(picture courtesy of keepthemiddleclassalive.com)
I
have constantly made reference to the petty bourgeois or middle class groups in
my blogposts without providing an actual definition of what constitutes the
formation of such groups within the sphere of capitalist society. The formation
of the petty bourgeois groups presents us with
many issues that date back to the industrial revolution that occurred in
England during the latter years of the 18th century through to the
early years of the 19th century when industrial society gained a
significant social foothold. This foot hold would set bourgeois society on a
path to world domination, not just militarily and economically, but from the
perspective of how individuals interact with each other throughout the world.
No longer is it sufficient to become a peace loving peasant in the hills. One
must be constantly on the search to either make a profit or to find a job and
if you do not do so you are classified as a bum. There are two extremes within
the capitalist mode of production: the capitalists that control the means of
production and the numerous members of the working class that are forced to
sell their labour powers to these lords of capital in order to generate surplus
value/unpaid labour time/profit in the
extensive production of commodities for sale in various markets. The members of
the working classes represent the average price of labour necessary to produce
commodities in this sphere of production. These two extremes must have a
balance and here the petty bourgeois clan or the assorted members of the middle
classes come to the fore. They maintain the balance. They are indispensable in
the functioning of capitalist society not only economically but politically.
Their political role, as we will see, is their most important function although
there are some highly paid individuals within this class. This only means that
they can spend money on the various goods and services on display by the lords
of capital. The question, and focus of
this post, is: What constitutes the petty bourgeois or middle class? Let me
remind you the reader that when I say petty bourgeois it is not derogatory but
it places the middle class in a social perspective which is not captured by
the term middle class.
It has been claimed, erroneously,
that income is the primary determinant in the formation of the middle class.
The bourgeois styled economists will say that once the individual earns this or
that ( I hear that if an individual earns $10 US a day it qualifies them to
become a part of the middle class. Hogwash!) then he or she is a member of the
middle class end of argument. There are others that emphasize the significance
of education in the attainment of the lofty title, petty bourgeois. The
attainment of education and the high level of income merely corresponds to the
function of a petty bourgeois individual. One expects this of a petty bourgeois
in a capitalist dominated society. The petty bourgeois is torn between the two
extremes of capital mentioned earlier. The petty bourgeois can either join the
working class or work on their behalf as they experience the gross exploitation
by capital or he or she can aspire to become an exploiter of labour power by
becoming a capitalist or , lastly, they can be content in facilitating the administration
of the capitalist system that deals in the extensive production of commodities for
sale in the market. The latter two options seem more attractive because everyone
wants to get rich although the truth is that this dream is only designed for
the few and there are those content with a stable livelihood that comes with
being a facilitator of the capitalist class.
When I say join I simply mean that the petty bourgeois can work on
behalf of either of these two classes particularly as the individual would have
acquired some level of expertise or income from their profession for which they
trained. A lawyer can choose to represent the exploited working class at a
cheap rate so that they get fair representation in bourgeois courts whereas
another lawyer will only take the case once assured of a certain lucrative
payout or the attainment of some social prestige which will allow that
individual to continue to attract individuals that can sustain the high fees.
Now let us look at the composition.
Firstly, the petty bourgeois group is comprised of the
individuals that represent the core of professionals within a society. These
professionals are comprised of individuals that have attained a high level of
education in a particular field which will qualify them as experts in their
endeavours. Their advice will be sought after and they will be encouraged to
demonstrate why they are professionals. Within the context of bourgeois society
your high level of education, which qualifies you to become a professional,
allows you to aid in some way to the valorization of capital or an increase in
its value. Here are a few examples: In the factory or corporate setting there
is a hierarchy of managers and supervisors that ensure that the corporation
moves smoothly for the capitalist or the board of directors which represent the
largest shareholders. The engineer makes sure all machinery moves smoothly in
the factory setting thereby providing the expertise necessary for the average
member of the working class to be exploited. The managing director or CEO of a
company is a petty bourgeois because he manages the company on behalf of the
dominant capitalists that control the firm. The CEO may own the company but in
capitalism one must ultimately make the distinction: Are you a Lord of capital
or a worker? If you are a worker then there is no capitalist only a mixture of
the two. A Capitalist owns the means of production solely and does not engage
in the labour necessary to run the institution or corporate entity. How would
the entity carry on after his or her death? Business lawyers, aid in an
understanding of the laws that govern business thereby allowing capitalists to
navigate the system. Criminal lawyers defend private property or they seek to
get those, who are accused of a committing a crime that infringed on another’s
private property, acquitted. Doctors aid in encouraging new techniques that
require investment in medicine (pharmaceutical companies) and medical technology.
