The petit bourgeoisie

[Aurorus Ruber]

I hear this term a lot in socialist analyses, but as a relative newbie to Marxist theory, I find myself somewhat unclear on what it means and its implications for the left. It seems to me the category includes small business owners, the self-employed, peasants, and members of cooperatives, in other words people who own their own means of production but don't exploit others on a large scale, if at all. Small business owners technically make a profit from surplus value, though, but generally contribute a lot of labor of their own to the firm. Would you consider this an accurate understanding of the term?

Most of the analyses I've seen take a rather critical stance toward the petit bourgeoisie. Many references describe them as having reactionary class interests and attribute the rise of fascism partly to their influence. Others use the term as an apparently negative description for political tendencies the author opposes, for instance that anarchists or market socialists are petit bourgeois. Is that so, and if so what makes them so deleterious?

And if the petit bourgeoisie are highly reactionary, does that mean we don't want them in our movement? Do different socialist tendencies take different stances on them?

[RedMarxist]

well, Petit is French and it mean little, hence the term Petit(little) Bourgeoisie, so your right about them being small business owners, etc. Yes, they are reactionary, as they make up the middle class.

[red cat]

It is not that easy to define the petite bourgeoisie. In some cases, self employment is actually used to exploit someone more than an officially employed worker. In some situations, people are forced to buy and sell minor products because they belong to the excess labour pool that remains unemployed. In these cases classical Marxist analysis fails and these layers of the so called petite bourgeoisie become highly revolutionary.

[Rafiq]

The Petit Bourgeoisie are people who own their own labor. A Proletariat is someone who must rent out his labor to, the Bourgeoisie, people who own the means of production. Usually the petit bourgeoisie buys what the Bourgeoisie produces and sells it.

[Obs]

The Petit Bourgeoisie are people who own their own labor. A Proletariat is someone who must rent out his labor to, the Bourgeoisie, people who own the means of production. Usually the petit bourgeoisie buys what the Bourgeoisie produces and sells it.

A proletarian owns his own labour as well. That's why he's able to sell it on his own accord, it is why he is able to use the tools of class struggle to better his station in class society, and it is what separates him from a slave.

A petit-bourgeois, on the other hand, owns means of production, but must rely on their own labour to stay afloat. This, in turn, separates him from the true bourgeoisie, who do not need to put in any work but instead leech off the value created by workers in his employ.

[Aurorus Ruber]

well, Petit is French and it mean little, hence the term Petit(little) Bourgeoisie, so your right about them being small business owners, etc. Yes, they are reactionary, as they make up the middle class.

Well ok then. But many of the people I listed, like peasants and the self-employed, don't make that much money or have especially good living standards, probably no more than the average worker. Given that, what makes them part of a class above the workers and reactionary in their politics? I think many farmers and self-employed people would dispute any claim that they are living especially high on the hog compared to employees of a corporation.

[ar734]

Well a peasant is usually someone who owns his own land and his horse, plow, means of production. For instance, the early American colonists were independent peasants. I don't think Marx included them as petit-beour...for instance he talked about how the independent farmers in America and Australia would confound English capitalists by setting up their own farms instead of working on the English estates.

On the other hand, I suppose that some American independent farmers owned slaves.

[graymouser]

Well ok then. But many of the people I listed, like peasants and the self-employed, don't make that much money or have especially good living standards, probably no more than the average worker. Given that, what makes them part of a class above the workers and reactionary in their politics? I think many farmers and self-employed people would dispute any claim that they are living especially high on the hog compared to employees of a corporation.
On its own, the petite bourgeoisie has a "natural" program of utopian capitalism. Each of them thinks that, if only given a fair chance, they could be the new bourgeoisie, or that it is possible to return to a fictional idyllic past of small businesses peacefully competing amongst themselves. But in reality the petit bourgeoisie lives in constant fear of being dragged down into the proletariat. This fear means that they can be won over to the program of another class - be it the ruling class or the working class - if presented with the correct offer.

Historically, this has led to members of the petite bourgeoisie either being drawn to the far left (mostly in the form of student and youth movements) or the far right (through fascist movements). The right danger is clear: if the left doesn't win over petit-bourgeois elements, the right will. But on the left these are often inconsistent allies, for instance Marxist professors bring a great deal of knowledge but can often be drawn to esoteric topics or theoretical arrogance (as became the case with James Burnham, a leader of the US Socialist Workers Party who drifted quickly to the right after splitting with the SWP over the USSR). It's not that they should be rejected, but the proletarian component of the party should be foremost. This is something that James P. Cannon wrote pretty extensively about, especially in The Struggle for a Proletarian Party.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

The petite bourgeoisie is composed of individuals whose objective interests lie with the working class but who have a tendency to align with the bourgeoisie. Marx, of course, was much concerned with this class precisely because it could, and did, and still does makes the difference, depending on whether it joins with the proletariat (especially in times of crisis), or sticks with the capitalists, which it tends to do whenever it feels safe. The Commune would not have been possible without a solid cadre of small shop owners and shopkeepers. Likewise, May, 1968 collapsed once the petit-bourgeois panicked and withdrew. There's nothing to make you respect the petite bourgeoisie like being chased by the cops and having a shop-owner pull up his gates to let you in and then pull them down to lock out the cops.

