The Petit-Bourgeoisie

[Sinister Intents]

Can't the smallest of the business owners, the poorest, be revolutionary and align fully with the proletariat? Does that take away from them being anarchists/communists?

I'm a business owner and I fucking hate it, I should've said no to my parents about this business, but they insisted I take it over. If anything its become such a burden. I'm gonna drop it or turn it into a cooperative if possible.

Just in general what're people's thoughts on tiny businesses that don't compare to corporations and higher at all? What're thoughts on the petit-bourgeoisie?

[The Jay]

Anyone could go against their class interests and small business owners could conceivably hold strong sympathy or understanding for the proletariat and even identify with the proletariat's goals, despite their interests in exploiting them.

[Five Year Plan]

Can't the smallest of the business owners, the poorest, be revolutionary and align fully with the proletariat? Does that take away from them being anarchists/communists?

Is it possible? Yes. Is it less likely than if you were a member of the proletariat? Yes.


I'm a business owner and I fucking hate it, I should've said no to my parents about this business, but they insisted I take it over. If anything its become such a burden. I'm gonna drop it or turn it into a cooperative if possible.

Cooperatives are still petty bourgeois in nature, the only difference being that all the employees are stakeholders in the capital.


Just in general what're people's thoughts on tiny businesses that don't compare to corporations and higher at all? What're thoughts on the petit-bourgeoisie?

It sounds like you're looking for a moral estimation, and I tend not to give those. They are a class that is sandwiched between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As such, they are unpredictable and can fluctuate unexpectedly between the two different political poles in capitalist society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Liquidate the business and get a factory job, 1970s class suicide style. ;)

[Sinister Intents]

I'll reply to the three above after work

[Црвена]

I think small businesses are okay, since usually they care more about doing what they love and less about profit and it's the caring about profit that leads to exploitation of workers. What annoys me about some petit-bourgeoisie is that they sometimes try to emulate the lifestyle of big-businesspeople and have ambitions to "be big," and own a mansion and a Porsche and a million other meaningless material items. And of course, we mustn't be too lenient with small business. We're not liberals - we want businesses owned by everyone, not family businesses.

[Blake's Baby]

The class interests of the petite-bourgeoisie don't align with the haute-bourgeoisie, certainly. But they're still bourgeois.

In Britain, for example, the petite-bourgeoisie is the main class motivating the most reactionary elements in society around the party UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party). This party wants to remove the UK from the European Union as it sees 'directives from Brussels' (ie, pan-European laws) as being contrary to Britain's national interest.

It's obvious that this is a petite-bourgeois viewpoint when one considers that in general, the haute-bourgeoisie in the UK is in favour of closer European ties and indeed harmonised European regulations. This obviously makes international trade in Europe easier (ie, cheaper). But for the small-business class, which doesn't trade internationally but instead trades locally, all of the extra regulation is an unnecessary burden.

So on the question of closer ties in Europe the haute-bourgeoisie goes one way the petitie-bourgeoisie another. The haute-bourgeoisie supports a 'liberal' framework while the petite-bourgeoisie supports a 'protectionist' framework. Because in the end all the class interest of the petit-bourgeois shop-owner (or whoever) demands is to be left alone to exploit workers with as little interference as possible; they're not (as a class) concerned with global questions because their business (world) horizons tend to be very limited. This is why they end up providing the backbone of the most reactionary parties (including fascism). They are after all, unsuccessful capitalists pining for the day that the successful capitalists are brought down to size (hence their fascination with the myths of the independent pioneer mentality pedalled by the 'An-Caps' as an an antidote to 'corporatism' - that is, successful capitalism - which is another deeply reactionary petit-bourgeois ideology).

[helot]

I think small businesses are okay, since usually they care more about doing what they love and less about profit and it's the caring about profit that leads to exploitation of workers.

Exploitation, as we use the term, does not have any emotive implication, it's simply a matter of purchasing labour time and getting, from that, more value produced than was paid for it. Small businesses do this on a daily basis and must do this in order to grow their capital and survive on the market.

It has nothing to do with the individual thoughts of those involved.

[∞]

If you think about it there is plenty of professions with high-pay that get exploited (technically) by the capitalist class. Professors, doctors, and engineers being an example. Of course they are more likely to be contempt with their income, but its clear their mental labor is run by people who work on the business side of things (industrial companies, healthcare companies) and the companies are essentially a middle man.

So that class of people to me anyway is still something I would consider the working class, as they are the ones working as opposed to purely exploiting labor and not really doing anything (capitalists).

[Devrim]

I think small businesses are okay, since usually they care more about doing what they love and less about profit and it's the caring about profit that leads to exploitation of workers.

