Are all members of the petit-bourgeois class necessarily capitalist?

[Skyhilist]

Let me present to you a hypothetical situation:
Lets say you are an anti-capitalist, but you really like flowers and giving flowers to people, so you become a florist. You want to have independence so you don't work for another florist shop, but rather start your own florist shop. You'd love to give away the flowers at no cost but can't afford to under a capitalist society, but need to because you need money to thrive in such a system (despite your dislike of it). So you open a small flower shop, and employ one or two people. Income is determined based on how much people work, not who was there first or who started the business, so labor exploitation is kept to a minimum. You are still by definition though a member of the petit-bourgeois class.
Obviously this specific example is a hypothetical situation, but there are certainly a lot of analogous situations out there that might lead someone who claims to be anti-capitalist to start up a small business.
I've often heard this class referred to automatically as capitalist though. So my question is why? In the case of our florist friend for example, are there really any other viable options under a capitalist society? If there are any that I'm missing, could it be possible that many members of the petit-bourgeois class simply aren't seeing them and truly are not capitalist?
This isn't applicable to all members of the petit-bourgeois class, but it's definitely applicable to a lot of them. Maybe they aren't all necessarily exploitative but merely turn that way feeling no other option under a capitalist system.
So I guess that brings me to our next question: should we really demonize these people? Yes, I agree that labor exploitation is in no way acceptable; but realistically speaking, some of these people may feel as though there's no real other option in a capitalist society if they actually want to pursue what they want AND be independent. So under capitalist circumstances, is it really right to see them as the enemy 100% of the time? Many of them have even participated in movements like Occupy Wall St. and supported anti-capitalist movements. Maybe some of them DON'T support labor exploitation but see no way around it should they want to pursue what they want to do. Are these people really to share blame with the dreadful capitalist system that has been cast upon them? Should we not see the ones willing to help us change the world as our comrades?
Note that I'm not in any way condoning the exploitation of labor; but having known a few small business (petit-bourgeois) people, it seems as though many of them we could actually get on are side should we not be so obsessed over alienating and criticizing them.
Also, not that I am talking only about the petit-bourgeois class. The bourgeois class I 100% agree is fully culpable for the evils that they commit. I am speaking only of members of the petit-bourgeois class who meet all of the criteria of the aforementioned hypothetical florist.
So to sum things up:
Are they necessarily all capitalist despite exploiting labor?
AND
Should we really try to demonize the ones that could potentially be on our side?
Any thoughts, answers, rebuts, or (insightful and non-insidious) replies would be appreciated.
Thanks!

[p0is0n]

I think capitalists and the bourgeoisie are characterized by their ownership of a means of production, and the fact that they live off the labor of others. Small business owners or petty bourgeois, while they own a means of production, do not solely live off the labor of others.

I do not think it is fair to consider every small business owner an absolute enemy, because it is only natural many of them be "proletarized" because of their inability to compete with the bigger capitalists, and thus they may be radicalized. (Someone who is well-versed, is this not similiar to how the modern proletariat came into existance?) However I would like to claim that a majority of the petty bourgeois wish to become big bourgeois themselves. I.e. the material interests of the petty bourgeois, are ultimately similar to the material interests of the bourgeois class. As I mentioned earlier, I think there is a chance to radicalize "proletarized" petty bourgeois, but in America at least, many seem to think that sole reason behind their demise is taxation.

I have also been thinking about the role of petty bourgeois in socialism for some time now, and I am very curious to see the opinions of some of our more well versed members.

[Skyhilist]

However I would like to claim that a majority of the petty bourgeois wish to become big bourgeois themselves. I.e. the material interests of the petty bourgeois, are ultimately similar to the material interests of the bourgeois class.

No argument here on that. I agree, but I was talking about what I guess you'd call the "proletarized" petty-bourgeois (e.g. people who meet the political criteria of the hypothetical florist I mentioned). I mean I know a lot of people who would definitely fall under this category and a lot of them are actually pretty decent people who just want to earn a living whilst being independent. It sort of bugs me how many leftists try to demonize these people; people who could be on our side were we not alienating them. But you're right; most of them do just want to become bourgeoise unfortunately.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Petty Bourgeois is french for 'small capitalist'. No matter how small they are, they still exploit workers. They are capitalists, hands down.

