Understanding the role of the petty bourgeois
Jul 21 2009 20:28
Right, as I understand it, the petty bourgeois sell their labour but they also have some interest in capital, whether it is profit from selling goods, a cost for their services such as repair work lets say, or to gain payment for their creation; to diversify and answer something I've been wondering, an independent video game dev.
Now assuming I have that correct (and feel free to tell me otherwise), is there a massive difference in what these three types of people do? Is there something infinitely more noble about being an artisan than shifting shite on a dependent market like ebay at a greater cost you bought it for? How is this different from those not market dependent like shopkeepers who own their own places, but also aren't exploitative? Most importantly, are these three ultimately workers first and foremost?
I've been wrestling with this in my mind for the last few weeks so perhaps I can be enlightened.
Jul 22 2009 18:00
#2
Technically, the petit bourgeois would be the self-employed.
Some nominally self-employed people are actually just workers, often with no employment rights. For example the call centre workers in Italy who all got sacked and then told they could return to work, rent their workspace and be paid piece rates for each call. Similarly minicab drivers, many truck drivers, some types of agency workers, etc.
However, the key issue is that class analysis is not a tool of individual classification, it's a way of understanding how the world works. So questions about the "nobility" of different types of labour or whatever is irrelevant.
Jul 22 2009 18:08
#3
Is the petite bourgeoisie actually useful for big capital? On the one hand it is being proletarianized in many instances, on the other most petit bourgeois identify their interests as lying with the larger bourgeoisie (which explains all the usual populist pandering to "small business" that politicians indulge in, both left and right).
Jul 22 2009 18:21
#4
I am petit bourgeois (self employed), but I don't identify with larger bourgeoisie (inasmuch as there is even a sociological class identifiable as "The Bourgeoisie" any more).
Ugh, I hate the word "bourgeois" anyway ...
Still, being self-employed, you are still buffeted about by the dictates of the market. I mean, I could just not get out of bed in the morning. No-one will fire me. Yet I must still work for a living, sell most of my time for money.
In fact, I look at it this way: every time I do a job for someone, it is as if they are my employer. I don't know if or how it fits in with the labour theory of value or whatever - or even if it matters. But I certainly need to do socially necessary average labour. I look at what other full-time workers get paid in my field and charge my rates so that they roughly accord to the sectoral average. It seems to work.
Sometimes I charge a shitload more if the company has loadsamoney though ...
Jul 22 2009 19:11
#5
I was being facetious about nobility, obviously there's little question about what's greater. But I am curious as to what is the difference between different elements of the 'self employed'. Was hoping my original post could be addressed for that reason.
Jul 23 2009 01:10
#6
From what I understand, the petite bourgeois serve a "development" role in capitalism. This isn't to say this is the only thing they do for capitalism, but many, if not most "new" commodities of capitalism come from the petite bourgeois, ensuring the recreation of the haute bourgeois.
If I'm not mistaken, the ability of the petite bourgeois to adjust to changes within the market (by success and failure) is a large reason for the decline of state capitalism, which didn't respond to economic changes as rapidly.
I apologize if this seems in error, it has been a while since I've studied the distinctions of the petite bourgeoisie.
Jul 23 2009 10:26
#7
Steven. wrote:
However, the key issue is that class analysis is not a tool of individual classification, it's a way of understanding how the world works. So questions about the "nobility" of different types of labour or whatever is irrelevant.
But it'd be good to work out what their class interests are, and who they'd come into contact with. F'r instance, if Parker can just not come into work with no consequences, then presumably that means you can't strike?
Jul 23 2009 13:33
#8
The petit-bourgeoisie aren't necessarily just the self-employed but I have to admit I tend to think of this as tradesmen (small builders, plumbers, etc.). It can also include those who own their own means of production/subsistence and even employ other people. The classic example is the shopkeeper, who owns their own shop and may or may not employ a small number of other people.
What distinguishes them from the bourgeoisie proper is that:
(a) they don't accumulate or accumulate at an extremely slow rate - in that sense, their "capital" isn't really capital at all. The surplus value produced by their tiny workforce is thus largely destined for their consumption as opposed to that extracted by the bourgeoisie where ther majority is destined for accumulation.
(b) following on from (a), although they do, in some circumstances, exploit labour, their consumption is not completely based on this. They actually work themselves (e.g. the shopowner will often mind the store himself) as opposed to the bourgeoisie whose work doesn't produce value but is more about organising the production of value by others.
Obviously, there are certain transition zones where the distinction between bourgeois and petty-bourgeois becomes very blurred. This can also occur at the other end of the spectrum as the petty-bourgeois begins to bleed into the proletariat.