I think that you will find that in many cases workers in small business have worse conditions than those who work for the big capitalist companies. It is not to do with them being in any way good or bad, and the rate of exploitation can even be higher in places where workers are better paid. It is jsut that in the small business, for various reasons, the margins are tighter, so they are forced to squeeze workers tighter equally because the work force is smaller, it tends to have less collective power to resist this.

On a personal level, I hate the petit-bourgeoise more than the big bourgeoisie. I don't meet the real bourgeoisie in my life, and therefor I don't find them as irritating as the petit-borgeoisie who I do have to interact with.

My personal dislikes however, do not mean that individual members of the petit-bourgeosie can not become communists, or even that a large proportion of this class can not be pulled behind the working class in a revolutionary period.

Devrim

[bropasaran]

I haven't seen anyone ever use "petit-bourgois" as as term of rational discourse, no one seems to be able to precisely define what petit-bourgoisie is. It is almost always used as a vague, emotionally-charged label to denounce anarchists.

[Tim Cornelis]

"I'm gonna drop it"
And become proletarian, for what reason? To be more genuinely communist? Who cares really? I'd love to be (relatively) wealthy.

[Devrim]

I haven't seen anyone ever use "petit-bourgois" as as term of rational discourse, no one seems to be able to precisely define what petit-bourgoisie is. It is almost always used as a vague, emorally-charged label to denounce anarchists.

Yes, it describes an economic position in society. To explain it in very basic terms it is the class of small owners, and includes people such as small business people, shopkeepers, and peasants.

They have fundamentally different class interests on a day to day basis than the working class. A workers' basic material interest is to earn more money for working less. These interests are diametrically opposed to those of the capitalists whose interests are to get the workers to work harder for less money. This basically is the antagonism that fuels the motor of class struggle.

The petit-bourgeois stands outside of this relationship between capital and labour, and where they do stand inside it in that they employ workers stand aligned with those of big capital. In general though the interests of the small business person is for their business to be successful; to increase their share of capital rather than oppose it.

The accusation that anarchism is petit-borgeoise has its basis in two things, one is that Proudhon's version of socialism, mutualism is a petit-bourgois ideology being based as it is on small producers. The second is that the 'anarchist current' developed more in peasant countries whereas the 'Marxist current' developed in more industrialised areas. The peasantry, of course, being a class of small producers. There are problems with this second argument.

Today I don't think that it has much meaning, and when used against anarchists is often just a term of abuse used by people who don't really know much about anarchism. Anarchism today is neither Proudhonism or peasant based.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class, all forces of political and ideological reaction, from libertarianism to fascism are an expression of their interests.

All endeavours of the bourgeoisie against them should never be opposed. The petite bourgeoisie should NEVER be defended.

[Five Year Plan]

I haven't seen anyone ever use "petit-bourgois" as as term of rational discourse, no one seems to be able to precisely define what petit-bourgoisie is. It is almost always used as a vague, emorally-charged label to denounce anarchists.

The petty bourgeoisie are those people who (either individually or, as in the case of co-ops, collectively) own all the means of production involved in the labor process they rely upon for their own reproduction, and also are engaged in the labor process itself. Some hire additional workers who are entirely proletarian. Some, like independent craftsmen, do not.

A member of the petty bourgeoisie becomes bourgeois proper when he has reached a point where he is no longer engaged in the labor process itself, and only participates in the extractive processes of management.

[helot]

The accusation that anarchism is petit-borgeoise has its basis in two things, one is that Proudhon's version of socialism, mutualism is a petit-bourgois ideology being based as it is on small producers. The second is that the 'anarchist current' developed more in peasant countries whereas the 'Marxist current' developed in more industrialised areas. The peasantry, of course, being a class of small producers. There are problems with this second argument.

Today I don't think that it has much meaning, and when used against anarchists is often just a term of abuse used by people who don't really know much about anarchism. Anarchism today is neither Proudhonism or peasant based.

Devrim


I believe that would be an incorrect understanding of Proudhon. Proudhon has his faults but this isn't one of them. You can find references to large scale association throughout Proudhon's works. I'll leave you with just two quotes from The Federative Principle (1863):

"industries are sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the others suffering because of it. I wish that they federate then... to mutually guarantee the conditions of prosperity that are common to them all"

"All my economic ideas, elaborated for twenty-five years, can be summarised in these three words: Agricultural-Industrial Federation"


No, the petit-bourgeois accusation against anarchists is because Proudhon addressed himself to peasants and proles in a society where the majority were peasants until well after his death. It's an empty accusation that says more about the accuser than anyone else.