On the subject of group businesses such as family-regulated stores (fish shops run by five family members who all work together), however, I have no clue. The fellers have their own private property in order to produce commodities, but they all distribute the produce and lack an ensemble of employees to gain surplus from. I think that many politicos of the 19th century did not forsee them to last so long.

[Skyhilist]

Right, they still exploit workers, but this isn't really what I'm looking for. I mean a lot of them may view small business as the only option to do what they want to do while still being independent (in an unfortunately capitalist society). I believe I already addressed this though. The fact that they exploit labor doesn't automatically prove anything I don't think, in this case. Unless you could provide alternative for people like the hypothetical florist that doesn't go along with a capitalist narrative. Even doing this though wouldn't really prove much since many in analogous situations to the florist I mentioned might not even realize these alternatives should they even exist (in a capitalist society) and therefore not pursue them.

[red flag over teeside]

The problem with the petite bourgeoise is that they are torn between the bourgeoise itself and the working class. While they hope and dream of becoming a large succesfull capitalist reality proves to be otherwise as they face increasing bills from the banks and large suppliers. At the same time they are pulled towards the working class and some of them resents this and can lash out in reactionary directions vis a vis far right parties.

The pb will only follow a progressive lead as a class when they see the working class fighting back seriously. As of today in the UK this is not happening so we will have to see what 2013 offers in the way of an independent fightback free from union control.

One last thing the make up of the classes today are more complicated for there are many workers who take up some form of so called self empployment due to the difficulty of finding employment. In some ways we are seeing a furter decomposition of class relations.

[Skyhilist]

The problem with the petite bourgeoise is that they are torn between the bourgeoise itself and the working class. While they hope and dream of becoming a large succesfull capitalist reality proves to be otherwise as they face increasing bills from the banks and large suppliers.

But I'm specifically talking about PB people who just want to do what they love and DON'T have a desire to become bourgeois. Obviously the majority of them don't meet that criteria, but some certainly do, and I don't think it's really productive for the left to alienate the potential revolutionaries among them by automatically assuming their capitalist.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

But I'm specifically talking about PB people who just want to do what they love and DON'T have a desire to become bourgeois. Obviously the majority of them don't meet that criteria, but some certainly do, and I don't think it's really productive for the left to alienate the potential revolutionaries among them by automatically assuming their capitalist.
It's not about their individual desire, though. There are lot's of capitalists who donate millions to charities, try to treat their workers well etc. The point is that, because of their relationship to the means of production and to labour, they exploit their workforce whether they like it or not. Their interests ultimately lie in maintaining the status quo (or, rather, further integrating themselves in the current system, in the case of the petite-bourgeois). We welcome those who would give up their undeserved privilege but push comes to shove most won't and until they do (or until it's possible for them to do) their interests run contrary to ours.

[Skyhilist]

Well I mean, yes that's certainly the case but I think that's because many PB's don't even realize what they're doing or understand that it's exploiting. Wouldn't it be possible as PBS hypothetically speaking though not to exploit workers? For example you could set up a system even under capitalism where it's basically "take the amount of hours you've worked and divide it by the total amount of work by everyone. That's the percentage of the profit that you get." Almost mutualist and obviously not idea but still, not terrible if you have to work under capitalist premises for someone like our hypothetical florist.

[Blake's Baby]

No, because if you are petit-bourgeois, you exploit workers. If you do not exploit workers, you aren't petit-bourgeois. You can't have non-exploiting petites-bourgeoises, there is no such thing. If the 'owner' derives profit (in some form) from the labour of others, even if they work themself, then they are petit-bourgeois.

You're talking about something like producer co-operatives by the sound of it, where someone sets up a company and all the workers take a share of the profits. Which is still self-managed exploitation in capitalism.

