Petit Bourgeois

[Arlekino]

I am wiling to learn better about Petit Bourgeois, as how I understand in reality from my personal point of view they are kind of dangerous class, Would somebody can explain simple English why this class are so in danger?
Thanks and I am aware I get answers.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

They are the "Small businesses" the people who own shops but still must work. I am not sure in what particular way they are dangerous in that they are different from their more powerful counterparts but I know that Fascists seem to take to forming alliances with them.

[Ostrinski]

The petite bourgeoisie are small capitalists. They lack the resources to exploit labor efficiently and accumulate enough capital so that they can subsist solely on others' labor. They are constantly being pushed down into the ranks of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie, who do possess the proper resources to carry this out. The line between small capitalist and big capitalist is drawn by who is pushing who down, and who is trying to accumulate the resources to be able to do so.

They can potentially be radicalized if they can be disillusioned with their conquest of bourgeois status.

[Arlekino]

Lets say for example in Russia or England Petit Bourgeois loosing some asset, starting striking for better conditions that mean they are suffering for better of?
How I understand what about working class and under class.
Is that make sense of my question.

[Ostrinski]

Well, many petite bourgeois don't have it very well off, but they still exploit labor.

[Brosip Tito]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well. The doctor, lawyer, manager, etc.

[Caj]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well.

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.

[Ostrinski]

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.I have the same misunderstanding. If you are receiving a fraction of the value of your labor in the form of wage aren't you by definition proletarian? This is not to say that all doctors and lawyers are wage workers, but some are. Just because they get paid more doesn't mean they aren't proletarians.

[Brosip Tito]

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.I think you have a point.

However, the idea is that they are not producers of commodities, and are not exploited in the Marxist sense of the proletariat being exploited.

Perhaps I'm wrong?

I'm referring, in the case of managers, to marxists.org where they define petit-bourgeois as:

"...Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers."

[Ostrinski]

I don't think doctors and lawyers would fall under that category. They do produce commodities.

[Caj]

"...Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers."

But doesn't the kind of "worker" that this describes still carry out productive labor, the surplus value of which is extracted by the capitalist? And even if this kind of "worker" doesn't constitute a proletarian in the Marxian sense, there is a clear distinction between this and the conception of the petty bourgeois as a "small capitalist". I think this distinction exists to the degree that we shouldn't consider them as belonging to the same class.

EDIT: And yeah, as Brospierre said, a lot of "professionals" still aren't defined as petty bourgeois by this definition.

[NewLeft]

You can be a worker and capitalist at the same time.

The petite-bourgeois are people who own land and the means of production, they are small business owners. They did account for most capitalist development.

[Amal]

In short, a petty-bourgeoisie is someone who has his/her own means of production/service but don't has the capital to engage anybody to do work for him/her. He/she isn't exploited as he/she directly sells his/her production/service to the customer but he/she also lacks the benefit of surplus as he/she hasn't been able to engage anybody.
Though in reality, I myself consider those people who engage very few people for them. The main problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that though he/she isn't exploited but his/her income rarely exceed a worker who is engaged in big industries. Why? Because workers engaged in big, modern industries have more productivity as they work with more sophisticated machinery and division of labor is well defined. While a petty-bourgeoisie lacks the capital to modernize his/her method of production/service.
A very good example of petty-bourgeoisie are medium farmers who have enough land and tools to do the ploughing by themselves but lacks the capital to engage a big workforce in field or to buy modern machinery to improve his productivity.
Petty-bourgeoisie is dangerous from that point is that they are very whimsical and always oscillates. Before revolution, they are revolutionary and after revolution they very quickly become counter-revolutionary. As per Mao a peasant always dreams to be a capitalist. They wanted to uproot the capitalist class because THAT'S THE BIGGEST BARRIER IN THEIR OWN WAY TO BECOME CAPITALIST THEMSELVES.
Actually, in short they are living example of dialectics. They are our allies, but a very dangerous and unreliable one.

[dodger]

If a bank manager don't open the bank up 9'0am sharp x5 days a week. He don't get paid. We are all on the same treadmill. Another thread spoke of Mafia tactics of unions. Well the doctors have BMA..solicitors the Law Society. As a general rule those categories or professions where labour in short supply command better wages. Workers who can effectively unionise can collectively obtain better wages and conditions. THAT IS THE WAY OF THINGS. We are left with two great classes in contention. Workers and capitalists just as Marx predicted. No more talk about P.B., in 45yrs I still have not learned to spell it. Dust bin , the term is useless. Even Pastors have their union here you know.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If a bank manager don't open the bank up 9'0am sharp x5 days a week. He don't get paid.
That doesn't make a bank manager a worker, nor should we recognize them as such.

[Thirsty Crow]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well. The doctor, lawyer, manager, etc.
Only if we alter the theoretical underpinnings of the Marxist class analysis. Or in other words, only if we consider class as something other, and besides, the basic relationship to the means of production (dispossession/possession).

I'm not saying that this would represent a damage for Marxism or that communist politics would necessarily suffer from it, but it is true that it necessitates an alteration in theory (that is, if we wish to retain the scientific impetus behind Marxism and not to adopt bourgeois versions of stratification theories which uphold income and consumption patterns as basic signals of social class).

But in this case, it's hard for me to see how doctors would constitute a part of the petite bourgeoisie, given the fact that they don't employ labour as variable capital which will produce surplus value, and given the fact that they don't necessarily occupy a special position within the workplace with hire&fire powers, placing them in direct conflict with the rest of the working class.

So, would you care to explain just why should we consider doctors as petite bourgeoisie (without resorting to bourgeois sociology for help)?


