Petty-Bourgeoisuie

[Orange Juche]

Can anyone give me an explination of what would constitute one as being part of the "petty-bourgeois," and give some common examples of people whom would be considered part of that class/sub-class?

Thanks. :D

[Marsella]

No offence intended, but you're in the Commie Club?!

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm) would best serve you...

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:14 pm
No offence intended, but you're in the Commie Club?!

Perhaps the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm) would best serve you...
Well I read the Manifesto once, and though I (apparently) may not be very knowledgeable on ref-left ideology, I'd say I'd certainly know more than the average American.

Thats why I'm posting on here though, I do want to be very knowledeable.

I should read the manifesto again, and I have a copy of Das Kapital which I haven't read, but I also (even more) would like to learn from the people who believe in the stuff so I can get (somewhat of a) more first hand account of what Marxist ideology is about, especially from different perspectives (Classical marxists, council communists/Leninists etc.). After reading literature, I feel I could learn even more hearing out the feelings and opinions of others on here.

[Killer Enigma]

From The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm):

"The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The medieval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.

In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen."

Marx describes them quite explicitly in section III of The Communist Manifesto. The petty-bourgeoisie at the time referred to a class of artisans, merchants, and other shop keepers left over from feudalism. After a liberal democratic revolution, they remain in society, detesting both the bourgeoisie, who possess the means of production and threaten to destroy their class, and also the workers, whose revolutionary attempts also threaten their continued existence.

Since that time, the petty-bourgeoisie has become the "miscellaneous" class for Marxists. Put quite simply, they are the traditional concept of the "middle class", though that in and of itself is an oversimplification. Rather, they refer to people who possess a negligible amount or none of the means of production but maintain some relationship to capital.

Trotsky greatly contributed to this re-definition though his writings on fascism, which is a survivalist, petty-bourgeoisie reaction against the working class movement (socialism).

In many ways, the petty-bourgeoisie represent one of the few flaws in Marx's class analysis. By simply looking to America, we see that the petty-bourgeoisie has not only survived but thrived because of social democracy and other extraneous limits on capitalism set by the government.

Autonomous Marxists, those subscribing to the ideas put forth by Leon Trotsky, and democratic socialists will most likely stress the need for a workers' movement in the 21st century to include the petty-bourgeoisie. Autonomous Marxism itself is based on a more inclusive definition of "proletariat", allowing for extraneous classes such as the petty-bourgeoisie to be considered as part of the socialist movement.

[cenv]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:09 am
Can anyone give me an explination of what would constitute one as being part of the "petty-bourgeois," and give some common examples of people whom would be considered part of that class/sub-class?

Thanks. :D
Small business owners, managers, self-employed professionals, professionals that benefit from corporate hierarchies, etc...

[syndicat]

"petit bourgeoisie" literally means the small business class. they own capital but they only employ a relatively small number of people, like someone who owns a bodega or a restaurant. they differ from the big capitalists because they have to manage workers directly themselves whereas the big capitalists have layers of managers between them and the workers.

the high level professionals and managers are not the same class because their class is based on having a relative monopoly over the positions of authority in corporate or state hierarchies or key kinds of expertise used in the management of labor. so you have corporate lawyers, accountacy firms, top engineers, etc. this latter class can exist in an economy that doesn't have private ownership of means of production, like in the old USSR where it was the ruling class.

[Red Scare]

When the revolution happens are Petit-Borgeoisuie going to be considered proletariat or bourgeoisuie?

[which doctor]

Beware of people (especially those of the communist variety) who refer to the student movements as petty-bourgeoisie. Their use of the term is often more derogatory than anything else.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:52 am
Beware of people (especially those of the communist variety) who refer to the student movements as petty-bourgeoisie. Their use of the term is often more derogatory than anything else.
Whats their argument for referring to student movements as petty-bourgeoisie? To them, somehow being a student rather than a worker detaches them from being proletarian?

[Thunk00]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 03, 2007 04:12 am
When the revolution happens are Petit-Borgeoisuie going to be considered proletariat or bourgeoisuie?
In all likelihood, a modern revolution would include huge amounts of propaganda being thrown around and proletarians fighting for bourgeois interests and bourgeois fighting for proletarian interests.