[hetz]

If the 'owner' derives profit (in some form) from the labour of others, even if they work themself, then they are petit-bourgeois.
What if you own some small shop and it has only one worker, yourself?
I know several such small shops.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you deriving profit 'from the labour of others'? You did read the bit you quoted, I hope?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What if you own some small shop and it has only one worker, yourself?
I know several such small shops.

Then you're not petit-bourgeois, but you're not a worker either. It's a tough concept, because this is a sort of pre-capitalist (or perhaps can be seen even as proto-capitalist) economic formation; the handicrafts artisan, who eventually became subsumed by merchant capital.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To expand - we should neither defend as progressive, nor attack as capitalist, this type of antiquated economic formation, because it is necessarily neither. It is an economic formation that is ex ante capitalism. Thus, whilst it is not exploitative in the sense that the bourgeoisie in capitalism is exploitative (because it doesn't really fall into the two-class Marxian model of capitalism), it is not progressive either because, it is actually less revolutionary than capitalism. It is a very static and non-useful formation of production.

[Skyhilist]

No, because if you are petit-bourgeois, you exploit workers. If you do not exploit workers, you aren't petit-bourgeois. You can't have non-exploiting petites-bourgeoises, there is no such thing. If the 'owner' derives profit (in some form) from the labour of others, even if they work themself, then they are petit-bourgeois.

You're talking about something like producer co-operatives by the sound of it, where someone sets up a company and all the workers take a share of the profits. Which is still self-managed exploitation in capitalism.

Ahh alright thank you for the clarification. So in like food co-ops for example then, who would be doing the exploiting? If people are choosing to exploit themselves, is that gonna have a harmful impact on the rest of us?

[Left Turn]

To expand - we should neither defend as progressive, nor attack as capitalist, this type of antiquated economic formation, because it is necessarily neither. It is an economic formation that is ex ante capitalism. Thus, whilst it is not exploitative in the sense that the bourgeoisie in capitalism is exploitative (because it doesn't really fall into the two-class Marxian model of capitalism), it is not progressive either because, it is actually less revolutionary than capitalism. It is a very static and non-useful formation of production.

I'd question your claim that this form of production is non-useful. This is sometimes the case, but sometimes not.

One of my friends is a Marxist from Nepal who owns a fabulous Nepali restaurant here in Vancouver. He employs employs only himself, cooks all his own food for his restaurant. This is his way of being able to contribute to society according to his abilities. His labour is far more useful in this capacity than if he were a regular worker.

[Green Girl]

You're talking about something like producer co-operatives by the sound of it, where someone sets up a company and all the workers take a share of the profits. Which is still self-managed exploitation in capitalism.

I'm having trouble understanding this, are the producer cooperatives you mentioned worker cooperatives where all workers are equal owners and divide the profit evenly? If so how would they exploit as I would think they are all getting the full value of their labor power.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, sometimes members of the petty bourgeoisie see their coming demise as a necessary result of Capitalism, since Capitalism tends to destroy small Capitalists, which makes them join the revolutionary cause.

Wasn't Engels petty bourgeois before he joined up with Marx?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm having trouble understanding this, are the producer cooperatives you mentioned worker cooperatives where all workers are equal owners and divide the profit evenly? If so how would they exploit as I would think they are all getting the full value of their labor power.

What does that mean?

If 10 people each work for 40 hours then that's 400 hours of exploitation.

How can the workers possibly gain the full value of their labour power? They still have to pay the overheads - land rent, electricity and phone bills, tax, raw material costs, specialist services like accounting or other consultancy, repayment of startup loans and re-invvestment in machines, etc - and this must conme out of the money they've 'earned' as a business, ie it must come out of their labour. They can never get the full value of their labour - otherwise all we'd need to do to 'create' socialism would be to transfer every business to being a co-op. Or maybe, just all own shares in everything, at which point 'socialism' just becomes the same as 'capitalism'.

Commodity production plus wage labour is capitalism. Doesn't matter if there's profit-sharing on top (which is what a co-op does in essence).

