Are small business owners bourgeois if they don't employ anyone?

[The Jay]

Small business owners, of a confectionery for example, own their own means of production right? That would just make them liberated (partly) proletarians, so long as they have no wage slaves. Could anyone help clear this up?

[tir1944]

They are the Petit-Bourgeoisie i'd say...

[ВАЛТЕР]

They would be considered Petite Bourgeoisie. Considering they own the means of production, however they apply their own labor.

[Astarte]

Yes, small shopkeepers who don't employ anyone and just scrape by are petty bourgeoisie ... I would say these small shopkeepers, who do not have any employees of their own are the organic allies of the working class.

[The Jay]

Can one be rich and a worker then? take doctors for example.

[ВАЛТЕР]

If they do not own their own practice, then yes they are considered proletariat.

[The Jay]

Then it seems that much of the proletariat has great vested interest in maintaining the capitalist system to maintain their lifestyles. What is to be done? reference intended

[Apoi_Viitor]

Then it seems that much of the proletariat has great vested interest in maintaining the capitalist system to maintain their lifestyles. What is to be done? reference intended

Not really, since the vast majority of the proletariat aren't doctors or other high end occupations. Anyway, I think that categorizing class simply on relationships to the means of production is flawed. Any analytical system that places industrial workers and sports stars in the same social class is incorrect...

[Astarte]

I would dispute doctors not "owning their own practice" not being petty bourgeois. There are not too many doctors that work for a wage, or are salaried - they have far more privileges in dealing with their "employer" (a hospital, or a joint practice owned collectively by a handful of doctors surgeons). Their "prestige" and mobility socially and economically outstrips that of a classical wage earner - they are not subject to the economic totalitarianality proles are.

[Tabarnack]

Splitting hairs, it's irrelevant.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Then it seems that much of the proletariat has great vested interest in maintaining the capitalist system to maintain their lifestyles. What is to be done? reference intended

The vast majority of the population are workers. Truck drivers, teachers, factory workers, etc etc.

[The Jay]

I would dispute doctors not "owning their own practice" not being petty bourgeois. There are not too many doctors that work for a wage, or are salaried - they have far more privileges in dealing with their "employer" (a hospital, or a joint practice owned collectively by a handful of doctors surgeons). Their "prestige" and mobility socially and economically outstrips that of a classical wage earner - they are not subject to the economic totalitarianality proles are.

That's only because they have a highly controlled skill. If privileges with employers were the issue then artists would be petit bourgeois as well right?

[The Jay]

There's still the question of convincing the better off proletariat that it's in their interest to swap economic modalities.

[MattShizzle]

Some of the people close to mentioned in the OP have employees, but said employees are all family (or sometimes close friends) and are treated much more fairly than typical employees. In fact, plenty of times rather than a salary they get part of the profits.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Some of the people close to mentioned in the OP have employees, but said employees are all family (or sometimes close friends) and are treated much more fairly than typical employees. In fact, plenty of times rather than a salary they get part of the profits.

Still petite bourgeoisie, as long as they own the means of production, and apply their own labor as well they are petite bourgeoisie.
If however, they do not apply their own labor and use employees to make their product while they reap the rewards, then they are bourgeoisie.

[Aleenik]

Not really, since the vast majority of the proletariat aren't doctors or other high end occupations. Anyway, I think that categorizing class simply on relationships to the means of production is flawed. Any analytical system that places industrial workers and sports stars in the same social class is incorrect...It doesn't matter how much money you make. You could make 100 million a year and still be a proletariat. It matters what your social relationship is. Are you exploiting others or are you not? That is what matters.

[Yugo45]

Not really, since the vast majority of the proletariat aren't doctors or other high end occupations. Anyway, I think that categorizing class simply on relationships to the means of production is flawed. Any analytical system that places industrial workers and sports stars in the same social class is incorrect...

Well, you do have a point there..

Maybe they can be put in lumpenproleteriat? I mean, let's face it, sport and movie stars probably wouldn't want a revolution to happen, since capitalist society treats them good. Therefore, they will most likely never achieve class consciousness (which is the definition of lumpen, right?).

[Dogs On Acid]

Well, you do have a point there..

Maybe they can be put in lumpenproleteriat? I mean, let's face it, sport and movie stars probably wouldn't want a revolution to happen, since capitalist society treats them good. Therefore, they will most likely never achieve class consciousness (which is the definition of lumpen, right?).

