Petit Bourgeoisie

[Nox]

Are the Petit Bourgeoisie closer to the Bourgeoisie or the Proletariat?

I've always considered them to be workers who were already "freed" from wage slavery, but I think I've been wrong all this time. I'm struggling to understand exactly what the Petit Bourgeoisie is and what role they play in society, any help appreciated.

[Renegade Saint]

The goal of the petit bourgeoisie is nearly always to become big bourgeois themselves. There's some small local businesses that I frequent and am personal friends with the owners, but they're still exploiting their workers' labor will never be a part of any revolution.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It depends, there are petty-bourgeoisie who make shit for a living and are sometimes even worse off than the proles. Also, think about where the petty-bourgeoisie got the funds to start their businesses, most often the answer is bank loans. They are in debt and working more to pay off the debt than they are for themselves.

Although, there are some petty-bourgeoisie which do make a spectacular amount of money and hold much higher positions in society. Like I said, it really depends on the case.

As a whole though I feel that they are closer to the prole, since the majority of petty-bourgeoisie own small shops, kiosks, painting businesses, etc. working their ass off to put food on the table.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Are the Petit Bourgeoisie closer to the Bourgeoisie or the Proletariat?

I've always considered them to be workers who were already "freed" from wage slavery, but I think I've been wrong all this time. I'm struggling to understand exactly what the Petit Bourgeoisie is and what role they play in society, any help appreciated.

I always understood it as the small capitalists? They hire labour but they often also worked alongside these people. This obviously marks them out from a CEO at an FTSE 100 company or the major shareholder in the same.

[daft punk]

Well, in Communist Manifesto I think Marx and Engels call the petty bourgeois reactionary, but also say that they can sink into the proletariat. They they can go either way. So I voted other.

[dodger]

They do not exist, Nox.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There is only two classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat.

With this in mind,and not forsaking so-called "scientific analysis," the answer is that the petite-bourgeoisie (small business men/women) are part of the bourgeoisie.

[Dabrowski]

The question is difficult to answer intelligently as it is posed, because the petit bourgeoisie is a variegated, unstable, intermediate class.

The classical petty bourgeoisie is the peasantry. Which ranges from prosperous kulaks with lots of land, tenants, etc., to landless peasants. And everything in between, with individual members of the "class" rising, falling, or staying put.

The "modern" middle class -- managers, professionals, government bureaucrats, small business owners who profit off exploiting themselves and a few unlucky workers (and then have to give most of their profits back to the big bourgeoisie banks, wholesalers...) -- is drawn from both classes. It too is very diverse, ranging from students, adjunct professors, self-employed daycare providers, and such, many of whom are materially worse off than many workers, to jet-setting executives, lawyers, doctors, movie stars, etc.

What makes them all middle class is that they neither have the social power of the proletariat (they don't subsist primarily by selling their commodified labor power to augment capital) nor the means of appropriation, and resulting stable social position as a class, of the bourgeoisie. But unlike the fundamental classes, they don't share a common material class interest, and thus have divided class loyalties.

It's perfectly reasonable for workers to want to free themselves or their children from wage slavery. That's why so many of them try to go to college. Those who succeed become, in the main, middle class professionals.

In the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, most of the middle class will go over to the side that seems to be stronger -- they will root for the winning team.

[Yefim Zverev]

I don't call those petite bour. But some proles are certainly wealthier than others.. some local shop owners, local trades etc. or proles with better income working in good positions in companies of bour. ... these tend to be much more conservative (in means of preserving status quo) than others because they have relatively a better life standards in comparison to most proles.

There are certainly some kind of people who can neither be bourg nor proles..

For example how can you classify a person who has 3 extra houses bought with hard trade work in the past and now rents those each for a reasonable amount of money. say 1200 dollars a month 3x1200 income a month without moving a finger... there are lots of people who invest in real estate and just live on that... and they certainly do not wish to grow their capital more (in means of trying to move to bourg class). they just spend their money.. take vacation and so on...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Objectively members of the petit-bourgeoisie are more likely to sink into the proletariat than rise to become bourgeois. Subjectively, many pet-tbourgeois persons believe they will be successful enough to become bourgeois.