In short, a petty-bourgeoisie is someone who has his/her own means of production/service but don't has the capital to engage anybody to do work for him/her.
Not true.
You're talking about the self-employed here, not about the petite bourgeoisie who do command sufficient capital to hire wage labour for the purpose of surplus value production.


Actually, in short they are living example of dialecticsJust about anything in this world, from boiling water to the petite bourgeoisie, can become a "living example of dialectics" in the hands of the master dialectician :laugh:

[black magick hustla]

favorite moonbat slur against people who disagree with you. second in place is ultraleft

[dodger]

That doesn't make a bank manager a worker, nor should we recognize them as such.

Quite, Danielle, I don't for one moment expect the Manger to be happy, regarded as Working Class. I am left with no option to regard him/her as such. Since they work for a wage and on until retirement, they cannot survive beyond a wage packet. That puts them firmly in the working class. One more tarnished halo, one might say. In these uncertain times, many have felt the need to join the Bank workers union. Objectively our class is stronger, we are many they are few. Since capital attacks all one must hope it will make an enemy of all. Even Bank Managers.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Since they work for a wage and on until retirement, they cannot survive beyond a wage packet. That puts them firmly in the working class.
Managers are salaried professionals whose jobs are to manage on behalf of the owners. Thus, they're a middle class in-between capital and labor.

[Bostana]

I am wiling to learn better about Petit Bourgeois, as how I understand in reality from my personal point of view they are kind of dangerous class, Would somebody can explain simple English why this class are so in danger?
Thanks and I am aware I get answers.

Here is what Marx says about "Petty Bourgeoisie" in the Communist Manifesto:



"D. Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class. The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie (the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.

Marx considers the petite bourgeoisie to be politically conservative or reactionary, preferring to return to an older order. This class has been considered by some Marxists to have been the base of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. At other times, when it is acting in opposition to the interests of large capital, it may have a more radical or reformist bent to it (anti-monopoly).

Note on the Middle Class. The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.

While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry, there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class. Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping. Since Marx's prediction has not come true, sociologists and other writers have devoted much attention to explaining this middle grouping – what is its basis, what are the causes of its stability or growth, how it fits into the class structure, and what are the effects of its existence on proletariat and bourgeoisie."

[Yuppie Grinder]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well. The doctor, lawyer, manager, etc.
This something I've never entirely understood. While I think the two classes are inter-related, and certainly not revolutionary, the professional class' relationship to property is different than the petite-bourgeois'.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I think you have a point.

However, the idea is that they are not producers of commodities, and are not exploited in the Marxist sense of the proletariat being exploited.


Services are commodities.

I do agree that since professionals career exists to sustain bourgeois relations they are a separate class from the proletariat.

[gorillafuck]

hating the petit-bourgeois is reserved for people who are just looking for things to hate based on socialist theory

[Lilith]

hating the petit-bourgeois is reserved for people who are just looking for things to hate based on socialist theory

Uh-oh, we got a live one. :crying:

[dodger]

Managers are salaried professionals whose jobs are to manage on behalf of the owners. Thus, they're a middle class in-between capital and labor.

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.

I think we can agree that class is an inclusive term. Managers are firmly in the working class by simple virtue of selling their labour power to a capitalist. Salaried? With payment cheque most workers are monthly or lunar monthly paid. A fancy title is just that, when it comes to selling your labour. Hence the rush in these uncertain times for many to seek protection within a union.

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.

Though the census here recognizes I think 6 classes(correct me!). In 3 recessions, I have seen first hand those managers or similar jobs who found to their dismay there was no intermediate or middle class. Just the working class scrap-heap. A wake up call. One did not need to read a word of Marx to see the stark reality.

[dodger]

hating the petit-bourgeois is reserved for people who are just looking for things to hate based on socialist theory

Just looking at my neighbour's Maroon Velvet curtains and sashes....Petit-Bourgeois--no other word describes them. I am not eaten up with social envy. I think they look bloody pretentious ....ha! Glad I don't have them!!

"Wonder where he bought them??" ..."Bought on credit I expect!!!"

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

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.
I disagree with that analysis. Nowhere, not even Britain, has capitalism done away with an intermediary class which either manages labor for capital or protects the capitalist state, nor can it. Management and police belong to that intermediary class. Now it's certainly true that many in that class may have come from the working class and may return there, but there are some capitalists who also come from a working class background, but that doesn't mean they're workers now.


Managers are firmly in the working class by simple virtue of selling their labour power to a capitalist.
No, they're selling their ability to manage the labor power of others to benefit capitalists, which is a very different thing.


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.
That sounds like Occupy's 99% rhetoric, which also ignores the existence of that intermediary class. Workers are a majority, but not that big of one.

[Amal]

A bank manager though have to open the bank at 9 AM sharp, but still he/she cannot be considered to a worker because he/she possesses the ability to take decision on how to run the bank. A worker shouldn't have right to take any kind of decision regarding production/service.
Secondly, workers get higher pay only if the productivity of the production/service sector in which he/she is working has higher productivity. The higher the productivity, the higher the wage. Though the wage may depend on level of organizational consciousness of the workers and how much they themselves are organized. But still, productivity is the basic factor here.
Yes, everything can be explained by dialectics but to understand, someone have good control of dialectics. Sometimes, it may seem like trying to teach a caveman that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[dodger]

Dear Amal, in fact the manager instructed, monitored, disciplined is but an employee. His time at work tasks set for him/her . A computer terminal or call to head office effectively makes decisions. Procedures to adopt set out clearly modified reinforced and disciplined. A simple cog in a wheel. Airs and graces are not why we go to work ££££'s and most jobs require hand and brain with a level of self management . Ability to follow procedure. None of my managers were something special we were all cogs in the wheel, push the grindstone!.

