined by Marxism? I mean, does it invalidate the theory if the categories are not all inclusive?

We are after all talking about social structures, right? Is it necessary for a social theory to define every minutia of human life, even if it's overall effect on society, organization and whatnot is extremely limited, almost insignificant?

Marxism assumes that 1)class is defined as a relation to the means of production and 2) that classes thus defined explain the progress of history as a result of the class struggle. If there are exceptions to these categories, and further it can be shown that these exceptions form a separate social category (that is, we can make generalizations about these exceptions, they are not purely contextual and specific to particular circumstances) and even further, that these social categories are actually significant in the class struggle and by extension the historical process, then maybe we can begin to question some fundamental assumptions about Marxism.

Otherwise, you guys just sound like you're nitpicking.

[StoneFrog]

Since there seem to be quite a few people uncertain about the nature of Marxist class categories, I would like to shift gears a little and pose a question.

What exactly is the consequence of conceding that there are exceptions to the class categories outlined by Marxism? I mean, does it invalidate the theory if the categories are not all inclusive?

We are after all talking about social structures, right? Is it necessary for a social theory to define every minutia of human life, even if it's overall effect on society, organization and whatnot is extremely limited, almost insignificant?

Marxism assumes that 1)class is defined as a relation to the means of production and 2) that classes thus defined explain the progress of history as a result of the class struggle. If there are exceptions to these categories, and further it can be shown that these exceptions form a separate social category (that is, we can make generalizations about these exceptions, they are not purely contextual and specific to particular circumstances) and even further, that these social categories are actually significant in the class struggle and by extension the historical process, then maybe we can begin to question some fundamental assumptions about Marxism.

Otherwise, you guys just sound like you're nitpicking.

I ask because i hate the attitude some seem to have about people whom aren't proletariat, and say all people whom are self employed. Even if they dont employ anyone and their "capital" they use for their job is what some proletariat have laying around the house.
The Petit-Bourgeoisie is suppose to always be in threat of becoming the proletariat but most proletariat whom visit this site can essentially be petit-bourgeoisie but they don't use the capital they have in their house to produce. So instead a computer could be capital it becomes an item of consumption. A pencil an artist uses is capital but how many people have one laying around the house?

[¿Que?]

With no.Mute, you seem to be alluding to the idea of human capital. Don't forget that general knowledge of computers is necessary to produce with them. You are talking about skilled labor, for whatever it's worth.

[StoneFrog]

With no.Mute, you seem to be alluding to the idea of human capital. Don't forget that general knowledge of computers is necessary to produce with them. You are talking about skilled labor, for whatever it's worth.

Both Proletariat and Petit-Bourgeoisie have human capital, when Bob worked for a corporation he had human capital. He had the same human capital when he worked in his basement. And if it comes to human skill, anyone who has a camera can take photos and sell them; the human capital involved there is minimal. Or the Shoe shiner shoe polish use to be very common in peoples houses, the human capital involved there is also very low; almost everyone can do it.

Oh and ty for putting up with my ignorance im not the best with theory and such.

[¿Que?]

Oh and ty for putting up with my ignorance im not the best with theory and such.
And neither am I.

I read your previous post though and finally realized what you were saying. You're basically making the argument or asking if every proletariat with a computer can just become a petit-bourgeois? Right?

The problem is that if every proletariat even knew how to program and started churning out software, it is quite likely that most of that software would have very little use value. In which case it cannot be commodified. I would say it's possible for a few, but as a general rule, teaching all the prols to program will not eliminate their situation as prols.

[Ovi]

So, if Bob has a boss who obviously also extracts surplus value from his labor, but Bob owns his computer, that makes him petit-bourgeois? How is petit-bourgeois different from the peasantry? Also, would a peasant who pays someone to help out him with the harvesting be part of the bourgeois?

[samofshs]

If he works for a corporation, he's using the corporate capital. If he uses his own computer, that's his capital. Classes are defined with respect to their relation to the means of production.

EDIT: Sorry for the late edit. But also, working for a Corporation, he's likely to have less control over so called intellectual property and things like that. The corporations will have exclusive rights to your software to do whatever it wants with it.
remember, the knowledge of how to make said programme is capital. i have a computer, but not the knowledge of how to make money with it. therefore no capital.

[¿Que?]

remember, the knowledge of how to make said programme is capital. i have a computer, but not the knowledge of how to make money with it. therefore no capital.
This is why I brought up the idea of human capital. Although this is a fairly recent idea, and has been used by classical economists, so caveat emptor!

[NecroCommie]

I think what With No.Mute is trying to ask is whether you are still a petit-bourgeoisie even if you don't use the capital you own in order to produce or exploit. If such is the case, my answer would be yes, someone with the tools and know how of (for example) useful computer programming is essentially petit-bourgeoisie.

However, as I see it, the know-how portion of those necessities include connections and how to get your product to the market. Also, one needs to remember that class-divisions are not always 100% anything. With these two factors taken into consideration, I would say that the number of these "passive betit-bourgeoisie" individuals is extremely low indeed.

[StoneFrog]

I'm coming back to this thread because i got a bit of a different take on it today while reading.

The computer programmer in his basement is a Petit-Bourgeois because there is a difference in a consumer buying a computer and a programmer using a computer to create more value. The difference is all the labour put into making that computer and software on it (operating system, text editors etc..) are conveyed back into the value of which the programmer gets for his software. The total value is not provided just by the programmer but also by the people whom built the computer, so there for the computer programmer is using the labour of workers to make his software.

So tools used that are produced by labour, have to be put into how the product gets its value. But a regular person using a computer isn't adding value or using it to gain value so not exploiting the labour of the worker, but as soon as its used to produce value you are using labour which you don't see visibly but was using in the production and has to be added to the total labour used to make the software.

Am i correct in assuming labour put into a tool has to be added to labour of the end product?