Added to which, worker co-ops have the worst rates of real exploitation in the economy - in a traditional small business, it tends to be the 'entrepreneur' that works a 90-hour week because he's really committed but the staff just do the normal 40 hours that they're paid for. In a co-op, because it's everyone's business, all the workers are pulling 90-hour weeks, but only being paid for 40, so they're all working 50 hours for free. That's one reason why they have a much better survival rate than traditional new businesses - get everyone to agree to hyper-exploitation and magically, a small business can prosper (about 75% of co-ops survive the first 5 years as opposed to around 25% of traditional businesses - at least, on UK figures that's true).


...
Wasn't Engels petty bourgeois before he joined up with Marx?

I think he was bourgeois. I'm not sure he helped out at the factory.

[Pelarys]

I'm wondering myself over the definition of "petit-bourgeois" (is it petty in English? I thought the term was French).
I'll give you an example of a case that I know of: An employee pharmacist in France, has studied just as much as a doctor, and ends up in a small pharmacy in a small city, winning between 2000 and 3000 euros a month (I did not ask him but I assume it around that).
Theoretically he has a authority over his assistants , but he has none since the pharmacy is understaffed.
Given his salary would he be considered a petit bourgeois despite owning no mean of production per se? But then if he had assistants would he still be?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No, because if you are petit-bourgeois, you exploit workers. If you do not exploit workers, you aren't petit-bourgeois. You can't have non-exploiting petites-bourgeoises, there is no such thing. If the 'owner' derives profit (in some form) from the labour of others, even if they work themself, then they are petit-bourgeois.

You're talking about something like producer co-operatives by the sound of it, where someone sets up a company and all the workers take a share of the profits. Which is still self-managed exploitation in capitalism.
I'm not sure that is true. I am, by profession, petite bourgeois, but I employ no one. Lawyers, doctors, sometimes employ others, sometimes they do not. We are not proletarian and we are not bourgeois.

But the main point is that the PB can go in any direction. In the presence of a revolutionary party leading the proletariat, they may cast their lot with the revolution (e.g., Russia 1917). In other circumstances they may cast their lot with the bourgeoisie and be the foot soldiers of reaction (e.g., Germany late 20s on). We have to be careful not to make this into an issue of morality or character. It is foolish to write off big sections of the population that might be won to fight for socialism, because they "exploit" a couple of employees. At the same time, the better of PB's are probably more likely to be conservative and are not likely to support revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm wondering myself over the definition of "petit-bourgeois" (is it petty in English? I thought the term was French).
I'll give you an example of a case that I know of: An employee pharmacist in France, has studied just as much as a doctor, and ends up in a small pharmacy in a small city, winning between 2000 and 3000 euros a month (I did not ask him but I assume it around that).
Theoretically he has a authority over his assistants , but he has none since the pharmacy is understaffed.
Given his salary would he be considered a petit bourgeois despite owning no mean of production per se? But then if he had assistants would he still be?

The terms are petit-bourgeois ('petee borzhwar') and petite-bourgeoisie ('peteet borzhwarzee') in English, as in French, but the word 'petty' (worthless, insignificant) came into English long before 'petit-bourgeois' and has altered the term as a back-formation - so really we're all likely to say 'petee borzhwarzee' instead of 'peteet borzhwarzee' and sometimes people write it too.

He's not petit-bourgeois if he has no assistants. He's not petit-bourgeois if he owns no means of production. So, no. Salary has nothing to do with it. Oil rig workers are paid more than many small business people earn - doesn't mean they're not workers.


I'm not sure that is true. I am, by profession, petite bourgeois, but I employ no one. Lawyers, doctors, sometimes employ others, sometimes they do not. We are not proletarian and we are not bourgeois...

And? This means you might be 'sociologically' petit-bourgeois, but not economically. The petite-bourgeoisie, economically, is the class that both employs wage labour (=bourgeois) and exploits its own labour power (=petit). If you don't do that, you aren't petit-bourgeois.




...
But the main point is that the PB can go in any direction. In the presence of a revolutionary party leading the proletariat, they may cast their lot with the revolution (e.g., Russia 1917). In other circumstances they may cast their lot with the bourgeoisie and be the foot soldiers of reaction (e.g., Germany late 20s on). We have to be careful not to make this into an issue of morality or character. It is foolish to write off big sections of the population that might be won to fight for socialism, because they "exploit" a couple of employees. At the same time, the better of PB's are probably more likely to be conservative and are not likely to support revolution.