Another interesting question regards the class status of professionals, salaried white collar personnel, middle managers, etcetera. IMO they are closer to the traditional petit-bourgeoisie since they have vested interest in maintaining their privileges and tend to be subjectively in favor of bourgeois society as a general rule. Another interesting classification is the self-employed freelancing professional, entertainer or sales rep whose earnings often come from customers rather than bosses and who sometimes earn sums of money far above that of any proletarian. IMO their independence vis a vis the mode of production places them in the petit-bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The question is difficult to answer intelligently as it is posed, because the petit bourgeoisie is a variegated, unstable, intermediate class.

No, it is actually easy to answer: the PB are connected to the bourgeoisie; they are capitalists who exploit workers.



The classical petty bourgeoisie is the peasantry. Which ranges from prosperous kulaks with lots of land, tenants, etc., to landless peasants. And everything in between, with individual members of the "class" rising, falling, or staying put.

No, the petite bourgeoisie and the peasants are two different social organizations which exist in part of themselves. The Kulaks weren't petite bourgeoisie,they were rich farmers.


The "modern" middle class -- managers, professionals, government bureaucrats, small business owners who profit off exploiting themselves and a few unlucky workers (and then have to give most of their profits back to the big bourgeoisie banks, wholesalers...) -- is drawn from both classes. It too is very diverse, ranging from students, adjunct professors, self-employed daycare providers, and such, many of whom are materially worse off than many workers, to jet-setting executives, lawyers, doctors, movie stars, etc.

No such thing as the middle class. There is only two classes: the exploiting class (bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat).


What makes them all middle class is that they neither have the social power of the proletariat (they don't subsist primarily by selling their commodified labor power to augment capital) nor the means of appropriation, and resulting stable social position as a class, of the bourgeoisie. But unlike the fundamental classes, they don't share a common material class interest, and thus have divided class loyalties.

What you call the middle class is still exploited; they must sell their labour power in order to survive and they do not control the means of productions, hence, they are working class.


It's perfectly reasonable for workers to want to free themselves or their children from wage slavery. That's why so many of them try to go to college. Those who succeed become, in the main, middle class professionals.

Becoming a high earning wage slave doesn't mean one is free.


In the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, most of the middle class will go over to the side that seems to be stronger -- they will root for the winning team.

Gross oversimplification that ignores history and the praxis of revolutionary struggle.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Not much to add to comrade Dabrowski's post. But I would like to underscore that the question pulls for a categorical answer -- when one is not in order. The petite-bourgeoisie are amorphous, by definition. In non-revolutionary times, they tend to be most interested in protecting and augmenting the wealth that they have. During a revolution, they will tend to split, some going over to the revolution, others opposing it.

One could argue that the pb tend to identify more with the bourgeoisie than the proletariat. But I'm not sure that is so important. And besides, in the US, anyway, the proletariat often identifies with the bourgeoisie. This doesn't change their relationship to the means of production.

[PhoenixAsh]

There are certainly some kind of people who can neither be bourg nor proles..

For example how can you classify a person who has 3 extra houses bought with hard trade work in the past and now rents those each for a reasonable amount of money. say 1200 dollars a month 3x1200 income a month without moving a finger... there are lots of people who invest in real estate and just live on that... and they certainly do not wish to grow their capital more (in means of trying to move to bourg class). they just spend their money.. take vacation and so on...

Their houses become in fact generators of income. Production facilities as it were. They have the direct control of the means of prodcution and in a liberalised housing market that means they get to exploit the ones seeking to receive housing.

They move from workingclass towards the burgeoisie class. Although Marxism also acknowledge a renter class to exist. Class is not fixed. Class is defined by the relationship to the means of production. If that relationship changes...so does the class you belong to.

I may work as a construction worker all my life. But when a rich uncle who owned a factory leaves me that factory upon his death then I will become burgeoisie over night. Unless I reject the will and ownership over the factory. If, in another example, my dad owns a small shop and leaves me the shop after his death....I become petit-burgeoisie.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No, it is actually easy to answer: the PB are connected to the bourgeoisie; they are capitalists who exploit workers.


No, the petite bourgeoisie and the peasants are two different social organizations which exist in part of themselves. The Kulaks weren't petite bourgeoisie,they were rich farmers.



No such thing as the middle class. There is only two classes: the exploiting class (bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat).

What you call the middle class is still exploited; they must sell their labour power in order to survive and they do not control the means of productions, hence, they are working class.

Becoming a high earning wage slave doesn't mean one is free.


