What's wrong with the petty bourgeoisie

[Ricardo]

It is my understanding that the petty bourgeoisie is someone who employs workers, but also works with their employers. Why is this a problem? The owner of a small business or someone like a contractor are petit bourgeois right? If the business owner works alongside the workers, pays them fairly, he is not exploiting anyone right?

Or I will use my uncle for an example. He is what I gues you would call a jack of all trades, he does welding, fabricating, construction, demolition for other richer people. He employs others to work for him, but he does just as much work as them. He pays them well, but he does make more then them, which is probably what makes him a petty bourgeois member, and not of the proletariat. But what class would you guys say he falls under?

[Janus]

They're generally lackies of the bourgeois and therefore have the same goals as them.

[Dominicana_1965]

Well like Janus said they are lackies. And your right some are alright but they still bourgeoisie, therefore when it comes down to it they would most likely side with the ruling class. They are the subservient drones.

[KC]

They might not always side with the bourgeoisie, but they still side against the proletariat.

[Floyce White]

You wouldn't think very highly of someone who said: "My uncle is cool because he has slaves 'n all and he works hard to oversee them!" Substitute the word "employees" for the word "slaves" and you will at least understand how I feel about him--and you!

BTW, petty capitalists ARE capitalists.

[Folk The System]

i think you guys are overreacting, petty bourgeois can be potential comrades

[BreadBros]

If he employs others and is paying them a wage while he collects the payment for the service, then he is exploiting them by paying them less than what their labor is producing. The fact that he himself works is just a product of the fact that he doesnt have enough capital to expand to not have to labor and instead just be a "big time" bourgeoisie.

In general, the petty-bourgeoisie tends to gravitate towards either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, with most going towards the bourgeoisie. If you're uncle works in physical manufacturing trades and only hires a small amount of people he may gravitate towards the proletariat in that he realizes his position is tenuous and he could "fall" into the proletariat at any time and therefore sides with him. On the other hand some larger small-business owners (like owners of medium to large construction companies) almost surely have their interests coincide with the bourgeoisie. So its difficult to determine where your uncles interests would lie in a revolution with the info you gave us, but I hope that answered your question somewhat?

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:35 am
In general, the petty-bourgeoisie tends to gravitate towards either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, with most going towards the bourgeoisie. If you're uncle works in physical manufacturing trades and only hires a small amount of people he may gravitate towards the proletariat in that he realizes his position is tenuous and he could "fall" into the proletariat at any time and therefore sides with him. On the other hand some larger small-business owners (like owners of medium to large construction companies) almost surely have their interests coincide with the bourgeoisie. So its difficult to determine where your uncles interests would lie in a revolution with the info you gave us, but I hope that answered your question somewhat?
Agreed.

I think to totally neglect the petty-bourgeoisie is a foolish idea, and would cause us to miss out on a whle chunk of people - many of whom do have similar worries to the proletariat: worries about losing their small businesses to the larger capitalists, worries about becoming unemployed or rising interest rates or inflation etc.

so personally I wouldn't totally neglect your uncle from the word go, it would depend on his business and his own views.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58770
petite bourgeoisie

It is my understanding that the petty bourgeoisie is someone who employs workers, but also works with their employers. Why is this a problem? The owner of a small business or someone like a contractor are petit bourgeois right? If the business owner works alongside the workers, pays them fairly, he is not exploiting anyone right?
You are correct about the definition, but incorrect about the exploitation or otherwise of the situation. The owner is still making a profit from the work of the workers. If all the workers actually received the same wage as the owner and profit did not go to the owner it is a better situation. A much better situation would be if all the workers actually owned the company or business and received a share of the profits.

Or I will use my uncle for an example. He is what I gues you would call a jack of all trades, he does welding, fabricating, construction, demolition for other richer people. He employs others to work for him, but he does just as much work as them. He pays them well, but he does make more then them, which is probably what makes him a petty bourgeois member, and not of the proletariat. But what class would you guys say he falls under?You are correct that he is a member of the petite-bourgeois and yes by making more then the workers and taking the excess production from the workers, then he is exploiting them.


As I said above, if the workers actually own the company and all receive a share (equal or equivalent to the amount of work done) of the profits then this would be a much better system.

(I wrote the above before there were any other answers, I just didn't post it 'cause I wasn't on the net at the time I wrote it. So I am repeating what others have said.)


Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)They're generally lackies of the bourgeois and therefore have the same goals as them.[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]
Well like Janus said they are lackies. And your right some are alright but they still bourgeoisie, therefore when it comes down to it they would most likely side with the ruling class. They are the subservient drones.
I think that these two answers show a distinct lack of thought. As mentioned above by other posts, yes some of the petite-bourgeois will side with the ruling capitalist class in a revolution, but many will not. In fact in a strictly speaking there shouldn't really be many petite-bourgeois come the revolution. They will have been subsumed by the proletariat class.

Khayembii Communique
They might not always side with the bourgeoisie, but they still side against the proletariat.Who would they side with if they do not side with the bourgeoisie but also against the proletariat? There are only two sides you know. Also the answer above has some relevance here as well.


(My answers above have assumed a Marxist framework. In actuality I reject the Marxian analysis of class as too simplistic and outmoded. I am currently working on my own interpretation of different sorts of power and class. See thread in theory for more details.)

[KC]

Who would they side with if they do not side with the bourgeoisie but also against the proletariat? There are only two sides you know. Also the answer above has some relevance here as well.

They will side with themselves, of course. They will side against proletarian revolution, and instead would rather encourage the proletariat to "work within". This is inherently anti-proletarian.

[Ricardo]

Alright I guess I understand, thanks Apathy Maybe and the others who answered me. I don't see why Floyce White had to be an asshole about it though, I was asking a question.

Does anyone know of any companies or anything which are democratically controlled, like Apathy Maybe talked about. Or where they all get paid the same without any bosses? Why don't workers form more of these if there are any? Or would it be to hard to get a business like this going?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:59 pm
Does anyone know of any companies or anything which are democratically controlled, like Apathy Maybe talked about. Or where they all get paid the same without any bosses? Why don't workers form more of these if there are any? Or would it be to hard to get a business like this going?
There are a number of Cooperatives arround the place, but most are small and local, are rarely consist of more than an extended partnership.

[Boriznov]

i have a question related to this.

So if a proletariat becomes a petty bourgeois does that mean he is the enemy, only because he will make more money ? Doesn't that mean that everyone is succesfull we must hate ? I mean if you are the father of three and you need to make money and you can choose between being a proletariat and a petty bourgeois or even bourgeois, you must choose proletariat just so you won't be the enemy of the socialists ?

sorry if i made mistakes, english is not my first language

[KC]

Class isn't based on income, although there is a correlation between the two.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:37 pm
i have a question related to this.

So if a proletariat becomes a petty bourgeois does that mean he is the enemy, only because he will make more money ? Doesn't that mean that everyone is succesfull we must hate ? I mean if you are the father of three and you need to make money and you can choose between being a proletariat and a petty bourgeois or even bourgeois, you must choose proletariat just so you won't be the enemy of the socialists ?

sorry if i made mistakes, english is not my first language
Its possible to be neither proletariat or Bourgeois. Thats always a good option. Seeking a high-pay proletarian job is another.

[Outward Rebel]

Originally posted by Whitten+November 15, 2006 05:51 pm--> (Whitten @ November 15, 2006 05:51 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 04:37 pm
i have a question related to this.

So if a proletariat becomes a petty bourgeois does that mean he is the enemy, only because he will make more money ? Doesn't that mean that everyone is succesfull we must hate ? I mean if you are the father of three and you need to make money and you can choose between being a proletariat and a petty bourgeois or even bourgeois, you must choose proletariat just so you won't be the enemy of the socialists ?

sorry if i made mistakes, english is not my first language
Its possible to be neither proletariat or Bourgeois. Thats always a good option. Seeking a high-pay proletarian job is another. [/b]
But if you are neither proleteriat or bourgeois than what are you?

Also isn't making lots of money make you against the proleteriat as your interests are against theirs?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Outward Rebel+November 15, 2006 05:54 pm--> (Outward Rebel @ November 15, 2006 05:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:51 pm

[email protected] 15, 2006 04:37 pm
i have a question related to this.

So if a proletariat becomes a petty bourgeois does that mean he is the enemy, only because he will make more money ? Doesn't that mean that everyone is succesfull we must hate ? I mean if you are the father of three and you need to make money and you can choose between being a proletariat and a petty bourgeois or even bourgeois, you must choose proletariat just so you won't be the enemy of the socialists ?

sorry if i made mistakes, english is not my first language
Its possible to be neither proletariat or Bourgeois. Thats always a good option. Seeking a high-pay proletarian job is another.
But if you are neither proleteriat or bourgeois than what are you?

Also isn't making lots of money make you against the proleteriat as your interests are against theirs? [/b]
You can be a worker and non-proletarian. IE you work for yourself (no employees).

