Ask Lemmygrad

1249 readers

148 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

Why are small business owners considered petit bourgeoisie? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by znsh@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This question is coming from another post where I was asking what the intelligensia and petit bourgeoisie difference is (https://lemmygrad.ml/post/10748355)

This is a comment I left when discussing: "This one is really difficult for me to grasp, it’s probably my ignorance and lack of knowledge, but why would someone who is a small business owner that doesn’t employ any other worker be bourgeois? Are freelancers and struggling artists who are trying to get their foot in the door of an industry also in that class? I hope I don’t come off as aggressive (I just read back what I wrote and it sounds a bit like that, but I swear it isn’t :D)"

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

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The bourgeoisie are defined by their ownership of enough means of production that they do not have to use their labor. Petit bourgeoisie own enough means of production to make money but not enough to not have to work. Proletarians own nothing but their labor power and must sell it to to survive.

Artists that are struggling to survive will almost all end up getting a job. They are proles with delusions of grandeur. Just like all those construction trade businesses owners who dream of working for themselves they find out that they still work for bosses they just have to also manage payroll, supplies, scheduling, etc. Almost all of them fail and next to none leave a good enough business to pass on to the next generation so that they don't fall back to being proles.

And that is an important thing to remember you are born into your class. Some individuals might move up the class ladder but they are an infinitesimal percentage and many of them don't pass that change of class on to the next generations. That is why we have to abolish class because it isn't about one person working hard and reaping the benefits. It is a system where some people are born to luxury while the rest of us work for them to pay them rent.

[–] znsh@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Artists that are struggling to survive will almost all end up getting a job. They are proles with delusions of grandeur.

Why would this be delusions of grandeur? An artist is still selling their labour to work for those with capital are they not? Usually they are just trying to make a living wage.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Expecting art to pay a living wage is a misunderstanding of its use value. If an artist wants a living wage they have to get a job making art for the man. (become a proletarian) Or do commissioned work (become a petit bourgeoisie) but managing a business is hard work and the market is extremely competitive because there is not much demand.

[–] starkillerfish@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 days ago

if they work for a wage, yes. freelance artists control their own labour (they control price of product, their hours etc), which is why they are considered bourgeois.