Politicians in government represent the political element that seeks to
encourage the valorization of capital through various public policies related
to the defense of private property and the maintenance of the illusory ideal of
social cohesiveness. Musicians and athletes aid in the promotion of the sale of
various commodities or events that promote capitalist enterprise. Professionals
exist in the various occupational categories and I am not referring explicitly
to academics. There are professionals in the arts and sports, that have high
educational achievements based on their knowledge in that particular field and
so none is superior to the other and they are all equalized within the sphere
of social relations. They have the same interests at heart in aiding to
valorize capital. In the final analysis these professional groups which are
determined by the extent of their educational attainments serve the interests
of capital by encouraging its growth and its exploitation of the working
classes at the other extreme of the pole. There are those professionals that
place themselves within a position to aid the plight of the working classes,
particularly the industrial reserve labour force or the relative surplus
population. They do this by contributing to charities or by giving members of
the working class a chance to rise up the social ladder with the dream of
attaining some form of riches within a capitalist dominated society. Those
members of the middle class that take no part in charity represent the extreme
of capital’s parasitic clan. These individuals are smug and aloof and use their
high level of educational attainment to pronounce judgment on those members of
the working class that they consider beneath them. In some cases they believe
that they will raise themselves amongst the lords of capital but the truth is
eventually revealed to them: they are lackeys and nothing more. They embody the
principles but whatever earnings they generate will not be sufficient to join
the ranks of the dominant bourgeois class. This sect serves to reinforce why
the bourgeois class must dominate the working class. When the revolution comes
they are targeted and destroyed by the revolutionary/progressive class. The
success of the professional groups is tied into the extent that particular
individuals can remain dominant within their professions. This accounts for all
sorts of tragedies and comedies. For instance you have some individuals that
become too old and carry out their functions while senile. They are maintained in
a tragi- comic fashion because of the high position they hold within their
profession.
Secondly, there is an element of the petty bourgeois
group that aspires to become a part of the dominant capitalist group. These
individuals own small businesses that they started with, and continue to
maintain, with their own labour. The peasant class falls within this category
as well as the handicraftsmen or women. They are independent producers (see my
earlier piece) that own some portion of the means of production, eagerly
coveted by the dominant capitalist group, but do not have sufficient capital to
fully divorce themselves from the labour process and so the input of their
labour remains vital to the small business because it will collapse without their particular input. In true comedic style some of these
individuals own businesses while having another job for a dominant capitalist
company where they fulfill their true functions as a petty bourgeois. The
income they earn from the dominant capitalist firm is normally superior to
their earnings from their small business. In the long run however these
individuals may or may not succeed in becoming dominant capitalists and this is
determined, primarily, on the success of their product offerings. Another
tragedy occurs when those who utilize the business as a primary source of
income, with no other outlet, are befuddled should the enterprise collapse.
They sink into the class of criminals and beggars that thrive on misery. In another case these small businesses are
swallowed by the dominant capitalist group which determines that the product
offerings are significant sources of reinvigoration for the grand corporate
firm.
Thirdly, the income of the petty bourgeois class is
instrumental to the growth of capital. It is also a relative measure and cannot
be a final determinant however there are those that believe that income is a
primary factor in the determination of the composition of such a class. The
professional class earns a high level of income relative to the working class
yet, in some cases, insignificant to the dominant capitalist class. The income
scale brings within it several divisions within the petty bourgeois clan such
as upper middle, lower middle etc. It is all pastiche and merely symbolic
rhetoric. Once an individual is considered a professional it is estimated that
they will contribute in some way to the valorization of capital. If they are
not working for the present moment is a moot point because their
educational attainment qualifies them for a certain position. It does not alter
the role that they are designed to play in society or the social standing that
is accorded to them by capital as a result of their educational achievements.