You would think any revolutionary in his right mind would recognize this, and encourage the petits bourgeois to join up, but nooooo. We must have our little sneer-fest, must we not?

[graymouser]

The petite bourgeoisie is composed of individuals whose objective interests lie with the working class but who have a tendency to align with the bourgeoisie. Marx, of course, was much concerned with this class precisely because it could, and did, and still does makes the difference, depending on whether it joins with the proletariat (especially in times of crisis), or sticks with the capitalists, which it tends to do whenever it feels safe. The Commune would not have been possible without a solid cadre of small shop owners and shopkeepers. Likewise, May, 1968 collapsed once the petit-bourgeois panicked and withdrew. There's nothing to make you respect the petite bourgeoisie like being chased by the cops and having a shop-owner pull up his gates to let you in and then pull them down to lock out the cops.

You would think any revolutionary in his right mind would recognize this, and encourage the petits bourgeois to join up, but nooooo. We must have our little sneer-fest, must we not?
That's a very one-sided analysis. In many workers' parties, petit-bourgeois elements do wind up joining - but wind up drifting about politically under social pressure, and demanding that the organization follow them. It's not just posturing to say this; if you study the sociological background of the 1940 split in the US Socialist Workers Party, you will see that there was a very specific petit-bourgeois layer they had won over in the entry to the Socialist Party, along with a number of workers. This group had a rightward trajectory objectively, and wound up grouping behind Shachtman with some of them eventually going all the way over to neoconservatism. It's an object lesson in how the party can, and how it cannot, take petit-bourgeois members in.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

That's a very one-sided analysis. In many workers' parties, ..... It's an object lesson in how the party can, and how it cannot, take petit-bourgeois members in.

Correct. I'm not coming at this from the viewpoint of the interests of a worker's party but from the viewpoint of the interests of a revolutionary movement, meaning a widespread social movement as a whole. It's precisely because worker's parties have a tendency to reject petit-bourgeois elements a priori that they isolate themselves from movements like May '68. Moreover, they usually do so because of their preference for large-scale industrialisation and organization as a-priori "progressive:" Theda Skocpol suggests that to ignore the role of the peasantry in the Russian, Chinese and French revolutions is a similar failure of vision. In the post-industrial age it's a tragic mistake.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You guys! Its both a floor wax and a hair conditioner!

Could both viewpoints be true? Could the problem with France 1968 have been the lack of a revolutionary worker's party to move the struggle forward? James Cannon's SWP was not meant to be the worker's movement but rather a revolutionary organisation capable of providing leadership. To do this it needed to be focused towards that goal. The "In Defense of Marxism" polemics are interesting in that regard, Trotsky was right. On the other hand HPC was right in another thread when he said that a period of cultural education of the French working class was an an important preparation for 1968.

Perhaps both a "vanguardist strategy" (loosely defined) and a "cultural revolutionary strategy" are both needed.

Having said this I would agree w/Greymouser that the petty bourgeois are not capable of acting as a class.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Could the problem with France 1968 have been the lack of a revolutionary worker's party to move the struggle forward?

The problem was with the revolutionary workers' parties (plur.), and it was the same as in the US.: "ouvrierisme," meaning the belief that you're not a worker unless you wear overalls and burp a lot. (And, BTW, there is no way these guys are responsible for the failure of '68. I know who's responsible, but I'm not saying.)

The difference is, that after '68 the French started to seriously rethink the concept of class. I recently saw an interview with Olivier Besancenot, ex-Trot and a protege of Alain Krivine, the major Trotskyite leader in '68. Besancenot recently authored the introduction to a French translation of a manga version of Kapital. When the interviewer asked him why, Besancenot explained that the hero of the comic book was a worker who starts his own business, and all the conflicts he has to deal with in order not to betray his class, and Besancenot thought this was an excellent angle. Kind of like the Wobblies who started this discussion.

[brigadista]

listen to the words

6etstecez7w

[punisa]

Many people nowadays can't find a job and are forced to become self-employed. Also banks are always here to give you some capital to start up (and take all of your assets if you fail, including your only home).
This eventually creates a class that is super-exploited, not by the boss (they are their own boss), but by the system itself.
In this regard they are probably even more revolutionary and ready to destroy capitalism then the average worker is.

But this should not be labeled as a mistake Marx made, it's simply that the times changed dramatically since Marx.

The actual petty bourgeoisie from Marx's days are almost extinct by now, they either got swallowed by huge corporations or went bankrupt and became proletariat themselves (Marx did actually predict this, he called it downward mobility)

[Aurorus Ruber]

So you would say the petty bourgeoisie have traits of both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and therefore can follow either direction in a revolutionary situation depending on the circumstances. They have strong reasons to follow the working class, but since they also have bourgeois tendencies they can end up betraying the revolution.

What sort of strategy, then, should we pursue in working with the petty bourgeoisie?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

But this should not be labeled as a mistake Marx made, it's simply that the times changed dramatically since Marx.
Especially since Marx mentions the revolutionary potential of the dispossessed middle class as early as the Communist Manifesto.