Where do the self employed stand? - bourgesie, proletariat,

[Executioner1905]

what are these people considered?

[redstar2000]

Depends on what you mean by "self-employed"?

The classic example would be a person who owns a "one-man shop", often a book store or computer repair store or even a tiny restaurant. S/he would technically be "petty bourgeois" but if no employees were hired, no exploitation would take place and, in practice if not in theory, the person would be working class.

The second kind of self-employment, often engaged in by down-sized executives, is "independent consulting." S/he bids on a specific job for a major corporation--designing a custom software package, for example--works until the job is finished and collects a flat fee. I think in terms of class consciousness, such a person would definitely be considered "petty bourgeoisie" even though they wouldn't be exploiting anyone else's labor besides their own.

But the vast majority of the "self-employed" are workers, pure and simple. Their nominal "self-employment" is really just a "nice" way of saying "temporary worker" without benefits or seniority. Although hired as "independent contractors", they perform on the job in the same way as regular workers do...at less cost to the capitalist class.

Need I add that this is the fastest growing form of "employment" in the U.S. today?

:cool:

[thursday night]

Petty bourgeoisie is the technical term for it.

[thursday night]

Ehh...what redstar2000 said. ;)

(I should read messages before I quickly reply.)

[chamo]

I agree with what you say there redstar. However, if a self-employed person does not work for someone, then they are not a worker, and although they do not employ, are they still proleterian? Do you have to be a worker to be a proleteriat?

[redstar2000]

Well, like I say, the really tiny petty bourgeoisie are, in practice, indistinguishable from the proletariat; their incomes are comparable, the people they hang out with are most likely workers, their cultural preferences tend strongly in that direction, etc.

When a "business person" gets prosperous enough to start hiring wage labor, they start looking at things differently...they begin to perceive, at least dimly, that their class interest is different than the interests of their employees. That's when, I think, that you can really begin to speak of petty-bourgeoisie in realistic terms.

At the "executive-consulting" level, the guy may never hire any wage labor...and it doesn't matter. He thinks like a bourgeois, regardless of his nominal proletarian status.

:cool:

[hazard]

yep, petty bourgeois is the name, but i thought it was "middle" bourgeois. petty sounds more accurate

they stand in a position where they are allowed to make profit, that is generate capital, until their generation of capital starts to threaten the actual bourgeois. at such a time, the petty beorgois are "bought out", and swallowed by the actual beorgoisie.

[Anarcho]

Let me get this straight.

No matter what, if you employ another person, you are exploiting them? This has been one of my primary complaints about the usual "communist" dogma that I've run across.

Example: Say I am a self employeed mechanic. I do my own work, and make decent money. I start getting more work, and decide to hire someone to help me. I pay them an excellent wage, although not the same as myself since I'm still doing more work and making all the arrangements.

Am I exploiting that person? IF so, how?

[Hodgo]

What if the boss employs workers, but they take part in the labour themselves? Or if they run and operate a company and do all the work, but decide to put workers on to assist them because the workload gets too much? Does this make them bourgeoise or less of a proletariat? How can it if (to my knowledge at least) a proletariat means a worker and they're taking part in the work?

I know this doesnt happen with large corperations, but with small, home-run business's its not uncommon.

[Dhul Fiqar]

These are all good points, I think the distinction between the two has actually become somewhat muddied over the years.

A man sells hot dogs and just scrapes by a living, then one day saves up enough to buy his own hot dog stand (as opposed to renting it) and his brother helps out on weekends for a small fee. Now he's a capitalist? Nah, we can't be that rigid, it's the spirit of these definition that counts, imho.

Similarly thing with the modern middle-level employee doesn't actually employ anyone directly but is still far from being proletariat. This is a function, among other things, of a changed labour market and a differently organized economic structure from the times of Marx and Engels.


It strikes me as one of the biggest keys to the dominance of capitalism in modern society, that they can have droves of "capitalists" in suits that do not own their means of production but still work against the class interests of the proletariat.

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

The Bourgeoisie is an extinct term to define the rich middle classes of 100 years ago. I wish people would stop refering to it. The same for proleterian, thats just my little winge ignore it. But i completely agree with Redstar2000, the self employed YUPPIES dont particuralry affect any worker.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Anarcho on 9:33 am on April 4, 2003
Let me get this straight.

No matter what, if you employ another person, you are exploiting them? This has been one of my primary complaints about the usual "communist" dogma that I've run across.

Example: Say I am a self employeed mechanic. I do my own work, and make decent money. I start getting more work, and decide to hire someone to help me. I pay them an excellent wage, although not the same as myself since I'm still doing more work and making all the arrangements.

Am I exploiting that person? IF so, how?

The reality is not that you neccessarily are but that if you allow one person to employ another then u create the potential for exploitation. Such potentials always get exploited.

The way out is simply to say that provided the 'top mechanic' can make the case that he is more valuable to the 'apprentice' and the apprentice agrees to any wage differential then the situation is acceptable. However this should not be interpreted as meaning that the 'top mechanic' can then proceed to 'own' the garage and the tools and therefore effectively dictate wage differentials for reasons other than his superior ability.

Thois is theory. In practise I'm quite sure that any sensible regime would day 'OK you can do it provided tuenover is < £x' Sometimes a dollop of pragmatism greatly helps things to work smoothly :)

P.S. What Dhul Figar said was 24 carat correct also I think.

(Edited by sc4r at 11:57 pm on April 4, 2003)

[Larissa]

"But the vast majority of the "self-employed" are workers, pure and simple".

Here you have a self-employed and self-exploited worker: Me.

:cool:

[Anarcho]

Quote: from Larissa on 12:20 am on April 5, 2003
"But the vast majority of the "self-employed" are workers, pure and simple".

Here you have a self-employed and self-exploited worker: Me.

:cool:


My grandmother always said you'd go blind if you exploited yourself too much... hehehehe.....

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm anybody ever heard of the 'Underclass'? Now I discussed this in my sociology class, and I was of the opinion that these people are basically the same as the working class only they are not being exploited by the Capitalists. Perhaps a similar definition here would be partly correct.

God that was a awful contribution.

[Larissa]

By definition, "Underclass" is supposed to be: A class of individuals in "mature" industrial societies situated at the bottom of the class system who had been systematically excluded from participation in economic life. The Underclass is normally composed of people from ethnic or minority groups. (MArginated)

[Robot Rebellion]

It is a tad simplistic to analyze the coercion that comes about from the exclusion power over the means of production merely through an employer/employee relationship lens. The feudal serf would be screwed if he was an employee to Land Baron's incorporated, or if he was contracted out. Either way, without the peasant controlling the means of production, and with only labor to offer, they will get fleeced.

What matters is the control over land/stolen and inherited labor(capital)/money/ideas (intellectual property)/economies of scales and a flurry of other capitalist controls.

The sole proprietorship is a slave to his financiers (usually banks), and to suppliers and customers that have more control over the means of production. Even Bill Gates gets fleeced when he purchases something, but net fleecing for him puts him in the parasite category and not the host.

The sole-proprietor could be more exploitative than an shareholder with a 100 employees, or they too could be more in the proletariat category...