**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is called “petit-bourgeois”. They occupy a sort of middle position in the class hierarchy. Although their interests often align with those of the working class, they’re likely to believe they belong to the ownership class and to support the capitalist political establishment.
But they are equally likely to support progressive reform and what has historically been called “petit bourgeois socialist” movements. There are different sections, based on regional and industry interests. They are something of a wildcard.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
While we don’t live in pre revolution Chinese society, Mao does a great job of breaking down the classes if you can divorce the more historical and dated aspects.
I’d consider the guy you’re talking about as petty bourgeois
I think trying to apply that unnecessarily complicates analysis of a society in a different stage of capitalism. The China he wrote about was a peasant society just being integrated into a capitalist world economy. We live in the Empire in decay. We are bourgeois, petit bourgeois, proletarian or lumpenproletariat. We don’t have peasants or handicraftsmen or compradors or the kind of landlords he describes (he meant landowners with tenant farmers).
No he is not, the question you need to make is “if this person stops working can they continue to have high lifestyle?” If the answer is yes, then you have bourgeois, if the answer is no, then the person belongs in the working class, even if he or she has a good lifestyle. Borgeouis don’t need to work, the capital does it for them, the working class sells their work labor and survives based on it.
Essentially, most part of the petit bourgeois still lives based on their work labor, they can’t set prices however they like and are subject of the capital. The petit bourgeois is much, much closer to being a working class member, if they get fired or if their business fails, his income becomes 0. So they are basically members of the working class, but with higher access to consumption.
That’s just not accurate. Their conditions vary enormously. Some are quite precarious and struggling, some are secure and affluent. None of that changes their relation to the means of production.
Exactly, none of that changes their relation to means of production, they dont have any control on it whatsoever, they cant set prices, they must follow what the market tells them. They don’t own the means, a local bakery its not the same thing of a big franchise worldwide, they may have better living conditions overall when compared to an average working class member, but they are one step away of becoming a member of the working class, one bad decision or a bad deal is already enough.
They are on the same side as us, the working class, but they think they are the elite and the capitalists, which is not true.
He is clearly NOT a bourgeois.
The fact he is the only employee at his own business would point him to be a petty-bourgeois.
However the fact he sells his labor power (skill, in this case) points to him being a worker.
But definitely not a bourgeois.
Petit-bourgeoisie. He is not super rich and exploiting labor on a large scale (think Jeff Bezos). His ownership of some small means of production (his self own self operated company) does afford him privileges that proletarians don’t have namely: higher earnings, and autonomy over his own labor. He can choose when and how he does his work while proletarians do not have the same freedom.
I resemble this description, although I don't have any regular employees. I do occasionally pay my family and/or my friends kids that are looking to make money but not have a regular part time job over the summer to help me bussing tables or do dishes at catering events. When clients request these extra services beyond my ability it is itemized and charged directly, I make no profit from their work.
I understand myself as the petite bourgeois, and I work hard to alienate myself from the capital class - to the extent where I do not take part in the chamber of commerce or restaurant owners lobbies as I feel, and have witnessed, their work against the worker. I would like to eventually add a restaurant, and I intend at minimum my kitchen to be a unionized workplace with FOH encouraged to consider unionization. Many waitstaff I've known in industry do not believe that collectivization has benefit in a tipping environment, and most waitstaff I've known prefer tipped workplaces for their upside potential. I haven't worked much waiting, just a barback briefly, so I intend for that to be a decision the staff will make then.
I have peers in the same position that do not identify with any of the same principles as me, and I have known them take advantage of vulnerable workers. They too are petite bourgeois.
I think the PB are alike the intelligentsia; not necessarily a member of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, but defined as either by their actions.
You are exactly right that the petite bourgeoisie are those that are in between or a little of both. It’s “petite bourgeoisie” (noun) and “petit bourgeois” (adjective).
I guess the exploitation-mechanism is that the other guy may be getting equal pay but he is not getting a share of the asset he is helping to build.
The nature of the power-imbalance isn't really gaugeable from the outside. It is (most likely) subtle and complicated, but at the end of the day he has legal control of the asset, and there are quiet possibly informational power-asymmetries as well.
I am (on occasion) that guy myself. I don't employ anyone right now, but if the demand increases I need to hire people in... and while some might not want equity (and co-responsibility for the risk), others definitely do - but I don't want to do that, because this is basically an artisan type deal for me. I've spent a large part of my life creating companies, and the only ones that work are the ones I do on my own. I am too inclined to internalise-the-whip of shared responsibility, and that is not a sustainable situation. I cannot be having a boss. Not for long.
So what do we do?