[dodger]

That's the whole point Danielle, managers are selling labour power are paid labour of capital. Their 'niche' or what size cog on the wheel, does not make for a qualitative leap into some other class. Here they are and here they must stay. Nor is it rhetoric, most jobs we undertake require management to complete the task. Skill. Our mastery often by automation or repetition leaves little but monitoring, to completion. Ability to manage is uasually combined with other skills technical or financial..the list is endless. Credit manager? property manager , human resources manager........investment man...it is subjective hence endless. These folk are all waged and labour power sold. Little more I can say or have needed to know on the subject to survive. To further advance we need to be clear, we have all the skills to add value...we need the confidence that knowledge brings.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5974


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

[Yefim Zverev]

I approve both Amal's naive approach to the situation and dodger's comradely response

:thumbup1:

Managers gain more for sure because they have much more responsibility. Is the labor they produce is equal to their salaries ? Hm perhaps no. Because they are more closer to the capitalist owner this makes the managers their henchman. Actually they become their dog. Like the police. So they are special cases. If you are a manager in the capitalist system you can not go soft on lower laborers. You need to use the capitalism hammer you received from your higher boss.

Special case are the managers. Though they are not numerous.

Sometimes they are closer to being laborers and sometimes they are servile curs, minions.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's the whole point Danielle, managers are selling labour power are paid labour of capital. Their 'niche' or what size cog on the wheel, does not make for a qualitative leap into some other class.
Actually, it does. Class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Managers have a different relationship than the managed, and this material reality creates a different consciousness.

Perhaps it would be better to describe them as a middle class separate from the traditional petit-bourgeoisie middle class, but their function is still to manage labor on behalf of capital.

Saying there are now only two classes under capitalism is questionable reductionism. There are two primary classes under capitalism, but not only two classes.

[dodger]

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=uk%20managers%20trade%20union&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amps-tradeunion.com%2F&ei=2Pd2T6rzIOKoiQKkwLGnDg&usg=AFQjCNHwWWbFdfS3o1dEkFkgJP1Fg2bU2g

The above link is to one of several Trade Unions dedicated to fight for the interests of managers and professionals. Part of UNITE the country's largest union. There are more. There objective position, when push comes to shove is no different to any other worker paid by capitalists. Their subjective views along with any group of workers is worthy of study, varied and changing. The one constant....objective position..they are workers, the moment they sell their labour power to capital.

I do not even attempt any reductionism, noting how the manager is tied to capital is the very first and I think the most important step in examining what a manager is. We can then go on to look at subjective factors productively. Not only is an individual made stronger by seeing his real position in society, the class is strengthened.

For the life of me the term middle class is no more useful than Petit Bourgeois. At one time Teachers various medical and technical grades were deemed P,B. or middle class, life just has a way of biting one on the bum. Not stupid people they soon picked up the rudiments of class wisdom and set about organizing themselves. We should all applaud that. A small victory for us in understanding is always a defeat for our rulers, Danielle.

[Strannik]

My two cents: as it was said above, a person's class is determined by their relationship to means of production. Petty-bourgeoise is someone who possesses their own means of production, but does not (yet) live exclusively from exploiting the labor of others.

It is important to note here, that means of production do not have to be material things. If my commodity is giving expert opinions or managing people, then my means of production can very well be my expert knowledge or even my persona.

And here I think that Marx got it wrong in Communist Maniphesto. It is true, that development of capitalism is constantly destroying petty bourgeoise. But most important characteristic of PB is the desire to become bourgeoise. Even if they work now, they fully intend to become exploiters of other people's labour in the future. That "destruction" of PB is the very reason that causes the continuous expansion of capitalism to all spaces and all markets. Wherever capitalism expands somewhere, petty bourgeoise is recreated: new enterpreneurs, new services, new unique jobs. That's why they are still around today.

PB disappears completely only when capitalism cannot expand anywhere. Perhaps we have reached that point, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Positivist]

They manage the working class ensuring our conformity to corporate demands. They do the dirty work of the super rich and are often ideologically (but still very much materially) motivated. They keep us suppressed now and they will attempt to later in the wake of revolution.

[dodger]

They manage the working class ensuring our conformity to corporate demands. They do the dirty work of the super rich and are often ideologically (but still very much materially) motivated. They keep us suppressed now and they will attempt to later in the wake of revolution.

We are in terminal decline. Sword of Damocles is hanging over all our heads. Do you imagine managers will somehow be spared this misery? Positivist, having survived 3 major capitalist crises, I watched people very closely. Management were jumping headlong into the life-boats. Sensible moves included, paying off mortgage early-extra funding of personal pension-joining a union-taking early retirement. Imagine if you will contradictions magnified in number and scope. Can we predict with any certainty how they may react? Predictions on how people might behave is worthy of a new thread. You have brought up an important issue. Not sure if you have all the answers. Some of the management were even 'helpful' and we can't say fairer than that. After all one can rent those fellows loyalty, not even capitalists can buy it.

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

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The above link is to one of several Trade Unions dedicated to fight for the interests of managers and professionals. Part of UNITE the country's largest union.
This just points to the dubious nature of pro-capitalist unions, more than anything.


The one constant....objective position..they are workers, the moment they sell their labour power to capital.
How about an executive? Is he or she a worker? By your definition of "labor power," probably.

Your definition of working class ignores that class is defined by one's relationship to the means of production, distribution, and exchange. You're arguing that managers and the managed have the same relationship to those means.

Every place I've worked, there was an automatic divide between workers and managers, and on occasions where a worker was promoted to a management position, one could witness their consciousness shift as well.


I do not even attempt any reductionism
Yes, you do, every time you state there are only two classes in modern capitalism.