[Devrim]

No, the petit-bourgeois accusation against anarchists is because Proudhon addressed himself to peasants and proles in a society where the majority were peasants until well after his death. It's an empty accusation that says more about the accuser than anyone else.

No, it's not because he address himself to peasants, it is because he argued for their interests, and the interests of small producers, and that his socialism was based upon the interests of these groups. His view of socialism was a fundamentally petite-bourgeois one. This is hardly surprising in the times that he lived in.

Wiki summerises it like this:


As a consequence of his opposition to profit, wage labour, worker exploitation, ownership of land and capital, as well as to state property, Proudhon rejected both capitalism and communism. He adopted the term mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) for his brand of anarchism, which involved control of the means of production by the workers. In his vision, self-employed artisans, peasants, and cooperatives would trade their products on the market. For Proudhon, factories and other large workplaces would be run by "labor associations" operating on directly democratic principles. The state would be abolished; instead, society would be organized by a federation of "free communes" (a commune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communes_of_France) is a local municipality in French).


You can find references to large scale association throughout Proudhon's works. I'll leave you with just two quotes from The Federative Principle (1863):

"industries are sisters; they are parts of the same body; one cannot suffer without the others suffering because of it. I wish that they federate then... to mutually guarantee the conditions of prosperity that are common to them all"

"All my economic ideas, elaborated for twenty-five years, can be summarised in these three words: Agricultural-Industrial Federation"

The reason that Proudhon's socialism is charecterised as petit-bourgeois is not that he didn't think that there would be some big industry, but because he still envisaged the existence within socialism of the small producer and market relations.

Devrim

[Sinister Intents]

Anyone could go against their class interests and small business owners could conceivably hold strong sympathy or understanding for the proletariat and even identify with the proletariat's goals, despite their interests in exploiting them.

I have no interest in exploiting labor, my interests are to do the labor out of mutual aid and to work alongside others out of free association. I guess I'm a class traitor when it comes to being petit-bourgeois, I hate this capitalist bullshit, and business college has only strengthened my hatred of business and capitalism. My business is tiny and not very profitable at this time, If it tanks I'll just keep doing the same kind of work, but fuck bosses, I hate bossing people around and I hate being a boss.


Is it possible? Yes. Is it less likely than if you were a member of the proletariat? Yes.

Well technically I'm not the full owner, I'm co-owner, but later this year I'm too sign a bunch of paper work so that its fully in my name. I still have time to say no technically... What's this make me as a co-owner whose father makes money off of his child's labor (my labor)? I do the majority of the work alongside other workers.


Cooperatives are still petty bourgeois in nature, the only difference being that all the employees are stakeholders in the capital.

No denying this. Is there anyway I could transform it into something with positive implications? Though I doubt this and have asked this before on a forum I started. I think allowing all employees to own the business alongside myself might be a good idea, maybe use it to give the worker's power? Though again I'm very doubtful of revolutionary implications due to the nature of the system...


It sounds like you're looking for a moral estimation, and I tend not to give those. They are a class that is sandwiched between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As such, they are unpredictable and can fluctuate unexpectedly between the two different political poles in capitalist society.

I can assure you my class interests are aligned with yours and the proletariat. Moral? Does moral count as not wanting to hurt my parents :unsure:


Liquidate the business and get a factory job, 1970s class suicide style. ;)

Sounds awesome!!! Who did that?


I think small businesses are okay, since usually they care more about doing what they love and less about profit and it's the caring about profit that leads to exploitation of workers. What annoys me about some petit-bourgeoisie is that they sometimes try to emulate the lifestyle of big-businesspeople and have ambitions to "be big," and own a mansion and a Porsche and a million other meaningless material items. And of course, we mustn't be too lenient with small business. We're not liberals - we want businesses owned by everyone, not family businesses.

I love the work I do, and its all I want to do work wise really. Construction work is fun and fulfilling generally, and it gives me a great sense of accomplishment to complete a job to the best of my ability and the ability of people that work with me. I could care less about profit, I just want to make awesome looking patios and things with utility for people, and I want to be able to do this work for anyone, not the person who doesn't cringe the least when I show them the pricetag... I hate big business people, I've met a bourgeois man who owns a grape vineyard and other tracts of land and various forms of capital which he uses to exploit his migrant workers. He also refers to people of darker skin as 'those people' he's such a disgusting conservative man. My ambitions involve working with people and making awesome works come to fruition, I don't want to make money, I just want to help people, which making things for people that provide them decoration or utility of some form is awesome.


If you think about it there is plenty of professions with high-pay that get exploited (technically) by the capitalist class. Professors, doctors, and engineers being an example. Of course they are more likely to be contempt with their income, but its clear their mental labor is run by people who work on the business side of things (industrial companies, healthcare companies) and the companies are essentially a middle man.

