A question on the petite bourgeois.

[eric922]

I was thinking about small business owners who only have a few employees and who work alongside those employees and try to treat them well. I came to a few conclusions and I wanted to ask if those were correct.
1. Even when the employer treats his employees fairly and pays them a decent wage and benefits he is still exploiting them because he is not paying them the full value of their work, even though he may not even know he is exploiting them. That is the problem with capitalism it leads to exploitation even if it is unintended exploitation. 2. The petite bourgeois himself is being exploited by the "real" bourgeois. Financiers and creditors lend him money at very high interest rates and these will result in him paying far more than they money he borrowed is worth. He is also being exploited when it comes to paying rent and other forms of overhead.
So are my conclusions correct, and if so wouldn't this mean the petite bourgeois themselves could be potential revolutionaries since they are exploited as well?

[JazzRemington]

I was thinking about small business owners who only have a few employees and who work alongside those employees and try to treat them well. I came to a few conclusions and I wanted to ask if those were correct.
1. Even when the employer treats his employees fairly and pays them a decent wage and benefits he is still exploiting them because he is not paying them the full value of their work, even though he may not even know he is exploiting them. That is the problem with capitalism it leads to exploitation even if it is unintended exploitation. 2. The petite bourgeois himself is being exploited by the "real" bourgeois. Financiers and creditors lend him money at very high interest rates and these will result in him paying far more than they money he borrowed is worth. He is also being exploited when it comes to paying rent and other forms of overhead.
So are my conclusions correct, and if so wouldn't this mean the petite bourgeois themselves could be potential revolutionaries since they are exploited as well?

Well, #2 doesn't involve what Marxists generally mean by exploitation. When Marxists use the term, it generally refers to a process involving actual productive labor in the labor process.

[Red_Xan]

#1 is definitely correct; I suppose that #2 could go either way.

And anyone who is committed to the cause can be a revolutionary. Even the son of a full bourgeois may have a son who is known as a son of a revolutionary, so long as he's truthfully committed to the ideal of Socialism.

[ArrowLance]

Even Marx talks about the position of the petite-bourgeois, but not as revolutionary. On the contrary the petite-bourgeois are reactionary because they are the remnants of the artisans and other small industry hoping for the restoration of their 'rights', which they may see as in line with progressive freedoms. Also, as I understand it the labourer is not being exploited but alienated from his labour, the labour is 'exploited' for its surplus value.

[Rooster]

Your first point is correct. In some aspects, the nicest slave owners were the worst ones. They put a good spin onto slavery, making it hard to actually get rid of it and strengthing the case for reforms instead of revolution. Same with petty-bourgeois. No matter how nice they are, they still have to turn a profit and if push came to shove, you'll lose your job, get reduced wages, work longer hours and what not. Or, worse still from the petty-bourgeoisies statis, they'd lose their business then everyone would be out of a job.

As to your second point, with paying rent and gaining credit, that's really more to do with the labour process (I think you mean that instead of just paying for rent in a house). Paying for oveheards is paying for dead labour. Electricity, water, gas, etc, all contain labour. Every capitalist has to purchase labour to make commodities and that labour can be embodied in things like machines and overheads as well. So all ovf the products you purchase contain that previous labour plus the new labour involved to make it. Finance capital on the other hand, has been allowing capitalism to grow, especially since the 70s. But I'm not sure how that relates to a marxist definition of class or exploitation. Credit pretty much just allows for quick centralisation and accumulation of capital. Or if you're a Leninist, allows for monoploy and imperialisim.