Gross oversimplification that ignores history and the praxis of revolutionary struggle.
You talk about these things as if they were moral categories. "Petite bourgeois," simply means small property holder. Peasants being one section of the PB have been on the side of the revolution (Russia) or the side of reaction (Hungary, France, Germany). It depends on the circumstances. Student/intellectuals are petite bourgeois -- sometimes they find themselves becoming revolutionaries. All of these are oversimplified -- we are just trying to get basic concepts across here.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You talk about these things as if they were moral categories.

A secular revolutionary like myself does not divide materialism into "morality."


"Petite bourgeois," simply means small property holder. Peasants being one section of the PB have been on the side of the revolution (Russia) or the side of reaction (Hungary, France, Germany). It depends on the circumstances. Student/intellectuals are petite bourgeois -- sometimes they find themselves becoming revolutionaries. All of these are oversimplified -- we are just trying to get basic concepts across here.No, you should re-read the Communist Manifesto sometime because that is not what a petite bourgeoisie is.


1. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#ab1) By bourgeoisie (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeoisie) is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm#means-production) and employers of wage labour.
By proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat), the class of modern wage labourers (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/a.htm#wage-labour) who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm#labour-power) in order to live. [Engels, 1888 English edition]


A proletariat can still own a house and not be part of the bourgeoisie.

[dodger]

In Britain the peasant became wage labourers at the time of the Black Death. Marx talked about removing the halo of scientist priest etc....what did he mean? He clearly meant that they were heading for the ranks of the working class. In the real world anybody who puts their child through college....is pauperising themselves. Talk of privilege ,starting working life with a mountain of debt, or no job at all is not real. Now that the priests have their own union branch we can say we are the 99.2%. Very few are more than a wage packet or indeed a monthly salary cheque from extreme destitution. If the Bank manager is not there to open the doors at 9.0am .....bells are ringing....he/she is held to account. An employee. The young man in a loud voice who announced to his friend and whole carriage his 1k pay increase...only brought him to a 1/3 of my pay. He had a swanky suit and name tab with manager written on it ...whilst I was in my hi vis gear....he looked straight through me as though I never existed. RMT BLESS YOU. Napoleon called us a nation of shop-keepers, a Gallic insult to be sure.Not anymore.....2 classes contend...or if the National Census is to be believed 6, I think.. Nox what did they tell you in sociology class???? Talk of privilege is quite frankly 'old hat', sadly it is a wake up for many when the ascend the job conveyor belt.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

A secular revolutionary like myself does not divide materialism into "morality."

No, you should re-read the Communist Manifesto sometime because that is not what a petite bourgeoisie is.



A proletariat can still own a house and not be part of the bourgeoisie.
Right you are. Let me amend my statement. Petite bourgeois are small property holders that make a their living on said small property (or if you will small capital). They are not the bourgeoisie proper -- otherwise why even devote a name to them as a distinct grouping.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Right you are. Let me amend my statement. Petite bourgeois are small property holders that make a their living on said small property (or if you will small capital). They are not the bourgeoisie proper -- otherwise why even devote a name to them as a distinct grouping.

How is their property their means of production? A property cannot be a means of production in itself (as a house does not create value). Farms, distribution centers, corporations, etc are all wage slavery for the proletariat.

[dodger]

They cannot sustain themselves as a class.Property. Like they love to tell you after the crash.....Winners and Losers...no need to say, but I will, before we would all be WINNNNNEERRS. Older capitalist countries, the millstone grinds slow but exceeding fine. No intermediate class or middle stratum exists. Not to say that the working class is not rich in variety and skills. Skill shortage and collective struggle are 2 factors that elevate some to relative prosperity. That has been my view for years. No free handouts.

[dodger]

I like this approach for the clarity it brings me Marxman is a blog I read regularly........


Working Class – The Salient Majority-- A view on class from MARXMAN Blog

Working Class – a much-misunderstood and misused concept; or at least, too often used loosely. Quite often it carries pejorative undertones, for example, in phrases like, “white working class boys underachieving in school”. Those living in social housing might also be referred to as being Working Class.

This is usually counter posed by the Middle Class, private house owning, aspirational and professional. Such is their privileged social position, relative to the Working Class that is, they supposedly dominate the better schools and take most advantage of society’s opportunities.

Superficially, all this can appear self-evident until an attempt is made to precisely define the differences between the two only to discover a fundamental similarity. Whether living a parlous existence on some bleak housing scheme or boasting 2.5 children in a quiet suburban cul-de-sac, the crucial connection is work.

