Petit/Petty bourgeoisie

[Kenco Smooth]

Just 2 very basic points I'm not entirely sure on here.

Firstly, is it petit or petty bourgeoisie? I always thought it the former but have seen widespread usage of the latter also. Are they just differing terms for the same thing? If so when do those different terms come to be synonymous?

Secondly, what exactly constitutes the above mentioned class? Preferably a more useful analysis than the seemingly useless vaguery of 'middle-class' that is thrown about quite a lot here. What is the specific relation of the petit-bourgeoisie to the means of production? What is their role in enabling capitalist production where they are involved?

[Ocean Seal]

Just 2 very basic points I'm not entirely sure on here.

Firstly, is it petit or petty bourgeoisie? I always thought it the former but have seen widespread usage of the latter also. Are they just differing terms for the same thing? If so when do those different terms come to be synonymous?

Secondly, what exactly constitutes the above mentioned class? Preferably a more useful analysis than the seemingly useless vaguery of 'middle-class' that is thrown about quite a lot here. What is the specific relation of the petit-bourgeoisie to the means of production? What is their role in enabling capitalist production where they are involved?
I use petit-bourgeoisie but I believe that they are both correct.

The petit-bourgeoisie own the means of production but usually a large part of the profit is derived from their labor, and often act as manager's for their small business. Also they generally don't keep the end products of exploitation. They exploit their employees but usually the business is exploited itself because it has to pay back loans to the bank, pay rent where they work, to the point where the profit from exploitation is marginal.

[OhYesIdid]

Naah, I think that's much too flattering, Rbro, a PB is nothing more than a small-scale capitalist pig

[Rooster]

Petty is just the Anglicised version of the French word petite, which means small, and as the name suggests, they're just small capitalists. So you can use either (they both sound the same).

Typically, this means they own the means of their production or a large share of it. They can and usually buy the labour power of others but lack the financial muscle of accumulate large sums of capital. You can think of a small shop owner. They'll usually put in some managerial work or if the shop is very small, might get themselves a privileged job in the shop. They do not rely entirely on the sale or use of their own labour power in contrast to a prole. They're not as independent as haute-bourgeoisie.

[Ocean Seal]

Naah, I think that's much too flattering, Rbro, a PB is nothing more than a small-scale capitalist pig
I wouldn't say that they aren't exploitative much like the capitalist class, but the petit-bourgeoisie is a class which for the most part would probably fare better under socialism. The reason being that small-scale production is far less efficient than large-scale production and they are often outcompeted by the bourgeoisie or are brought to their knees by the bourgeoisie who they rely on for production. They are not even for the most part a permanent class as 80% of them go out of business in the first 10 years. That being said small business is not the same as petit-bourgeoisie. As in the United States small business means that you can hire up to 500 employees before you're considered a large business and can earn up to 5,000,000 dollars a year. These are not examples of the petit-bourgeoisie.
Although the bourgeois media attempts to portray the petit-bourgeoisie lifestyle as glamorous and all American it really isn't so for the majority. Most of them have to go years before making profit at the expense of their workers later on. I don't defend the petit-bourgeoisie or claim that they are a revolutionary class for the most part (unless of course we are referring to the peasantry in imperialized nations). But I want to point out that the hard truth is that as much as the media plays up the whole American dream coming from the petit-bourgeoisie that is not the case. Its not easy, and the majority of petit-bourgeoisie would have it better under socialism. However, I don't expect them to be swayed very easily by these arguments-- as the idea of losing the means of production would very much scare them. But they are a transitory class and as I said before 80% of them fail, and would probably re-enter the workforce as proletarians. So they are best viewed as a transitory class much like students.

[bezdomni]

Firstly, is it petit or petty bourgeoisie? I always thought it the former but have seen widespread usage of the latter also. Are they just differing terms for the same thing? If so when do those different terms come to be synonymous

Petty-bourgeois is anglicized form of petit-bourgeois (obviously a French word).

Both are correct.

[EDIT: See greymouser's post below for clarification on the etymology.]


Secondly, what exactly constitutes the above mentioned class? Preferably a more useful analysis than the seemingly useless vaguery of 'middle-class' that is thrown about quite a lot here. What is the specific relation of the petit-bourgeoisie to the means of production? What is their role in enabling capitalist production where they are involved

The petite-bourgeoisie may own some labor-power or small amounts of capital (e.g., a printing press) but have no control over large amounts of labor-power or capital.

Owners of small-businesses and many/most self-employed people fall into this category.


Though the petite bourgeoisie may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie, they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.
More importantly, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly.

Wikipedia - Petite-Bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie)

[Skammunist]

Sure the petit-bourgeoisie may in theory "exploit" their workers, but I don't think we should be so harsh towards them. For the most part, they are exploited themselves and usually work alongside their workers. I'm not saying that they don't support the capitalist system, but many of the small business owners have to pay the bills, upkeep, managment, and stuff like that. These guys aren't freaking Henry Ford, you know.

