Ask Lemmygrad

1267 readers

132 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Question about petite bourgeoisie (small business owners) (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Was thinking about the distinctions of this and wondering...

Would it be accurate to say that the petite bourgeoisie are on the same ladder as the bourgeoisie? Or to put it in more English terms, would it to be accurate to say that small business owners are on the same ladder as Jeff Bezos? Just on a much lower rung?

Versus, in this analogy, the proletariat (or working class), are not on the ladder at all.

The idea being that the small business owner is in a less organized stage of development toward the same thing as the conglomerate (if this is happening under capitalist rule). Whereas the working class cannot organically develop in that direction (I suppose a few could through stocks, but that seems like on the level of winning the lottery).

Want to make sure I have my metaphors straight.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I think it's more clear when you put it that way. I may not have a clear enough understanding of the layers of class dynamics. But I keep coming back to a point about small businesses and how they play into things, and trying to crystallize it more so. I notice there's this narrative (not so much in our kind of circles, but more in people who are dissatisfied with capitalism to some degree and may not have much political clarity beyond that) of "supporting small businesses" and such as that, but it doesn't seem to take into account what the interests of a small business are and how they can develop; instead, it often seems to treat them as a static form that will remain small and unmarred by the machinations of conglomerate level capital.

[–] starkillerfish@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

to me it becomes more clear if you think of in terms of ownership of means of production and class interests that arise from that. because petite bourgeois own their businesses, they will always be on the side of private property rights and against workers (small businesses are also notoriously have atrocious working conditions). so it doesn't even matter to me if they have the potential to become big businesses / conglomerates.

with that said, sometimes petite / national bourgeoisie can have a progressive character in certain contexts, but I would say definitely not in the US.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Hmm, that makes sense to me.