Work is the only means available for securing livelihoods for the vast majority of people wherever they live. Paying rent or a mortgage, doing the shopping, getting supplied by the utilities an income is required. This can only be earned through an exchange; labour for wages.

Calling a wage a salary makes no difference to the transaction: it doesn’t matter if you bash metal or a computer keyboard, wear a boiler suit or a lounge suit, the person is selling labour in return for the means of living.

In plain words, they are working for a living and are thus, by definition, Working Class.

This is not to deny differences between people and the circumstances of their lives. Someone living on the bleak housing scheme blighted with unemployment has very different experiences from those more comfortably stationed in their cul-de-sac.

However, what this demonstrates is the stratification of a class: even amongst the rich capitalist or Ruling Class there are broad disparities. Millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires, unimaginable differences of wealth and yet bound into the same class by the necessity of their allegiance to capitalism, the source of their wealth.

Similarly, the Working Class is defined by its relation to capitalism. It is the labour of the workers – manual, skilled, professional – that is the source of all value (wealth) generated by society. Their remuneration generally reflects the usefulness to capitalism and its endless quest for profit.

Even those few highly paid Premier League footballers ultimately produce more value for BSKYB than they receive in wages.

The Middle Class today is a phantasm: when it had real meaning it referred to the emerging capitalist class as it was situated in the middle between the Upper Class, the landowning aristocracy, and the Lower Class, the rural and urban workers. Eventually, of course, the Middle Class, the capitalists, became the dominant class in society, the present Ruling Class.

The concept of a Middle Class survives because it is useful to the Ruling Class, dividing the Working Class against itself. Political pronouncements about the Middle Class dominating education, for example, has been used to break up the education system into academies competing along market lines. Thus capitalism is blatantly entrenched in the schools.

Also, there’s an implication that the proper ambition of the Working Class is to become Middle Class. This is denoted by the accumulation of things, consumables: buying into the consumer society is buying into capitalism.

This has the effect of atomising society into small units, families, whose predominant interest is itself. A whole panoply of consumer and human rights reinforces this view, denying any real sense of united action based on collectively determined demands.

It also suggests there is a section of society, at best socially enfeebled or worse, downright feckless, that requires to be patronised or stigmatised depending on the government’s need of the moment. There is even the character of the honest, hard working (wo)man, suggesting many, if not most of their fellows are neither of these.

Some social commentators look to this much-reduced Working Class for a disaffected vanguard of social protest and change. Guy Standing of Bath University, of example, has coined an alternative word for this strata, the Precariat.

The Precariat are supposedly those who live the most economically, and therefore socially, precarious lives. These are those on short contracts, agency workers, casual labourers etc. Positively, it seems, they could become motivated to challenge capitalism; alternatively, they might become a sump from which the Far Right draws support.

These people are, of course, workers: the precarious nature of their employment is only a more obvious feature of what is commonly true. The comfortably employed cul-de-sac resident is quickly into reduced circumstances when that “good” job disappears. There is nothing Middle Class about unemployment.

Inventing clever sounding, but ultimately fatuous designations aids only capitalism. The more the Working Class is divided the less likely it is to formulate its own alternative to the system exploiting it. For all workers, even those “Middle Class” ones, are exploited, they have to be, as that is the source of profit for capitalism.

People will live different sorts of lives, either through necessity or choice, but they remain members of the Working Class by definition. By recognising this a first step has been taken towards determining how society can be better organised to serve everyone’s needs rather than the profits for the few.

No small task for certain, but to be truly aspirational is to recognise that the future will only be more secure and prosperous through the exertion of the popular will of a united Working Class.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=imarxman&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimarxman.wordpress.com%2F&ei=-hVVT9TaLJCciAex74HFCw&usg=AFQjCNEbKXeVxdf4yC95_HCj5TGHTWIPtA


********************************

[Ostrinski]

How is their property their means of production? A property cannot be a means of production in itself (as a house does not create value). Farms, distribution centers, corporations, etc are all wage slavery for the proletariat.I think the latter is what Lev was referring to.

[Red Noob]

My father used to be a hard working proletariat man. He technically still is, because he sells his labor to his boss. But he's also starting his own business at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I have the most respect for my father, but I've slowly seen changes in him. Mostly in aggressiveness and snob-like behavior.

I'd like to say it's a slow transformation from one to the other, depends on the individual situation really.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think the latter is what Lev was referring to.