Yes some professionals will earn more than others within the middle class but
it does not disguise the reasons why they are trained to a particular level of
education with the desire to become a fully fledged professional in a particular field. It is this high level of educational attainment that requires that the individual be paid in accordance with this high level of education and
so the higher the level of education in a particular field then the higher the
pay. In academia a tutor will never earn the same as a professor but they exist
within the same profession but on a higher or lower scale. One might say that
the tutor is a semi-professional subsisting on the periphery. The profession of
academia centres on the transmission of knowledge about a particular society or
environment which is important to the knowledge economy and the markets that
the bourgeois class aims to conquer. When the professor kicks the bucket the
tutor will succeed him or her eventually particularly if the goal of the tutor
is to be recognized as a professional in that field which is embodied/idealized
in the rank of professor. These ranks bring various
scales of income. These incomes are used as a means of expenditure on the
various commodities and services developed by the bourgeois class. The two most
prominent commodities aspired to by the working and middle class are a house and a car. These
two commodities represent a significant expenditure of income which is why the
petty bourgeois group is targeted by the banks. These incomes are substantial
based on the particular field however most fully fledged professionals have
money to spend. The scale of income depends on the extent of social demand for
such professionals. The great professionals of the arts and sports earn a lot
of money because the cultural/ideological scene must be continually energized
by their endeavours. Academia will always be prominent in the knowledge
economy. Doctors for health, the lawyers for the law etc. They are therefore
able to command a lot of money within strict limits for even if ,like Oprah, they
make a lot of money it is not as a dominant capitalist because the input of
their labour or image is instrumental to the success of their enterprise. They
can invest in some small business but the fact remains that their image is the
driving accumulator of their income and so for all the money splashed around by
the rappers they will never reach the level of Bill gates. Never! Some do
become capitalists but for some reason they cannot seem to expand into the
frontier long settled by the dominant capitalist groups and are considered by
definition a small business. For instance your company earns $30 million a year
but can that compete with a company making $2-3 billion which is the actual
standard for a dominant capitalist firm? Eventually you will either be absorbed
by a larger company ( a process known as the concentration of capital) or you
will wish to sell or you will hover around that mark while enduring more
erratic fluctuations in the share price or in the value of your company unless
you are able to accumulate money in droves in order to compete with the dominant
capitalist firms.
Income is quite relative from a historical point of
view. Billionaires can spend US$250 million on a luxury boat whereas that would
be the entire fortune of one man. There was a time when 250 million was a great
fortune to attain however a man can buy a yacht equal to that sum as if it were nothing or a
small island. There are billionaires, which represent the new extreme of
capital, that are richer than whole nations in some cases. If you earn 250
million now it is more or less considered a petty bourgeois income although it
is considerable in terms of spending power hence why it represents the extreme
of a petty bourgeois income. Therefore
it fulfills its role as a buffer between the two extremes. The extremes
represented by the billionaires and the impoverished at the other end who, in
the US, earn about US$5, 000-$25,000 per annum or less. The billionaires spend
$25,000 on a meal or it is merely lunch money. This billionaire class encourages the rise of the
luxury market.
Internationally the middle class debate extends even
further when one considers the difference in the standard of living between
various countries. I can speak for a gutter country like Jamaica whose nominal
GDP is said to be valued at US$14 billion +. You have rich individuals within
the Jamaican territory that earn billions but only in the weakened Jamaican
dollar form. Therefore a prominent Jamaican billionaire has the equivalent of around
US$100 million. Internationally he will be considered a petty bourgeois
although nationally he acts like a true capitalist by exploiting wage labour.
