Petit Bourgeoisie 101 questions!

[CubanDream]

I am in some confusion as to the whole PB thing.

In my other thread I talked about an IT pro earning around 100k/year - so is he a 'worker' or a PB?

Let's say he is fairly replaceable as there are many other IT guys out there and he has no real say over how he does his work, ie: he is at a salaried in-company positition.

Surely he is more of a capitalist than the struggling 2 employee shopkeeper, that only makes 10k year, as IT guy has 10X the spending power, and could easily employ maids, cleaners at home and the like.


Where to draw the line between Prole and PB anyhow?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Petit bourgeoisie isn't a better paid worker, it's a small business owner. One who owns his own means of production but usually works among his workers. While they would benefit from socialism, their identifying with the bourgeoisie means they are usually counterrevolutionary

[CubanDream]

yes, but most people seem to say (and Marx as well , i think?) that these kind of top earners are actually PB, ie: skilled tradesmen, prob because they have a large degree of power over their work.

yet the the IT guy here, does not fit that picture - But, a guy earning 10X the amount could easily lord it over the shopkeeper.....how to reconcile this in the modern day?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Professionals and managers also are petit-bourgeois because of their relationship to the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

[CubanDream]

How about the freelancer type, singers, car mechanics etc..

[Five Year Plan]

I am in some confusion as to the whole PB thing.

In my other thread I talked about an IT pro earning around 100k/year - so is he a 'worker' or a PB?

Let's say he is fairly replaceable as there are many other IT guys out there and he has no real say over how he does his work, ie: he is at a salaried in-company positition.

Surely he is more of a capitalist than the struggling 2 employee shopkeeper, that only makes 10k year, as IT guy has 10X the spending power, and could easily employ maids, cleaners at home and the like.


Where to draw the line between Prole and PB anyhow?

It's difficult to analyze somebody's position purely on the basis of their salary without consideration of the function they play within the company. But generally speaking, somebody with a specialized skill or possession of highly technical knowledge that would enable them, in the abstract, to set up their own firm for independent consulting, while getting paid the exact same salary, is petty bourgeois. The knowledge they possess is so specialized, so "monopolized," that it functions as capital, as a basis of accumulation, whether they have contracted on an ongoing basis with a specific company or not.

[tuwix]

I am in some confusion as to the whole PB thing.

In my other thread I talked about an IT pro earning around 100k/year - so is he a 'worker' or a PB?

Let's say he is fairly replaceable as there are many other IT guys out there and he has no real say over how he does his work, ie: he is at a salaried in-company positition.

Surely he is more of a capitalist than the struggling 2 employee shopkeeper, that only makes 10k year, as IT guy has 10X the spending power, and could easily employ maids, cleaners at home and the like.


Where to draw the line between Prole and PB anyhow?

Petit in French means just small. In English the best translation would be a 'small business'. And paid worker even if s/he get millions monthly isn't
bourgeoisie.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How about the freelancer type, singers, car mechanics etc..
Freelancers by definition are self-employed, i.e. petit-bourgeois.

[Alexios]

Class is a social relationship. Debating on whether or not certain jobs are 'bourgeois' or not is pretty useless. If you take Marxism and use it in the coldest and driest way possible, then you're going to come up with some insane conclusions - like thinking that cops are proletarian.

[CubanDream]

Shouldn't it just go on income?

Like, anyone who earns over 50K for ex, is a bourge?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Shouldn't it just go on income?

Like, anyone who earns over 50K for ex, is a bourge?
That's certainly how bourgeois sociologists and economists define class, but it's not how Marx defined class. Income doesn't necessarily tell you about an individual's relationship to the means of production, distribution, or exchange.

[Five Year Plan]

Shouldn't it just go on income?

Like, anyone who earns over 50K for ex, is a bourge?

No, because some people might be paid 50,000 dollars a year for skilled work, but still be exploited economically by capitalists. Those people are still workers, albeit skilled ones who are shading into what we call the labor aristocracy.

[Remus Bleys]

If you're liberal sure. Petty bourgeois need to be seen as a force that actively prevents the concentration of capital, is for small capital and market competition, and interests in keeping the proletariat , the proletariat, the without reserves, the ones who fight (not live) forcommunism.

[CubanDream]

That's certainly how bourgeois sociologists and economists define class, but it's not how Marx defined class. Income doesn't necessarily tell you about an individual's relationship to the means of production, distribution, or exchange.