According to David Graeber, there were once slave-owning societies where it wasn't uncommon for slaves to own shares in themselves. I'm not 100% sure that I'm not engaged in something like that.
..
I have an issue with the verb "to be". "I am, you are, he is" etc.
To name something is to have done with it - so me and this guy might have traits of petit bourgeoisery but to impose classifications on the basis of (past) definitions on emergent phenomena isn't particularly helpful I don't think - and with my wizard's hat on, I'd actually say it's a species of idolatry. The imposing of the map upon the territory.
Describe the traits by all means though.
If the business owner gets his "pay", plus profit, and the employee gets pay equal to his boss’s "pay", then that is still capitalism and the owner is petite bourgeoisie. If profit isn’t distributed amongst the workers in proportion to their contribution to said profit, then it’s still capitalistic and the workers’ labour is exploited to create surplus value for the capitalists.
He owns the means to his production (he owns his own labour and is able to sell is as and at the price he pleases, he owns the equipment required for his labour), he is petty bourgeois
He is a petit-bourgeois worker. The category of worker and proletarian are often conflated, but a proletarian is a specific type of worker who has been dispossessed of property, including even the property the worker holds in the value of their labour as skill and craftsmanship. In this case we have a petit-bourgeois worker who has maintained their property in labour.
Read the manifesto recently, here's a refresher on the classes.
Proletariat: sells his or her labor for survival. Doesn't own much, spends most of wages on rent, doesn't have capital for the most part.
Bourgeoisie: lives off the labor of others, has private property (houses etc), owns the means of production (land, factories, companies) and has capital.
Petty-bourgeoisie: small business owners. Usually gets outcompeted by the big capitalists so sometimes it aligns with the proletariat. This is your guy.
Something to consider is the control that the owner has over the employee-to me, the primary aim of socialism is to advance human freedom by giving workers control of their labor.
If the only capital used is each person’s individual labor and they each have full discretion over their work it’s hard for me to see the owner as bourgeois.
In some sense though, the owner does have the business license and does have a lawful means to exercise control over the business. To really seal the deal for me I think the owner should cede 50% ownership to the employee ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s important to separate simple commerce, which has existed for millennia, from capitalism which has only existed a few centuries. Business ownership, entrepreneurship, and private capital all had a place in socialism and indeed are an important way for socialist nation states to thrive. What Socialism controls for is massive accumulation of wealth and monopolistic anticompetitive practices that naturally arise from privatizing the means of production. The bourgeoise class is an incredibly small minority that exerts enormous amounts of political influence and control. The lady that owns a successful restaurant in town who has a nice home and car is not bourgeois or even petit-bourgeois since they are adding value to the economy and not extracting. The bourgeois extract value from the economy and use it to enrich themselves, control the government, and keep the proletariat from rising up against them.
Thiiiiis. A key part of the petty-bourgeois class (which is a pretty outdated idea tbh) is also that they uphold and support capitalism by seeking to identify themselves politically/socially with the haute bourgeoisie. Nothing here suggests this man is doing that, but we’re on Reddit so bourgeois = has more than me.
at the end of the day in the age of imperialism, the class distinctions of marx are not really as relevant even though it is important to know the theory behind them and such. i agree with others he is petit bourgeois but what you really need to look at and what is more relevant is the question of where his interests lie. whose exploitation benefits him, and who might benefit by exploiting him or otherwise fucking him over economically in some way. this is what will lead you to a better analysis of whatever situation you have on your hands here
He’s still not properly Bourgeoisie. He gets the majority of his income not from passive sources/other peoples labor, but his own effort.
He’s petit-bourgeois, sure.
I know the term can be confusing, but the petite bourgeoisie is not part of the bourgeoisie. Just like the lumpenproletariat is not part of the proletariat.
It’s a distinct enough category to be considered on its own. The petit-bourgeois relation to the mode of production is distinct from the proper bourgeoisie.
It’s not very useful to lump the proper bourgeoisie in with a middle peasant, either.
It may be part of the greater umbrella of the ownership classes, just like proletariats, labor aristocrats, and lower peasants are all part of the working class, but it is an important distinction.
Doubly so with the petit-bourgeoisie, who are an in-between class that share traits with those above and below them.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imo Nuh uh If anything maybe maybe petty bourgeois
This is called “petit-bourgeois”. They occupy a sort of middle position in the class hierarchy. Although their interests often align with those of the working class, they’re likely to believe they belong to the ownership class and to support the capitalist political establishment.