The petty-bourgeoisie would probably be split--many of them would probably be swayed by the social justice of leftist politics, and many would probably fight to defend the social order they were taught in school was best. Many would also probably try to just stay out with their lives and some degree of their prosperity intact, if the revolution succeeds either joining in the new system further down the road or fighting it tooth and nail as the landowning farmers of the Ukraine.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 02, 2007 07:36 pm
Since that time, the petty-bourgeoisie has become the "miscellaneous" class for Marxists.
THE miscellaneous class? I thought the lumpenproletariat (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71322) (link) was the miscellaneous class. :huh:


In many ways, the petty-bourgeoisie represent one of the few flaws in Marx's class analysis. By simply looking to America, we see that the petty-bourgeoisie has not only survived but thrived because of social democracy and other extraneous limits on capitalism set by the government.

For a moment, I thought you'd start to say the usual parecon stuff about the "coordinator class" (managers), which Marx did briefly mention in his analysis.

On the other hand, it has still thrived because of the hourglass business economy that has emerged; the non-managerial petit-bourgeoisie find themselves in the "niche" multitude which has exploded at the expense of the shrinking middle (which has also increased the monopoly power of multinationals).

And yet, some poster here (I believe ComradeRed) said that two-thirds of America's population are working-class proper (irrespective of wage or salary).


Autonomous Marxists, those subscribing to the ideas put forth by Leon Trotsky, and democratic socialists will most likely stress the need for a workers' movement in the 21st century to include the petty-bourgeoisie. Autonomous Marxism itself is based on a more inclusive definition of "proletariat", allowing for extraneous classes such as the petty-bourgeoisie to be considered as part of the socialist movement.

Except that: Wasn&#39;t this already tried (ie, think about the "hammer and sickle" symbol)? <_<

"Revolutionary democracy" (the alliance of proles and segments of the petit-bourgeoisie, including the poor peasantry), which was theorized by Lenin himself, has its place: in the Third World (for the purpose of compressing historical stages). In fact, Lenin was more open about such an alliance that Trotsky, in that the proles should not merely just "lean on the poor peasantry" in its attempt at (cough: skipping-historical-stages) permanent revolution.

[lvleph]

Maybe I am ignorant, but I thought the lumpenproletariat were the criminals and such. Those people that are not bourgeoisie, but are not proletariat because they do not work (in a traditional sense of work).

[Morello]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 03, 2007 04:12 am
When the revolution happens are Petit-Borgeoisuie going to be considered proletariat or bourgeoisuie?
There is no class at all.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:39 pm
Maybe I am ignorant, but I thought the lumpenproletariat were the criminals and such. Those people that are not bourgeoisie, but are not proletariat because they do not work (in a traditional sense of work).
The lumpenproletariat, as Marx conceived them, were a class with no direct relationship to the means of production.

[Killer Enigma]

Except that: Wasn&#39;t this already tried (ie, think about the "hammer and sickle" symbol)? dry.gif
Even if one were to recognize the pre-Soviet peasantry as petty-bourgeoisie, such an analogy holds no relevance in America. The "peasantry" in America is negligible, if present at all. American revolution will hinge on whether or not the proletariat will be able to win the support of the office worker, the small business owner, the floor-level manager. Distinguishing such positions from the proletariat is anachronistic and dogmatic.


"Revolutionary democracy" (the alliance of proles and segments of the petit-bourgeoisie, including the poor peasantry), which was theorized by Lenin himself, has its place: in the Third World (for the purpose of compressing historical stages). In fact, Lenin was more open about such an alliance that Trotsky, in that the proles should not merely just "lean on the poor peasantry" in its attempt at (cough: skipping-historical-stages) permanent revolution.
Permanent revolution, as a theory, has its roots in the Soviet Union. Even if one were to concede that Russia was operating under a predominantly capitalist mode of production, the level of development was far behind what Marx foresaw.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was a bit hotheaded that time (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581&view=findpost&p=1292407496) (link).

[bezdomni]

Even if one were to recognize the pre-Soviet peasantry as petty-bourgeoisie

They&#39;d be quite wrong. The peasantry is hugely different from the petty-bourgeoisie, although they both have something in common: both strata, when left to their own devices (ie: when not under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat), will fight only to increase their cut of the capitalists profits and not for socialism.

Also, I think there is a bit of confusion over what the petty-bourgeoisie is and what the labor aristocracy is. The Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party breaks this down really well:



Class Structure and Empire

The United States is the chief beneficiary and chief guardian of the world imperialist system. Everything about the U.S. economy, and everything about the class structure of U.S. society, is deeply imprinted with the international relations of U.S. capitalism-imperialism.