Yes they are lumpen. Although movie stars and sports players earn a wage, they are outside the system of production and aren't of any interest in a Revolution. They are workers who have no connection to the Means of Production.

[Astarte]

That's only because they have a highly controlled skill. If privileges with employers were the issue then artists would be petit bourgeois as well right?

What kind of artist are we talking about? Wage or salaried graphic designers, or Matisse? The former would be a specialized wage earner, the latter petty bourgeois.

Also, I do not think that if "you make 100 million" you could still be a proletarian - that's insane. What kind of a "wage earner" makes that much?

Doctors and the latter kind of artists are petty bourgeois intelligensia.

[Astarte]

Yes they are lumpen. Although movie stars and sports players earn a wage, they are outside the system of production and aren't of any interest in a Revolution. They are workers who have no connection to the Means of Production.

Professional athletes and movie stars are not "lumpen proletariat". Playing sports is not working. Play acting is not working. They are given huge lump sums of contracted monies in exchange for special skills - we are talking about the highest end of the petty bourgeoisie here, in many case approaching full bourgeois - i.e. how Nolan Ryan now is part owner of the Texas Rangers.

On the basis of the huge sums of capital these castes collect (famous movie stars, professional athletes, uber successful and sought after artists, and even most doctors), they are forever separated from the need to engage in wage labor, thus, how could they be lumpen proletariat, or proletariat?

[anarcho-communist4]

Ive got a question then. My father owns his own business, does not employ anyone, does all the work him self. Hes a home inspector. Would this make his a petite bourgeoisie

[Dogs On Acid]

Ive got a question then. My father owns his own business, does not employ anyone, does all the work him self. Hes a home inspector. Would this make his a petite bourgeoisie

Yes because he owns the means of production but is not employed by another, and does not have enough capital to employ others and not work himself.

[Dogs On Acid]

Professional athletes and movie stars are not "lumpen proletariat". Playing sports is not working. Play acting is not working. They are given huge lump sums of contracted monies in exchange for special skills - we are talking about the highest end of the petty bourgeoisie here, in many case approaching full bourgeois - i.e. how Nolan Ryan now is part owner of the Texas Rangers.

On the basis of the huge sums of capital these castes collect (famous movie stars, professional athletes, uber successful and sought after artists, and even most doctors), they are forever separated from the need to engage in wage labor, thus, how could they be lumpen proletariat, or proletariat?

Because acting is working, and so is any other entertainment that requires one's physical and mental labour. They are also payed a wage, or a sum. As stated before, the amount of that given sum is irrelevant, what matters is:

Do you own the means of production, and do you employ people.

[Astarte]

Because acting is working, and so is any other entertainment that requires one's physical and mental labour. They are also payed a wage, or a sum. As stated before, the amount of that given sum is irrelevant, what matters is:

Do you own the means of production, and do you employ people.

Bunk. There is no way a caste like movie stars or professional athletes can be considered working class - the amount of capital they possess means they easily can transfer that capital into means of production or political power - Al Franken, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, etc, etc - perhaps they came from working class backgrounds, but once when accumulated enough capital to be able to either never have to engage in real productive labor again, and/or transfer themselves to the capitalist class or members of the bourgeois governmental bureaucracy, it is absurd to call them "proletarian", no matter how much "wage labor" they put into making movies.

While the relation to the means of production does determine class in most normal cases, I feel there are exceptions when it comes to the "cultural intelligensia" - meaning, mass accumulations of wealth can elevate them to bourgeois status. If you want to get really technical - I could see the term "lumpen bourgeois" applying to some entertainers and professional athletes, as they have the accumulations to easily become capitalists, or become elected to bourgeois governmental positions, but often times it remains stagnant - that is not used to purchase means of production with, or acquire political positions.

Especially as the athlete or entertainer becomes more famous, they also acquire multiple corporate endorsers, and in fact, sell *themselves* as a commodity, and a brand - Fred the Steelworker would never be paid enormous amounts of capital for, or have the social prestige to successfully sell his face, or name as a brand, like "Michael Jordan". Do you see the point now?

[Manic Impressive]

A proletarian must sell there labour to a member of the bourgeoisie. Once someone no longer needs to sell their labour they cease to be a proletarian. Actors, sports people, etc in the vast majority must sell their labour to a member of the bourgeoisie until the point where they are rich enough not to have to. Once someone reaches this point and if they do not buy into the ownership of the means of production they cease to be part of the process of production and cease to have an economic class. These people are a tiny minority, small enough infact to call them an anomaly.



