Quick questions on petit-bourgeoisie

[Guardia Rossa]

What is the clear frontier between the proletariat and the P-B? What other "classes" can't fit in the proletariat but also aren't P-B neither B or G-B?

Also, the "class attrition" between the P-B and the G-B will never result in a "second bourgeois revolution" right?

Other: the "Socialist" redistributism on taxing the Grand-Bourgeoisie to privilege the people, resulting in the creation/expansion of the P-B and approximate classes, is it clearly a P-B ideology or just a failed proletarian ideology?

[Guardia Rossa]

Grand-Bourgeoisie is a term that I and my friends use for the richest bankers and bourgeois

Other: is there any major ideological differentiation between productive/industrial bourgeoisie/petit-bourgeoisie and the services bourgeoisie/P-B? Ever had that doubt

[Sinister Intents]

I'm petit bourgeoisie, when I'm at my laptop ilk reply to you from my understanding from reading Marx and my own experiences.

Also for GB: I usually see haute-bourgeoisie

[tuwix]

What is the clear frontier between the proletariat and the P-B?


Being a wage worker.



What other "classes" can't fit in the proletariat but also aren't P-B neither B or G-B?


Lumpenproletariat.



Other: the "Socialist" redistributism on taxing the Grand-Bourgeoisie to privilege the people, resulting in the creation/expansion of the P-B and approximate classes, is it clearly a P-B ideology or just a failed proletarian ideology?

If happens so, then yes. But it happens very rarely. More frequently a richer bourgeoisie are paid by taxes from poorer classes.

[Guardia Rossa]

Being a wage worker.

And a very rich wage worker?


Lumpenproletariat.

Others?


If happens so, then yes. But it happens very rarely. More frequently a richer bourgeoisie are paid by taxes from poorer classes.

The question was not that. That is a fact. The question is if this elected "socialists" are P-B or just ideologified proletarians

[Armchair Partisan]

I am in no way a great expert (I'm hoping others will correct me on anything I might have said wrong), but the way I see it, the petit-bourgeoisie is the lower strata of the bourgeoisie that owns (and usually manages) the means of production, but who largely relies on the profits for personal expenses and thus cannot accumulate a great deal of capital. It is a rather imprecise definition, as is any other definition I've ever read - the petit-bourgeoisie is somewhere on the border between labor aristocracy and the bourgeoisie proper, sometimes closer to one, sometimes to the other.


And a very rich wage worker?

Might be a part of the labor aristocracy (a part of the working class, but one with an unusually high share of their labor value, that is not in a precarious economic situation and often hold some shares to supplement their income). Though someone I would call "very rich" probably has enough money to get their hands on the means of production and make that ever so rare jump into the bourgeois class.


Others?

Well, there's the peasantry... it's quite marginal in the heavily industrialized Europe and the USA (where the agricultural sector is staffed mainly by agricultural proletarians), though still a pretty important factor in Africa, parts of Asia etc.


The question was not that. That is a fact. The question is if this elected "socialists" are P-B or just ideologified proletarians

Your original question was quite fuzzy, and the best answer I can give is - "it depends". One could easily imagine either - romanticised support for small businesses in parliamentary politics is thoroughly petty-bourgeois, while pre-revolutionary "minimum programs" by grassroots organizations calling for similar measures might just be a proletarian-based dead end.


Also, the "class attrition" between the P-B and the G-B will never result in a "second bourgeois revolution" right?

What do you mean by that? If you mean the P-B rising up to take power, well, that would actually be a reaction. It's also likely to be fascism (the petty-bourgeoisie is generally understood to be the primary class base of fascist movements)

[Blake's Baby]

The petite-bourgeoisie (small-bourgeoisie) is that section of the bourgeoisie that owns means of production and employs wage labour (that is, they're bourgeois), but they're also 'small' (ie, relatively unsuccessful) because they also add in their own labour. Haut-bourgeois rely entirely on the labour of others.

There are also artisans, who own the means of production, do not employ labour and sell to the capitalist market.

That's I think how it works, anyway.

[G4b3n]

Wage workers who live relatively affluently and receive comparatively high wages for their skilled labor are sometimes called the "aristocracy of labor".

The petty-bourgeois are those who either own the means with which they labor or employee others to labor for them as well as a combination of both. The big bourgeoisie employee workers en masse and give none of their own labor to the production process.

Marx notes, from earlier theorists such as Schulz, that big capital and small capital sometimes struggle against each other.

"When eventually this fragmentation and indebtedness reaches a higher degree still, big landed property once more swallows up small property, just as large-scale industry destroys small industry. And as larger estates are formed again, large numbers of propertyless workers not required for the cultivation of the soil are again driven into industry.” (Schulz, Bewegung der Production, pp. 58, 59.)

But this is just a natural process in capitalist development, a class antagonism that is held together neatly by the bourgeois state, and it could never lead to some sort of petty-bourgeois revolution, considering that their interests as a class are not fundamentally opposed to the big bourgeois. But that is not to say that a proletarian revolution cannot be at risk of being influenced by petty-bourgeois ideology.

[Guardia Rossa]

Might be a part of the labor aristocracy (a part of the working class, but one with an unusually high share of their labor value, that is not in a precarious economic situation and often hold some shares to supplement their income). Though someone I would call "very rich" probably has enough money to get their hands on the means of production and make that ever so rare jump into the bourgeois class.



Well, there's the peasantry... it's quite marginal in the heavily industrialized Europe and the USA (where the agricultural sector is staffed mainly by agricultural proletarians), though still a pretty important factor in Africa, parts of Asia etc.



Your original question was quite fuzzy, and the best answer I can give is - "it depends". One could easily imagine either - romanticised support for small businesses in parliamentary politics is thoroughly petty-bourgeois, while pre-revolutionary "minimum programs" by grassroots organizations calling for similar measures might just be a proletarian-based dead end.



What do you mean by that? If you mean the P-B rising up to take power, well, that would actually be a reaction. It's also likely to be fascism (the petty-bourgeoisie is generally understood to be the primary class base of fascist movements)


Interesting, thanks


Too Basic. Proles, Camps, Lumps, Burgs, P-Burgs. No more? EDIT: Blake mentioned the artesans.


I'm talking about social-democrats. The minimum program from the trots is the whole program of the SoZi's.


Don't stay locked to Marx and Lenin. If the proletarian takes power they will be the reaction. I mean a attack of the petit-bourgeoisie against the grand-bourgeoisie due too increased centralization of capital. EDIT: Gaben answered that


Blake: Artisans, thanks. Had forgot about them. Also, today, we can say theres a Mittle-bourgeoisie. Haut-Bourgeoisie should be the ones who controll not only great companies but also completely controlls the government. Big banks and corporations.


Gaben: Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.

[Guardia Rossa]

I still need to know if the Social Democrats are petit-bourgeois by nature or just ideologified proletarians, or even "labour aristocrats"

[tuwix]

^^Social-Democracy is an ideology and it isn't a social class. Besides there are so-called 'social-democratic' parties that have nothing to do neither with socialism nor democracy. Their members are different people. There are some wage workers who naively believe in ideology what isn't really represented by such parties, there are small and big businessmen who want to influence a party's politics, there are artists, etc. Parties in power aren't really class oriented.