“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.
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).
What I am arguing is that they are still part of the bourgeosie because they own the company (means of production).
Take a look at this passage from comrade Marx, as it illustrates well both of our points:
“The independent peasant or handicraftsman is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is capitalist; as labourer he is his own wage-labourer. As capitalist he therefore pays himself his wages and draws his profit on his capital; that is to say, he exploits himself as wage-labourer, and pays himself, in the surplus-value, the tribute that labour owes to capital. Perhaps he also pays himself a third portion as landowner (rent), in exactly the same way, as we shall see later, that the industrial capitalist, when he works with his own capital, pays himself interest, regarding this as something which he owes to himself not as industrial capitalist but qua capitalist pure and simple.”
Now, the passage soon thereafter addresses exactly what you may be getting wrong:
“The determinate social character of the means of production in capitalist production—expressing a particular production relation —has so grown together with, and in the mode of thought of bourgeois society is so inseparable from, the material existence of these means of production as means of production, that the same determinateness (categorical determinateness) is assumed even where the relation is in direct contradiction to it. The means of production become capital only in so far as they have become separated from labourer and confront labour as an independent power. But in the case referred to the producer—the labourer— is the possessor, the owner, of his means of production. They are therefore not capital, any more than in relation to them he is a wage-labourer. Nevertheless they are looked on as capital, and he himself is split in two, so that he, as capitalist, employs himself as wage-labourer.”
These quotes explain exactly why I think it’s a mistake to consider the petty-bourgeoisie as part of the bourgeoisie simply because they own their own means of production (sometimes). They can be owners of means of production, but they engage in small-scale production, with a limited number of employees, and they do not have quantitatively the production scale to be considered, qualitatively, a part of the bourgeoisie. In reality, we see a lot of contradictions between the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie.
By the way, I thank you for giving your perceptions on this topic, it has contributed immensely to my understanding of this subject through the small research I’ve done to answer you.
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).
Wouldnt labour aristocracy be more correct if they are employed?
I don’t think so.
In Marxist literature, from Marx and Engels to Lenin, you can see “petty-bourgeoisie” being used to describe workers who don’t engage in wage labour but are not necessarily owners of the means of production and small owners who don’t share the same class interests with the bourgeoisie, although not necessarily sharing interests with the proletariat. Self-employed workers tend to also be associated with the petty-bourgeoisie.
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.
Yes, we agree, and if you thought I was associating class with income, it was definitely a misunderstanding.
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 did not say we had to fight against people because of their class. I clearly stated we are fighting the class itself, the bourgeoisie, not individual members of the bourgeoisie. Considering the petty-bourgeoisie as part of the bourgeoisie may suit you — although I insist it is not a correct analysis —, but people may misunderstand who are our enemies and who are our allies if they do not correctly understand class relations.
The bourgeoisie is an organized class, with very defined class interests, the petty-bourgeoisie, however, is definitely not. Now about the “entirely possible for members of the bourgeoisie to betray their class and join the revolution”, while I am an optimistic person just like you, I’d rather not believe in unicorns. Yes, Engels was a bourgeois, but he was a bourgeois in the 19th century from the free-market capitalism to monopoly capitalism. In the 21st century imperialist capitalism, I’d say it’s rather difficult for that to happen.
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.
I think these discussions, while in appearance seem futile, are very important for us to share our knowledge, debate, criticize each other and develop an even stronger understanding of our society. So yeah, comrade, it’s always nice talking to you, and do let me know if you find anything about it. Perhaps even link it here months later, so it can be shared with others also.
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
I am also talking about class relations. I remind you that the bourgeoisie is an organized class, with shared class interests, which are not necessarily the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, or the labor aristocracy, or whatever. If the finance capitalists increase their interest rates for their own profit, this goes in absolute contradiction with the petty-bourgeois small-shop owners who usually finance their property through banks.
“Petty-bourgeoisie”, as I mentioned, was used by Marx to describe, and I quote him again, “keepers of cafes and restaurants, marchands de vins [wine merchants], small traders, shopkeepers, handicraftsman”, in the passage I mentioned earlier. Notice how those examples given by Marx feature merchants and traders, who do not possess the means of production, since they only engage in exchange, not production.
These also share a feature in common, they do not engage in wage-slavery. Perhaps this is what constitutes the petty-bourgeoisie, not necessarily owning the means of production after all? If that’s so, I correct my previous position that proletarians can be petty-bourgeois, but I’d still have to study further.