Maybe they can be put in lumpenproleteriat? I mean, let's face it, sport and movie stars probably wouldn't want a revolution to happen, since capitalist society treats them good. Therefore, they will most likely never achieve class consciousness (which is the definition of lumpen, right?).

Yes they are lumpen. Although movie stars and sports players earn a wage, they are outside the system of production and aren't of any interest in a Revolution. They are workers who have no connection to the Means of Production.

Lumpen as far as I know means something like refuse. Lumpenproletarian = the refuse of the working class. The concept of the lumpenproletariat is basically bollocks and in my opinion was part of Marx's social snobbery. The basic premise is that their labour is damaging to the rest of the working class, in other words class traitors. There is no way you can consider actors, entertainers, artists or sports people as lumpenproletariat.

What's the difference between a proletarian and a member of the petit bourgeois on the same income?

What has already been established is that one owns the means of production and the other does not. But no one has mentioned why that matters.

It matters because the proletarian is alienated from their labour. This means that they do not have any constructive input into what they produce or how they produce it, whereas a petit-bourgeois is free to create a product anyway they like and in any manner they choose. A proletarian is also only in competition with other proletarians in the labour market for better wages/conditions. A Petit-bourgeouis is in direct competition with other petit bourgeois and the real bourgeois.

So as you can see the proletarian has more reasons than the petit-bourgeouis to want a change in the means of production but the petit-bourgeois in most cases would also be better off with socialism due to struggling to compete with the bourgeoisie.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

[anarcho-communist4]

Yes because he owns the means of production but is not employed by another, and does not have enough capital to employ others and not work himself.

what means of production??

[Thirsty Crow]

Ive got a question then. My father owns his own business, does not employ anyone, does all the work him self. Hes a home inspector. Would this make his a petite bourgeoisie



what means of production??

Whichever he's using to conduct the work he does. I'm not entirely sure what does a "home inspector" do (probably inspecting the safety of home appliances like heating or something?), but the point is that the person in question has had a small sum of capital invested in being legally recognised as an economic entity (if that makes any sense; I'm getting at that your father is recognized as a business owner) and to obtain the necessary instruments to work.

What manic impressive said with regard to concrete working conditions is absolutely vital. The social conditions of the self-employed (I think this term would be more appropriate than "petite bourgeois") differ from those faced by the working class at least with respect to the autonomy of the labour process.

[EvilRedGuy]

I think wealth determines ones revolutionary potential more than just class.

I would also like to point out that things like entertainment can't be considered productive-work and is therefore not real work but self-interest work, and are usually not alientated from there work (musicians, indie game devs, movie star/makers/producers/etc, art, other entertainment, etc.).

[Thirsty Crow]

I would also like to point out that things like entertainment can't be considered productive-work and is therefore not real work but self-interest work, and are usually not alientated from there work (musicians, indie game devs, movie star/makers/producers/etc, art, other entertainment, etc.).
Your equation of productive work with colloquial "real work" is problematic here. Even work that is not strictly productive (of surplus value) is absolutely necessary (under capitalism, for example, in order that surplus value may be realized).

Moreover, you're making the mistake of viewing the whole of the entertainment industry as one homogenous group within which there is no significant stratification and differences with regard to conditions of labour, which is a mistake in my opinion. For instance, many musicians face specific conditions with regard to their relationship to the record company (contracts for a specific number of records, deadlines, interventions into the creative process), but your approach can't be helpful in analyzing these.

[Manic Impressive]

I think wealth determines ones revolutionary potential more than just class.

I would also like to point out that things like entertainment can't be considered productive-work and is therefore not real work but self-interest work, and are usually not alientated from there work (musicians, indie game devs, movie star/makers/producers/etc, art, other entertainment, etc.).
to add to what Menocchio has said an actor receives instruction from the director, if those instructions are not followed the actor will be fired or at best edited out. The director has to answer to the producer, the producers job is to secure financial backing as well as organize the means in which to produce the entertainment i.e distribution, equipment, location and so on. The producer answers to the financial backers which in film is usually the studios, who have great input on the content of the production i.e. if they find that the director is adding a radical edge to their film they can have it removed or withdraw their funding. A clear proletarian/bourgeois relationship.