Technically my father exploits my labor for capital, and he still does a portion of the work. We both work, and we work alongside those that are employed by this business. He's the one who wants to make it big, and to become the bourgeois man disconnected from the reality of capitalism. His goals for it are to get wealthy off the business, while my interests and goals go counterintuitive to his goals. I want to destroy business and I want to collectivize all means of production and capital for the whole of humanity, not make wealth off the backs of employees.


So that class of people to me anyway is still something I would consider the working class, as they are the ones working as opposed to purely exploiting labor and not really doing anything (capitalists).

So do I still count as working class in a way since my labor is exploited and I do a large portion of work despite being co-owner and eventual future owner?


I haven't seen anyone ever use "petit-bourgois" as as term of rational discourse, no one seems to be able to precisely define what petit-bourgoisie is. It is almost always used as a vague, emorally-charged label to denounce anarchists.

Which I seem to have noticed with a discussion with a Marxist last night. Got called PB scum. I asked what PB was and he said Petit-bourgeois scum, and blocked me on facebook. Partly the inspiration for this thread.


"I'm gonna drop it"
And become proletarian, for what reason? To be more genuinely communist? Who cares really? I'd love to be (relatively) wealthy.

I want to drop it, and shatter it into thousands of pieces, but I don't want to hurt my parents by saying fuck no to this business. I got pressured into it really. At least I get to do the majority of hands on labor, and I also don't want to become wealthy lol. You're right though.


The petite bourgeoisie are a reactionary class, all forces of political and ideological reaction, from libertarianism to fascism are an expression of their interests.

So based on what I said above do I seem reactionary to you? I can assure you that the only kind of libertarian I am is the libertarian anarchist/socialist, I'm neither fascist nor liberal, and I oppose capitalistic bullshit. I'm undergoing tonnes of cognitive dissonance with this damned business. What you think based on what I said above since you're a respectable Marxist?


All endeavours of the bourgeoisie against them should never be opposed. The petite bourgeoisie should NEVER be defended.

I hate the bourgeois class, and all other petit-bourgeois people I meet, none of them are like me in anyway. They all come across as reactionary fucks.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The petite-bourgeois are the real wild card in the class struggle. On the one hand, because they own capital, obviously they will have some class interests that resemble that of the haute bourgeoisie.

However, because the amount of capital they own tends to be far smaller than the capital owned by the bourgeoisie proper, and because most of these petite-bourgeois have a working class background before starting their own business, it also means that they may often feel alienated from the bourgeois class....especially when there's always the risk that the business the petite-bourgeois has worked to form may easily be swept up by the bourgeois proper.

In the end, a person's actions are not always dictated by their class interests. Mind you that they often are....but people always have the freedom to choose (even if that choice doesn't happen in a vacuum).

So there will be many petite-bourgeois who will be sympathetic to the cause, and there will be others who are not. Just as there will probably be a small handful of the haute bourgeois who will probably throw away their bourgeois privileges to join the proletariat in the struggle.

[bropasaran]

Dervim's and aufheben's messages make my point. There are many possible definitions, but let's start with a few basic traits that people seem to attribute to this peculiar term. So, here are some possibilities- the petit-bourgois are people who:

1) own their means of production and use them themselves, and don't have wage-laborers
2) own their means of production and use them themselves, have wage-laborer, but a small number of them
3) both 1 & 2
4) own means of production which they don't use, have wage-laborers, but a small number of them
5) 2 & 4
6) 1 & 2 & 4

And once we determine which one of this is the case, we're not even half way done, and the definition of the above used phrase "small number" is the least of the problems. This provided options address only exploitation in production (except 1, which doesn't mention exploitation at all, only ownership), we have the question of what about exploitation in circulation, that is- renting stuff? What if someone doesn't own any means of production but has income based on renting appartments or cars or money or permission to use private property or some other rent? What if any of the above options is to accepted, but some rentiering is to be added to it, or a part of it? That adds at least additional 4 or 5 options to the above list of possible definitions of a "petit-bourgois".

Even if we manage to get this all settled, we come to the most important question- why does this matter? Who cares about this almost-undefinable group of people that someone arbitrarily made up, what's it's point?

IMO, the only point is for marxists to feed smart and scientific when they throw around fancy-sounding words, in this case to denounce anarchist without giving any arguments. Other that then, I don't see any.