No it doesn't, but it does give you the power to lord it over others, if you so desire.

And that is the root of all evil.

[Five Year Plan]

No it doesn't, but it does give you the power to lord it over others, if you so desire.

And that is the root of all evil.

I honestly don't see what either of these comments has to do with a Marxist class analysis.

[Creative Destruction]

Professionals and managers also are petit-bourgeois because of their relationship to the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

The line with "professionals" is a bit more blurred in this categorization. I have what is usually considered a professional, white collar job, but it's wage labor. I have nothing in common with my manager or with the executives of our company, except that we work in the same space. This is the case for a lot of desk jockeys and cube drones who have "professional" jobs.

[CubanDream]

No, because some people might be paid 50,000 dollars a year for skilled work, but still be exploited economically by capitalists. Those people are still workers, albeit skilled ones who are shading into what we call the labor aristocracy.

The Labor aristocracy are bourges then, even if not by technical Marxian definition.

Because if they can lord it over the regular guy on the street, then why would they want to throw away their privilege by joining a socialist party? I say earnings should be equalised.

[Five Year Plan]

The Labor aristocracy are bourges then, even if not by technical Marxian definition.

Because if they can lord it over the regular guy on the street, then why would they want to throw away their privilege by joining a socialist party? I say earnings should be equalised.

If I were unemployed and totally without property besides the clothes on my back, I could steal a rich man's watch and clothes after robbing him in a dark alley, then I can lord those material possessions in front of others as I walk briskly by. Would that make me bourgeois?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No it doesn't, but it does give you the power to lord it over others, if you so desire.

And that is the root of all evil.
That's nice, but that isn't Marxism.

[CubanDream]

I honestly don't see what either of these comments has to do with a Marxist class analysis.

Marxism must smash income privilege, that's what.

This is the real crux of the matter, and it's the Libs who oppose this - they go for the 'social liberalism' feel good factor, because that allows them to keep their bourge privilege (ie: high incomes) whilst still looking caring and interested in equality - iow: hypocrisy - because most Libs actually hate the proles anyway.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The Labor aristocracy are bourges then, even if not by technical Marxian definition.
The labor aristocracy, which is a dubious concept to me, are just higher paid workers. Their relationship to the means of production, etc., hasn't been altered.

[CubanDream]

If I were unemployed and totally without property besides the clothes on my back, I could steal a rich man's watch and clothes after robbing him in a dark alley, then I can lord those material possessions in front of others as I walk briskly by. Would that make me bourgeois?

No it wouldn't, because you have not created a regular source of bourge income.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The line with "professionals" is a bit more blurred in this categorization. I have what is usually considered a professional, white collar job, but it's wage labor. I have nothing in common with my manager or with the executives of our company, except that we work in the same space. This is the case for a lot of desk jockeys and cube drones who have "professional" jobs.
I think the blurring is seeing white collar jobs as professional jobs. Some are, some aren't. A cube jockey doing tech support for an ISP isn't the same as a lawyer, doctor, etc.

[CubanDream]

The labor aristocracy, which is a dubious concept to me, are just higher paid workers. Their relationship to the means of production, etc., hasn't been altered.

But their relationship to dominate (and hence, exploit) others has!

[Five Year Plan]

No it wouldn't, because you have not created a regular source of bourge income.

Oh, so you mean the focus of class analysis should be the relations of production, and not just "what people end up getting" as a result (what you term "income privilege")? Because in the example I provided, I created my own income privilege through illegal methods, but you concede that it doesn't make me bourgeois.

[CubanDream]

Oh, so you mean the focus of class analysis should be the relations of production, and not just "what people end up getting" as a result (what you term "income privilege")? Because in the example I provided, I created my own income privilege through illegal methods, but you concede that it doesn't make me bourgeois.

That's right, because your scenario referred to a temporary illegal activity. Try doing that for anything more than a few times, and unlikely you'd be quaffing cognac anymore - bread and water perhaps;)

Sustenance of the income privilege is key here.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Cuban, if you reject the essential concepts of Marxism, then you're not a Marxist.

[CubanDream]

I am saying that income must be equalised - that is a Communist concept is it not?

Yes, it is.

[Five Year Plan]

Sustenance of the income privilege is key here.

Which, to repeat myself, points past income distributions and toward the underlying causes: the production relations themselves.