On the matter of unproductive labour, what about all the other labour that goes into making a film from the lighting and sound engineers to the small child in a sweatshop making the DVDs, they are all part of the process of production. Is their labour also unproductive? do they cease to be proletarian?

[robbo203]

A proletarian must sell there labour to a member of the bourgeoisie. Once someone no longer needs to sell their labour they cease to be a proletarian. Actors, sports people, etc in the vast majority must sell their labour to a member of the bourgeoisie until the point where they are rich enough not to have to. Once someone reaches this point and if they do not buy into the ownership of the means of production they cease to be part of the process of production and cease to have an economic class. These people are a tiny minority, small enough infact to call them an anomaly.


I personally do not regard the concept of the petit bourgeosie (PB) to be a particularly useful one and would categorise them as a sub categoriy of the working class. They do not possess enough capital to live upon and are therefore compelled to work. That makes them fundamentally working class in my book.

I am self employed gardener and, yes, I own a few tools - a strimmer, some chainsaws and so on. To me that notion that I am not a member of the working class is just ludicrous - what I earn is peanuts. I barely manage to keep my head above water from month to month. True, I dont sell my labour power to a capitalist (many workers employed by the state dont do so either- are they not working class?) but I still have to sell my labour power and that surely is the point. I have to sell my labour power because like millions of other workers I am effectively separated from the means of production in any meaningful sense

If communism/socialism is to be achieved through a proletarian revolution then it is essential that the concept of a proletariat should be as broadly based and inclusive as possible. Leave the finer nuaunces to the academic sociologists!

[Manic Impressive]

I personally do not regard the concept of the petit bourgeosie (PB) to be a particularly useful one and would categorise them as a sub categoriy of the working class. They do not possess enough capital to live upon and are therefore compelled to work. That makes them fundamentally working class in my book.

I am self employed gardener and, yes, I own a few tools - a strimmer, some chainsaws and so on. To me that notion that I am not a member of the working class is just ludicrous - what I earn is peanuts. I barely manage to keep my head above water from month to month. True, I dont sell my labour power to a capitalist (many workers employed by the state dont do so either- are they not working class?) but I still have to sell my labour power and that surely is the point. I have to sell my labour power because like millions of other workers I am effectively separated from the means of production in any meaningful sense

If communism/socialism is to be achieved through a proletarian revolution then it is essential that the concept of a proletariat should be as broadly based and inclusive as possible. Leave the finer nuaunces to the academic sociologists!
Yes I agree but the only difference is you own your tools (your MoP) and you are not alienated from your labour and you do not compete against other proletarians in the job market, your competition is presumably from larger gardening firms competing for the same jobs. I agree that those small differences don't really mean anything in reality in terms of whether revolution is in your interests as with the vast majority of small business owners whose living is not secure and who may easily be forced to become proletarian. The reason I used the term petit bourgeois and explained it in that way is because it seemed as if some people needed to learn/be reminded of the basics before putting it in a modern context.

[robbo203]

Yes I agree but the only difference is you own your tools (your MoP) and you are not alienated from your labour and you do not compete against other proletarians in the job market, your competition is presumably from larger gardening firms competing for the same jobs. I agree that those small differences don't really mean anything in reality in terms of whether revolution is in your interests as with the vast majority of small business owners whose living is not secure and who may easily be forced to become proletarian. The reason I used the term petit bourgeois and explained it in that way is because it seemed as if some people needed to learn/be reminded of the basics before putting it in a modern context.

Im not too sure about this idea of not being alienated from my labour. Im under the direction amd authority of those who employ me to do the work and, believe me, some of the work is not pleasant. Try strimming all day amongst the olive groves at the height of a Spanish summer when the campo is bone dry and the fine particles kicked up get in your throat leaving you coughing for days despite your best efforts at protection. As I say, not pleasant - but I have to do it. I need the dosh.


I dont rule out using the term petit bourgeoisie - it has its uses - but I put it to you, might it not be better considered as sub-category of the general category of proletariat. After all, the definition of a proletarian as someone who is forced to sell his/her labour power to a capitalist for a wage is problematic for other reasons as it excludes, on the face of it, large numbers of waged employees who do not strictly sell their labour power to a capitalist - such as state employees

[Manic Impressive]

Im not too sure about this idea of not being alienated from my labour. Im under the direction amd authority of those who employ me to do the work and, believe me, some of the work is not pleasant. Try strimming all day amongst the olive groves at the height of a Spanish summer when the campo is bone dry and the fine particles kicked up get in your throat leaving you coughing for days despite your best efforts at protection. As I say, not pleasant - but I have to do it. I need the dosh.
swap Spain for South London and then yeah I have tried it ;) It's actually what my brother does and as he's almost unemployable (very basic literacy and criminal record) It's not even really a choice whether he works as a small business owner or a wage slave since a member of the bourgeoisie would probably not employ him. I'm sure that's quite a common reason for many people around the world to employ themselves.