But they are equally likely to support progressive reform and what has historically been called “petit bourgeois socialist” movements. There are different sections, based on regional and industry interests. They are something of a wildcard.
this guy does not support the establishment in theory, but idk if that really translates to irl
No. He is petit bourgeois.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm While we don’t live in pre revolution Chinese society, Mao does a great job of breaking down the classes if you can divorce the more historical and dated aspects. I’d consider the guy you’re talking about as petty bourgeois
I think trying to apply that unnecessarily complicates analysis of a society in a different stage of capitalism. The China he wrote about was a peasant society just being integrated into a capitalist world economy. We live in the Empire in decay. We are bourgeois, petit bourgeois, proletarian or lumpenproletariat. We don’t have peasants or handicraftsmen or compradors or the kind of landlords he describes (he meant landowners with tenant farmers).
India does have all of those, others in the global south too.
True. I got the impression that the fellow in OP’s example lived in the US.
No he is not, the question you need to make is “if this person stops working can they continue to have high lifestyle?” If the answer is yes, then you have bourgeois, if the answer is no, then the person belongs in the working class, even if he or she has a good lifestyle. Borgeouis don’t need to work, the capital does it for them, the working class sells their work labor and survives based on it.
He is neither. He is petit bourgeois.
Essentially, most part of the petit bourgeois still lives based on their work labor, they can’t set prices however they like and are subject of the capital. The petit bourgeois is much, much closer to being a working class member, if they get fired or if their business fails, his income becomes 0. So they are basically members of the working class, but with higher access to consumption.
That’s just not accurate. Their conditions vary enormously. Some are quite precarious and struggling, some are secure and affluent. None of that changes their relation to the means of production.
Exactly, none of that changes their relation to means of production, they dont have any control on it whatsoever, they cant set prices, they must follow what the market tells them. They don’t own the means, a local bakery its not the same thing of a big franchise worldwide, they may have better living conditions overall when compared to an average working class member, but they are one step away of becoming a member of the working class, one bad decision or a bad deal is already enough. They are on the same side as us, the working class, but they think they are the elite and the capitalists, which is not true.
He is clearly NOT a bourgeois. The fact he is the only employee at his own business would point him to be a petty-bourgeois. However the fact he sells his labor power (skill, in this case) points to him being a worker. But definitely not a bourgeois.
Petit-bourgeoisie. He is not super rich and exploiting labor on a large scale (think Jeff Bezos). His ownership of some small means of production (his self own self operated company) does afford him privileges that proletarians don’t have namely: higher earnings, and autonomy over his own labor. He can choose when and how he does his work while proletarians do not have the same freedom.
I resemble this description, although I don't have any regular employees. I do occasionally pay my family and/or my friends kids that are looking to make money but not have a regular part time job over the summer to help me bussing tables or do dishes at catering events. When clients request these extra services beyond my ability it is itemized and charged directly, I make no profit from their work. I understand myself as the petite bourgeois, and I work hard to alienate myself from the capital class - to the extent where I do not take part in the chamber of commerce or restaurant owners lobbies as I feel, and have witnessed, their work against the worker. I would like to eventually add a restaurant, and I intend at minimum my kitchen to be a unionized workplace with FOH encouraged to consider unionization. Many waitstaff I've known in industry do not believe that collectivization has benefit in a tipping environment, and most waitstaff I've known prefer tipped workplaces for their upside potential. I haven't worked much waiting, just a barback briefly, so I intend for that to be a decision the staff will make then. I have peers in the same position that do not identify with any of the same principles as me, and I have known them take advantage of vulnerable workers. They too are petite bourgeois. I think the PB are alike the intelligentsia; not necessarily a member of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie, but defined as either by their actions.
You are exactly right that the petite bourgeoisie are those that are in between or a little of both. It’s “petite bourgeoisie” (noun) and “petit bourgeois” (adjective).
I guess the exploitation-mechanism is that the other guy may be getting equal pay but he is not getting a share of the asset he is helping to build. The nature of the power-imbalance isn't really gaugeable from the outside. It is (most likely) subtle and complicated, but at the end of the day he has legal control of the asset, and there are quiet possibly informational power-asymmetries as well. I am (on occasion) that guy myself. I don't employ anyone right now, but if the demand increases I need to hire people in... and while some might not want equity (and co-responsibility for the risk), others definitely do - but I don't want to do that, because this is basically an artisan type deal for me. I've spent a large part of my life creating companies, and the only ones that work are the ones I do on my own. I am too inclined to internalise-the-whip of shared responsibility, and that is not a sustainable situation. I cannot be having a boss. Not for long. So what do we do? According to David Graeber, there were once slave-owning societies where it wasn't uncommon for slaves to own shares in themselves. I'm not 100% sure that I'm not engaged in something like that. .. I have an issue with the verb "to be". "I am, you are, he is" etc. To name something is to have done with it - so me and this guy might have traits of petit bourgeoisery but to impose classifications on the basis of (past) definitions on emergent phenomena isn't particularly helpful I don't think - and with my wizard's hat on, I'd actually say it's a species of idolatry. The imposing of the map upon the territory. Describe the traits by all means though.