What's morality got to do with it? Anyone can come over to the proletariat. Engels was fully bourgeois, he didn't work in his own factory. Are you going to claim he couldn't be a revolutionary?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And? This means you might be 'sociologically' petit-bourgeois, but not economically. The petite-bourgeoisie, economically, is the class that both employs wage labour (=bourgeois) and exploits its own labour power (=petit). If you don't do that, you aren't petit-bourgeois.





What's morality got to do with it? Anyone can come over to the proletariat. Engels was fully bourgeois, he didn't work in his own factory. Are you going to claim he couldn't be a revolutionary?
Of course Engels was a revolutionary -- that is what I meant. The leadership of the Bolsheviks, by and large, came from the ranks of the petite bourgeoisie.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I always thought that low level managers, doctors, lawyers and the like were petite bourgeois. What else would the be if not PB? Classless?

[Revoltorb]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I always thought that low level managers, doctors, lawyers and the like were petite bourgeois. What else would the be if not PB? Classless?

All those occupations are not petty bourgeois by default, though all but the first have the opportunity to be so (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'll get to this more later). Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. (professionals, basically) typically work in practices/firms, whether they're large or small. If they are partners in the firm they work at then, as part-owners of the firm who still work there they are petty bourgeois because they employ other people to labor for them as well. If they are not part-owners then they are proletarian because their labor is still being exploited by the owners of the firm.

Low level managers I'm not so sure about because unless they own part of the company there's no way they can be petty bourgeoisie, let alone big bourgeoisie. They are acting on behalf of capitalists in much the same way the police and military do. They enforce the status quo in terms of class relations and the mode of production (division of labor, etc.) despite usually coming from proletarian backgrounds themselves (occasionally not, but usually). I'm not sure what the exact class nature is but I don't think they'd be petty bourgeois.

[Poison Frog]

Hi all, new member.

I'm interested in this stage at which someone transcends from being a worker to being PB. I'd like to posit for a moment that becoming a manager does in fact make you PB, because now certain aspects of your development (economically, work-socially) depend on the 'subjugation' or at least deference of other workers to you.

It seems to me there aren't many people who would reject a promotion if it was offered to them. So you have a world of workers who would take the opportunity to be promoted to manager if it was offered to them. But are they all to be designated as potential traitors, as such? I mean, if you were working in an office and earning 30 grand a year, and then you were offered a promotion to be manager of the office, would you reject the promotion for fear of becoming PB?

Because although you aren't as obviously exploiting the labour of others as the shop owner who makes profit from the shop workers, you're now enjoying a heightened status in your career, and presumably a higher wage, because of your elevated position over the people in your department.

A slight tangent, perhaps, but does becoming PB mean you are no longer working class? Say, accepting for a moment that being a manager makes you PB, you have a manager earning 30 grand in an office, and then a tube driver earning 45 grand, is the former no longer working class, because he has joined the PB, despite having less financial security than the tube driver?

[MarxSchmarx]

Hi all, new member.

I'm interested in this stage at which someone transcends from being a worker to being PB. I'd like to posit for a moment that becoming a manager does in fact make you PB, because now certain aspects of your development (economically, work-socially) depend on the 'subjugation' or at least deference of other workers to you.

It seems to me there aren't many people who would reject a promotion if it was offered to them. So you have a world of workers who would take the opportunity to be promoted to manager if it was offered to them. But are they all to be designated as potential traitors, as such? I mean, if you were working in an office and earning 30 grand a year, and then you were offered a promotion to be manager of the office, would you reject the promotion for fear of becoming PB?

Because although you aren't as obviously exploiting the labour of others as the shop owner who makes profit from the shop workers, you're now enjoying a heightened status in your career, and presumably a higher wage, because of your elevated position over the people in your department.

A slight tangent, perhaps, but does becoming PB mean you are no longer working class? Say, accepting for a moment that being a manager makes you PB, you have a manager earning 30 grand in an office, and then a tube driver earning 45 grand, is the former no longer working class, because he has joined the PB, despite having less financial security than the tube driver?