I dont rule out using the term petit bourgeoisie - it has its uses - but I put it to you, might it not be better considered as sub-category of the general category of proletariat. After all, the definition of a proletarian as someone who is forced to sell his/her labour power to a capitalist for a wage is problematic for other reasons as it excludes, on the face of it, large numbers of waged employees who do not strictly sell their labour power to a capitalist - such as state employees
Well you couldn't lump the entire petit bourgeois in with the proletarians as the larger petit bourgeois have a completely different set of material conditions. There certainly are contradictions to Marx's class analysis due to the evolution of capitalism. Perhaps you could expand a bit further on the 2 class analysis?

[anarcho-communist4]

My father the home inspector, pretty much gets HIRED by other people to inspect their homes before they buy them. The fact that he owns his own business is really just more of an advertising scheme and for credibility. You also need a Home Inspectors license to do so. But he owns NO means of production what soever? His truck? But i understand that the point that is being put across is that if you own a business (no matter what) you are petite-bourgeoisie. We scratch to survive, my father may own his own business but he sells his labour just like anyone else. I think that would classify him has a proletariat.

[robbo203]

swap Spain for South London and then yeah I have tried it ;) It's actually what my brother does and as he's almost unemployable (very basic literacy and criminal record) It's not even really a choice whether he works as a small business owner or a wage slave since a member of the bourgeoisie would probably not employ him. I'm sure that's quite a common reason for many people around the world to employ themselves.

Ah yes the green and pleasant environs of the Home Counties:) I used to be a gardener when I lived in Surrey before moving to Cornwall. Here in southern Spain it is very very different and up in the mountain there is a constant risk of fire. Which is why there is call for people like me to strim verges and whatnot. You get idiots dropping ciggies out of the window and - whooooosh - you've got a full scale fire on the campo in a matter of minutes and the helicoptors overhead with their buckets. Few years back two tourists got lost above Lanjaron and unbelievably lit a fire to call for help. 2000 hectares of mainly forest went up in flames. So if your bruv wants a jobstrimming this is not a bad part of the world to be in although , having said that, Spain has massive unemployment - over 21%. Youth unemployment in Andalucia is 50%. People like me - gardeners - only survive by charging a very modest rate and being reliable. Many of my clients have run out of money or packed up and returned to the UK or wherever



Well you couldn't lump the entire petit bourgeois in with the proletarians as the larger petit bourgeois have a completely different set of material conditions. There certainly are contradictions to Marx's class analysis due to the evolution of capitalism. Perhaps you could expand a bit further on the 2 class analysis?

I think the thing is that classes as economic categories are abstractions - ideal types. In reality there is a spectrum in which one class shades into another. From that point of view, yes, certainly there are some inhabit the grey area between classes.

I just think a more useful and simple criterion - from our point of view - to apply when classifying people is to ask straightforwardly whether or not they possess sufficient capital to live upon without needing to work. Who they work for or how they work or are paid seems to me to be less important than the fact that are economically obliged to work

[Blackburn]

Just scraping by is BS terminology.

They are still doing way better than a wage slave.

Cash under the counter. Hiding things form the tax department. Leased luxury vehicle.

They are scraping by because they are paying one or two mortgages towards owning more assets.

Yeah there is a lot of stress running a small business, but most are milking the system anyways they know how.

[robbo203]

Just scraping by is BS terminology.

They are still doing way better than a wage slave.

Cash under the counter. Hiding things form the tax department. Leased luxury vehicle.

They are scraping by because they are paying one or two mortgages towards owning more assets.

Yeah there is a lot of stress running a small business, but most are milking the system anyways they know how.

A generalisation which applies to some but not to (many) others. One can just as easily turns this around by pointing out that many wage slaves are doing way better than some like myself who are technically "self employed". "Milking the system" is not an expression that readily springs to mind as far as such people are concerned. Their precarious and impoverished state is what makes them eminently milkable by the system that has reduced them to this state.