[Five Year Plan]

Dervim's and aufheben's messages make my point. There are many possible definitions, but let's start with a few basic traits that people seem to attribute to this peculiar term. So, here are some possibilities- the petit-bourgois are people who:

1) own their means of production and use them themselves, and don't have wage-laborers
2) own their means of production and use them themselves, have wage-laborer, but a small number of them
3) both 1 & 2
4) own means of production which they don't use, have wage-laborers, but a small number of them
5) 2 & 4
6) 1 & 2 & 4

And once we determine which one of this is the case, we're not even half way done, and the definition of the above used phrase "small number" is the least of the problems. This provided options address only exploitation in production (except 1, which doesn't mention exploitation at all, only ownership), we have the question of what about exploitation in circulation, that is- renting stuff? What if someone doesn't own any means of production but has income based on renting appartments or cars or money or permission to use private property or some other rent? What if any of the above options is to accepted, but some rentiering is to be added to it, or a part of it? That adds at least additional 4 or 5 options to the above list of possible definitions of a "petit-bourgois".

Even if we manage to get this all settled, we come to the most important question- why does this matter? Who cares about this almost-undefinable group of people that someone arbitrarily made up, what's it's point?

IMO, the only point is for marxists to feed smart and scientific when they throw around fancy-sounding words, in this case to denounce anarchist without giving any arguments. Other that then, I don't see any.

So the petty bourgeoisie concept is a conspiratorial plot devised by non-anarchist revolutionaries to denounce anarchists?

Maybe the point we're trying to make is a scientific one: that because the petty bourgeoisie is sandwiched between the two primary classes in society, and partake to a greater or lesser degree in both working-class and bourgeois activity, their behavior can have a tendency to be unpredictable and fluctuate wildly in a class struggle, and often tends to gravitate toward solutions that try to mitigate and reconcile capital-worker conflicts while leaving the over-arching framework in place.

To Sinister Intents: my point in talking about moral judgments was to suggest that it sounded like you were asking for re-assurance that you weren't a bad person. My point was that there are plenty of people from all sorts of class backgrounds who, whatever economic function they play, are good people. And you being a member of the petty bourgeoisie doesn't make you "bad" in some way. And I would add that an individual's politics can't be read off from their class location, so just because you are petty bourgeois doesn't mean you aren't capable of being a revolutionary. These terms refer to social structures that have predictive value only in regards to aggregates, not the individual.

[helot]

No, it's not because he address himself to peasants, it is because he argued for their interests, and the interests of small producers, and that his socialism was based upon the interests of these groups. His view of socialism was a fundamentally petite-bourgeois one. This is hardly surprising in the times that he lived in.

Don't forget he argued for the interests of the proletariat as well. His socialism is most definitely one that reflected 19th century France. Yet, the charge of petit-bourgeois is not used by people within this setting nor even within the context of Proudhon's thoughts. It's parrotted by people who stumbled across the accusation in polemics by his detractors thus the notion that petit-bourgeois somehow applies to anarchism itself.





The reason that Proudhon's socialism is charecterised as petit-bourgeois is not that he didn't think that there would be some big industry, but because he still envisaged the existence within socialism of the small producer and market relations.

Devrim

I think your mention of the small producer is a bit harsh. Proudhon didn't oppose large scale industry, he advocated federalism (even talks of universal association) and he advocated the social ownership of land and the MoP. Any small producer would simply be that, someone working on their own or in a small group. This isn't sufficient for the charge as no matter what there may very well be some people who like working alone.

The difference is the product of labour. Proudhon considered it as belonging to the direct producer(s) themselves and thus to be exchanged with the products of others.












ontopic: petit-bourgeois can be useful especially considering a fair amount of workers identify with their interests. Kind of pisses me off when someone criticises some large business but then gets upset when you start furthering the topic to include all of them, haute and petit alike.

[#FF0000]

So do I still count as working class in a way since my labor is exploited and I do a large portion of work despite being co-owner and eventual future owner?

You're co-owner of the company, dude. Of course not.

This weird-ass "class guilt" thing is lame as hell though. C'mon son. In the end, why don't you want to own this business? Is it the cognitive dissonance? Is it that you just have no interest in it and it's more than you want to take on?

[Sinister Intents]

You're co-owner of the company, dude. Of course not.

This weird-ass "class guilt" thing is lame as hell though. C'mon son. In the end, why don't you want to own this business? Is it the cognitive dissonance? Is it that you just have no interest in it and it's more than you want to take on?

It has nothing to do with my own personal interests, I want to do other things. Also it highly clashes with my own personal beliefs. Its pretty much all of what you asked, but more the cognitive dissonance. I don't want to be a part of the problem of capitalism, I want to be a part of the solution of capitalism.

[#FF0000]

Well the whole "I don't want to be part of the problem" thing is kind of dumb, imo. If you're remotely comfortable in 2014 don't complain about your guilt because I'd take it over being broke as heck. Nothing noble or good about being working class unless you are working class and really need the self esteem.

