Class Definitions

[Agent Ducky]

Ok. I feel really stupid asking this. So I've been hearing everyone refer to bourgeois, proletariat, and petit-bourgeois. And I'm confused. I've been researching the definitions of these terms, and read several differing views upon how these definitions apply to modern capitalist society; specifically with the "middle class." Obviously 'middle class' is a really broad term with a lot of gray areas that isn't going to fit all into one definition. I've seen the whole of people who don't fit the traditional 'working class' classified as bourgeoisie. I've seen everyone below the capitalists who control most of the wealth controlled classified as proletariat. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that :confused: But I'm having a hard time classifying different parts of said 'middle class' into class definitions.

What I've derived from my researching: (go ahead and dispute this, this is what I want help with)
-People who work in service jobs, (ex. barista person at Starbucks) are considered proletariat? (especially as applied to American society where most of the production jobs are overseas now)
-People who own small businesses (including ones that are small to a point where they work alongside their employees) are petit-bourgeoisie? (regardless of their income, even if it isn't much more than that of someone who is employed)
-People who work white-collar jobs for a higher salary/wage is what I'm most confused about. :confused:

What are your views on this? I'm open to any perspectives on this, feel free to correct "what I've derived" if it's not right in your opinion. I want to better understand these definitions to my best ability.

[Agent Ducky]

Ok, I guess this is too stupid to answer. =[

[Astarte]

Ok. I feel really stupid asking this. So I've been hearing everyone refer to bourgeois, proletariat, and petit-bourgeois. And I'm confused. I've been researching the definitions of these terms, and read several differing views upon how these definitions apply to modern capitalist society; specifically with the "middle class." Obviously 'middle class' is a really broad term with a lot of gray areas that isn't going to fit all into one definition. I've seen the whole of people who don't fit the traditional 'working class' classified as bourgeoisie. I've seen everyone below the capitalists who control most of the wealth controlled classified as proletariat. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that :confused: But I'm having a hard time classifying different parts of said 'middle class' into class definitions.

What I've derived from my researching: (go ahead and dispute this, this is what I want help with)
-People who work in service jobs, (ex. barista person at Starbucks) are considered proletariat? (especially as applied to American society where most of the production jobs are overseas now)
-People who own small businesses (including ones that are small to a point where they work alongside their employees) are petit-bourgeoisie? (regardless of their income, even if it isn't much more than that of someone who is employed)
-People who work white-collar jobs for a higher salary/wage is what I'm most confused about. :confused:

What are your views on this? I'm open to any perspectives on this, feel free to correct "what I've derived" if it's not right in your opinion. I want to better understand these definitions to my best ability.

Proletarians earn a wage usually by the hour and sell their labor... in terms of corporate hierarchies and the economy of the USA, which is essentially that, middle management, usually salaried is petty bourgeois, and the highest echelons of the company with the big bonuses, the shares, etc... are the bourgeoisie...

On a different note, the petty bourgeoisie in the USA can also consist of very small business owners, I think if you employ more than like 10-20 people, how big your income is, how many "hanger-ons" you have, how many cars, houses, etc will determine whether one is a petty-bourgeoisie or has become a bourgeois...

In the USA most of the industrial infrastructure has been outsourced so the proletariat mostly works in service economies (like fast food, etc), or retail (walmart, etc)... still, they are wage laborers.

[Agent Ducky]

Thank you! So now my question is, what is the perceived position of the petty-bourgeoisie from a revolutionary standpoint? It seems like some of them would obviously side with the revolutionaries but as a class, it doesn't seem like it would be in their interests to do so. I'm confused about that too. :confused:

[jbaez]

Proletarians earn a wage usually by the hour and sell their labor... in terms of corporate hierarchies and the economy of the USA, which is essentially that, middle management, usually salaried is petty bourgeois, and the highest echelons of the company with the big bonuses, the shares, etc... are the bourgeoisie...

On a different note, the petty bourgeoisie in the USA can also consist of very small business owners, I think if you employ more than like 10-20 people, how big your income is, how many "hanger-ons" you have, how many cars, houses, etc will determine whether one is a petty-bourgeoisie or has become a bourgeois...


On what grounds would you consider workers in a salaried position to be petite bourgeoisie? Any other discussion on this would be appreciated as well.

[Agent Ducky]

So there's controversy over salaried workers and their classification?

[jbaez]

Well, I would argue that the term "proletariat" includes any person who must sell their power to do labor in order to live, whether they earn their wages by salary or hourly.

[Astarte]

Thank you! So now my question is, what is the perceived position of the petty-bourgeoisie from a revolutionary standpoint? It seems like some of them would obviously side with the revolutionaries but as a class, it doesn't seem like it would be in their interests to do so. I'm confused about that too. :confused:

Yes, exactly, the petty bourgeoisie live in two worlds, one foot inside the fantasy of capitalist accumulation and the other in the real world of work. Generally, the petty bourgeoisie who are the poorest and hence most self-sufficient; i.e. rely on their own labor, and make a low income are usually the most progressive.