I wasn't sure what he was referring to explicitly but had the feeling he might have meant so.I figured it was safer to give a small rebuttal to presumed statements than 'let it slide.' If such is the case than I withdraw my previous statement.

[Ostrinski]

But to answer the question. Petite-bourgeoisie are bourgeoisie by definition, in that they have an identical relationship to the means of production (own mop, accumulate capital).

The distinction between small and large bourgeoisie is that the large bourgeoisie have the means to liquidate smaller competition. Where they differentiate rests along the lines of immediate objectives of each class. Having accumulated vast amounts of capital, the primary concern of the large bourgeoisie is to limit the means of other competitors to accumulate capital. The primary concern of the small bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is to accumulate enough capital to stay afloat. The small bourgeoisie cannot be concerned with the liquidation of its competition because it has not yet acquired the means of doing so.

Now, just because the petite-bourgeoisie are technically bourgeois, this doesn't imply anything about their quality of life. Some, especially the failing ones, have very shitty lives, and it can indeed be said that some proletarians have a better quality of life than some petite-bourgeois. After all, in Marxian analysis class is strictly defined by relationship to mop and not quality of life.

[dodger]

The fissure that run like the Grand Canyon through the Bourgeois is between Industrial and finance Capitalists. Small or medium or large, they are capitalists. Not petty Bourgeois. Albeit up and coming or on the way down+out. I would say we in old capitalist countries can junk the term. It has no use. Except in a tragi-comical way to describe another's taste in sex or curtains. Below is another look at class

Two Classes in Britain

WORKERS, FEB 2011 ISSUE

In Britain, there are only two classes – those who sell their labour power and those who exploit the labour of others, in other words workers and capitalists. Over the course of many centuries, capitalism has simplified class antagonisms. And in this respect, Britain has travelled furthest simply because of its long, thoroughgoing experience of capital – with its first appearance on the land, then in commercial activities, latterly in industry and finance.

As far back as late medieval times following the onset of the Black Death, Britain’s peasantry was abolished and transformed into agricultural wage-labourers. Then in subsequent centuries the march of industrial and financial capital greatly expanded the ranks of the working class. In 1848 Marx and Engels presciently observed in The Communist Manifesto that “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers.” Now the vast majority of British people are workers who are selling their labour power, ranged against a tiny minority of capitalists who are exploiting the labour of others. We are many; they are few. And in the world beyond Britain, likewise there has been a massive, rapid growth of the proletariat during the last two hundred and fifty years. Essentially, the world is dividing into the two classes as well, with the peasantry dwindling.

Recognising which class you belong to helps you find your way through life’s problems. You understand your place in society, history and development. On the other hand, rejection of class encourages political confusion and fosters a headlong flight from reality.

Although there are only two classes in Britain, not everyone in the working class admits (or welcomes) their class position. Many cling to illusions and fantasies that they are middle class, or professionals or special individuals somehow outside the working class, though in truth there is scarcely a worker who is more than one wage-packet away from extreme destitution, a fact reinforced starkly by the recent economic depression and public service expenditure cuts. These illusions weaken people’s ability to collectively defend and organise. And why the reticence? Surely being a worker, either making or growing things, or providing services, is better than, say, being a banker (as distinct from a bank worker) producing nothing for the betterment of society.

In modern times, groups (colour, religion, gender etc) that are divisive and exclusive are elevated, whereas class, which is unifying and inclusive, is downgraded.

Class is fundamental to everything. Without clarity on it, we do not know who we are, nor can we easily fathom who are our friends or our enemies. In order to interpret and negotiate life confidently, you need to know who you are.

[Zealot]

They often carry the mindset of the bourgeoisie but, more often than not, fall back into the proletariat class rather than rising to become part of the bourgeoisie. This isn't always true though. In underdeveloped nations there are people forced to become petty bourgeois simply because they can't find work anywhere else. In this case, they usually don't have a bourgeois mindset and I would say are closer to the proletariat. This still doesn't change their relation to the means of production.

[robbo203]

The thing is you can classify individuals any which way you want. Mainstream bourgeois sociology will delinate classes according to income, occupation and so on. Its not that such a classification is "wrong". The question really is what aspect of social reality are you endeavoring thereby to shed light on - what is the purpose of your classication schema? Identifying "working class" with individuals who do manual labour such as myself - although I have also been called "petit bourgeois" becuase I own a few gardening tools like a chainsaw and strimmer and am self employed albeit on a pretty low income - is all very well but what purpose does it serve?