Welcome to Marxism.

[Five Year Plan]

I am saying that income must be equalised - that is a Communist concept is it not?

Yes, it is.

No, actually, it's not.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am saying that income must be equalised - that is a Communist concept is it not?

Yes, it is.
Income presupposes the wage system, which isn't communism.

[CubanDream]

No, actually, it's not.

Well, what is it then?

Equality of income, more or less - that's surely one of the main aims, otherwise there can be no social equality, because

the socially liberal aspects are mere window dressing.

And why wouldn't you want financial equality anyway?

[Creative Destruction]

I think the blurring is seeing white collar jobs as professional jobs. Some are, some aren't. A cube jockey doing tech support for an ISP isn't the same as a lawyer, doctor, etc.

Well, that just kind of goes to my point. Whether you think so or not, that tech support gig for an ISP -- assuming the tech support isn't some high school kid reading out of a company-written manual -- can be a professional job as well. Even to use one of your examples: lawyers. There are plenty of lawyers who are salaried/wage slaves that work under senior lawyers (not talking about paralegals, either.)

All I'm saying is that using "professional" as a designation for "petit-bourgeoisie" is to muddy up the definition because of how ambiguous "professional" is to begin with.

[CubanDream]

Capitalist relation to capital strength (CR) * Income (I) = Comrade Worker Status (CWS)

CR * I = CWS

The lower the number, the better obviously.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, what is it then?

Equality of income, more or less - that's surely one of the main aims, otherwise there can be no social equality, because

the socially liberal aspects are mere window dressing.

And why wouldn't you want financial equality anyway?

Because we don't want finance. We want the socialisation of the means of production and distribution and the abolition of markets and money. I'm sorry to say this but with your focus on income instead of relations of production, you're not a Marxist, and given that all of the figures you listed as an inspiration instituted a graded wage-scale (Stalin the harshest one by far), you don't seem to be that acquainted with the historical facts.

Also your constant attacks on "social liberalism" are interesting - do you support full rights for homosexuals and transsexuals? Do you support women's rights including the right to abort at any point of the pregnancy.

Highly-paid professionals might not be petit-bourgeois in the strict sense (although as aufheben notes they could easily become so), but they do participate in the exploitation of other employees to a significant extent (they are over-compensated). They form one of the middle strata between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Bukharin calls them the technical intelligentsia).

[CubanDream]

Because we don't want finance. We want the socialisation of the means of production and distribution and the abolition of markets and money.

As an end result, for sure - but how about in the meantime?


I'm sorry to say this but with your focus on income instead of relations of production, you're not a Marxist, and given that all of the figures you listed as an inspiration instituted a graded wage-scale (Stalin the harshest one by far), you don't seem to be that acquainted with the historical facts.What am I then, in your view?


Also your constant attacks on "social liberalism" are interesting - do you support full rights for homosexuals and transsexuals? Do you support women's rights including the right to abort at any point of the pregnancy.Yes, I support abortion, womens' rights and LBQT rights.

[Slavic]

Highly-paid professionals might not be petit-bourgeois in the strict sense (although as aufheben notes they could easily become so), but they do participate in the exploitation of other employees to a significant extent (they are over-compensated). They form one of the middle strata between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Bukharin calls them the technical intelligentsia).

How is a wage-worker "over compensated", and how does this correlate to exploitation of others?

[helot]

Freelancers by definition are self-employed, i.e. petit-bourgeois.

I think we need to be a bit cautious with this. Back when i was 18 a mate got work as a self-employed canvasser. He had no control over where he was working on a given day, his work hours, transportation, and was receiving less than minimum wage. In everything other than legal distinction he was an employee on piecework. The relation was the same it's just this way he got no sick pay, no holidays, no right to minimum wage etc. In short, i think we need to be careful with freelancers/self-employed as it's either petit bourgeois or prole but taking advantage of legal loopholes in order to get around employment rights.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think we need to be a bit cautious with this. Back when i was 18 a mate got work as a self-employed canvasser. He had no control over where he was working on a given day, his work hours, transportation, and was receiving less than minimum wage. In everything other than legal distinction he was an employee on piecework. The relation was the same it's just this way he got no sick pay, no holidays, no right to minimum wage etc. In short, i think we need to be careful with freelancers/self-employed as it's either petit bourgeois or prole but taking advantage of legal loopholes in order to get around employment rights.
Simple analysis: he wasn't self-employed in any meaningful sense, he was just categorized that way so the bosses could better exploit him. Thus, we can say he was a worker.