At one time Teachers various medical and technical grades were deemed P,B. or middle class, life just has a way of biting one on the bum. Not stupid people they soon picked up the rudiments of class wisdom and set about organizing themselves.
They're organizing themselves as members of the middle class in-between capital and labor. Class wisdom isn't necessarily working class wisdom.

[Positivist]

We are in terminal decline. Sword of Damocles is hanging over all our heads. Do you imagine managers will somehow be spared this misery? Positivist, having survived 3 major capitalist crises, I watched people very closely. Management were jumping headlong into the life-boats. Sensible moves included, paying off mortgage early-extra funding of personal pension-joining a union-taking early retirement. Imagine if you will contradictions magnified in number and scope. Can we predict with any certainty how they may react? Predictions on how people might behave is worthy of a new thread. You have brought up an important issue. Not sure if you have all the answers. Some of the management were even 'helpful' and we can't say fairer than that. After all one can rent those fellows loyalty, not even capitalists can buy it.

*****************
I agree a new thread is necessary. My main purpose in making this post was to more accurately define the petite bourgiose as the henchmen of the capitalist rather than small business owners (not that small business owners can't be exploitive) and while I hold to my view that the managers will continue to suppress the proletariat following a successful revolution, I am open to debate. Perhaps ideologically motivated managers will continue to combat us while more materially motivated managers will be willing to support us.

managers will be willing to support us

[TrotskistMarx]

Hello my friend, this is the best I can pertaining to this specific topic of classes and petit bourgeois. Read this long thesis-article analyzing the different classes in USA and in most capitalist societies. And the article breaks down the different kinds of working classes. The low-wage workers compared to high-wage workers, and so on:


NheUhwsoC24
We need a new socialist society as soon as possible. This capitalist world is boring, depressive and painful !!

This article is great, it is a great weapon of knowledge for marxists:


Classes in the USA and Our Strategy for a socialist-Revolution

(The following document is a portion of the political program of Freedom Road Socialist Organization. It was adopted at our 5th Congress. Other parts of the program are still in the process of development.)

To change society and end oppression, we need a plan to get from where we are now to liberation - a strategy that will work. Any successful revolutionary strategy must address the fundamental issue of who are our friends and who are our enemies and explain how we will go about uniting all who can be united to end the existing order of things.

We live in an era where capitalism has reached its final stage: monopoly capitalism, also known as imperialism. Monopoly capitalism is a doomed system whose continued existence stands in the way of all social progress. Huge corporations and financial institutions are headed by a wealthy oligarchy that dominates the political and economic life of this country, blocking the path to prosperity for the vast majority. U.S. companies are closing down factories here and exporting capital around the globe, to the detriment of all but themselves.

Our ruling class (the big capitalists and their hangers-on) has built an empire that spans the earth. Like vampires, they stand at the apex of a parasitic system that makes its home on Wall Street and sucks the blood of the Main Streets in the cities of the U.S. and villages of the developing world. They live on the labor, land and natural resources of others. Neither distance nor decency is a barrier to their drive to achieve the highest possible rate of profit. The world has been divided up between the big capitalist powers, which will stop at nothing to expand their spheres of influence and control.

Within our borders the monopoly capitalists have accumulated untold wealth based on the exploitation of the multinational working class and the systematic discrimination and robbery that is visited upon the oppressed nationalities.

We need to turn things upside down. This means revolution, a radical break that advances the cause of the exploited, that employs, in the words of Malcolm X, any means necessary. Working and oppressed peoples need political power. This power is the means to reorganize society in our own interests and dictate our terms to all who stand in the way. The seizure of power by the working class and its allies is the beginning of a great change, a transformation that continues until the end of all classes and all oppression.

United Front Against Monopoly Capitalism

Our basic strategy for revolution and socialism is building a united front against the monopoly capitalist class, under the leadership of the working class and its political party, with a strategic alliance between the multinational working class and the oppressed nationalities at the core of this united front.

Identifying our real friends and our real enemies is a first step towards building a united front against monopoly capitalism. To carry out this analysis we need to understand the different classes, nationalities and social groups in U.S. society, identify those forces whose interests are in the main opposed to the monopoly capitalists, and take a look a the specific features of our society.

Of paramount importance is grasping the fact that the United States is a country where entire nationalities - African Americans, Chicanos and Latinos, Asian Americans, Native peoples including native Hawaiians, Arab Americans and others within U.S borders - are bound by the chains of national oppression. Real and full equality, liberation and self-determination become possible with the destruction of monopoly capitalism. Thus the struggle to end national oppression has a revolutionary significance. One cannot understand the U.S. past, present or future without firmly grasping this point.

Strategic Alliance

Revolutionary change in the United States will bring together two powerful currents: the struggles of oppressed nationalities for equality and liberation, and the fight of the multi-national working class to end exploitation and eliminate all oppression. Building the unity of these two forces is what we mean by building a strategic alliance. This long-term alliance is the foundation for a much broader united front of classes and social groups who can and will unite against the monopoly capitalists.

The real work to build this strategic alliance requires carrying out a set of interrelated and at times difficult tasks. White workers, especially those who are active and forward-looking, have the responsibility to take the lead in opposing white chauvinism or racism among whites and play an active role in building the fight against all manifestations of national oppression. By doing so they help build the unity and strength of the multinational working class and help create more favorable terrain for the development of the national movements.

Revolutionary minded oppressed nationality workers have the responsibly to oppose narrow nationalism among workers of their own nationality. This contributes to overcoming distrust and division between the respective nationalities, raising the fighting capacity of the multinational working class, and helps to create a situation where the national movements of African Americans, Chicanos and Latinos, Asian Americans, Native peoples and other oppressed nationalities can build the respective national movements, cooperating to achieve common goals, while building the strategic alliance.