Either way if you really hate this thing that much, then get out of it. Being a people-pleaser isn't a good thing, especially if it's causing you grief.

[Sinister Intents]

Thanks #FF0000

[Thirsty Crow]

I think small businesses are okay, since usually they care more about doing what they love and less about profit and it's the caring about profit that leads to exploitation of workers.
On the contrary, it would be reasonable to assume that the severe burden of competition, also combined with financial debt, only drives the small owners of capital to intensify exploitation.

[Jemdet Nasr]

I think the the best solution to all of SI's problem's is to become a modern day, anarchist Engels. Don't forget that Engels also worked in his father's firm. You could even find a modern day, anarchist Marx and co-write The Anarchist Manifesto, write the last two thirds of Das Modernes Kapital, etc. :grin:

[Devrim]

I can assure you my class interests are aligned with yours and the proletariat.

Well no, they are not. Your class interests come from your material position in society. Its got nothing to do with what you think. Your class interests are in your construction company making money, which involves paying the workers less, and making them work harder. As a qualified bricklayer, my class interests are in the construction bosses paying me more to do less work. They are not aligned to yours.

You might hold communist ideas, and even taking part in communist activity. Your class interests however are opposed to those of the proletariat.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Dervim's and aufheben's messages make my point. There are many possible definitions, but let's start with a few basic traits that people seem to attribute to this peculiar term. So, here are some possibilities- the petit-bourgois are people who:

1) own their means of production and use them themselves, and don't have wage-laborers
2) own their means of production and use them themselves, have wage-laborer, but a small number of them
3) both 1 & 2
4) own means of production which they don't use, have wage-laborers, but a small number of them
5) 2 & 4
6) 1 & 2 & 4

I don't think that anyone is confused about who the petit-bourgeoise are except yourself. Even from what you seem to think are contradictory definitions it is pretty obvious that they all contain the bit about owning the means of production. The word petit (from the French meaning small) also implies that it is not the likes of Bill Gates. I really don't see what is confusing about it.


However, because the amount of capital they own tends to be far smaller than the capital owned by the bourgeoisie proper, and because most of these petite-bourgeois have a working class background before starting their own business, it also means that they may often feel alienated from the bourgeois class....especially when there's always the risk that the business the petite-bourgeois has worked to form may easily be swept up by the bourgeois proper.

I think on a global historical scale, which is especially important when we are looking at the accusations of anarchism being petit-bourgeois and the origins of the workers movement, this sentence, while it may be true in present day America, has it back to front; Most of the working class has a petit-bourgeois (including the peasantry) background.


Don't forget he argued for the interests of the proletariat as well. His socialism is most definitely one that reflected 19th century France. Yet, the charge of petit-bourgeois is not used by people within this setting nor even within the context of Proudhon's thoughts. It's parrotted by people who stumbled across the accusation in polemics by his detractors thus the notion that petit-bourgeois somehow applies to anarchism itself.


Of course it reflected the interests of workers, or proletarians as well. Otherwise it wouldn't have been any form of socialism, and certainly reflects his times. I think that the criticism of it as petit-bourgeois was raised at the time, by a later Marx for example, though the young Marx was of course very enthusiastic about Proudhon.

On its usage today, you are, of course completely right.


I think your mention of the small producer is a bit harsh. Proudhon didn't oppose large scale industry, he advocated federalism (even talks of universal association) and he advocated the social ownership of land and the MoP. Any small producer would simply be that, someone working on their own or in a small group. This isn't sufficient for the charge as no matter what there may very well be some people who like working alone.

The difference is the product of labour. Proudhon considered it as belonging to the direct producer(s) themselves and thus to be exchanged with the products of others.


I don't think that we are in that much disagreement over this. We are agreed at least that Proudhon's socialism was a market socialism in which the 'free producer' had the right to exchange his own products with those of others.

It is the petit-bourgeois dream of that time. As these people saw all around them the advancement of modern capital, and the proletarianisation of artisans, they dream of a 'socialist' world in which the worker would be protected from the ravages of capital. In doing so they looked back to time gone past, and not to the future. It is the socialism of the small producer and artisan not of the modern industrial proletariat.

This is not Proudhon's 'fault'. He was a man of his time, and an important figure in the early years of socialist ideas.

Devrim

[Zukunftsmusik]

Liquidate the business and get a factory job, 1970s class suicide style. ;)

Sounds awesome!!! Who did that?

It was a tendency among several communist groups to "self-proletarianise" in order to be part of the class. It had its problems, but I think the denunciation and ridicule these groups got or still get serves to obscure what came out of it (not that I know too much about this).