[EvilRedGuy]

to add to what Menocchio has said an actor receives instruction from the director, if those instructions are not followed the actor will be fired or at best edited out. The director has to answer to the producer, the producers job is to secure financial backing as well as organize the means in which to produce the entertainment i.e distribution, equipment, location and so on. The producer answers to the financial backers which in film is usually the studios, who have great input on the content of the production i.e. if they find that the director is adding a radical edge to their film they can have it removed or withdraw their funding. A clear proletarian/bourgeois relationship.

On the matter of unproductive labour, what about all the other labour that goes into making a film from the lighting and sound engineers to the small child in a sweatshop making the DVDs, they are all part of the process of production. Is their labour also unproductive? do they cease to be proletarian?


Way to to completely misunderstand what i said. The child in building the DVD is productive work, the CEO and all the useless entertainment crap isn't actual work. Work is something that is physical. Is having a sport and being paid millions for being a football star a productive work? The person who is cleaning, medical assisting, creating things in sweatshops are the real workers. Don't compare them to movie stars, musicians, or directors. They do NO work, only entertainment and self-interest.

[Thirsty Crow]

Way to to completely misunderstand what i said. The child in building the DVD is productive work, the CEO and all the useless entertainment crap isn't actual work. Work is something that is physical. Is having a sport and being paid millions for being a football star a productive work? The person who is cleaning, medical assisting, creating things in sweatshops are the real workers. Don't compare them to movie stars, musicians, or directors. They do NO work, only entertainment and self-interest.
The CEO performs a vital function in the process of accumulation: she organizes the flow of capital and decides upon the ways in which it should be reproduced as expanded in the most profitable manner. This does not presuppose even for a minute that only a naturally gifted few, intelligent enough, are able to perform this function, but rather that the process of acquiring skill and knowledge is itself inextricably linked to class domination and the resulting social, political, and economic inequality. This means that skills are not naturally scarce, but that the social mechanisms which function as possibilities for its acquiring are structured so that the relative scarcity might remain.
You're again approaching this issue from a blindingly moralist perspective, and fail to account for the real position of certain occupations within the process of accumulation.
And no, work is not something that is entirely physical in itself, or do you think that Marxists who spoke of the division of labour were mistaken to identify mental labour as labour nonetheless?

And I'm really sorry if music and art are ("entertainment") are "useless crap" for you. But again, you're not making any sense by which we could discuss the possibilities of organizing these human activities - which are important for a whole host of people, and enjoyable, once capital is abolished. Don't get me wrong, I get it, big movie stars and big "prodigies" of the music industry are grossly overpaid, but yet again, your one sided approach is both unproductive and false.

[Ned Kelly]

They would be considered Petite Bourgeoisie. Considering they own the means of production, however they apply their own labor.

I would argue with that, they own their own tiny means of production but they don't exploit anyones labour. It's an example of something that was common pre-capitalism, that of a small artisan, something that hardly exists today

[EvilRedGuy]

The CEO performs a vital function in the process of accumulation: she organizes the flow of capital and decides upon the ways in which it should be reproduced as expanded in the most profitable manner. This does not presuppose even for a minute that only a naturally gifted few, intelligent enough, are able to perform this function, but rather that the process of acquiring skill and knowledge is itself inextricably linked to class domination and the resulting social, political, and economic inequality. This means that skills are not naturally scarce, but that the social mechanisms which function as possibilities for its acquiring are structured so that the relative scarcity might remain.
You're again approaching this issue from a blindingly moralist perspective, and fail to account for the real position of certain occupations within the process of accumulation.
And no, work is not something that is entirely physical in itself, or do you think that Marxists who spoke of the division of labour were mistaken to identify mental labour as labour nonetheless?

And I'm really sorry if music and art are ("entertainment") are "useless crap" for you. But again, you're not making any sense by which we could discuss the possibilities of organizing these human activities - which are important for a whole host of people, and enjoyable, once capital is abolished. Don't get me wrong, I get it, big movie stars and big "prodigies" of the music industry are grossly overpaid, but yet again, your one sided approach is both unproductive and false.

You are saying the Bourgeoisie and Petty-Bourgeoisie are workers?

Fuck you. THEY DON'T DO SHIT.

[Thirsty Crow]

You are saying the Bourgeoisie and Petty-Bourgeoisie are workers?

Fuck you. THEY DON'T DO SHIT.
That's it, I quit.