In many ways, they have more in common with us proletariat than the capitalist class. Sympathizing with them is easier in my opinion than blaming them for a system which they unknowingly contribute to. They really shoudln't be our enemies.

[graymouser]

OK, a little bit of French for clarity. The term petite bourgeoisie refers to the class of small independent producers, as opposed to the haute bourgeoisie or capitalist class proper. Since bourgeoisie is a noun in the feminine, the adjective is petite. But when bourgeois itself is an adjective, you use the masculine form, petit. So you would refer to the petite-bourgeoisie but a petit-bourgeois mentality. In English "petty" replaces both forms of petit. A single member of the petite bourgeoisie would be a petit bourgeois. NB: Petite-bourgeoisie is not the plural form, it's a collective noun designating a whole class. The plural of the collective noun would be petites bourgeoisies, while the plural of the adjective would be petits bourgeoises, but only in French.

As for what exactly it refers to, it's something of a flexible term. In the "purest" sense it refers strictly to the individuals who own the means of production and work for themselves. It is also used to refer to the middle strata between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie more generally - independent professionals, landholding peasants, managers, bureaucrats etc. The exact usage varies based on different writers and different contexts. The main characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie is that it does not occupy an independent position in class politics but moves between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

[Kenco Smooth]

Wow, feeling majorly stupid for not making the etymological link between the French and English there. :blink:

So in essence the petty-bourgeoisie:

1)Owns small amounts of capital and uses this to exploit a certain amount of labour
2)Is unable to sustain themselves or their capital from profit alone and thus has to labour on the capital themselves to an extent
3)Never makes enough overhead to notably improve the productive capabilities of their own capital or to invest in significant new capital

right?

[DienBienPhu]

You speak about Petty-bourgeoisie in the primary sens of the term, but either, now, the term includes also salary middle-classes. When it speak about "Petty-bourgeois ideology" or "Petty-bourgeois movement" that's what it talk about.

[graymouser]

You speak about Petty-bourgeoisie in the primary sens of the term, but either, now, the term includes also salary middle-classes. When it speak about "Petty-bourgeois ideology" or "Petty-bourgeois movement" that's what it talk about.
Some of the upper strata of the working class are paid salaries as well. There is also a dynamic where the petty bourgeoisie is continually being pushed away from its independent position and toward the proletariat, which fuels both petty bourgeois radicalism and fascism.

[DienBienPhu]

Some of the upper strata of the working class are paid salaries as well.

Yes, that's worker's aristocracy.


There is also a dynamic where the petty bourgeoisie is continually being pushed away from its independent position and toward the proletariat, which fuels both petty bourgeois radicalism and fascism.

The biggest part of it is pushed toward proletariat's living conditions, but they don't become proletarians for all that.

[human strike]

Sure the petit-bourgeoisie may in theory "exploit" their workers, but I don't think we should be so harsh towards them. For the most part, they are exploited themselves and usually work alongside their workers. I'm not saying that they don't support the capitalist system, but many of the small business owners have to pay the bills, upkeep, managment, and stuff like that. These guys aren't freaking Henry Ford, you know.

In many ways, they have more in common with us proletariat than the capitalist class. Sympathizing with them is easier in my opinion than blaming them for a system which they unknowingly contribute to. They really shoudln't be our enemies.

If it is the haute bourgeoisie that has exploited the proletariat in industry, then it is the petit bourgeoisie that has exploited the proletariat in politics. Historically it is the petit bourgeois who has been the strongest propagator of fascism, subaltern nationalism, right libertarianism, social democracy and vanguardist socialism. It's the petty bourgeois who has repeatedly betrayed the proletariat with its political deviancy. That's what makes it so dangerous. We see it as early as the 1830 Revolution (perhaps even earlier?) in France and repeatedly throughout Europe during the first half on the 20th century.

How this translates into a contemporary context I'm not so sure about however. Arguably the petit bourgeoisie barely exists anymore.

[La Peur Rouge]

Sure the petit-bourgeoisie may in theory "exploit" their workers, but I don't think we should be so harsh towards them.

They exploit in reality, not just theory.

[Coach Trotsky]

Agreed, the petty bourgeoisie exploits their workers in reality.
Arguing anything else is basically gutting out the Marxist argument about the exploitation of workers under capitalism.

And let us not forget that these small-scale capitalists consider themselves "above" the working people.

As for the better-off upper layers of the working class that see themselves as "middle class" partners with the small business owners, again, you have a similar snobby "standing above you working poor and underclass people" mentality that comes directly from a cultivated "middle class" identity and their social positions in comparison to the proletariat generally.

There is a reason why Marxists consider the working class to be the only class with a consistent fundamental class interest in the full development of socialism.