Self-employment in Marxism

[Red Rabbit]

Hey all, my first post here and it comes with a question I've been trying to find the answer to for some time.

What term should be used to describe the self-employed, IE should they be considered proletariat or bourgeois? Lower, Middle, or Upper class?

Also, what role in a Communist revolution would the self-employed have?

From what I have gathered so far, the self-employed are usually considered to be petit-bourgeois, but I have also read that the petit-bourgeois are specifically small business owners who also work alongside their employees, and that the truly self-employed (Those who work alone and sell their goods) should be referred to as either proletariat or just 'self-employed'.

Any insight to my questions would be extraordinarily helpful.

[ArrowLance]

The self-employed are largely part of the bourgeois class. As petite-bourgeois they do not control the means of production to such a degree as to accumulate and reinvest and therefore become a true capitalist. They often work alongside employees but this isn't necessary.

When you talk about individual craftsmen their numbers are so small that it isn't really useful to define them as part of a class.

[jake williams]

Lower, Middle, or Upper class?
These terms aren't really useful.

As to people who are "self-employed", it depends a lot on the actual relations of work involved. People who sell products or some services that they produce themselves using means of production which they own are, generally speaking, petty bourgeois. The role of this part of the petty bourgeoisie in society and in revolutionary politics is not simple.

It's important to recognize though that a whole lot of people who are regarded as something like "self-employed" are self-employed in a sort of legalistic way that actually means they're more exploited and fucked over by their real employers. I mean, in theory we could all incorporate ourselves and sell our own labour power as corporations and call ourselves small businesspeople not working for wages but selling commodities (our services) to other businesspeople, but it'd all be bullshit. Possibly it would be a way of avoiding taxes but with the legal costs involved and with the wages most of us would be working in such a situation it would be counterproductive.

It all really depends. There isn't an answer that applies perfectly. In general though either a plurality or a majority of "self-employed" people are petty bourgeois. While generally speaking most of them do have a stake in ending capitalism because capitalism is horrible, history does not always make it clear to this section of the petty-bourgeoisie that this much is the case.

[Tablo]

Self-employed = Petite-bourgeoisie technically

Not to say all self-employed people smoke cigars and wear top hats.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Self-employed doesn't imply exploitative...

Basically, if you are using other peoples labor you are bourgeoisie.

If you are using other peoples labor as well as your own, you are petite-bourgeoisie.

If you are using only your own labor, and selling your own labor as a service you are a proletariat.

PS - I don't like the term petite-bourgeoisie, it seems kind of demeaning in a sense that there are many petite-bourgeoisie who are in just as bad a position as the proletariat. Just the sound of the word sounds bad I think.

[Tablo]

PS - I don't like the term petite-bourgeoisie, it seems kind of demeaning in a sense that there are many petite-bourgeoisie who are in just as bad a position as the proletariat. Just the sound of the word sounds bad I think.
I completely agree. A lot of self-employed/small business owners aren't living well at all.

[Commissar Rykov]

I completely agree. A lot of self-employed/small business owners aren't living well at all.
Which is all part of the Proletarianization of the Petit-Bourgeoisie.

The Petit-Bourgeoisie are in a bizarre position as they have a foot on either side of the class divide between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat as we have seen especially in the United States this group is being broken apart and either coming full tilt into the Bourgeoisie or becoming once again part of the Proletariat.

[pastradamus]

The Vast,Vast majority of people who can be described as being "self-employed" are not petite-bourgeoisie, Bourgeois or middle class. They are working class prolitariens.

This group includes Taxi Drivers, Tradesmen, Artisans, Contractors and Independant workers.

There are also petit bourgeois self-employed people such as shop owners and land owners but the bulk of the self-employed is comprised of the working class.

[jake williams]

Basically, if you are using other peoples labor you are bourgeoisie.

If you are using other peoples labor as well as your own, you are petite-bourgeoisie.

If you are using only your own labor, and selling your own labor as a service you are a proletariat.
This is fairly accurate, but really the distinction is not simply about who exploits labour but about who owns the means of production. You can own means of production without exploiting others' labour and generally speaking it makes you petty-bourgeois.


I don't like the term petite-bourgeoisie, it seems kind of demeaning in a sense that there are many petite-bourgeoisie who are in just as bad a position as the proletariat. Just the sound of the word sounds bad I think.
The thing is Marx wasn't centrally analytically concerned about subjective evaluations of how "good" or "bad" people have it. To class the petty bourgeoisie with the bourgeoisie is not to say that both have it "good" while all workers have it "bad", but to point out their respective relationships to the means of production.

[Red Rabbit]

Thanks all for the really good insight. :)

The main reason I was asking was because I am a freelance writer and programmer, and am considered self-employed. I technically don't own or run a business and I make money by selling my time and labour power to various companies, similarly to the proletariat.

This is mainly why I was confused in the terminology.

[jake williams]

Thanks all for the really good insight. :)

The main reason I was asking was because I am a freelance writer and programmer, and am considered self-employed. I technically don't own or run a business and I make money by selling my time and labour power to various companies, similarly to the proletariat.

This is mainly why I was confused in the terminology.
Well if you're a "freelance writer" it means, typically, that you're not publishing your own work - because you don't own a publishing house. You're not self-employed, you're precariously employed by whomever you can find to publish your work.

Things are similar with software but the story there is a lot more complex. Certain types of computer programming could conceiveably be done in one's home fairly cheaply and one would in effect be a petty-bourgeois software producer and not simply a software programmer. That said with the modern state of intellectual property being what it is and the industry becoming increasingly complex (necessitating among other things access to expensive software development packages), software programmers are very often, in effect, industrialized intellectual workers.

[pastradamus]

Thanks all for the really good insight. :)

The main reason I was asking was because I am a freelance writer and programmer, and am considered self-employed. I technically don't own or run a business and I make money by selling my time and labour power to various companies, similarly to the proletariat.

This is mainly why I was confused in the terminology.

You are working class. You offer your labour for money and you don't exploit anybody for profit. You are working class.