Jul 23 2009 15:02
#9
I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion or not, but there is a tendency to refer to people who work on a fairly casualized short-term contract "freelance" basis as being "self-employed" even though they are still paid by the hour or week by their short-term-employer. I do not see this as a very useful distinction for class analysis. What I mean by that is that I think that these people can organize with the working class for their material interests.
Likewise I think that sometimes even being required by employers to have and maintain a very small bit of capital for "personal use", such as hand tools etc. may not be all that relevant to understanding the role that a person fills in class society either, although granted that class-analysis is not about individuals.
As for the actual role of the PB, this may be a bit of a stupid question, but do they even have distinct interests as a class in a class society where the defining class antagonism is between capital and proletariat? My thoughts are that they theoretically participate in this class antagonism in various ways at various times although some segments of the PB may tend to "bleed" into the Bourgeoisie proper.
Jul 24 2009 21:08
#10
I don't think it is useful to define the petty bourgeois as self employed. It really just means a small capital holder. They might be self-employed, but they might also hire people to work for them, or they might live off rent or interest.
And as have been mentioned by others, a lot of self employed people are just workers.
Parker wrote:
In fact, I look at it this way: every time I do a job for someone, it is as if they are my employer. I don't know if or how it fits in with the labour theory of value or whatever - or even if it matters. But I certainly need to do socially necessary average labour. I look at what other full-time workers get paid in my field and charge my rates so that they roughly accord to the sectoral average. It seems to work.
Yeah, that fits just fine with the labor theory of value.
Jul 27 2009 15:23
#11
the problem I have with some marxist analysises of the petty bourgesoise is that they suggest that the petty bourgesoise are above the workers in terms of class position, power etc but this is clearly not always the case
many people try to sell things because they cant get jobs, especially in 3rd world countries where you get kids coming on buses selling sweets etc or market sellers
another problem I see with a marxist class analysis is the the working class, as Ive heard defined on here, is the class that has no choice but to sell its own labour to get by
but this isn't completely true. What about workers that save up money to buy small businesses? I knew two teachers who worked for ten years and then bought a pub
I know a guy who works on a market stool for 6 pounds an hour and is saving so that he can get his own stool. Surely thses situations create problems with that definition of working class or am I missing something?
Jul 27 2009 16:15
#12
D wrote:
but this isn't completely true. What about workers that save up money to buy small businesses? I knew two teachers who worked for ten years and then bought a pubI know a guy who works on a market stool for 6 pounds an hour and is saving so that he can get his own stool. Surely thses situations create problems with that definition of working class or am I missing something?
class is defined by your relationship to capital, it is usually fixed but not always.
I am not working right now so you could argue that I'm not working class until I get another job. If I somehow obtained a shop tomorrow then I'd be petit bourgeois if I ran it as a business.
Jul 28 2009 06:10
#13
D wrote:
the problem I have with some marxist analysises of the petty bourgesoise is that they suggest that the petty bourgesoise are above the workers in terms of class position, power etc but this is clearly not always the case
I would emphasise the word 'some' here (even though I'm not sure who those 'some' marxists are). The petit-bourgeoisie in Marxist class analysis is not merely a fancy word for the 'middle class' of bourgeois social theory. The petit-bourgeois does not necessarily occupy a middle ground between the bourgeoisie and proletariat proper in terms of living standards.
I think in making this comment - that the petit-bourgeoisie is not necessarily 'above' the working class - I think your trouble is you implicitly assume that it is the destitution and poverty of the working class which makes it revolutionary. This is not the case. The lumpen proletariat are a layer which Marx identified that find themselves at the very bottom on the 'social ladder' but despite this, or rather, precisely as a result of this, are not a revolutionary class and are often openly reactionary. What defines the interests of a class in the class struggle is the role it plays in capitalist society.
Jul 28 2009 13:51
#14
N. Rossi wrote:
The petit-bourgeoisie in Marxist class analysis is not merely a fancy word for the 'middle class' of bourgeois social theory. The petit-bourgeois does not necessarily occupy a middle ground between the bourgeoisie and proletariat proper in terms of living standards.
All the same, I would go along with D in the sense that I think the "lowest" forms of petite bourgeoisie as it has been defined here seem to have fundamentally different interests than its "highest" forms. Call-center "agents" have to register as freelancers, otherwise they won't find employment (At least not here in germany). The call-centers do that to avoid employee protection provisions. So in practice all they are are employees with no rights. You can hardly compare their interests with those of a shop owner who sometimes minds his own shop to save the cost of another employee.