[Astarte]

Well, I would argue that the term "proletariat" includes any person who must sell their power to do labor in order to live, whether they earn their wages by salary or hourly.

And I would say that is way too vague. What exactly are these salaried workers doing for their salary? What is their role in the corporate structure?

[Dunk]

Those people whom subsist on handouts or are criminal outcasts make up the lumpen-proletariat. A person who is incarcerated, for example.

Those who exchange their labor for a wage are working class. Workers are sometimes salaried, this makes no difference. What makes a difference is the measure of control the salaried employee has over the means of production. Is the worker salaried, but cannot hire or fire fellow workers? If they can't, then they are decidedly working class. Salaried work is also sometimes an easier way for a capitalist to coerce his or her salaried employees to work harder or longer hours to extract a greater surplus value, rather than pay the worker by hour, which could possibly be more expensive. Members of this class include the majority of the adult population of the world.

Those people whom both rely on self-employed labor and ownership of minor productive property are members of the petite-bourgeoisie. Local shopkeepers, for example.

Those who purchase the labor power of others to profit from their labor, who own or exercise total or great control over the means of production are members of the bourgeoisie. A member of the board of directors, a CEO, or majority or controlling shareholder of a multinational corporation, for example.

Some grey areas exist, and analysis of the degree of control the particular person has over the means of production is particularly useful - while wracking our brains over the miniscule portions of people who fit into these grey areas is typically not useful - because as sure as capitalism and social relations continually change and develop, these grey areas shift - especially over the course of the person's life whom fits into these grey areas.

[jbaez]

What makes a difference is the measure of control the salaried employee has over the means of production. Is the worker salaried, but cannot hire or fire fellow workers? If they can't, then they are decidedly working class.

This is pretty much what I was going to get at, Astarte.

Great post, Dunk.

[syndicat]

The working class (proletariat, if you wan to use 19th century terminology) consists of those who have no independent way to make a living and must seek jobs from employers, and do not manage other workers in the labor process but are subject to management.

As capitalism grew into its corporate variant in the 20th century, the technology and control over the labor process was taken away from the skilled workers who often controlled these things in the 19th century and an elaborate hierarchy of supervisors, divisional directors, high end engineers and financial analysts and the like was created. I would call this the bureaucratic class because their power over the working class isn't based on their ownership of means of production but their position in the hierarchical organization that controls production.

the dominant capitalists i call the plutocracy (haute bourgeoisie in the old terminology). these people strategize about where their capital is invested, allocated, but they typically don't manage workers directly. they are insulated from workers by the layers of managers and professionals.

the small fry capitalists who have to manage workers directly are the smaller capitalists...owners of a store for example.

both the bureaucratic class and the small business owners are "classes in between" the plutocracy and the working class, and thus "middle classes."

the working class is divided in various ways but one way is between the more skilled "upper" working class and the less skilled "lower" working class.

the poor are not part of a class other than the working class. People who don't have jobs and are on welfare right now are not part of a class other than the working class. they'd take jobs if they were available.

often people use "middle class" on the basis of income level or consumption, such as making enough money to own a house. Rich Trumka (head of the AFL-CIO) talks about the "middle class"...he means workers who are well paid. Union officials use "middle class" rather than "working class" because they don't want to be red-baited or attacked as "class warriors".

[Agent Ducky]

So.. I see there's obviously a divide as to the definition of petit-bourgeoisie when it comes to salary workers.

What would the role of petit-bourgeoisie be in a revolution?

[Jose Gracchus]

Of the people in this discussion, I lean closest probably to syndicat's politics and theoretical grasp of the problem. What troubles me most is how we would organize for socialism in an economy where the vast majority of the working-class is now no longer employed directly in production. Not only does this more generally undermine class consciousness, workers' organization, etc., but it also reduces the plausibility of "point of production"-type socialism and "workers' power comes from their ability to stop production" conceptions of socialism. I begin to wonder whether socialism country-by-country is less plausible, and say, socialism in the United States would probably have to be accompanied by socialism in, say, China.

Anyone have any thoughts on how to overcome the decline in material conditions that historically favored socialism?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I think the definitions of the gray areas could be cleared up a bit if you asked the people in those gray areas what they thought they were. :scared: Some business owners might call themselves proles, some might call themselves bourgeoisie but either way they're right.

[Thirsty Crow]

So.. I see there's obviously a divide as to the definition of petit-bourgeoisie when it comes to salary workers.

What would the role of petit-bourgeoisie be in a revolution?

I would point out, long the lines of syndicat's argument, that you should frame this issue within at least two dimensions:

1) ownership over productive assets (productive in the sense of "generating wealth" --> a typical, "orthodox" definition of class position would fall along these lines, arguing that one's relation to the means of production determine one's class position (the bourgeoisie own the means of production while the working class does not and is therefore forced to sell their labour power in order to survive); within this dimension of the problem, the petite bourgeiosie as a term describes the position of small business owners: they are necessarily involved in direct labour but also command others' labour (they hire workers) beacuse of their ownership of the MoP. Think of small shop owners etc.