Within the movements of the oppressed nationalities, which by definition bring together a number of classes and social groups, there is the issue of which class will lead. The stronger the working class leadership of the national movements, the stronger the national movements will be (especially in a country like the U.S., where the overwhelming majority of the oppressed nationalities are workers) and the more durable will be the alliance with the multi-national working class.

Classes in the U.S.

There is a lot of confusion about class in the United States. Politicians, academics, media pundits and even trade union leaders, have obscured the issue. As a result many think the main classes in the United States are the rich, poor and middle class. This view has problems. It pits the employed section of the working class against the unemployed sections of the working class, by suggesting that the working class is the middle class and has different interests from the unemployed sections of the working class. Another variant is to think that everyone who owns a cabin or lives in the suburbs is "rich." The effect of this kind of analysis is to pit the working class against itself, confounding friends and enemies and deadening class consciousness.

Marxists approach the matter differently, and we believe that to be a part of the working class is something to be proud of. When socialists look at the issue of class we see that every kind of society, from ancient times until now, is organized around its tools - it means of producing things that satisfy people's needs and wants. Ownership of the means of production is basic. Classes are large groups of people, who have a defined relationship to the means of production, such as ownership. They also have a defined place in the social division of labor, for example some people are supervisors or managers. The result of the these differences in who owns what and where one fits into the social division of labor, means a difference in who gets how much wealth.

The following are the principal classes in the United States. When it is stated that a given class or social group thinks or acts in a given way, it is based on the understanding that nothing is uniform and more can be learned on one hand, but that it is vital that we understand the general motion of something on the other.

Monopoly capitalists

The monopoly capitalist class is the dominant class the United States. They own and control the big corporations like Citicorp, General Motors and Wal-Mart. This class of billionaires, multimillionaires and those in their immediate circles are real rulers of the U.S.

Some of the family names in this class are familiar - they have been there for generations - such as the DuPonts and Rockefellers. Others are comparative newcomers such as the Waltons or Bill Gates. All of them are parasites that live off the labor of the working class.

This class has several specific features. First, they rule not only the United States; they control an empire that spans the globe. This means they quite literally have friends and allies on every continent. Every blow that weakens U.S. imperialism assists those of us here in fighting our common enemy.

Secondly, they control the political and cultural life of this county, from Congress and the judiciary, the media and military to institutions of education and the arts. They finance a host of institutions and think tanks that actively consider and promote their strategic interests, including the Heritage Foundation, the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others. They also utilize a host of business associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

They are tied - like puppet masters to their puppets - in a thousand and one ways to the main political parties - the Republicans and the Democrats. This control is maintained through a host of laws that ensure that the electoral process favors the rich, direct and indirect campaign contributions, outright bribery, cheating, and corruption, and by an army of lobbyists who are guardians of their interests on a day-to-day basis.

As a practical matter this class includes the upper stratum of politicians, military figures, and some intellectuals.

Finally, this class has shown time and time again that it will stop at nothing to maintain its power and privilege.

This class of monopoly capitalist is the principal target of revolution in the United States.

Non-monopoly capitalists

These are the capitalists who are important on a local or regional level. They include some of the smaller banking and finance groups and some of the smaller manufactures, for example in furniture building and food processing, the owners of large farms and ranches, with a larger section centered in the service sector - for example the owners of smaller restaurant chains.

This group also includes a section of large local land developers and real estate speculators, a section of well-off intellectuals, some big entertainers and cultural figures, and a section of politicians, including some big city mayors.

Their distinguishing feature is that they have not made it into the monopoly capitalist class, and they face a constant competitive pressure from the corporations with great resources. Because of that pressure they frequently attempt to compensate by obtaining higher than normal rates of exploitation, and they are often extremely hostile to trade unions and workers' rights.

While they have some independence from, and at times some are hostile to, some of the agenda advanced by the monopoly capitalists (for example, some resent paying for tax-funded projects that benefit their larger competitors and others are concerned about trade issues), as a whole this is not a progressive class. The non-monopoly capitalists are also a target of revolution in the United States.

That said, there are individuals within this class who have the potential to be favorable or at least not hostile to revolutionary change. Given the multinational character of the United States, we note there are also non-monopoly capitalists based in the oppressed nationalities, who at times are hostile to national oppression, and under favorable conditions can be brought into the united front against monopoly capitalism.

Petty Bourgeoisie

In the U.S. the petty bourgeoisie is a large and varied class that includes most professionals, like doctors and lawyers, and supervisory personnel. It encompasses the majority of intellectuals, such as college professors and scientists. It also includes the owners of small businesses that produce or sell goods and services, small farmers, and small landlords who get the majority of their income from rent.

Those who make up the petty bourgeoisie either have some specialized skill or knowledge or are owners of the means of production or distribution. As a class they value what independence they have. The upper stratum of this class hopes to join the capitalists, and lower stratum fears being pushed into the working class.

Some petty bourgeoisie get a part of their income by exploiting the labor of others, for example most restaurant owners or owners of small auto shops. Others do not, like most doctors employed by hospitals.

Based on their relationship to other classes and their income, the petty bourgeoisie can be broken down into three groups or strata: upper, middle and lower.

The upper stratum of the petty bourgeoisie has a rising standard of living. For them life is getting better. And for those in this group who produce or sell goods and services - they would like to join the ranks of the big capitalists. They live in well-to-do suburbs, condominiums and gated communities. The upper stratum includes many of those who practice law, doctors, small business owners who are doing well and hire workers, accountants, scientists, local media personalities, some landlords and others. They see themselves as the middle class and many want "government to get off their backs" or view themselves as "fiscal conservatives." This section of the people tends to be active in politics on a state and local level and at present time it is an important social base for the political right wing. Given that, some sections are more progressive than others, for example college professors.