Jul 29 2009 02:54
#15
jef costello wrote:
D wrote:
but this isn't completely true. What about workers that save up money to buy small businesses? I knew two teachers who worked for ten years and then bought a pubI know a guy who works on a market stool for 6 pounds an hour and is saving so that he can get his own stool. Surely thses situations create problems with that definition of working class or am I missing something?
class is defined by your relationship to capital, it is usually fixed but not always.
I am not working right now so you could argue that I'm not working class until I get another job. If I somehow obtained a shop tomorrow then I'd be petit bourgeois if I ran it as a business.
Admin edit: gratuitous insult deleted.
Jul 29 2009 08:46
#16
Petit-bourgeois referred to self-employed workers, people who own the tools and land they use to produce goods. In the 19th century, we are talking about master craftsmen, artisans and peasants and they were the majority of the working classes for all that century (excluding the UK). Hence Proudhon's last work: "On the Political Capacity of the Working Classes" (rather than working class).
That was one of the many reasons why Bakunin opposed the "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- it would be a minority dictatorship of one section of the working classes (the proletariat, or what Proudhon termed "la salariat") over the peasants and artisans. Unsurprisingly, anarchists aimed for social change and a social movement which united all working people: artisans, peasants and proletarians.
Today, the petit-bourgeois is not "middle-class" people or "middle-income" people -- most of whom are, in fact, wage-slaves (just better paid ones). It would be around the 10% of people who are self-employed (although that figure would includes "self-employed" bosses, i.e., people who own and manage their own companies and employ others).
It should be mentioned, of course, that many Marxists (particularly Leninists) use "petty-bourgeois" as a term of abuse and not analysis....
Jul 30 2009 10:35
#17
D wrote:
another problem I see with a marxist class analysis is the the working class, as Ive heard defined on here, is the class that has no choice but to sell its own labour to get bybut this isn't completely true. What about workers that save up money to buy small businesses? I knew two teachers who worked for ten years and then bought a pub
This is capitalisms invisibility cloak that it throws over the class struggle. Mass media takes great pride in expressing every tiny detail of rags to riches stories, stories about climbing the ladder. It reinforces the idea of capitals opportunity, and that "oh but they worked so hard to be able to exploit all those workers" crap.
But even so, the individual being able to "climb the ladder" remains only that, an individual climbing the ladder. If everyone could become a capitalist, there would be noone to do any work or rent any houses. The whole class can't climb the ladder.
Instead, the class has to break the ladder, then set it on fire. in a sense..
Jul 31 2009 07:56
#18
moismyname wrote:
N. Rossi wrote:
The petit-bourgeoisie in Marxist class analysis is not merely a fancy word for the 'middle class' of bourgeois social theory. The petit-bourgeois does not necessarily occupy a middle ground between the bourgeoisie and proletariat proper in terms of living standards.All the same, I would go along with D in the sense that I think the "lowest" forms of petite bourgeoisie as it has been defined here seem to have fundamentally different interests than its "highest" forms. Call-center "agents" have to register as freelancers, otherwise they won't find employment (At least not here in germany). The call-centers do that to avoid employee protection provisions. So in practice all they are are employees with no rights. You can hardly compare their interests with those of a shop owner who sometimes minds his own shop to save the cost of another employee.
You seem to be assuming here that call-center 'agents' are petite bourgeois. But they aren't. They are not self-employed. They are workers who are forced to work by contract, without benefits or, as you say, employee protection provisions. They belong to the working class, not the petite bourgeoisie. However, I do agree that the 'lowest forms' of the petite bourgeoisie generally (i.e. usually, but not always) have different material interests than those of its 'highest forms', with the former more likely than the latter to ally themselves with the working class rather than the capitalist class, when these two classes are fighting it out.
Jul 31 2009 11:23
#19
I agree, I wouldn't have counted call-center workers as petite bourgeoisie either, but they were listed as examples earlier on in this thread. Officially, they are self-employed, but in practice they are fully dependent on usually one contractor, who can withdraw their contracts any time.
Aug 1 2009 18:37
#20
What is the higher petite bourgeois? I see a lot of references on this thread to the lower petite bourgeois but isn't the petite bourgeois the innovating force of capitalism? Don't they take the business risks in niche markets in an attempt to become big? Or are all the petite bourgeois self made workers?
Aug 1 2009 21:10
#21
Wouldn't all this taxonomy sound even more profound in German rather than French?
The petty bourgeois are simply below the bourgeois on the food chain. They have greater options to sell their labor. The bourgeois employ whomever they can to profit off of; it's noble to do what you love doing for a living, to contribute to society and your own well-being, but it isn't noble to exploit those who do this. If you believe we'd be fine without a small minority of people taking what we produce from us, well...you are on the way to a more anarcho-syndicalist mindset.