[helot]

Simple analysis: he wasn't self-employed in any meaningful sense, he was just categorized that way so the bosses could better exploit him. Thus, we can say he was a worker.

Yeah exactly. Same relations as a worker categorised normally just shockingly bad conditions.

[CubanDream]

How is a wage-worker "over compensated", and how does this correlate to exploitation of others?

IMO - his high wage means those lower down the chain must get less, plus he can contribute far more to the capitalist exploitation machine during his time off

[Slavic]

Yeah exactly. Same relations as a worker categorised normally just shockingly bad conditions.

Sounds like one of those schemes were they advertise such as;

"You make your own hours!"
"Be your own boss!"
"Make between $300 to $3000! a week!"

When in reality you are just hired as an independent contractor and are paid per x amount of activities performed. Usually its structured that in order even make any decent amount of money you have to work long hours.

I've seen these things advertised as being an "Independent Homeowners Insurance Auditor".

[Slavic]

IMO - his high wage means those lower down the chain must get less, plus he can contribute far more to the capitalist exploitation machine during his time off

That does not make sense, unless this worker was given this high wage as a gift, such as a friend or family member, he is most likely still producing a surplus value for his employer and is thus not "over compensated".

For a worker to be "over compensated" it would work against the entire capitalist system because there would be no surplus value generated from this labor.

Also what the hell does "he can contribute far more to the capitalist exploitation machine during his time off" mean?

Are you trying to say that spending more money == increased capitalist exploitation. I'm not sure if you looked outside but we all live in a capitalist system and we all spend money within this system to survive. Me buying a $4 coffee from Starbucks as opposed to a $2 coffee at Dunkin Donuts does not quantitatively increase the "amount" of exploitation in capitalism.

[CubanDream]

That does not make sense, unless this worker was given this high wage as a gift, such as a friend or family member, he is most likely still producing a surplus value for his employer and is thus not "over compensated".

If one guy earns too much, then those lower down the chain must have their salaries shaved, in order to cover the costs.


Also what the hell does "he can contribute far more to the capitalist exploitation machine during his time off" mean?

It means that the guy on big salary can lord it over other workers in his down time - eg: by employing cleaners, door openers, personal assistants etc..


Me buying a $4 coffee from Starbucks as opposed to a $2 coffee at Dunkin Donuts does not quantitatively increase the "amount" of exploitation in capitalism.

Sure it does, it feeds the big business capitalist machine. It gives them extra profit by which they can subsume the little fish.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Sure it does, it feeds the big business capitalist machine. It gives them extra profit by which they can subsume the little fish.
You really don't understand how capitalism works, do you? Spending $4 at Starbucks, $2 at Dunkin Donuts, or $3 at a small business--none of these change the amount of exploitation in the system.

[CubanDream]

The more money an individual has, the more power he has over the other man.

Power and exploitation are peas in a pod.

Hence, financial equality is a necessary goal for the destruction of the capitalist and liberal mindset.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How is a wage-worker "over compensated", and how does this correlate to exploitation of others?

Certain salaried positions are over-compensated because their occupants are paid more than the labour-power they have expended - this means they participate in the exploitation of other workers in their enterprise because the compensation they receive is made possible by the extraction of surplus value from these other workers.


For a worker to be "over compensated" it would work against the entire capitalist system because there would be no surplus value generated from this labor.

There isn't, but at the same time these workers enable the bourgeoisie to extract surplus value from other workers at a higher rate. The bourgeoisie sacrifices a part of their profits in order to form a stratum of foremen, overseers, managers and executives, which enables them to exploit other workers more effectively.

[CubanDream]

hey, looks like we agree on something at last:)

[Slavic]

hey, looks like we agree on something at last:)

Except what 870 is describing is not a wage-worker but someone who is invested with the company that they are salaried at. They work "for" the company not "at" the company.

Also I highly doubt that any wage worker besides top tier specialists could ever earn enough money to "lord" it all over the "common folk" with servents.

Money doesn't exploit, capital exploits. Money doesn't do anything except represent a value. Capital must extract surplus value or else it ceases to be capital and turns back into money.

Having $10 more in my pocket than my neighboor does not make me more exploitive. Having equipment in which my neighboor works and taking $10 from his just due labor is exploitive.