The middle section of the petty bourgeoisie is treading water. They want to move on up, but capitalism is pulling them down. For them, things seem to be stagnating. They feel okay about their economic well-being but fear the future. This group includes a section of management and administrators, small business owners who have some employees but they still have to do some of the actual work, and small time landlords who maintain a few buildings. This group includes professionals who are not doing as well as some of their peers. They tend to own nice homes. Politically this group tends to be a mixed bag. The small business owners hate government regulation. Professionals employed by government tend to have a very different view.

The lower section of the petty bourgeoisie is a step away from the working class and many have an income that is lower than the upper or even middle sections of the working class. They own small neighborhood businesses that frequently fail. Small farmers, owner operators of trucks, some small building contractors and working supervisors with the power to fire are all part of this group. Many in this section of the petty bourgeoisie have their roots in the working class, and really like being their own boss. This section of the people frequently places demands on government, as is the case with many farm movements. They use small business loans, and are as a group hostile to big business and would like to see the power of the monopolies curbed.

Over the long run, the petty bourgeoisie as a whole has no future as a class. It cannot realistically compete with the big capitalists and there is a tendency in many of the professions towards less independence - for example the decline of small medical practices.

It is important that as many people as possible within this class be brought into the united front against monopoly capitalism. In some cases, this will be done based on the economic interests of sections of this class. For example, building farm protest movements or uniting with small storeowners to oppose a Wal-Mart in the community. In other cases work will be done by building progressive political centers in a certain profession for example, for example building the organizations of progressive lawyers.

Working Class

The working class constitutes the majority of the American people and it will be both the main and leading force for revolutionary change in this country. It is composed of women and men of all nationalities who labor to create goods and services, be it in factories, offices or the fields. It encompasses the employed and the unemployed, those who do manual labor or mental labor, people working in the service sector or manufacturing and transportation. It includes the organized and the unorganized.

The working class makes its living by selling its ability to work. The capitalists own the places and things that are used to create goods and services. They appropriate for themselves all that is produced by the collective labor of the working class. This gives rise to an irrepressible conflict, a clash of basic interests that can be solved by the working class taking all power into its own hands.

The U.S. working class has a proud history of struggle. From the fight for the 8-hour day in the 1880's to the heroic battles against concessions that have been waged over the past 20 years and the inspiring movement of undocumented workers for full equality, the capacity of the working class to take its destiny into its own hands has been repeatedly shown.

In the U.S. today the working class as a whole is characterized by a low level of class consciousness. While it's true that many workers are dissatisfied with the existing order of things, there is not a widespread understanding that the working class has a distinct set of interests that can only be addressed by the collective action of the class. In fact, while there is a widespread perception among working people that life for them and their children might well get harder, many workers, particularly the sections of the working class which are better off or more stable, either do not view themselves as a part of the working class or have hopes of leaving it altogether.

Broadly speaking, the working class can be divided into upper, middle and lower sections.

The upper sections of the working class have both the largest income and the highest social status within the class as a whole. It includes those in the skilled trades, such as electricians, plumbers, some carpenters, some tool and die makers and those who do specialized repair and maintenance. Teachers and nurses are a part of this group. It also includes a section of organized workers in basic industries such as mining, auto and steel, and some government workers.

In the building and skilled trades, this section of the working class is disproportionately white due to discrimination and national oppression. Depending on the region of the country, and whether the production facility is based in an urban or rural area, this is less true in the unionized sections of basic industry.

At times the upper section of the working class has shown itself to be extremely militant when it comes to defending its class interests.

Some parts of the upper sections of the working class are influenced by white and national chauvinism; hence, these elements at times exercise a conservative influence in the labor movement and society as a whole.

Over the past thirty years, this section of the working class has been hit hard by changes in the productive forces and the departure of factories to other countries - particularly in the basic industries. As a result, it is less of a force in the working class as a whole.

In a similar vein, some of the skilled trades have gone through a process whereby the degree of skills required has declined (machinists) or where the degree of unionization has declined (carpenters) and as a result, larger and larger sections of these professions have found themselves in the middle or lower sections of the working class.

In the private sector, this is the most organized section of the working class. This section of the working class often sees itself as a part of the "middle class," and in many ways believes that their whole way of life is disappearing.

The most important section of the upper section of the working class are those concentrated in basic industries, where there are still many large, multinational workplaces.

The middle sections of the working class include most workers in the public sector, unionized workers in light industry, transportation and communications and a large section of the office workers in finance, insurance and real estate. While public employees have a higher rate of unionization than the working class as a whole, the middle section of the working class is less organized than the upper and many tend to work under less socialized conditions.

This section of the working class is under serious pressure, and is seeing its standard of living erode. While public sector workers face real pressures, many in this section of the class are in danger of being pushed into the lower sections of the class in times of economic crisis or restructuring. This is particularly true where households have fewer resources to fall back on, for example, oppressed nationality workers who face 'last hired and first fired.'

The middle section of the class has been where most new union members have come from in the past forty years. This is partly because of the growth of the service and healthcare industries. It is also because of the motion of public sector workers into joining unions.

The civil rights movement had a large impact on the union movement among the public sector because of the significant employment of Black workers. When Martin Luther King Jr. died in Memphis, he was there supporting a strike of sanitation workers.

The requirements of organizing new members made unions change, and in turn led to struggles against the failures of the old union leadership.

Organizing new members is in the interests of the class, and in the main, organizing the unorganized has contributed to the class struggle.

The lower section of the working class is growing, labors under the most difficult conditions and is disproportionately made up of women and oppressed nationalities. It includes many who work in agriculture, retail, and the food processing industries, the less unionized sections of light industry, prison laborers, and temporary workers - especially those who do not receive benefits. Workers without jobs are a part of this section of the working class.