And no making good money doesnt necessarily make your interests clash with those of the Proletariat, so long as those earnings can be justified.

[Outward Rebel]

Sorry if this sounds dumb...but then what about basketball players and guys in sports who make millions and even tens of millions every year? They are still working for someone as are they still considered proleteriat?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Outward [email protected] 15, 2006 06:13 pm
Sorry if this sounds dumb...but then what about basketball players and guys in sports who make millions and even tens of millions every year? They are still working for someone as are they still considered proleteriat?
No, as they recieve income disproportionate to the value of their labour (if you can even call it that). As I said the income has to be justified. I was think more along the lines of certain workers earning tens of thousands more, not millions.

[Floyce White]

Whitten: "Its possible to be neither proletariat or Bourgeois. Thats always a good option."

Too good to be true. If it were possible for all proletarians to be "neither," they would all rush to become so. "Classlessness" is a myth promulgated by the petty capitalists to deny their acts of exploitation and abuse. Capitalism isn't a belief or a plan; it isn't a mushy dream or a concept car. Capitalism is a way that real-life people treat others. Anti-capitalism is also a way to treat others--a far better way.

Petty capitalists are capitalists. They don't "tend to take the side of the bourgeoisie." They ARE bourgeoisie!

Wingsomega: "So if a proletariat becomes a petty bourgeois does that mean he is the enemy...?"

How does someone become an exploiter? By doing acts of exploitation. Of course anyone who does acts of exploitation is the hated enemy. The question answers itself.

[Boriznov]

so if you have the chance to have a better pay (become petty) you should deny it ? You can't do that in certain situations. If you have a family to feed, every normal person would take the better paying job

[ComradeOm]

The key to remember is that the petit-bourgeoisie as a class tend to support the bourgeoisie. This is logical considering that they share many, though not all, of the same aims. However there is nothing to stop individual members of the petit-bourgeoisie from harbouring communist sympathies or being discontent with the current system.

Come revolution the most probable scenario is that the petit-bourgeoisie will, like the nobility before them, simply fragment.

[Floyce White]

Wingsomega: "So if you have the chance to have a better pay (become petty) you should deny it?"

Getting more or less wages does not determine class, because income does not determine class. Ownership or non-ownership of things used by others is what determines class. I discuss this issue in some depth in my article No Compromise With Capitalism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A16).

ComradeOm: "However there is nothing to stop individual members of the petit-bourgeoisie from harbouring communist sympathies or being discontent with the current system."

The discontent of any capitalist is in not yet owning as much property as some other. It is extremely naive to think that any exploiter harbors "communist sympathies." In reality, they pretend to support the workers' cause as part of recruiting workers to fight for their bourgeois causes.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 19, 2006 07:55 am
ComradeOm: "However there is nothing to stop individual members of the petit-bourgeoisie from harbouring communist sympathies or being discontent with the current system."

The discontent of any capitalist is in not yet owning as much property as some other. It is extremely naive to think that any exploiter harbors "communist sympathies." In reality, they pretend to support the workers' cause as part of recruiting workers to fight for their bourgeois causes.
Assuming that every last member of a class acts in tandem and that there is no scope for individual action is vulgar Marxism of the worst sort.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 15, 2006 05:26 pm
Class isn't based on income, although there is a correlation between the two.
Income should be a more relevant consideration when discussing economic interests and social class...The underpaid Wal-mart employee and the struggling small business owner both have far more in common with each other than they do with professional athletes or CEOs.

The day the NHLPA marches on the picket lines with striking OPSEU and CUPE workers is they day I stop feeling completely unsympathetic for professional athletes. (Defining class in terms of one's relationship with the means of production as opposed to one's socioeconomic situation has never seen particularly realistic or sensible to me. Sure there are theoretically sound reasons to do so, but following them religiously will not inevitably improve the quality of live for all those who are unjustly marginalised or disadvantaged.)

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Ricardo+--> (Ricardo)Does anyone know of any companies or anything which are democratically controlled, like Apathy Maybe talked about. Or where they all get paid the same without any bosses? Why don't workers form more of these if there are any? Or would it be to hard to get a business like this going?[/b]
The largest dairy company in the world (Fonterra http://www.fonterra.com/default.jsp) is apparently a cooperative. Owned by NZ dairy farmers. But it is a company, and does exploit workers...

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected]
Class isn't based on income, although often there is a correlation between the two.Fixed that for you ...