Good luck with your political organizing when you can't even bring yourself to critically understand the phenomena you're talking about, and instead prefer tired formulas and sloganeering shortcuts.

[Manic Impressive]

Way to to completely misunderstand what i said. The child in building the DVD is productive work, the CEO and all the useless entertainment crap isn't actual work. Work is something that is physical. Is having a sport and being paid millions for being a football star a productive work? The person who is cleaning, medical assisting, creating things in sweatshops are the real workers. Don't compare them to movie stars, musicians, or directors. They do NO work, only entertainment and self-interest.
I don't think I misunderstood you, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

By creating entertainment such as a film you are creating a commodity which is then sold to people. People buy entertainment as a means to relax, excite, escape, etc. Entertainment is a commodity as any other and in the process of production those who take up the position of creating that commodity and have wealth extracted from the value of that commodity hold the same relation in the production chain, whether you make the DVD, do the lighting or sound, act or direct you still add value to the final product, the commodity which is then sold for a profit by the people who put the money in.

If manual labour is the only form of productive labour was I not a proletarian when I worked in a call centre complaints department? Or my friend who works in a supermarket, his primary role is to stand in one isle all day long and help customers, he's not even allowed to leave that isle as they employ one member of staff to stand in every isle in their supermarket. We all add value to the commodity being sold, although it's not always obvious what our labour is creating we wouldn't be employed if we didn't add value.

[coda]

<<Then it seems that much of the proletariat has great vested interest in maintaining the capitalist system to maintain their lifestyles.>>>

I agree with that.

something else to consider: take the common proletarian, working a dead end wage job. With the small wage he invests it into shares in a public corporation providing the company with working capital. He is now a stockholder, owning a share in a company (that may or may not employ third world sweat shop labour) and receiving a scheduled quarterly payout or loss based upon how well the company did during that quarter. Depending on the stock, he/she may also have a vote in the structure of the company.

Obviously, someone getting a quarterly payout based on business profits is going to hope for the continuous success of the business.

Proletarian, Petit-Bourgeoisie, Capitalist?

[Ismail]

Proletarian, Petit-Bourgeoisie, Capitalist?He's a proletarian insofar as he still works for a wage and gains only a tiny, supplementary amount of income from stocks. These "shareholders" have no say at all over how the enterprise is run.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia had an article on "People's Capitalism (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/People%27s+Capitalism%2c+Theory+of)," which was notable in the 50's and 60's.

The theory of people’s capitalism absorbed a number of concepts: “diffusion of ownership,” the “managerial revolution,” and the “revolution in incomes.” Although these concepts reflect certain important tendencies in the development of modern capitalism, they offer a distorted interpretation of them. Propagandizing the thesis of diffusion of ownership, A. Berle, J. K. Galbraith (USA), and other bourgeois economists assert that under modern capitalism there has been a steady increase in the number of small stockholders, who have begun to exert a decisive influence on the activities of the corporations. In recent decades the largest corporations have stepped up the sale of stocks to their most highly skilled workers and office employees. For example, between 1952 and 1970 the number of stockholders in the USA increased from 6.5 million to 30.9 million, or about 15 percent of the total population. However, the “diffusion of stocks” does not signify diffusion of ownership: the overwhelming share of joint-stock capital is still controlled by a numerically insignificant capitalist social clique. The percentage of stockholders among low-income groups is very small. According to the American economist R. Goldsmith, in 1929, 65.6 percent of the joint-stock capital controlled by individuals was owned by 1 percent of the US population, and in 1953, 76 percent was owned by 1 percent. In 1967 (according to incomplete data), 2,024 wealthy American families owned stocks with a total value of $111.2 billion (15 percent of the value of all stocks in circulation). By means of these stocks, a numerically insignificant ruling clique of the capitalist class directly controls 1,995 major corporations with total assets of $290 billion.

The distribution of a percentage of the total number of stocks among the broad masses of the population strengthens the rule of the monopolies, since it gives them an opportunity to accumulate additional capital from the savings of the working people and enables them to maintain control over joint-stock companies through ownership of fewer shares. Moreover, the attraction of additional capital contributes to the acceleration of monopolistic concentration in the interests of a narrow circle of financial magnates. The sale of stocks to the people and the creation of the illusion that the working people are included in capitalist ownership help attain the goal of splitting the working-class movement and muffling the class struggle of the proletariat. Increasing the number of small stockholders does not change the structure of capitalist production relations as a system of exploitation of hired labor by capital. V. I. Lenin wrote: “The ‘democratization’ of the ownership of shares, from which the bourgeois sophists and opportunist so-called ‘Social-Democrats’ expect (or say that they expect) the ‘democratization of capital,’ the strengthening of the role and significance of small-scale production, etc., is, in fact, one of the ways of increasing the power of the financial oligarchy” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 27, p. 345).