I think the more relevant distinction, one which Marx was somewhat ambiguous about, for managers and likely other "professional" fields is the coordinator class. Here's a brief summary of how it works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional-managerial_class

In general, I think the important distinction of the petty-bourgeoisie is that they own capital and that ownership allows them to make something of a living, even if they have to apply their own labor power to the capital to generate income. By contrast, somebody who sets up shift schedules worked by humans as opposed to programming an assembly line still has to sell their labor using capital that other people supply.

[Blake's Baby]

I think 'co-ordinator class theory' is junk. It's basically a way to claim that the Soviet Union, though not being socialist, isn't capitalist either (something I don't think is true).

[MarxSchmarx]

I think 'co-ordinator class theory' is junk. It's basically a way to claim that the Soviet Union, though not being socialist, isn't capitalist either (something I don't think is true).

Maybe historically that's what it was designed to do, but today I don't think it's used by its proponents much in that way any more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Maybe historically that's what it was designed to do, but today I don't think it's used by its proponents much in that way any more.

What do you mean? Is it because there's more emphasis on the role of the coordinator class under private property relations?

[Lobotomy]

I completely agree with most people here that the interests of the petite bourgeoisie are inherently opposed to those of the working class. However I think it is worth noting that petite bourgeois individuals are not 'safe' in their position. They are constantly in danger of becoming working class themselves. With the slightest hiccup of the market they can potentially lose their business and their position in society. So they are not a lost cause by any means. As the bourgeoisie continues to widen the gap between the classes, many people from the petite bourgeois class will fall, and then they will see the world for how it really works.

[MarxSchmarx]

What do you mean? Is it because there's more emphasis on the role of the coordinator class under private property relations?

Yes, I think that, plus the fact that the question of whether the USSR was capitalist/socialist never struck me as having been a very important consideration for the originators of the coordinator class theory. At least in the anglophone west, whether the Ussr was "socialist" or "capitalist" was a question that haunted Trotskyist sects, maoists/stalinists and perhaps bourgeois academics more than others on the left.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, I think that, plus the fact that the question of whether the USSR was capitalist/socialist never struck me as having been a very important consideration for the originators of the coordinator class theory. At least in the anglophone west, whether the Ussr was "socialist" or "capitalist" was a question that haunted Trotskyist sects, maoists/stalinists and perhaps bourgeois academics more than others on the left.

You do know who invented the 'co-ordinator class theory', yes? James Burnham who wrote 'The Managerial Revolution', started as a Trotskyist (and rapidly allied with the Shachtmanites against the Cannonites) and then abandoned Troskyism (and radical politics) to become an academic working for the fore-runner of the CIA. Which kinda perfectly describes the trajectory 'Totskyist sect to bourgeois academic'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham

There's a thread on LibCom about this: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/theory-co-ordinator-class-13062010

[MarxSchmarx]

You do know who invented the 'co-ordinator class theory', yes? James Burnham who wrote 'The Managerial Revolution', started as a Trotskyist (and rapidly allied with the Shachtmanites against the Cannonites) and then abandoned Troskyism (and radical politics) to become an academic working for the fore-runner of the CIA. Which kinda perfectly describes the trajectory 'Totskyist sect to bourgeois academic'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham

There's a thread on LibCom about this: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/theory-co-ordinator-class-13062010

Huh - I didn't realize it went back to Burnham. I always thought the pedigree went through Dilas in Tito's Yugoslavia and his "New Class" ideology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Class
which seems to have been more or less articulated independently by several other social scientists. My sense was always that Albert and Hahnel, in their studies of the Yugoslavian economy, put a more descriptive phrase "coordinator class" on some variant of what Dilas had been working on. What sort of documentary evidence is there that Albert and Hahnel got the idea from Burnham?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Huh - I didn't realize it went back to Burnham. I always thought the pedigree went through Dilas in Tito's Yugoslavia and his "New Class" ideology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Class
which seems to have been more or less articulated independently by several other social scientists. My sense was always that Albert and Hahnel, in their studies of the Yugoslavian economy, put a more descriptive phrase "coordinator class" on some variant of what Dilas had been working on. What sort of documentary evidence is there that Albert and Hahnel got the idea from Burnham?

