Petit-bourgeois

[Kia]

I'm curious what is a Petit-bourgeois and who are. Also why so many leftists are against them? Sometimes it seems to be a rather vague accusation that isnt defined very well.





Oh yeah...is it spelt Petit or Petite?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:31 am
I'm curious what is a Petit-bourgeois and who are.
The petty bourgeoisie is the social class of those who own means of production, but in an amount so small that they can't be put to work as capital. Typically, the petty bourgeois is the rich peasant who owns his own small farm, or the small merchant who owns his shop.


Also why so many leftists are against them?

The reason we "are against them" is those people, typically, oppose the effect of capitalist policies (especially when such policies hurt small property), but find it difficult to understand that those effects are just that, effects, and that their cause is the private ownership of means of production (they tend to do so because they are themselves owners of means of production).


Sometimes it seems to be a rather vague accusation that isnt defined very well.

It is used as an accusation, not necessarily of people being petty bourgeois, but of people reasoning like petty bourgeois. Whether the accusation is true, of course, depends on the particular case. And, yes, it can be extremely vague. In principle, it shouldn't be done, unless you can point exactly how the reasoning of the accused person can be reduced to a defence of private property or of mercantile relationships as a "natural" thing.


Oh yeah...is it spelt Petit or Petite?

Petit and petite are, respectively, the masculine and feminine form of the French word for "small". Since "bourgeoisie" is a feminine word in French, you should always say "petite-bourgeoisie". But individuals belonging to such class shold be called "petit-bourgeois" if they are male, and "petite-bourgeoise" if they are female. In attributing a petty bourgeois nature to something inanimated, you should, in English, which is a language that attributes no gender to inanimate things, use always the masculine form. But, unless you are speaking/writing in French, there is no reason not to use the English equivalents, "petty bourgeosie" for the class, and "petty bourgeois" for the individuals.

Luís Henrique

[Janus]

I think Luis Henrique's def. is spot on.


Also why so many leftists are against them?
They are supporters of capitalism as their main focus is usually to expand their businesses and join the ranks of the bourgeois. Furthermore, they're usually employers of the proletariat.

[Democratic Socialist]

This is why I hate it when Marxists try to explain anything. They still have their minds stuck in the 1800's.

As it pertains to the developed world, the petty bourgeois are business professionals. They are a very large class that includes lawyers, counselors, scientists, etc. who have prominent positions in society and may actually be part of the upper class but they don't have the resources to exploit the working class.

The petty bourgeois also includes the people you would typically think of as managers at stores. They don't actually make the decisions for a company. They carry them out and have some power but they are exploited also by the bourgeois.

Really I hate all of the terminology, especially since it defeats its own purpose (to appeal to the common man). Without careful study, Marx and his assessments are impossible to understand although they claim to appeal to the common man.

Socialism is for everyone and requires very little understanding. Pointy-headed intellectuals try and make it more confusing then it really is.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 06, 2007 10:07 pm
This is why I hate it when Marxists try to explain anything. They still have their minds stuck in the 1800's.
Yes, your analysis are so much more persuasive... :lol:


As it pertains to the developed world, the petty bourgeois are business professionals. They are a very large class that includes lawyers, counselors, scientists, etc. who have prominent positions in society and may actually be part of the upper class but they don't have the resources to exploit the working class.

Of course not. You confuse different things, here.

First, there are people who are specialised workers, and earn more (even considerably more) than average workers, because their labour force is more expensive than others'.

Then you have people who are essentially members of the bourgeoisie: high rank officers of private companies, lawyers who own firms, judges, etc. These people are often paid salaries, like they were workers, but the reason why they are where they are is their relationship to members of the bourgeoisie (like businessmen who are appointed to the staff of private companies by stock holders). They may not privately own the resources to exploit the working class, but they are trusted by those who own them to manage them to such end.


The petty bourgeois also includes the people you would typically think of as managers at stores. They don't actually make the decisions for a company. They carry them out and have some power but they are exploited also by the bourgeois.

Those are working class people, not petty-bourgeois.


Really I hate all of the terminology, especially since it defeats its own purpose (to appeal to the common man). Without careful study, Marx and his assessments are impossible to understand although they claim to appeal to the common man.

Yes, reality is complicated, it cannot be understood through the use of simple terminology. The issue is that everybody should be more than a "common man".


Socialism is for everyone and requires very little understanding. Pointy-headed intellectuals try and make it more confusing then it really is.

Yes, we do have a good example here. :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:31 am
I'm curious what is a Petit-bourgeois and who are. Also why so many leftists are against them? Sometimes it seems to be a rather vague accusation that isnt defined very well.





Oh yeah...is it spelt Petit or Petite?

Luís was pretty accurate but here is a wiki overview for better understanding.

The petit-bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_bourgeoisie)

I usually spell it "petit-bourgeoisie," however being that I don't speak french, I usually don't apply the masculine or feminine context as Luís pointed out, however you should take his advice on the spelling as I have.

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 07, 2007 01:08 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 07, 2007 01:08 pm)
Democratic [email protected] 06, 2007 10:07 pm
This is why I hate it when Marxists try to explain anything. They still have their minds stuck in the 1800's.
Yes, your analysis are so much more persuasive... :lol:


As it pertains to the developed world, the petty bourgeois are business professionals. They are a very large class that includes lawyers, counselors, scientists, etc. who have prominent positions in society and may actually be part of the upper class but they don't have the resources to exploit the working class.

Of course not. You confuse different things, here.

First, there are people who are specialised workers, and earn more (even considerably more) than average workers, because their labour force is more expensive than others'.

Then you have people who are essentially members of the bourgeoisie: high rank officers of private companies, lawyers who own firms, judges, etc. These people are often paid salaries, like they were workers, but the reason why they are where they are is their relationship to members of the bourgeoisie (like businessmen who are appointed to the staff of private companies by stock holders). They may not privately own the resources to exploit the working class, but they are trusted by those who own them to manage them to such end.


The petty bourgeois also includes the people you would typically think of as managers at stores. They don't actually make the decisions for a company. They carry them out and have some power but they are exploited also by the bourgeois.

Those are working class people, not petty-bourgeois.


Really I hate all of the terminology, especially since it defeats its own purpose (to appeal to the common man). Without careful study, Marx and his assessments are impossible to understand although they claim to appeal to the common man.

Yes, reality is complicated, it cannot be understood through the use of simple terminology. The issue is that everybody should be more than a "common man".


Socialism is for everyone and requires very little understanding. Pointy-headed intellectuals try and make it more confusing then it really is.

Yes, we do have a good example here. :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique [/b]
Socialism is not complicated at all. In fact, what makes socialism the ideology of the worker is that it is so very simple: we all get a fair share in the decision-making process and we all get what we need.