The employed section of this group of workers has no illusions about being part of the "middle class." As a group, homelessness is just a few lost paychecks away. Issues like health care and childcare affect the entire working class and parts of the petty bourgeoisie as well, but for the lower sections of working class their importance cannot be overstated. No childcare can well mean no job. No heath care coverage means long waits in hospital emergency rooms for basic care.

Many undocumented workers are in the lower section of the working class, and a portion of this section of the class would like to see radical change.

The urban poor is the stratum of the lower section of the working class who are without jobs or who lack stable employment. It includes people on public assistance and day laborers. The urban poor is extremely dissatisfied with conditions, and it is the only stratum of the working class that as a whole, is open to revolutionary ideas about changing society.

Lumpen Proletariat

The lumpen proletariat is made up of those who make their living primarily by criminal means, including drug dealing, street cons and theft. It is mainly made up of former members of the working class who have turned to anti-social means to get by.

While in the main it is the working class that suffers from its behavior, sections of this group can change and become allies of the working class.

Working Class Leadership and the Need for a New Communist Party

For revolutionary change to take place in the United States, three conditions need to be in place. First, the broad masses of people - workers, the oppressed nationalities and others who are held down by the monopoly capitalists - need to arrive at the conclusion that they are unable to live in the old way, and need to be willing to fight to bring the old order to an end. Second, the ruling class needs to be in real crisis, where it is divided against itself and unable to continue with business as usual. And, finally, there needs to be a strong revolutionary organization, a communist party that is capable of navigating complex political situations and that can lead the fight to establish working class political power.

In the U.S. today, none of these conditions exist. In our view, it is the central task of revolutionaries to create a new communist party - a political party that is serious about revolution in this country. Such a party cannot be proclaimed or declared into being. It will be the product of bringing together or fusing Marxism with the workers movement. In a practical sense this means that a substantial section of the activists, organizers, and leaders need to take up the science of revolution, Marxism-Leninism, in order to build a communist party, that is in fact the advanced and organized detachment of the multi-national working class. This process will be the result of an organized effort, and it cannot come about spontaneously.

Building a new revolutionary party is a long-term project that requires perseverance and determination. It is not something that can be done in isolation from the people's struggle and movements. Our party building work should be placed in the context of our three objectives: To win all that can be won while weakening our enemies; Raise the general level of consciousness, struggle, and organization in our immediate battles; and Win the advanced to Marxism-Leninism, thus building revolutionary organization.

The tasks of revolutionaries in relationship to building revolutionary organization change based on the development of the objective situation. Right now there are very few Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. While the job of uniting them is an important one, this is not key to party building. Finding new socialists in the course of the struggle is the thing to do.

It is possible that an upsurge of the national movements will lead to the creation of Marxist organizations based among a specific nationality, as happened in the late 60's and early 70's. If this takes place again, it would mean prioritizing the principled unity of communist organizations. Likewise if polarization in society due to the decline of U.S imperialism, or radicalization of a section of one or more social movements creates a layer of activists who are revolutionary minded, this in turn will affect the content of party building efforts.

Expanding the scale and scope of revolutionary organization with the long term goal of building a new communist party is closely linked with the construction of a united front against monopoly capitalism. The organizational capacity and political understanding a Marxist Leninist party provides is the vehicle for working class leadership, and the scaffolding for the united front against monopoly capitalism.

SOURCE OF THIS ARTICLE: http://www.frso.org/about/5congress/class.htm


.




I am wiling to learn better about Petit Bourgeois, as how I understand in reality from my personal point of view they are kind of dangerous class, Would somebody can explain simple English why this class are so in danger?
Thanks and I am aware I get answers.

[Ocean Seal]

The petite bourgeoisie are small capitalists. They lack the resources to exploit labor efficiently and accumulate enough capital so that they can subsist solely on others' labor. They are constantly being pushed down into the ranks of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie, who do possess the proper resources to carry this out. The line between small capitalist and big capitalist is drawn by who is pushing who down, and who is trying to accumulate the resources to be able to do so.

They can potentially be radicalized if they can be disillusioned with their conquest of bourgeois status.
The greatest flaw in the petit bourgeoisie is not that they pursue bourgeois status, but rather that they don't wish to re-enter the proletariat. Making them quite hostile to regulations, workers rights, among other things. In situations where there are few to no workers though, certain petit-bourgeois elements are quite radical such as the peasantry which has in the last century given capitalism almost as much trouble as the working class.

[TrotskistMarx]

9q1jHx29C70
Millions of lower-class americans have tried to afford a middle class bourgeoise lifestyle. But sooner or later they are forced by financianal institutions, and lending companies, out of The Matrix of their middle class life, into the real world, the real world for them which is lower class lifestyle !!

Dear friend, you know another problem of the petty bourgeoise that is a great economic mistake linked to inferiority feelings, and inferiority complexes that they might have specially in United States which is an ultra competitive society where everybody lives in a permanent psychologic stress to compete and "keep up with the jones" in order to update their cars, their houses, their children's extra-school *privatized activities* in order to get their children, to fit-in, to be part of the crowds like karate lessons, baseball classes that are private and very expensive. Their anxiety to drive SUVs, or whatever car is in fashion. And even though they are in between petit bourgeoise and working classes, they do what ever they can in order to *not to live in a working class neighborhoods of houses between 30,000 and 80,000*

My sister and her husband who should indeed live in a working class neighborhood, because they are low-wage blue collar workers without university bachelor's degree. Her husband works as a private guard in a sports football stadium and my sister works in an e-bay side-business buying stuff and selling them on e-bay (What a hell of life they have, without any opportunity to join a *privatized neoliberal* college because you all know that full university degrees in America like doctors, lawyers, business degrees, astronomy, architectures, etc. are literally banned to the majority of working class families in USA. Only those in the upper strata of America can really join colleges, because college degrees are super expensive.