Consider occupations. Huge sections of the U.S. population are engaged in activities linked to the financial, administrative, communications, and technological needs of the U.S. empire. Or take the major cities in the U.S. To one degree or another, they function as headquarters of the worldwide operations of capital and require many service workers.

The standard of living of the middle class is very much connected to the dominant and exploiting position of the U.S. in the world economy. Better-off sections of workers receive benefits too.

But there is a lower section of workers as well. Many low-paid proletarians in the U.S. work as part of "production chains", interlinked factories or service centers extending through Latin America or Asia and into the U.S. At the same time, globalization of production shifts employment from historically better-paid and more stable factory jobs in the U.S. to the lower-paid service sector. The U.S. economy feasts on cheap overseas labor. Immigrants from the oppressed nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa are pushed and pulled into the worst and most degrading jobs in the U.S. economy.

This fact of empire has far-reaching political and strategic implications.

Because the wealth of the U.S. is inseparable from its privileged position in the world, there is a big basis for sections of the population to see their interests as lying with the preservation of empire. But this will be fiercely contested and fought out, because the U.S. is also a sharply polarized society.

For the have-nots on the bottom, there is a big basis to see their interests as those of the "wretched of the earth." There is, in short, a social base for proletarian revolution and proletarian internationalism in the "belly of the beast."

The ruling class propagates a certain view of U.S. society. They tell us that the great, great majority of Americans belong to a prosperous and mobile middle class. Then there are the rich: icons of success and "role models" for those who would "work" as hard. At the bottom of society is what the bourgeoisie calls the "underclass", which it characterizes as being made up of the lazy, the losers, the lawbreakers, and the dysfunctional�to be despised, ignored, and suppressed when necessary.

This distorted picture of society justifies the status quo, confuses the middle strata, and dehumanizes the exploited and oppressed. It conceals the real class relations in U.S. society and writes the proletariat out of existence.



The Petty Bourgeoisie or Middle Strata

A critical question for the proletarian revolution is winning over or at least neutralizing as much of the petty bourgeoisie as possible. Comprising all the strata in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, this is a very large and diverse group. It includes many different groups of small business owners, professionals, managers and technicians, intellectuals and artists, and small farmers who employ little or no wage labor. The petty bourgeoisie makes up about 35 percent of the U.S. labor force. In addition, there are some categories of technical workers and semi-professionals who occupy a kind of �grey area� between the petty bourgeoisie and the working class; they account for perhaps 5 to 7 percent of the labor force.

The bourgeoisie has built up the �middle class� to play a stabilizing and conservatizing role in society. And it pays considerable attention to maintaining the allegiance of these strata.

The bourgeoisie holds up as �models� the upper segments of the middle strata who enjoy relative stability and prosperity. It does this in order to promote grand hopes (and illusions). It also seeks to turn the insecurities and anxieties of broader sections of the middle class into fear and blame of the proletariat and oppressed masses.

Historically, sections of the petty bourgeoisie have acted as a social base for �law-and-order� and other reactionary movements. Left to their own, especially in times of social upheaval, sections are pulled to right-wing solutions in hopes of restoring stability and security and �fortifying their privileges.

At the same time, there is the large number of �enlightened petty bourgeoisie� who historically have played important roles in radical and revolutionary upsurges, speaking out or acting against the savage injustices and inequalities and crimes of U.S. imperialism. However, while many in these strata want to fall on the progressive side of history, they are inclined towards illusions of reformism and pacifism in struggling against the system.

Today, there are significant numbers of people from the oppressed nationalities in the middle class. There are also large numbers of women in the professions. All this is a result both of changes in the U.S. and the world economy and of powerful struggles against discrimination and oppression. While in various ways this �middle class status� has a conservatizing influence, the continuing discrimination and abuses to which these oppressed groups are continually subjected propels many, even in the middle class, into resistance. This is overall an important positive factor for the proletariat in terms of realigning forces in society, including among the middle strata, in a way more favorable for the proletarian revolution.

Real wealth and power, which is actually concentrated in the hands of the ruling big bourgeoisie, is an unreachable goal for the masses of the middle strata. While sectors of the economy linked directly or indirectly to the explosion of �high tech,� legal and financial services, consultancy, etc., have expanded in recent years�other more traditional segments of the petty bourgeoisie are under economic pressure.