[bropasaran]

Maybe the point we're trying to make is a scientific one: that because the petty bourgeoisie is sandwiched between the two primary classes in society,
If anyone with an ounce of reason were to try and and make this scientific point, he would talk about the technocratic class, the managers, bureaucrats and intellectuals. Which of course the marxists, the so called "scientific" "socialists", don't do, because they are in fact the ideology of that class (or sub-class of the ruling class)


and partake to a greater or lesser degree in both working-class and bourgeois activity,"Bourgeois" also doesn't have a clear definition. Is it synonimous with capitalist? Are "bourgeois" people who own the means of production or people who exploit people, because those are, even though maybe overlaping, still two very different sets of people. And again, those are only two of multiple possible definitions.


their behavior can have a tendency to be unpredictable and fluctuate wildly in a class struggle, and often tends to gravitate toward solutions that try to mitigate and reconcile capital-worker conflicts while leaving the over-arching framework in place.We can't talk about "their" behavious until we know who "they" are. But's let's just for the fun of it say that you mean just peasants, because most people include peasants into the fanciful notion of "petit-bourgeois", does your empirical claim hold water? What were results of some previous capital-worker conflicts?

Well, any time that such a conflict resultet in the victory of movement that fetishizes industrial wage-workers (of whom, btw, some are part of part of the working class, but some- namely the managers- aren't, they are technocracts) the resulting system was a state-capitalist nightmare, a system that is remote from workers' emancipation almost as much as feudalism (if you're an urban worker) and slavery (if you're a rural worker) are. The only instances where a class conflict resulted in the abolition of the capitalists, technocracts and all other types of oppressors and exploiters were anarchist revolutions which were mostly done and sustained by peasants. What happened with those only instances in human history where people have managed to plant the seeds of the real revolution by abolishing oppression and exploitation in their midst? They were destroyed either directly or by participation of the very same industrial-proletariat-fetishising state-capitalists.

That brings me to another point, I admit that I have made an error and I want to adress it. It is not the case that the only point of the nonsensical notion "petit-bourgeois" is for marxists to feel smart and scientific when they throw around fancy-sounding words, and to denounce anarchist without giving any argument, there is also another point to it- to use it as a nonsensical accusation and justification to attack and destroy societies where people manage to abolish oppression and exploitation, and to persecute anarchist and other genuine socialists, who advocate and support establishment of such societies.


I don't think that anyone is confused about who the petit-bourgeoise are except yourself.
Aha, so that's why no one can give a precise definition of what it is, well yo should have said so right away.

[Devrim]

Aha, so that's why no one can give a precise definition of what it is, well yo should have said so right away.

No I quite clear definition of it has been given. It is only you who can't see it. Now personally I don't think that it is an accusation that in any way refers to modern anarchism. All anarchists that I know would have an understanding of what the petit-bourgoisie is though.

Devrim

[bropasaran]

No I quite clear definition of it has been given.
Oh, a definition has been given, and a clear one. Could you please point to where this clear definition is given?

[CubanDream]

How about a struggling PB, say a small shopkeeper only making enough to live Vs. a high salaried worker (say IT expert) - the 'worker' here may earn 10X the PB - so how does that fit in?

[Jimmie Higgins]

How about a struggling PB, say a small shopkeeper only making enough to live Vs. a high salaried worker (say IT expert) - the 'worker' here may earn 10X the PB - so how does that fit in?from person to person in the absence of class movements... Not all that much in terms of attitude and ideas. The low profit owner might see themselves as a "salt of the earth" worker whereas the well paid prol sees themselves with some professional elitism or middle class pretensions.

But in terms of relationships to production, in terms of how they reproduce themselves as part of this relationship, it means a great deal. In times of struggle and strife, these different relations to capital become sharper and more clear.

Increased economic difficulties in society for the poor owner means he must compete harder at the capitalist game against other capitalists. For the worker, competition for wages increases and so the competition is against other workers in a race to the bottom that ultimately hurts workers as a class. The small owner can not combine with those he is in competition with let alone the big capitalists, whereas for the working class only uniting with their competitors against the bosses can reverse the downward pressures.

[Five Year Plan]

If anyone with an ounce of reason were to try and and make this scientific point, he would talk about the technocratic class, the managers, bureaucrats and intellectuals. Which of course the marxists, the so called "scientific" "socialists", don't do, because they are in fact the ideology of that class (or sub-class of the ruling class)

What, exactly, is a "technocratic" class? If you want people to be exact with the scientific specifics of their terminology, I don't think it's unfair for people to expect the same thing from you.