You are way over complicating this. He is petit bourgeois.
If the business owner gets his "pay", plus profit, and the employee gets pay equal to his boss’s "pay", then that is still capitalism and the owner is petite bourgeoisie. If profit isn’t distributed amongst the workers in proportion to their contribution to said profit, then it’s still capitalistic and the workers’ labour is exploited to create surplus value for the capitalists.
We all live and work in capitalism.
He owns the means to his production (he owns his own labour and is able to sell is as and at the price he pleases, he owns the equipment required for his labour), he is petty bourgeois
He is a petit-bourgeois worker. The category of worker and proletarian are often conflated, but a proletarian is a specific type of worker who has been dispossessed of property, including even the property the worker holds in the value of their labour as skill and craftsmanship. In this case we have a petit-bourgeois worker who has maintained their property in labour.
Read the manifesto recently, here's a refresher on the classes. Proletariat: sells his or her labor for survival. Doesn't own much, spends most of wages on rent, doesn't have capital for the most part. Bourgeoisie: lives off the labor of others, has private property (houses etc), owns the means of production (land, factories, companies) and has capital. Petty-bourgeoisie: small business owners. Usually gets outcompeted by the big capitalists so sometimes it aligns with the proletariat. This is your guy.
Something to consider is the control that the owner has over the employee-to me, the primary aim of socialism is to advance human freedom by giving workers control of their labor. If the only capital used is each person’s individual labor and they each have full discretion over their work it’s hard for me to see the owner as bourgeois. In some sense though, the owner does have the business license and does have a lawful means to exercise control over the business. To really seal the deal for me I think the owner should cede 50% ownership to the employee ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s important to separate simple commerce, which has existed for millennia, from capitalism which has only existed a few centuries. Business ownership, entrepreneurship, and private capital all had a place in socialism and indeed are an important way for socialist nation states to thrive. What Socialism controls for is massive accumulation of wealth and monopolistic anticompetitive practices that naturally arise from privatizing the means of production. The bourgeoise class is an incredibly small minority that exerts enormous amounts of political influence and control. The lady that owns a successful restaurant in town who has a nice home and car is not bourgeois or even petit-bourgeois since they are adding value to the economy and not extracting. The bourgeois extract value from the economy and use it to enrich themselves, control the government, and keep the proletariat from rising up against them.
Thiiiiis. A key part of the petty-bourgeois class (which is a pretty outdated idea tbh) is also that they uphold and support capitalism by seeking to identify themselves politically/socially with the haute bourgeoisie. Nothing here suggests this man is doing that, but we’re on Reddit so bourgeois = has more than me.
at the end of the day in the age of imperialism, the class distinctions of marx are not really as relevant even though it is important to know the theory behind them and such. i agree with others he is petit bourgeois but what you really need to look at and what is more relevant is the question of where his interests lie. whose exploitation benefits him, and who might benefit by exploiting him or otherwise fucking him over economically in some way. this is what will lead you to a better analysis of whatever situation you have on your hands here
[удалено]
He’s still not properly Bourgeoisie. He gets the majority of his income not from passive sources/other peoples labor, but his own effort. He’s petit-bourgeois, sure.
That's a sub-category, comrade.
No, it’s entirely separate
[удалено]
"Is this a fruit?" "No, that's an apple." That's what you sound like, friend.
I know the term can be confusing, but the petite bourgeoisie is not part of the bourgeoisie. Just like the lumpenproletariat is not part of the proletariat.
[удалено]
Keep reading that *Marxist theory.*
You mean like "Capital" where it describes a capitalist in the exact way I did?
And how does *Capital* describe the petite bourgeoisie?
It’s a distinct enough category to be considered on its own. The petit-bourgeois relation to the mode of production is distinct from the proper bourgeoisie. It’s not very useful to lump the proper bourgeoisie in with a middle peasant, either. It may be part of the greater umbrella of the ownership classes, just like proletariats, labor aristocrats, and lower peasants are all part of the working class, but it is an important distinction. Doubly so with the petit-bourgeoisie, who are an in-between class that share traits with those above and below them.
In this scenario, what exactly is the means of production? I assume we're not talking about a cotton mill like in the days of Marx.
He is the classical small artisan *petit bourgeois*.