Many small farmers, sectors of small business people, teachers, nurses, and low-skilled technicians, and others have been squeezed or been put on an eco�nomic treadmill. Small business (including the �dot-com�) is inherently unstable in an economy dominated by monopoly capital and subject to capitalism�s fluctuations and structural changes.

Many within the middle class are forced to work harder and longer to maintain their lifestyles, homes, and health plans. Others face the specter of job displacement. Many within the �care-giving� professions, like health, or in fields like education, see their desires to serve people sacrificed on the altar of cost reduction, or perverted by growing standardization and routinization.

Because of the contradictory situation faced by these strata, they tend to vacillate between the ruling bourgeoisie and the rising revolutionary proletariat�siding now with the one and now with the other. But in the final analysis, these middle strata have no future under this system�and no future at all other than to unite with the proletariat and its struggle to seize power and revolutionize society and the world.




The United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat: Part Two - Who Are Our Friends and Who Are Our Enemies? (http://revcom.us/margorp/a-uf2.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Didn&#39;t your article above just include the peasantry in the petit-bourgeoisie ("small farmers")? :huh:

[That "united front under the leadership" sounds too much like Trotsky&#39;s stuff about the proles leaning on other classes in exercising working-class leadership.]

Anyhow, my linked reply above asked the hard question regarding class relations. You should give the material in that thread some thought, as it challenges traditional analyses (including yours, I might add).

[Dr Mindbender]

my understanding is that it encompasses the middle class in general, and the small business owners who are too lucrative to be considered working class but not powerful enough to be considered beourgioise.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:10 pm
The amount of money one has does not determine one&#39;s class. Their relation to the means of production is what does it.
i know, by lucrative i mean control of capital therefore ability to purchase labour and class status.
Anyone who lives off an income that does not derive from their own work is clearly not working class.


EDIT: With the exception of those who recieve welfare or benefits (for all you pedantic gits there)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:30 pm

Anyone who lives off an income that does not derive from their own work is clearly not working class.

And even some that do aren&#39;t.
examples please.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 01:06 pm
Comrade, you will run into many comrades (here, and at large) who are simply unable, or unwilling to recognize the understanding of class.

The petty-bourgeoisie was originally made up of small shop owners, self-employed artisans and farmers. As capitalism has become more entrenched and solidified, most of those have either gone up into the capitalist class or have been thrown down in the working class. Some of these &#39;classical&#39; members of the petty-bourgeoisie still exist (especially in the more underdeveloped countries), but they have largely been replaced by managers, the police, etc. (which is exactly what communists have said would happen for years, i.e. the Communist Manifesto explained: "The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.").
Um, as I implied in my Theory thread regarding the possibility of modern capitalism having up to six separate classes. The modern equivalents of the old petit-bourgeoisie happen to be the "self-employed," those owning and running consultancy businesses, even those owning and running "incorporated" small businesses, etc.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 06:45 pm

Um, as I implied in my Theory thread regarding the possibility of modern capitalism having up to six separate classes. The modern equivalents of the old petit-bourgeoisie happen to be the "self-employed," those owning and running consultancy businesses, even those owning and running "incorporated" small businesses, etc.

The petty-bourgeoisie is defined by its relation to the means of production. Knowing that, how do you justify this possibility?
Even though they own and run small businesses, they don&#39;t control the means of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 04:45 pm

Um, as I implied in my Theory thread regarding the possibility of modern capitalism having up to six separate classes. The modern equivalents of the old petit-bourgeoisie happen to be the "self-employed," those owning and running consultancy businesses, even those owning and running "incorporated" small businesses, etc.

The petty-bourgeoisie is defined by its relation to the means of production. Knowing that, how do you justify this possibility?
Isn&#39;t that a question more appropriately asked and discussed in that Theory thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581) (it&#39;s detailed enough), and not here? :huh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

#1) Does the person exist inside or outside a wage-labour system?

#2) If Yes to #1, does the person contribute to the development of society&#39;s labour power and its capabilities? [If no, then the person merely contributes to the protection of the capitalist state machinery, and thus belongs to the same class as cops and security guards.]

#3) If Yes to #2, does the person own and/or control the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the working class.]

#4) If Yes to #3, does the person have a sufficient ownership stake in the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the managerial class.]