Cheung Mo
Income should be a more relevant consideration when discussing economic interests and social class...The underpaid Wal-mart employee and the struggling small business owner both have far more in common with each other than they do with professional athletes or CEOs.True ...

For another perspective on power and class see my thread in theory. I do not really think much of the traditional Marxist class analysis, and the more modern ones seem to be a hodge podge.

[Floyce White]

So who deleted my post where I called it "gullible" to say that capitalists have any "scope for individual action?"

I could just as easily have pointed out that it is the classic ad hominem fallacy to claim that some capitalists have good personal character and are somehow "against capitalism" due to personal goodness.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

mate, i think some posts go deleted when the server went awry.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 11:40 am
mate, i think some posts go deleted when the server went awry.
Actually it was me. I asked an admin to delete both Floyce&#39;s post and my response. Why? Because its all part of the Floyce White conspiracy&#33; We really are out to get him <_<

[forza_che]

To make money someone has to lose money.

Capitalism is a balanced system based on economic scarcity.

They only proper way to live is in a society where everyone is educated and un-selfish enough to give their all for their society and receive a fair proportion of the benefits of this society.

[Floyce White]

ComradeOm: "I asked an admin to delete both Floyce&#39;s post and my response."

I didn&#39;t see any response from you. I thought you were too embarrassed. No matter. I&#39;ll repost.

ComradeOm (quoted by Floyce White): "Assuming that every last member of a class acts in tandem and that there is no scope for individual action is vulgar Marxism of the worst sort."

Floyce White: "I am not a &#39;Marx-ist&#39; nor a &#39;follower&#39; or any &#39;leader-ism.&#39; My opinions are not recitations from the Book of Marx.

"As I said, you&#39;d have to be very gullible to think that the son of the landlord is your &#39;ally,&#39; and should attend the meetings of the tenants&#39; union. His only &#39;scope for individual action&#39; is to blow your rent money on crystal and whores in Vegas, and buy a Che T-shirt at Hard Rock Hotel."

Khayembii Communique: "They sell those there?&#33;"

Floyce White: "Angela Davis T-shirts too."

[chimx]

does that mean you wouldn&#39;t consider Frederich Engels your ally?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 29, 2006 07:15 am
I didn&#39;t see any response from you. I thought you were too embarrassed. No matter. I&#39;ll repost.
You must have missed it. That was the one where I called your economic determinism stupid. I used bold then as well.

I then went on to say that whether you call yourself a Marxist or not is frankly irrelevant to me as your position, assuming that classes are monolithic entities whose members act like robots, is vulgar Marxism in a nutshell.

[anon54321]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:59 pm
Does anyone know of any companies or anything which are democratically controlled, like Apathy Maybe talked about. Or where they all get paid the same without any bosses? Why don&#39;t workers form more of these if there are any? Or would it be to hard to get a business like this going?
They exist. The one I work for is short on labor and needs more workers, so YOU could be a partner in our worker-owned and run business NOW. The only requirement is that you are able to work without a boss telling you to work. You need to be self-motivated or the collective will ask you to leave.

If I went into too many details about the were&#39;s and the who&#39;s on this public forum I would expose pictures and addresses of my friends, and that I am not willing to do.

This should be all you need to join the build-up to revolution TODAY:

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

[Floyce White]

Anon54321, a worker "owning" the business is about as useful as a condemned prisoner "owning" the gallows. Employee ownership is still ownership--it&#39;s not the abolition of property. It does nothing to change the servile condition of some people who will continue to be wage slaves. Whether employee management schemes are "democratic" or not--this is completely irrelevant. In short, the whole concept of egalitarianism is wholly consistent with the workings of capitalism.

Comrade Om, how do capitalists act? They do capitalism. They exploit proletarians to get profit and accumulate property. This is really basic stuff.

The landlord exploits tenants 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The son of the landlord is the same as the landlord, since he is part of the inheritance unit that owns the property. If the son of the landlord attends a leftist meeting for an hour every other week, that doesn&#39;t cancel out the suffering of the homeless who can&#39;t afford to rent the landlord&#39;s vacant units. That doesn&#39;t cancel out the malnutrition of the tenants who can&#39;t afford to buy enough food at the end of the month. And it doesn&#39;t make up for tenants having a lifetime of worry about making the rent, while they&#39;re actually paying the mortage and buying the apartments over and over for the landlords.

The petty-bourgeois who type in this message board don&#39;t see it that way. They have the Christian view that a few words of mumbling erases a lifetime of knowing cruelty and abuse. Well it doesn&#39;t.