An important component of the theory of people’s capitalism is the doctrine of the managerial revolution, which was formulated by J. Burnham and further developed by A. Berle, G. C. Means, and other bourgeois economists and sociologists. The doctrine of the managerial revolution alleges that the capitalists have been transformed into nominal proprietors and the full complement of power has been transferred to hired managers, who provide leadership in the interests of the entire society. The increase in the number of hired managers and, specifically, the advancement of certain managers to top positions in the economy and in politics create the illusion that this managerial stratum is autonomous, or independent of the proprietors of capital. However, supreme control over the managers is exercised by the financial magnates, who own controlling blocks of shares.

[coda]

Thanks for the article!

[Jolly Red Giant]

My father was a blocklayer - he was self-employed - he did mainly small building jobs for other working class people, building a wall or a kitchen extension etc. He employed a labourer to assist him. Occasionally he employed other tradesmen to do specific jobs e.g an electrician. He was also trade union activist almost his entire life and was more 'proletarian' than 95% of the people who post on this forum.

Many working class people these days own stocks and shares or small amounts of property that they rent out. It doesn't make them anything other than working class. They are forced by the capitalist system to take care of their old age by 'playing the market' in the hope they will have some sort of a pension.

[coda]

<<Many working class people these days own stocks and shares or small amounts of property that they rent out. It doesn't make them anything other than working class. They are forced by the capitalist system to take care of their old age by 'playing the market' in the hope they will have some sort of a pension.>>

yes, while I understand that and conclude and even empathize with some of the purposes, I don't support or endorse in getting caught up with playing the stockmarket.

Marx referred to the stock market as "fictitious capital". He has a lot to say about it. [..the small getting gobbled up by the big sharks... Buying a certificate of ownership to title of speculative surplus value]. At it's basic reduction ( though it does not change the mode of ownership to the means of production), it is syphoning off the unpaid labor of the workers who produced the value.

[ericksolvi]

I think that in the modern world we should focus less on the classification system Marx used, and more on a persons total assets/wealth. I know to some of you Marx is almost a deity, but his work is more than a century old. I also go around telling people the US constitution is out of date, so at least I'm fair in the fact that I criticize everything.
I propose using economics to determine what constitutes a persons fair share of total assets. Above that amount your stealing from your fellow man, below that amount welcome to the revolution have a T shirt. Nice fair and simple, no debate or confusion required.

[CAleftist]

I think that in the modern world we should focus less on the classification system Marx used, and more on a persons total assets/wealth. I know to some of you Marx is almost a deity, but his work is more than a century old. I also go around telling people the US constitution is out of date, so at least I'm fair in the fact that I criticize everything.
I propose using economics to determine what constitutes a persons fair share of total assets. Above that amount your stealing from your fellow man, below that amount welcome to the revolution have a T shirt. Nice fair and simple, no debate or confusion required.

Whether one has control over the means of production is a pretty clear dividing line over which class one belongs to. Furthermore, wealth/assets are highly correlated with ownership of means of production.

Oh, and for the record: Marx's work being over a century old has no bearing on whether his work is relevant.

[ericksolvi]

Whether one has control over the means of production is a pretty clear dividing line over which class one belongs to. Furthermore, wealth/assets are highly correlated with ownership of means of production.

Oh, and for the record: Marx's work being over a century old has no bearing on whether his work is relevant.

That's what I'm saying, wealth/ assets correlate with ownership. How much wealth a person has is a better indicator of class. A guy with a donut shop and two employees barely making a living gets an evil bourgeoisie or petite bourgeoisie label stuck on him. Another guy making $200,000 a year for programing computers but has nobody working under him gets the sainted proletariat status.
To me it's just plain silly to even bother with making a distinction based on these standards. I think it's far more accurate to try and figure out weather or not a person is taking a bigger share of the pie then they deserve.
If you claim that Marx's ideology is perfect and never needs any updating, then it's ceased to be a philosophy for you and become a religion.