#5) If Yes to #4, does the person have a sufficient ownership and controlling stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale? [If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie. There&#39;s the recent trend to "bourgeois-fy" top management through stock options and other ownership incentives.]



Alas, one cannot rearrange the last two questions to reflect the increasing emphasis of control over formal ownership (ie, to say in #4 "If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie").

Now, in regards to the peasantry, I only entertained them as a [i]possible "seventh class" only because Marx did say somewhere initially that the peasants were a separate class in his original six-class analysis (landlords, peasants, capitalists, proles, lumpenproles, and petit-bourgeois folks), and because they, unlike the traditional petit-bourgeoisie, exhibited revolutionary potential in regards to "revolutionary democracy" (otherwise, Maoism as a theory would&#39;ve been correct in regards to other segments of the petit-bourgeoisie having revolutionary potential in regards to "revolutionary democracy").

[Killer Enigma]

A decent analysis, although the answer to question #1 cannot be "yes" or "no". You offered two options.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+November 03, 2007 11:45 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ November 03, 2007 11:45 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 11:32 pm

Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:30 pm

Anyone who lives off an income that does not derive from their own work is clearly not working class.

And even some that do aren&#39;t.
examples please.
A self-employed plumber.

[/b]
what bracket do you class that as?

Even a self-employed plumber has to do his own plumbing therefore he lives off of his own labour.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 03, 2007 10:59 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 03, 2007 10:59 pm)
Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:45 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 03, 2007 11:32 pm

Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:30 pm

Anyone who lives off an income that does not derive from their own work is clearly not working class.

And even some that do aren&#39;t.
examples please.
A self-employed plumber.


what bracket do you class that as?

Even a self-employed plumber has to do his own plumbing therefore he lives off of his own labour. [/b]
I believe CdL believes a self-employed plumber is a proletarian, though I could be wrong. Sure the plumber may own the tools they are use, but if their income (customers) dwindles, so will their tools.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 03, 2007 08:23 pm
A decent analysis, although the answer to question #1 cannot be "yes" or "no". You offered two options.
I could rephrase the first question as follows:

Does the person exist inside the wage-labour system? [If no, then the person is a lumpenprole.]

;)

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+November 04, 2007 07:09 am--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ November 04, 2007 07:09 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:50 am
#1) Does the person exist inside or outside a wage-labour system?

#2) If Yes to #1, does the person contribute to the development of society&#39;s labour power and its capabilities? [If no, then the person merely contributes to the protection of the capitalist state machinery, and thus belongs to the same class as cops and security guards.]

#3) If Yes to #2, does the person own and/or control the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the working class.]

#4) If Yes to #3, does the person have a sufficient ownership stake in the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the managerial class.]

#5) If Yes to #4, does the person have a sufficient ownership and controlling stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale? [If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie. There&#39;s the recent trend to "bourgeois-fy" top management through stock options and other ownership incentives.]



Alas, one cannot rearrange the last two questions to reflect the increasing emphasis of control over formal ownership (ie, to say in #4 "If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie").

Now, in regards to the peasantry, I only entertained them as a [i]possible "seventh class" only because Marx did say somewhere initially that the peasants were a separate class in his original six-class analysis (landlords, peasants, capitalists, proles, lumpenproles, and petit-bourgeois folks), and because they, unlike the traditional petit-bourgeoisie, exhibited revolutionary potential in regards to "revolutionary democracy" (otherwise, Maoism as a theory would&#39;ve been correct in regards to other segments of the petit-bourgeoisie having revolutionary potential in regards to "revolutionary democracy").
I&#39;m sorry but this looks like a lot of hot air that amounts to nothing of substance.

Sure, you could create all sorts of weird classifications to place people into, but do they stand up to materialist analysis?

In modern capitalist countries there are lumpen (folks that make a living illegally and without selling their labor to a boss.. usually by exploiting working people, i.e. pimps and drug pushers), proletarians (folks that have no ownership or control of the means of production, forcing them to sell their labour to a member of the petit-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie for a wage), the petit-bourgeoisie (folks who make a living through their ownership of a small shop or plot of land, whether or not they employ people or work themselves, or through their ability as craftsman or artisans, or finally, as overseers for the bourgeoisie and/or parts of their state, i.e. the police, managers, security guards, etc.) and the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production).

That&#39;s it. [/b]
He made the same distinctions that you did.