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 dont think the bourgeosie is defined as “not having to work”, but by “owning the means of production”
Both the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie can be owners of the means of production, although in very different material conditions. The term “petty-bourgeois” is not a clear-cut definition of class today as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, so this might be what’s causing this confusion.
Petty-bourgeois is also used for proletarians who earn a wage good enough to not face the material difficulties of the average proletarian, that is lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. Some pop artists and YouTube creators could fit this criteria.
In general, owning a shop and having a few employees and working with them doesn’t make you a bourgeois simply because you own the means of production. While in fact, there is ownership of the means of production, having an income of around $160,000 a year doesn’t come close to the dozens of millions or billions the bourgeoisie exploits from workers every year. A small shop owner is still part of the 99% majority of the people against the 1% wealthy bourgeois.
Also, the petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t have private jets, mansions or yachts. They tend to live a more comfortable life, but they still live alongside the proletariat, they still coexist with the proletariat.
A petty-bourgeois shop owner can have a very successful business and gather more employees, open new shops, and through accumulation start to share class interests with the bourgeoisie. Again, petty-bourgeoisie is not a clear-cut definition and should be analyzed carefully through its cases.
So there is clearly a difference, but it only means that the petty bourgeosie is a subgroup of the bourgeosie.
I would refrain from thinking that way, as there is a huge material difference from both classes. It’s not useful to consider the petty-bourgeoisie as a part of the bourgeoisie, because since the petty-bourgeoisie coexists materially with the proletariat, they are also affected by poverty, and related symptoms: crime and violence.
Karl Marx was of petty-bourgeois origin, he had a formal education when the vast majority of the people, proletarians and peasants, did not. Vladimir Lenin was also from a petty-bourgeois origin.
In a socialist revolution, the petty-bourgeoisie is considered an ally against the bourgeoisie, provided an ideological work is done, so considering the petty-bourgeoisie as a part of the bourgeoisie would eventually oblige one to consider millions of people, petty-bourgeois, enemies of the revolution, which is definitely not the case.
Petty-bourgeois is also used for proletarians who earn a wage good enough to not face the material difficulties of the average proletarian, that is lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. Some pop artists and YouTube creators could fit this criteria.
Wouldnt labour aristocracy be more correct if they are employed?
And I agree with you that the petty bourgeosie is in many ways similar to the proletariat. But bourgeosie and proletariat are not defined by how much money they earn, and for that reason it is entirely possible that some members of the proletariat have more income than some members of the bourgeosie.
In a socialist revolution, the petty-bourgeoisie is considered an ally against the bourgeoisie, provided an ideological work is done, so considering the petty-bourgeoisie as a part of the bourgeoisie would eventually oblige one to consider millions of people, petty-bourgeois, enemies of the revolution, which is definitely not the case.
I disagree with this, as communists we dont fight against people simply because of their class. It is entirely possible for members of the bourgeosie to betray their class, and join the revolution.
I dont think we will get any further in this discussion, but its very interesting so thank you. I will see if I can find any writing on this topic, and let you know if I do.
Edit: maybe the confusion is because you are talking about ideology and potential support of the revolution by the petite bourgeosie, while I am strictly talking about class relations (completely ignoring the political views of the petite bourgeosie).
If I could chime in here, one useful way to think of it is how is this person using their labor time. A petit-bourgeois might own a plumbing business for example, doing work as a plumber, but also employing a few other plumbers / assistants.
In that dual role, they might earn 80% of their income from their own labor, and 20% absentee labor stolen from their employees. Since they don’t make substantially more than their employees, their class interests can align more with their proletarian role than their petit-bourgeois one.
Of course its a case by case thing, many and possibly most petit-bourgeois do pretty much no value-producing work, and live entirely off the labor of their employees.
Since they don’t make substantially more than their employees, their class interests can align more with their proletarian role than their petit-bourgeois one.
I completely agree with that, class does not determine the political views of a person. What I am arguing is that they are still part of the bourgeosie because they own the company (means of production).
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.
Both the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie can be owners of the means of production, although in very different material conditions. The term “petty-bourgeois” is not a clear-cut definition of class today as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, so this might be what’s causing this confusion.
Petty-bourgeois is also used for proletarians who earn a wage good enough to not face the material difficulties of the average proletarian, that is lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. Some pop artists and YouTube creators could fit this criteria.
In general, owning a shop and having a few employees and working with them doesn’t make you a bourgeois simply because you own the means of production. While in fact, there is ownership of the means of production, having an income of around $160,000 a year doesn’t come close to the dozens of millions or billions the bourgeoisie exploits from workers every year. A small shop owner is still part of the 99% majority of the people against the 1% wealthy bourgeois.
Also, the petty-bourgeoisie doesn’t have private jets, mansions or yachts. They tend to live a more comfortable life, but they still live alongside the proletariat, they still coexist with the proletariat.
A petty-bourgeois shop owner can have a very successful business and gather more employees, open new shops, and through accumulation start to share class interests with the bourgeoisie. Again, petty-bourgeoisie is not a clear-cut definition and should be analyzed carefully through its cases.
I would refrain from thinking that way, as there is a huge material difference from both classes. It’s not useful to consider the petty-bourgeoisie as a part of the bourgeoisie, because since the petty-bourgeoisie coexists materially with the proletariat, they are also affected by poverty, and related symptoms: crime and violence.
Karl Marx was of petty-bourgeois origin, he had a formal education when the vast majority of the people, proletarians and peasants, did not. Vladimir Lenin was also from a petty-bourgeois origin.
In a socialist revolution, the petty-bourgeoisie is considered an ally against the bourgeoisie, provided an ideological work is done, so considering the petty-bourgeoisie as a part of the bourgeoisie would eventually oblige one to consider millions of people, petty-bourgeois, enemies of the revolution, which is definitely not the case.
Wouldnt labour aristocracy be more correct if they are employed?
And I agree with you that the petty bourgeosie is in many ways similar to the proletariat. But bourgeosie and proletariat are not defined by how much money they earn, and for that reason it is entirely possible that some members of the proletariat have more income than some members of the bourgeosie.
I disagree with this, as communists we dont fight against people simply because of their class. It is entirely possible for members of the bourgeosie to betray their class, and join the revolution.
I dont think we will get any further in this discussion, but its very interesting so thank you. I will see if I can find any writing on this topic, and let you know if I do.
Edit: maybe the confusion is because you are talking about ideology and potential support of the revolution by the petite bourgeosie, while I am strictly talking about class relations (completely ignoring the political views of the petite bourgeosie).
If I could chime in here, one useful way to think of it is how is this person using their labor time. A petit-bourgeois might own a plumbing business for example, doing work as a plumber, but also employing a few other plumbers / assistants.
In that dual role, they might earn 80% of their income from their own labor, and 20% absentee labor stolen from their employees. Since they don’t make substantially more than their employees, their class interests can align more with their proletarian role than their petit-bourgeois one.
Of course its a case by case thing, many and possibly most petit-bourgeois do pretty much no value-producing work, and live entirely off the labor of their employees.
I completely agree with that, class does not determine the political views of a person. What I am arguing is that they are still part of the bourgeosie because they own the company (means of production).