I don't see a tradie who owns his own toolset, but still is dispatched out to worksites for a larger construction company as a petty bourgeois. Nor do I see the WFH copywriter who uses their own laptop for a salaried job as petty bourgeois.

The way I see it here is that they own their own tools but this is a push of the equipment costs back on the employee. The employee cannot simply repurpose those tools to start generating their own income (they can't work a whole job site on their own, they can't develop a complete retail website on their own). They are still exploited by capital

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

The petite bourgeoisie is a more nebulous class. In the example above, with the farmer, this appears to be the classic petite bourgeois farmer that sells commodities they directly produce with their own tools. Thus, my broad simplification does apply to the example, but of course each case has to be analyzed in and of itself.

For the WFH'er, the laptop is technically an instrument of labor, but there's 0 independence from their employer on this basis, and laptops are an assumed societal guarantee (even if they aren't provided by society at large) in a similar way phones are. Think shoes, clothes, etc, all used for labor but not considered capital employed by capitalists.

For the trade worker, it depends on the degree of independence. An independent tradie that sometimes works with larger orgs is petite bourgeois firmly, but one that exclusively works with the larger firm and is employed by them regularly straddles the line between proletarian and petite bourgeoisie. You described very well how the bourgeoisie often takes advantage of the petite bourgeoisie and pushes them towards proletarianization, but the fact that they own the instruments of their labor gives them independence and a better ability to stand on their own, an advantage over workers that only have their labor-power to sell.

The petitie bourgeoisie is unique in that it is caught between aspirations of independence, and the increasing pressured towards proletarianization. It is a class that exists between two classes and constantly is pushed towards the proletariat by bigger business. That's why independence is such an important factor in their class outlook, and the biggest, most general characteristic is that they both labor and own the instruments of labor, not whether they employ others or not.

[–] combat_brandonism@hexbear.net 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

not whether they employ others or not

That's certainly a take. I feel like you're conflating artisans and petty boug here. Could you point me to where I can read more?

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Artisans are a sub-category of the petite bourgeoisie. They sell commodities they fashion, not their labor power for a wage or piece-wage, and those that do are not true artisans in the class sense, but the character of labor, and thus are proletarian artisans rather than traditional artisans.

Prolewiki's articles on the Petite Bourgeoisie and Artisans backs this up:

The petite bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie is the lower strata of the bourgeoisie, consisting of smaller-scale merchants, semi-autonomous peasants, small business owners, self-employed individuals with complete autonomy, and other business owners who own enough means of production to extract surplus value but not wealthy enough to subsist solely off that extraction, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie. Therefore, they must also perform labour alongside their employees.

This coincides with the class outlook of self-employed people, who seek individual autonomy over collective bargaining (on average), whereas proletarian workers tend to come to the class outlook seeking collectivization. Artisinal reaction was covered by Marx. Independent artists struggle against proletarianization in a similar way to small business owners and other self-employed individuals. They can also be allied with the proletariat, due to their precarious social position.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

Manifesto of the Communist Party

[–] KuroXppi@hexbear.net 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I see, thank you as always for your clear and detailed explanations. You're a true gem.

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 6 points 22 hours ago

No problem! You asked a great question, and I've seen discussions surrounding artisinal and trade labor more frequently recently so it's been on my mind. Thanks!