Comrade Om, it&#39;s just plain name-calling for you to label me a "vulgar Marxist" and then an "economic determinist." Or maybe you&#39;re not wearing your glasses and can&#39;t read the fine type below my posts where I call "Marxist" "historical determinism" a false methodology? Please drop the name-calling and let&#39;s address the issues.

EDIT: By the way, this deal about "losing posts." I don&#39;t see that happening on other message boards. It seems that the intricacies of point..click are still beyond the grasp of the admins.

[ComradeOm]

Comrade Om, how do capitalists act? They do capitalism. They exploit proletarians to get profit and accumulate property. This is really basic stuff.You don&#39;t say. Thanks for setting me straight on that Folyce :rolleyes:

This is not about the economic behaviour of capitalists. This is about whether this economic behaviour determines their each and every action.

Surprisingly enough the capitalist class, today at least, is not an army of robots programmed to exploit others. It is a conscious choice on their part to make a profit off others. Now as long as this choice exists it is, by definition, possible that a capitalist may abandon his class come revolution. Its highly unlikely given that this would act against his basic self-interest but possible all the same. Choice, see?

Whether such a "turncoat" would be accepted by a revolutionary proletariat is of course irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Comrade Om, it&#39;s just plain name-calling for you to label me a "vulgar Marxist" and then an "economic determinist." Or maybe you&#39;re not wearing your glasses and can&#39;t read the fine type below my posts where I call "Marxist" "historical determinism" a false methodology? Please drop the name-calling and let&#39;s address the issues.You&#39;re not stupid Floyce, despite the positions you often hold, you know what those phrases mean.

Of course the actual topic at hand is how the petite-bourgeoisie would act. Given their differing position to the relations of product, and variation within the class itself, I hold to my original statement that this class will fragment. There is after all a world of difference between a lawyer and a plumber.

[Floyce White]

Small capitalists are capitalists. To say they are not is like saying small germs aren&#39;t germs.

ComradeOm: "...Folyce [rolleyes.gif]..."

Pretty childish to make fun of someone&#39;s name. If you can&#39;t handle it, you may address me as Mister White.

ComradeOm: "It is a conscious choice on their part to make a profit off others."

I agree completely. Nothing forces them to exploit. They exploit because they want to. They&#39;re scum.

ComradeOm: "There is after all a world of difference between a lawyer and a plumber."

No. There&#39;s a "world of difference" between the employer and the employee. It&#39;s a difference that the employers constantly dismiss, minimize, poor-mouth, pretend doesn&#39;t exist, or curse you for bringing up. It&#39;s a social gulf. Besides, occupation doesn&#39;t determine class. Some plumbers are employers and some are employees. Some plumbers are landlords fixing their properties. Doing plumbing doesn&#39;t make someone working class.

ComradeOm: "...a capitalist may abandon his class come revolution."

What an understatement&#33;

ComradeOm: "Whether such a &#39;turncoat&#39; would be accepted by a revolutionary proletariat is of course irrelevant to the discussion at hand."

Private property is not owned by individuals but by the institution of the family. Individuals are born and die, but the condition of being propertied or propertyless continues for each family. That&#39;s how social class is maintained. Individual members of petty-bourgeois families don&#39;t automatically lose their upper-class status just because they choose to live away from the rest of their families for awhile.

Communist theory is really just a statement of the daily experience of the poor. There is no division between some supposed "abstract theory" and a different "practical reality." It is you, not I, who insist that sound theory that makes perfect sense in everyday life--should be chucked in the trash can for the sake of a handful of self-important do-gooders.

[candistyx]

It is my understanding that the petty bourgeoisie is someone who employs workers, but also works with their employers. Why is this a problem? The owner of a small business or someone like a contractor are petit bourgeois right? If the business owner works alongside the workers, pays them fairly, he is not exploiting anyone right?

Or I will use my uncle for an example. He is what I gues you would call a jack of all trades, he does welding, fabricating, construction, demolition for other richer people. He employs others to work for him, but he does just as much work as them. He pays them well, but he does make more then them, which is probably what makes him a petty bourgeois member, and not of the proletariat. But what class would you guys say he falls under?

Morally? Nothing.

The problem is they replicate capitalist production relations through their very existance. Furthermore by definition exploitation must be occuring if the sale of value embodied in the products and services his company produces is higher than the wages given to his employees, which it would have to be to turn a profit. I don&#39;t think the argument against exploitation is a moral one though.

Your uncle would be considered petit bourgeois by some and just bourgeois by others (some people define petit as only those who do not employ others in their enterprises).