"Bourgeois" also doesn't have a clear definition. Is it synonimous with capitalist? Are "bourgeois" people who own the means of production or people who exploit people, because those are, even though maybe overlaping, still two very different sets of people. And again, those are only two of multiple possible definitions.

I explained my last post that the petty bourgeoisie are people who exploit on the basis of property ownership while still performing a necessary function in the labor process. This is different than the bourgeoisie proper, who do not perform such a function, while still owning the means of production.


We can't talk about "their" behavious until we know who "they" are. But's let's just for the fun of it say that you mean just peasants, because most people include peasants into the fanciful notion of "petit-bourgeois", does your empirical claim hold water? What were results of some previous capital-worker conflicts?

I haven't referred to peasants at all, and in fact, I think peasants who do not exist within the context of a capitalist society should not be thought of as "petty bourgeoisie."


Well, any time that such a conflict resultet in the victory of movement that fetishizes industrial wage-workers (of whom, btw, some are part of part of the working class, but some- namely the managers- aren't, they are technocracts) the resulting system was a state-capitalist nightmare, a system that is remote from workers' emancipation almost as much as feudalism (if you're an urban worker) and slavery (if you're a rural worker) are. The only instances where a class conflict resulted in the abolition of the capitalists, technocracts and all other types of oppressors and exploiters were anarchist revolutions which were mostly done and sustained by peasants. What happened with those only instances in human history where people have managed to plant the seeds of the real revolution by abolishing oppression and exploitation in their midst? They were destroyed either directly or by participation of the very same industrial-proletariat-fetishising state-capitalists.

What the fuck are technocrats? Thanks.

[Sabot Cat]

I think it would be kind of patronizing to 'self-proletarize' or what have you. I would instead suggest proposing to the workers of the corporation the prospect of making it a cooperative; I would not suggest doing that unilaterally and without their consent, also not sure how you can do that as co-owner. Nonetheless, I don't think you should squander this chance to have a workers' self-managed business that socialists such as myself could point to demonstrate that yes, this system works even if it's just in microcosm and capitalists trying to tell you that it's an impossible flight of fancy are becoming beholden to their own lies, and more importantly, to mitigate as much as possible the effects of the exploitative system that surrounds the workers employed there.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, Sinister Intents is petty bourgeois, but he could be one of those defecting petty bourgeoisie, like Engels, who recognize that capitalism has no future and therefore side with the proletariat.

Or perhaps his intents are indeed sinister.

[Sinister Intents]

Well, Sinister Intents is petty bourgeois, but he could be one of those defecting petty bourgeoisie, like Engels, who recognize that capitalism has no future and therefore side with the proletariat.

Or perhaps his intents are indeed sinister.

Hahaha :laugh: it was Engels's father who owned the factory actually :) I do realize capitalism has no future and must die. I'm a class traitor :grin: as has been said by Aufheben: The Petit-Bourgeoisie are sandwiched between proletariat and the bourgeoisie proper. We're wildcards you could say. My heart goes to the proletariat, and my sinister intentions are to wage class war against the bourgeoisie.

Is there anything I can do within my class to assist the proletariat? What could business owners do other than take sides one way or the other?

[Црвена]

I am obviously not denouncing all petit-bourgeoisie when I say that some of them want to become haute-bourgeoisie, and I still think that big businesses have more of an incentive to exploit (i.e. not pay fully for what they're using) since the more profit someone makes, the more they care about making profit. I think a lot of businesses that started out as small businesses started by people just doing what they loved got big and became addicted to the material wealth, causing them to resort to exploitation in order to accumulate as much of this wealth as possible. Of course, all of these are massive generalisations and there can be petit-bourgeoisie who exploit and petit-bourgeoisie who hate the haute-bourgeoisie. Heck, my dad is a property developer as a hobby alongside his day job - you wouldn't think he'd be capable of raising a daughter who wants to abolish private property.

[Devrim]

Oh, a definition has been given, and a clear one. Could you please point to where this clear definition is given?

For example here:
Yes, it describes an economic position in society. To explain it in very basic terms it is the class of small owners, and includes people such as small business people, shopkeepers, and peasants.

Devrim

[CubanDream]

How will the PB's earn money, or a living at least, once there is dict of the P?

[helot]

How will the PB's earn money, or a living at least, once there is dict of the P?


Either they will join the proles or they'll fight against the revolution. Their property is not going to remain intact anymore than the property of the rest of the bourgeoisie.

[Comrade #138672]

How will the PB's earn money, or a living at least, once there is dict of the P?Like the rest of us.

Of course, only until value and money have been abolished.

[synthesis]

Oh, a definition has been given, and a clear one. Could you please point to where this clear definition is given?

Words and terms can have more than one definition, you idiot.