Petit Bourgeois

[Arlekino]

I am wiling to learn better about Petit Bourgeois, as how I understand in reality from my personal point of view they are kind of dangerous class, Would somebody can explain simple English why this class are so in danger?
Thanks and I am aware I get answers.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

They are the "Small businesses" the people who own shops but still must work. I am not sure in what particular way they are dangerous in that they are different from their more powerful counterparts but I know that Fascists seem to take to forming alliances with them.

[Ostrinski]

The petite bourgeoisie are small capitalists. They lack the resources to exploit labor efficiently and accumulate enough capital so that they can subsist solely on others' labor. They are constantly being pushed down into the ranks of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie, who do possess the proper resources to carry this out. The line between small capitalist and big capitalist is drawn by who is pushing who down, and who is trying to accumulate the resources to be able to do so.

They can potentially be radicalized if they can be disillusioned with their conquest of bourgeois status.

[Arlekino]

Lets say for example in Russia or England Petit Bourgeois loosing some asset, starting striking for better conditions that mean they are suffering for better of?
How I understand what about working class and under class.
Is that make sense of my question.

[Ostrinski]

Well, many petite bourgeois don't have it very well off, but they still exploit labor.

[Brosip Tito]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well. The doctor, lawyer, manager, etc.

[Caj]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well.

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.

[Ostrinski]

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.

I have the same misunderstanding. If you are receiving a fraction of the value of your labor in the form of wage aren't you by definition proletarian? This is not to say that all doctors and lawyers are wage workers, but some are. Just because they get paid more doesn't mean they aren't proletarians.

[Brosip Tito]

Why though? I've never understood this. The notion of the "professional" being a petty bourgeois rather than a proletarian seems to adopt an amaterialist understanding of class by not seperating classes based on their differing relations to the means of production.

I think you have a point.

However, the idea is that they are not producers of commodities, and are not exploited in the Marxist sense of the proletariat being exploited.

Perhaps I'm wrong?

I'm referring, in the case of managers, to marxists.org where they define petit-bourgeois as:

"[FONT=Times New Roman]...Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.[/FONT]"

[Ostrinski]

I don't think doctors and lawyers would fall under that category. They do produce commodities.

[Caj]

"[FONT=Times New Roman]...Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.[/FONT]"

But doesn't the kind of "worker" that this describes still carry out productive labor, the surplus value of which is extracted by the capitalist? And even if this kind of "worker" doesn't constitute a proletarian in the Marxian sense, there is a clear distinction between this and the conception of the petty bourgeois as a "small capitalist". I think this distinction exists to the degree that we shouldn't consider them as belonging to the same class.

EDIT: And yeah, as Brospierre said, a lot of "professionals" still aren't defined as petty bourgeois by this definition.

[NewLeft]

You can be a worker and capitalist at the same time.

The petite-bourgeois are people who own land and the means of production, they are small business owners. They did account for most capitalist development.

[Amal]

In short, a petty-bourgeoisie is someone who has his/her own means of production/service but don't has the capital to engage anybody to do work for him/her. He/she isn't exploited as he/she directly sells his/her production/service to the customer but he/she also lacks the benefit of surplus as he/she hasn't been able to engage anybody.
Though in reality, I myself consider those people who engage very few people for them. The main problem with petty-bourgeoisie is that though he/she isn't exploited but his/her income rarely exceed a worker who is engaged in big industries. Why? Because workers engaged in big, modern industries have more productivity as they work with more sophisticated machinery and division of labor is well defined. While a petty-bourgeoisie lacks the capital to modernize his/her method of production/service.
A very good example of petty-bourgeoisie are medium farmers who have enough land and tools to do the ploughing by themselves but lacks the capital to engage a big workforce in field or to buy modern machinery to improve his productivity.
Petty-bourgeoisie is dangerous from that point is that they are very whimsical and always oscillates. Before revolution, they are revolutionary and after revolution they very quickly become counter-revolutionary. As per Mao a peasant always dreams to be a capitalist. They wanted to uproot the capitalist class because THAT'S THE BIGGEST BARRIER IN THEIR OWN WAY TO BECOME CAPITALIST THEMSELVES.
Actually, in short they are living example of dialectics. They are our allies, but a very dangerous and unreliable one.