2) given the elaborate structure of capitalist enterprises, t would also be useful to observe te dimension of one's position within a hierarchical system which enforces labour control - in other words, management. Supervisors and managers earn a wage, but their position is specifric precisely because of their role as functionaries of labour control. The interests of supervisors may not match the interests of workers whose labour they command and evaluate (e.g. managers may obtain the power of firing workers). The issue of income, or salary is not methodologically crucial here, but is most often a relaible empirical indicator of one's position within the managerial structure. The term petite bourgeoisie may in this sense refer to the managerial strata (who may also own shares or other forms of productive assets, but not enough in order that thay may resign from their position of direct labour).

Now, the thing is that small business owners are constantly threatened by the possibility of proletarization because of capitalist competition (think of corporate domination in relation to small business). On the other hand, their interests as capitalists is to accumulate capital - to become "bourgeosie proper". Their class position is paradoxical and conflicting, which means that we cannot really enagage in abstract anticipation of their role in a hypothetical revolution.

[Agent Ducky]

I'm asking this partly because of my parents, trying to define them. My dad owns a really small business. Like 3 or 4 employees, and he does a lot of the same work they do. Doesn't take in a whole lot of income. And my mom works for the government for a salary (white collar job) that's not that high.

[Jose Gracchus]

Your father is a small capitalist (petty bourgeois). Your mother, depending, is possibly a skilled or privileged worker, or possibly a coordinator.

[Gorilla]

I'm asking this partly because of my parents, trying to define them. My dad owns a really small business. Like 3 or 4 employees, and he does a lot of the same work they do. Doesn't take in a whole lot of income.

Petit bourgeois.


And my mom works for the government for a salary (white collar job) that's not that high.

Proletarian.

[Rooster]

I would agree with Gorilla and your initial assessment. Bourgeoisie own the means of production; the factories, the land, the raw materials, the products of the proletariat's labour with the intent of gaining capital from these. So M-C-M'.

The bourgeoisie have to to employ the proletariat. Proletariats are anyone who have to sell their labour power for a wage to be able to buy the commodities (so their goal is C-M-C in relation to the work) they need to get by on, food, housing, things to satisify their desires. This can include people from steel workers, baristas, call centre workers, office workers, hotel staff, waiters and so on. Some of these jobs are not socially necessary such as janitors or other staff who have the power to hire and fire other staff. They do not produce actual value but instead make the work place more efficient or they help maintain the value of the work place.

A petty-bourgeoise is someone who's inbetween these two. They may be a small business owner (such as a plumber or a small shop owner). They work to create commodities but also to increase their capital. These sort of people are usually comfortable being within the capitalist system but are always live in fear of becoming part of the proletariat and always dream of becoming a bourgeoisie proper. Most of the ideological hammering happens to this group of people, through university (as most of the children from this class go to university), through their papers, their televison programmes and what not.

That's the basic outline. It's not saying that you won't get good comrades from bourgeois or petty bourgeois classes and it's not saying that every proletariat is a comrade either.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I feel as though this thread needs clarity, as this too was an issue which I grappled with long and hard when I first became open to Socialism.

Proletariat: do not own the means of production. Sell their labour to those who do own the means of production. Can be salaried or waged. Do not make income from rent, property, shareholdings and speculation

Bourgeoisie: Own the means of production. May make money from rent, property, shareholdings and speculation.

Petty bourgeoisie: May or may not own the means of production (if they do, it is normally in the form of self-employment or a very small business). Even when they don't own the means of production, their labour is not exploited. Think a higher-middle income lawyer. They are not the most revolutionary class (in fact they are more a strata than a class) as their labour is not exploited - they are often (think the non-partner lawyer example) able to make their own income, yet because their income is often derived from their own activities and not from rent, property, speculation or corporate ownership/interests, they have the ability to be progressive and rebel against the bourgeoisie.

[Agent Ducky]

Thank you everyone, you've been really helpful ^_^

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Those people whom subsist on handouts or are criminal outcasts make up the lumpen-proletariat. A person who is incarcerated, for example.

What do you mean by this? A person who receives unemployment benefit? How are they not a member of the working class if so?

[Dunk]

What do you mean by this? A person who receives unemployment benefit? How are they not a member of the working class if so?

No, I don't mean the recently unemployed, I mean people who are incapable of exchanging their labor power for a wage. Other than convicts, the lumpen also include the mentally ill, physically challenged, chronically discouraged worker or perhaps some kind of extraordinarily oppressed minority or modern day chattel slaves could be included. I don't mean to use lumpen proletariat as a pejorative term - these people aren't to be looked down upon by workers in a classist, bourgeois fashion. These people can't be liberated through the actions of their own class - their liberation depends upon the working class.

[eric922]

I have a question. What are rural peasantry considered in the Marxist view? In many ways they can be just as exploited as urban workers so are they considered working class?

[Gorilla]

I have a question. What are rural peasantry considered in the Marxist view?

Peasantry is its own class.


In many ways they can be just as exploited as urban workers so are they considered working class?

Marx considered them potentially revolutionary, but that they turn conservative very quickly once the demand for land reform is settled.

Peasants have been the backbone of almost every successful socialist revolution.