Blake is stretching things, I think. I'm sure Dilas developed the "New Class" independently of Burnham's "Managerial Revolution," just as Kalecki and Keynes developed their aggregate demand-side political macroeconomy independently.

[Blake's Baby]

Blake is stretching things, I think...

I don't, I didn't mention Djilas at all. So I have posited no influence from the one to the other, and not brought in Albert and Hahnel either.

If you want to argue that co-ordinator class theory doesn't go back to Burnham's work in the 1930s, that's fine, but it seems to me pretty obvious that it does. That doesn't mean either Djilas or Albert & Hahnel necessarily knew of or used Burnham's work.

[Thirsty Crow]

I mean I know a lot of people who would definitely fall under this category and a lot of them are actually pretty decent people who just want to earn a living whilst being independent.
All of this is irrelevant. The point to class analysis is not to assess how nice people are, but to determine their inter-relationship on the grounds of control over both capital and labour.

Thus, by definition, your hypothetical florist is a small capitalist. Why? I think it is obvious: ownership of capital, command over labour. Concrete labour conditions and wages is another thing, as well as the Damocles' sword of proletarianization through capitalist competition. And I agree that demonizing this group, as a whole, is unnecessary.



Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I always thought that low level managers, doctors, lawyers and the like were petite bourgeois. What else would the be if not PB? Classless?
There's this thing that bothered me with the standard, official Marxist take on class formation solely through the relation to the means of production (possession-dispossession). It neglects, what is immediately significant in practical terms, relations to labour (one's own and others).

Thus you could not meaningfully claim that these groups you mention (proffesional middle class) comprise a part of the petite bourgeois class and claim that relation to the means of production is the sole determining factor in class analysis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't, I didn't mention Djilas at all. So I have posited no influence from the one to the other, and not brought in Albert and Hahnel either.

If you want to argue that co-ordinator class theory doesn't go back to Burnham's work in the 1930s, that's fine, but it seems to me pretty obvious that it does. That doesn't mean either Djilas or Albert & Hahnel necessarily knew of or used Burnham's work.

There are two distinctions that need to be made, I think: managers of labour and managers of capital. Burnham wrote mainly of the latter. Djilas, Albert, and Hahnel wrote/write of the former. I should add that the latter are already at least petit-bourgeois, and perhaps downright bourgeois (like big-time fund managers).

[Raúl Duke]

I feel like a part of the reason why people are getting worked up about this is perhaps because they know someone, are themselves, or could themselves or a friend of theirs become petit-bourgeois. Thus, they feel some sort of guilt or something because Marxism only views the proletariat as revolutionary.

I think it also comes from a misunderstanding. Some people construe this to mean that only proletarians can be or should be pro-revolutionary radicals and those who aren't proletarian are some sort of aberration, poseurs, or something.

See, there's no real problem of being petit-bourgeois, being in a co-op, or being self-employed. Likewise, we should exactly fetishize the proletarian condition; if you prefer to be a petit-bourgeois, work in a co-op, or be self-employed than go ahead.

Also, it's not impossible for someone in a class outside the proletariat to be at the individual level a revolutionary. Engels was bourgeois and yet he was a Marxist. There's nothing wrong with that.

But in the end of the day, we (Marxists I mean) must understand that it is the proletariet that is the revolutionary class, sociologically speaking. It's unlikely the petit-bougeois class, as a class, will support the revolution (not impossible though; I won't say never) although members of other classes might as individuals. However, as a class, the petit-bourgeoisie will never be a "revolutionary class" in the sense that it can substitute the proletariat in doing communist revolution or that it's equally important as the proletariat, or even necessary at all, to drive a communist revolution.

When Marx meant that only the proletariat can be revolutionary he was speaking in the sociological sense of them as a class and their specific role in his theory. Any individual hypothetically can be a supporter of Marxism and/or revolution, irrespective of their class.