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.
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).
Take a look at this passage from comrade Marx, as it illustrates well both of our points:
“The independent peasant or handicraftsman is cut up into two persons. As owner of the means of production he is capitalist; as labourer he is his own wage-labourer. As capitalist he therefore pays himself his wages and draws his profit on his capital; that is to say, he exploits himself as wage-labourer, and pays himself, in the surplus-value, the tribute that labour owes to capital. Perhaps he also pays himself a third portion as landowner (rent), in exactly the same way, as we shall see later, that the industrial capitalist, when he works with his own capital, pays himself interest, regarding this as something which he owes to himself not as industrial capitalist but qua capitalist pure and simple.”
Now, the passage soon thereafter addresses exactly what you may be getting wrong:
“The determinate social character of the means of production in capitalist production—expressing a particular production relation —has so grown together with, and in the mode of thought of bourgeois society is so inseparable from, the material existence of these means of production as means of production, that the same determinateness (categorical determinateness) is assumed even where the relation is in direct contradiction to it. The means of production become capital only in so far as they have become separated from labourer and confront labour as an independent power. But in the case referred to the producer—the labourer— is the possessor, the owner, of his means of production. They are therefore not capital, any more than in relation to them he is a wage-labourer. Nevertheless they are looked on as capital, and he himself is split in two, so that he, as capitalist, employs himself as wage-labourer.”
Link to source.
These quotes explain exactly why I think it’s a mistake to consider the petty-bourgeoisie as part of the bourgeoisie simply because they own their own means of production (sometimes). They can be owners of means of production, but they engage in small-scale production, with a limited number of employees, and they do not have quantitatively the production scale to be considered, qualitatively, a part of the bourgeoisie. In reality, we see a lot of contradictions between the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie.
By the way, I thank you for giving your perceptions on this topic, it has contributed immensely to my understanding of this subject through the small research I’ve done to answer you.
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).
I don’t think so.
In Marxist literature, from Marx and Engels to Lenin, you can see “petty-bourgeoisie” being used to describe workers who don’t engage in wage labour but are not necessarily owners of the means of production and small owners who don’t share the same class interests with the bourgeoisie, although not necessarily sharing interests with the proletariat. Self-employed workers tend to also be associated with the petty-bourgeoisie.
Yes, we agree, and if you thought I was associating class with income, it was definitely a misunderstanding.
I did not say we had to fight against people because of their class. I clearly stated we are fighting the class itself, the bourgeoisie, not individual members of the bourgeoisie. Considering the petty-bourgeoisie as part of the bourgeoisie may suit you — although I insist it is not a correct analysis —, but people may misunderstand who are our enemies and who are our allies if they do not correctly understand class relations.
The bourgeoisie is an organized class, with very defined class interests, the petty-bourgeoisie, however, is definitely not. Now about the “entirely possible for members of the bourgeoisie to betray their class and join the revolution”, while I am an optimistic person just like you, I’d rather not believe in unicorns. Yes, Engels was a bourgeois, but he was a bourgeois in the 19th century from the free-market capitalism to monopoly capitalism. In the 21st century imperialist capitalism, I’d say it’s rather difficult for that to happen.
I think these discussions, while in appearance seem futile, are very important for us to share our knowledge, debate, criticize each other and develop an even stronger understanding of our society. So yeah, comrade, it’s always nice talking to you, and do let me know if you find anything about it. Perhaps even link it here months later, so it can be shared with others also.
I am also talking about class relations. I remind you that the bourgeoisie is an organized class, with shared class interests, which are not necessarily the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, or the labor aristocracy, or whatever. If the finance capitalists increase their interest rates for their own profit, this goes in absolute contradiction with the petty-bourgeois small-shop owners who usually finance their property through banks.
“Petty-bourgeoisie”, as I mentioned, was used by Marx to describe, and I quote him again, “keepers of cafes and restaurants, marchands de vins [wine merchants], small traders, shopkeepers, handicraftsman”, in the passage I mentioned earlier. Notice how those examples given by Marx feature merchants and traders, who do not possess the means of production, since they only engage in exchange, not production.
These also share a feature in common, they do not engage in wage-slavery. Perhaps this is what constitutes the petty-bourgeoisie, not necessarily owning the means of production after all? If that’s so, I correct my previous position that proletarians can be petty-bourgeois, but I’d still have to study further.