It seems to me that the conventional way of looking at the question of "class" ties in with things such as market research (and, by extension, effective sales targeting), the provision of educational facilities and so on. It is useful for such purposes but not for others.

I take a basic Marxian view on class - that is to say, one's class is broadly determined by one's relationship to the means of production (capital). If you own sufficient capital to live upon without having to work, then you are a capitalist; if you dont , then you are a worker.

Obviously this is a simplification. For instance, how much capital you need to live upon without having to work is a moot point; it depends on what you regard as an acceptable standard of living . However, like the notion of "socially necessary labour time" we can perhaps speak of a socially averaged notion of what constititutes an adequate level of income - or threshold - to qualify as a capitalist. Certainly I would think this runs into several millions of dollars, pounds euros.

I think the criterion which, I believe, was endorsed by Engels for determing whether or not one belong to the working class - namely the fact that one owned little or no capital is useful as a generalisation because it directs ones attention to what in Marxian theory is a key point - namely the ownership of the means of production and need to make these the commin property of all. The fact that owning little or no capital means that workers have then to sell their labour power to a capitalist is quite true and which is why the existence of generalised wage labour is proof positive of the existence of a capitalist society. However it does not follow from this that working for a wage is the ONLY possible option available to those with little or no capital. Indeed people like small shopkeepers might be best seen as glorified salespersons multifariously and indirectly employed on a commission basis by the various companies whose products she stocks in her little corner shop. She might seem, to be "independent" but she is not really

The fact that I own a few tools - capital - hardly makes me a capitalist. Many workers have small amounts of money invested in savings , pensions, and so on but that does not make them capitalists ewither. Nor does the fact that I do not produce surplus value for a capitalist make me a non worker either. Again, large numbers of workers are unproductive too in this sense - that is they dont produce commodities and therefore dont produce surplus value but on the contrary are paid out of surplus value - civil servants, soldiers, teachers, nurses and what not

This is why I think the terms "petit bourgeois" should be discontinued - or at least confined to specialised sociological analysis. It does not serve any useful purpose from a revolutionary socialist persective. It draws attention away from the fact that it is the AMOUNT of capital you possess that is all important, not what you do with it. And it suggests that self employed workers like myself do not really have much of a stake in overthowing capitalism because we are not directly exploited (although even this is questionable if you are having to pay high interest on a bank loan every month as I am)

In short, it is a divide-and-rule strategem which effectively reduces the ranks of the working class , the revolutionary force in modern capitalist society - and for no good purpose that I can perceive at all. Subjectively, I regard myself as fully a member of the working class and objectively I do not think there is any compelling reason why I should not be thus considered. I might belong to a sub category of the working class but am working class all the same

[human strike]

Historically the petit bourgeoisie was very reactionary. Its influence is obvious and undeniable in the nationalist, fascist, and bolshevik ideologies of the 20th century. I speak in the past tense because I am not convinced petit bourgeois is a useful concept anymore. Does the petit bourgeoisie really exist as a distinct class in late-(contemporary) capitalism? Some might ask if it ever did exist as such, but I claim it did at least in terms of ideological tendencies.

[Strannik]

It seems to me that there are different definitions of petty bourgeoise. In materialist sense, they are small proprietors and appear in social structure as remnants of agricultural production system (handicrafters, small farmers, small shop owners) or perhaps, in an expanding capitalist economy startup enterpreneurs and colonists could be considered petty bourgeoise as well.

But this term is also used in ideological sense. A worker who does not understand their objective class interests, sees themselves as separate from their objective class and aims for becoming a small proprietor is also called a petty bourgeoise. They might be living from their work and possessing only minimal capital, but ideologically they are people who are constantly trying to make the walls of their prison cells thicker. So nobody gets in.

Capitalism in the course of its natural development is constantly eating the petty bourgeoise in the materialist sense, but it seems to me that in ideological sense it is constantly trying to produce petty bourgeoise as a defensive measure in class war. The more workers see themselves as future bourgeoise the less danger of revolution there is.

Marx was correct in saying that capitalism destroys the economic basis of petty bourgeoise, but as an ideological concept it seems to me that the petty bourgeoise is still important factor. Perhaps another term should be used here - for example "virtual bourgeoise" since I mean people who are not produced by objective capitalist economy itself (like bourgeoise and proletariat) but by consciously chosen policies - propaganda, welfare, cheap credit etc.