So having said all that about them, even though my sister's husband only earns 12 dollars per hour, and he doesn't even work 40 hours a week. He also cleans floors in an office building, etc. So they have moved to a middle class neighborhoods of houses between 110,000 to 180,000 dollars. And because they were living inside *The Matrix of dreams*, they maxed out their credit cards, they took loans to buy stuff, even a Toyota SUV, which the bank confiscated from them because they didn't have enough money to keep paying that luxury SUV.

And about a week ago the banks and another financial institution confiscated 13,000 dollars that they owed. And now they are totally broke, fat, because when people have so much economic stress they tend to binge eat or binge-drink etc.

And that's "The American Dream" for millions of people in USA. A dream which is really a hell of being poor in reality, but however in trying to give an impression an illusion of being part of the professional lawyers, doctors middle class, by getting into loans in order to afford with bank-loans a middle class lifestyle, which is really a short-lived middle class life, because sooner or later the millions and millions of americans who are poor in reality, in the real world outside of the matrix.

I think Thomas Jefferson was like Nostradamus, he predicted that some day american families will live in the streets, because corporations and bankers will expropiate and confiscate their houses.


,


The greatest flaw in the petit bourgeoisie is not that they pursue bourgeois status, but rather that they don't wish to re-enter the proletariat. Making them quite hostile to regulations, workers rights, among other things. In situations where there are few to no workers though, certain petit-bourgeois elements are quite radical such as the peasantry which has in the last century given capitalism almost as much trouble as the working class.

[Strannik]

And that's "The American Dream" for millions of people in USA. A dream which is really a hell of being poor in reality, but however in trying to give an impression an illusion of being part of the professional lawyers, doctors middle class, by getting into loans in order to afford with bank-loans a middle class lifestyle, which is really a short-lived middle class life, because sooner or later the millions and millions of americans who are poor in reality, in the real world outside of the matrix.


I think that this "credit card (or rather debt)financed middle class" (it exists in all "neoliberal" societies) is another new feature of our epoch. According to their relationship to means of production they are absolutely proletariat. Yet the fact that they have bet their future, not just existing labour power allows them to enjoy middle class lifestyle in the moment.

I think they could be called "virtual" petty bourgeoise, but their situation is so unstable that they might be considered proletariat as well - if there's one certain thing in this world, its that reality always triumphs over illusions.

[Amal]

I have one question for all. Does this "middle class" earn by directly selling products/services or they are employees in white collar job. In short, whether they have a paycheck at the of the month/week or not. And also whether they have decision making powers at their workplace or not. If the answer to both of the questions above are "yes", then they certainly belong to the working class.
We have a very bad habit of equating income with class which is unscientific to say the least. In reality, it's dangerous and lead us to wrong conclusions at the end.

[dodger]

I think that this "credit card (or rather debt)financed middle class" (it exists in all "neoliberal" societies) is another new feature of our epoch. According to their relationship to means of production they are absolutely proletariat. Yet the fact that they have bet their future, not just existing labour power allows them to enjoy middle class lifestyle in the moment.

I think they could be called "virtual" petty bourgeoise, but their situation is so unstable that they might be considered proletariat as well - if there's one certain thing in this world, its that reality always triumphs over illusions.

I suppose it can be said if certain strata can't make up their minds which class they should self identify with....who are we to tell them? YOU MIGHT GET ALL SORTS OF ANSWERS. If you asked a stranger or someone you just met...what do you do, then people are less reticent more clear thinking.I'm a train driver. a teacher, carpenter, truck driver, salesman, medical techie and so forth. As soon as you take the kings shilling and you have no other means of livelihood, then you are the KINGSMAN. It goes without saying almost that within our numbers there is a host of skills, grades, ages sexes, from man management to chemist. Why divide up the class(an inclusive term) when we all share the same bond , the same relationship to capital. Why use such a term as class at all. if its not meant for all those who sell their Labour Power. Oh yes, skills or labour in short supply can expect a premium rate as can well organised sections. So to go through the convoluted process of dividing up workers into classes, or strata then say look here, we should all unite seems a woeful task.

A capitalism in absolute decline will resemble most the Saigon Embassy of '76 it's started already we must all know people who are casualties. Those who had illusions about the system . Thought the good times would last forever. Property always goes up in value, as do shares.Oh dear!! Some get hit like a truck, others its that terrible drip-drip-drip, until you just have to give up your house or car. worse go back and live with parents. Is there any section of our class that is fireproof.those that think they are will be the ones hanging from the helicopter skids.

Anyhow what the blue blazes do I know about America, you are the ones who know your own people . I merely offered up my views on the subject as I saw it in Britain. I told several Managers....they'll be coming for your pension too. Your conditions of employment are under threat. If you can't stand up for yourself let the union do it. The legal protection alone is reason enough. Safety in numbers. "Do you think they will show you any loyalty for all the years you put in??" Drip-drip-drip....Dodger can be a total bastard....."sign here??" Thank you Commissar R****DS. "See you on the picket line"...Never saw him on the picket line, but never saw him cross it either. Why would he, 56yrs and a 1st rate occupation pension is worth fighting for. "RED KEN" Livingston crossed, the great lefty hope.

[gorillafuck]

Uh-oh, we got a live one. :crying:no I'm just not a thinks-I'm-so-relatable self indoctrinated socialist:laugh:

[Lilith]

a thinks-I'm-so-relatable self indoctrinated socialist:laugh:

A what?

[gorillafuck]

A what?socialists who've convinced themselves that they are so relatable to the folks workin' in the mines because they have the attitudes that they think everyone else has

[Lilith]

I was mostly just trolling you. :)