[dodger]

If a bank manager don't open the bank up 9'0am sharp x5 days a week. He don't get paid. We are all on the same treadmill. Another thread spoke of Mafia tactics of unions. Well the doctors have BMA..solicitors the Law Society. As a general rule those categories or professions where labour in short supply command better wages. Workers who can effectively unionise can collectively obtain better wages and conditions. THAT IS THE WAY OF THINGS. We are left with two great classes in contention. Workers and capitalists just as Marx predicted. No more talk about P.B., in 45yrs I still have not learned to spell it. Dust bin , the term is useless. Even Pastors have their union here you know.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If a bank manager don't open the bank up 9'0am sharp x5 days a week. He don't get paid.

That doesn't make a bank manager a worker, nor should we recognize them as such.

[Thirsty Crow]

The trained "professional" is included in the petit-bourgeois as well. The doctor, lawyer, manager, etc.

Only if we alter the theoretical underpinnings of the Marxist class analysis. Or in other words, only if we consider class as something other, and besides, the basic relationship to the means of production (dispossession/possession).

I'm not saying that this would represent a damage for Marxism or that communist politics would necessarily suffer from it, but it is true that it necessitates an alteration in theory (that is, if we wish to retain the scientific impetus behind Marxism and not to adopt bourgeois versions of stratification theories which uphold income and consumption patterns as basic signals of social class).

But in this case, it's hard for me to see how doctors would constitute a part of the petite bourgeoisie, given the fact that they don't employ labour as variable capital which will produce surplus value, and given the fact that they don't necessarily occupy a special position within the workplace with hire&fire powers, placing them in direct conflict with the rest of the working class.

So, would you care to explain just why should we consider doctors as petite bourgeoisie (without resorting to bourgeois sociology for help)?

In short, a petty-bourgeoisie is someone who has his/her own means of production/service but don't has the capital to engage anybody to do work for him/her.

Not true.
You're talking about the self-employed here, not about the petite bourgeoisie who do command sufficient capital to hire wage labour for the purpose of surplus value production.

Actually, in short they are living example of dialectics

Just about anything in this world, from boiling water to the petite bourgeoisie, can become a "living example of dialectics" in the hands of the master dialectician

[black magick hustla]

favorite moonbat slur against people who disagree with you. second in place is ultraleft

[dodger]

That doesn't make a bank manager a worker, nor should we recognize them as such.

Quite, Danielle, I don't for one moment expect the Manger to be happy, regarded as Working Class. I am left with no option to regard him/her as such. Since they work for a wage and on until retirement, they cannot survive beyond a wage packet. That puts them firmly in the working class. One more tarnished halo, one might say. In these uncertain times, many have felt the need to join the Bank workers union. Objectively our class is stronger, we are many they are few. Since capital attacks all one must hope it will make an enemy of all. Even Bank Managers.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Since they work for a wage and on until retirement, they cannot survive beyond a wage packet. That puts them firmly in the working class.

Managers are salaried professionals whose jobs are to manage on behalf of the owners. Thus, they're a middle class in-between capital and labor.

[Bostana]

I am wiling to learn better about Petit Bourgeois, as how I understand in reality from my personal point of view they are kind of dangerous class, Would somebody can explain simple English why this class are so in danger?
Thanks and I am aware I get answers.

Here is what Marx says about "Petty Bourgeoisie" in the Communist Manifesto:

"D. Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class. The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie (the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.

Marx considers the petite bourgeoisie to be politically conservative or reactionary, preferring to return to an older order. This class has been considered by some Marxists to have been the base of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. At other times, when it is acting in opposition to the interests of large capital, it may have a more radical or reformist bent to it (anti-monopoly).

Note on the Middle Class. The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.

While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry, there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class. Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping. Since Marx's prediction has not come true, sociologists and other writers have devoted much attention to explaining this middle grouping – what is its basis, what are the causes of its stability or growth, how it fits into the class structure, and what are the effects of its existence on proletariat and bourgeoisie."