I thought its obvious because of the name, and because they own the means of production, which is the definition of bourgeosie. So they clearly cant be proletarians.
Thats how it makes sense to me based on everything I learned. But I cant think of any specific writings on this, so I’m interested if there are any texts which discuss it.
I thought its obvious because of the name, and because they own the means of production
The petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t necessarily own any means of production. Both Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were petty-bourgeois, for instance. The petty-bourgeoisie is in good part what is vulgarly known as “middle class”
Marx and Lenin lived a long time ago, and I dont know much about their class relations. What do you consider the main examples of petty bourgeosie today? For me in western Europe, some would be owners of small shops restaurants, independent drivers (taxis or trucks) or self-employed IT professionals. But I’m sure the situation is different in Brazil.
“For me in western Europe, some would be owners of small shops restaurants, independent drivers (taxis or trucks) or self-employed IT professionals”
Yes, those are good examples of petty-bourgeoisie. In Brazil, petty-bourgeois can be specialized labor (doctors, engineers, lawyers), small shop owners, academic professors, but since petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t have a clear definition, this can also include politicians and some military ranks.
And “middle class” is really a term that is used to confuse people about class
Yes, I used it just to illustrate my point better, and I agree that “lower class, middle class and upper class” are very mystifying terms and they conceal the truth about social classes.
No. Aside from the small-shop owner, they do not have control over the means of production, and even in the case of the small-shop owner, the competition with the supermarket conglomerates is so absurd, there is no expectation for a small-shop owner have more than 20 employees.
What essentially differentiates the petty-bourgeoisie from the proletariat is that the petty-bourgeoisie is usually better off the system than the proletariat. There is a noticeable difference between the material life of the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie, but none of them have means of production capable with competing with the “free market”, and none of them come even close to the material life of the bourgeoisie.
Sure they are small fish and dont have much power compared to the big bourgeosie, but class is not defined by power or number of employees. Someone who is petty bourgeosie can decide entirely own their own how to run their business (within the framework of laws and traditions). They do not have a long-term contract which sells their labour at a fixed rate. Instead they compete with other companies, selling the product of their labour. Thats what defines the bourgeosie.
There is a substantial difference between the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, namely the fact that the petty-bourgeoisie still have to work to manage their own businesses, while the bourgeoisie don’t.
The difference between the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie is that the proletariat sells their own labor, while the petty-bourgeoisie does not. In The class struggles in France, Marx mentions the petty bourgeoisie as “keepers of cafes and restaurants, marchands de vins [wine merchants], small traders, shopkeepers, handicraftsman, etc.”.
There is a substantial difference between the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, namely the fact that the petty-bourgeoisie still have to work to manage their own businesses, while the bourgeoisie don’t.
I dont think the bourgeosie is defined as “not having to work”, but by “owning the means of production” (companies, technical knowledge, resources). So there is clearly a difference, but it only means that the petty bourgeosie is a subgroup of the bourgeosie. As far as I understand.
I thought its obvious because of the name, and because they own the means of production, which is the definition of bourgeosie. So they clearly cant be proletarians.
Thats how it makes sense to me based on everything I learned. But I cant think of any specific writings on this, so I’m interested if there are any texts which discuss it.
The petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t necessarily own any means of production. Both Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were petty-bourgeois, for instance. The petty-bourgeoisie is in good part what is vulgarly known as “middle class”
Marx and Lenin lived a long time ago, and I dont know much about their class relations. What do you consider the main examples of petty bourgeosie today? For me in western Europe, some would be owners of small shops restaurants, independent drivers (taxis or trucks) or self-employed IT professionals. But I’m sure the situation is different in Brazil.
And “middle class” is really a term that is used to confuse people about class, here is a good video about that.
Yes, those are good examples of petty-bourgeoisie. In Brazil, petty-bourgeois can be specialized labor (doctors, engineers, lawyers), small shop owners, academic professors, but since petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t have a clear definition, this can also include politicians and some military ranks.
Yes, I used it just to illustrate my point better, and I agree that “lower class, middle class and upper class” are very mystifying terms and they conceal the truth about social classes.
So all of them have control over their own means of production, right? Which means they are bourgeosie?
No. Aside from the small-shop owner, they do not have control over the means of production, and even in the case of the small-shop owner, the competition with the supermarket conglomerates is so absurd, there is no expectation for a small-shop owner have more than 20 employees.
What essentially differentiates the petty-bourgeoisie from the proletariat is that the petty-bourgeoisie is usually better off the system than the proletariat. There is a noticeable difference between the material life of the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie, but none of them have means of production capable with competing with the “free market”, and none of them come even close to the material life of the bourgeoisie.
Sure they are small fish and dont have much power compared to the big bourgeosie, but class is not defined by power or number of employees. Someone who is petty bourgeosie can decide entirely own their own how to run their business (within the framework of laws and traditions). They do not have a long-term contract which sells their labour at a fixed rate. Instead they compete with other companies, selling the product of their labour. Thats what defines the bourgeosie.
There is a substantial difference between the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, namely the fact that the petty-bourgeoisie still have to work to manage their own businesses, while the bourgeoisie don’t.
The difference between the proletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie is that the proletariat sells their own labor, while the petty-bourgeoisie does not. In The class struggles in France, Marx mentions the petty bourgeoisie as “keepers of cafes and restaurants, marchands de vins [wine merchants], small traders, shopkeepers, handicraftsman, etc.”.
I dont think the bourgeosie is defined as “not having to work”, but by “owning the means of production” (companies, technical knowledge, resources). So there is clearly a difference, but it only means that the petty bourgeosie is a subgroup of the bourgeosie. As far as I understand.