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.
Thanks for the discussion and for the quotes, this is a very interesting topic and clearly much more complicated than I thought. Maybe some day I will read more of Marx’ own writings, but so far I never had the motivation for it.
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.
Thanks for the discussion and for the quotes, this is a very interesting topic and clearly much more complicated than I thought. Maybe some day I will read more of Marx’ own writings, but so far I never had the motivation for it.