Nationally his income is limited by the weak purchasing power of the citizens of the country which is in turn influenced by the investment climate which is insufficient to
generate an income for the majority of the populace. As noted there are
billionaires out there that are worth more than Jamaica’s total GDP. Let us not
even talk about the corporate firms that dwarf even relatively well off
national economies. A billionaire can spend in a day the fortune accumulated by
a Jamaican entrepreneur during his lifetime or he earns that income every
quarter or so. When one considers the professional class of America or Jamaica
the pay for the Americans dwarf the highest paid individuals in Jamaica by
about 10 times. The Jamaican professional class within the international context
would be considered on the lower end of the middle class income scale but they
are still members of the middle class because of their social roles in society
and, if they chose to and companies are willing, they could be employed in the
US because they have the necessary qualifications which will qualify them as a
professional petty bourgeois member. Therefore if one were to embrace the income
argument a multi millionaire is representative of the new middle class whereas
previously becoming a millionaire was considered a major achievement. Inflation
is also a part of this phenomenon. Individuals such as Bill Gates, Warren
Buffet, Carlos Slim have increased the standard of billionaires to beyond the
US$50 billion mark. They could literally claim Jamaica as their personal
fiefdom. This is a sign of true poverty for Jamaica or a gutter status reinforced by junk bonds. This
argument is not limited solely to Jamaica because there are other gutter
nations, such as those in the Caribbean region, the African continent, central
America etc which are in a similar position. I can relate to Jamaica hence, as
a result of being born here, why I speak of it. It also explains why some
nations assume a condescending approach to the poorer countries. The
perspective of some individuals within these nations is to completely disregard
the poorer countries because they do not generate significant wealth to be even
noticed. Some individuals in the rich nations do not even know where the poorer
countries are located because of their position as backwater economies. Within
the social hierarchy of nations a country like Jamaica and a majority of its
citizens will be lumped into one extreme of poverty when compared with nations,
with a similar size, such as a Singapore or Qatar who are very wealthy. A
country such as Jamaica has been able to shake this tag somewhat because of its
prominent cultural aspects which reinforce the physical presence of several
entertainers and sports personalities and other such professionals that have
joined the rank of the petty bourgeois, particularly with regards to their
incomes. The mass still subsist in extreme poverty.
The perspective of race is also important within this
discourse of the petty bourgeois because the dominant capitalists, from the
days of the great colonial expansion of the European nations, were members of
the white race. The culture of white capitalism spread internationally as a
result of the colonial expansion by the white imperialists that subdued or
eradicated the cultural expressions of a particular sphere in favour of their
own culture which became the dominant one within the formal colonial structure.
After the independence of the former colonial territories most of the
individuals of these territories embodied the virtues of the white capitalist economy and the modes
of governance that go along with it even if some had to adapt to an economy
that was semi industrial and not fully capitalist in its structure as a result
of predominating agrarian influences. The various races subdued by the whites
therefore act white and initially were proud of their achievements because it
was a badge of honour to act white while frowning upon indigenous culture which
was only acknowledged formally if at all. This occurred in countries such as
America despite the civil rights movement and in South Africa where the black
political elite with their nationalist posturing have become exploiters through
their association with capital following apartheid. It has only changed faces
from white to black in some cases. It does not change the fact that the culture
being embraced by these blacks is the white capitalist culture. Love it or hate
it. Are these individuals considered
petty bourgeois as a result of this history? Are they only destined to serve
the white capitalist class? We see the tuxedos and the formal lady dressing
style that has come to dominate the ruling class of former colonies. There are also
the many US-euro mannerisms exhibited by these individuals that are supposed to
be reflective of social advancement. In this sense they can be perceived as a
petty bourgeois clan serving the dominant white elite that control most of the
world’s capital. They are who Naipaul would call the mimic men.
I was asked whether or not someone who has inherited a
large fortune is a petty bourgeois or a member of the ruling class. The answer
is simple. A lord of capital is one where the capital at your disposal is
engaged in the sphere of production or in some form of investment related to
money capital such as investment in your company, treasury bonds or investment in the stock
market. It has to be constantly engaged for you to be considered a dominant
capitalist. If someone inherits a large fortune then it does not necessarily
make them a lord of capital particularly if they engage primarily with the
sphere of consumption or the commodity fetish. The money at their disposal has
to be invested for them to be considered a capitalist and it has to be invested
considerably so that it becomes their profession where they control a section
of the wage labour force. If the inheritor engages primarily in the sphere of
consumption then he or she is a petty bourgeois through and through because
they are using their income for purposes of expenditure which would maintain
the link between the production and circulation of commodities. I was also asked if the mob is a part of the
dominant capitalist class. Of course they are. Their incomes are derived from
illegal business activity which requires the exploitation of a labour force.
Some members of the mob are mere hoodlums looking for a quick fix but there are mob
bosses that do control the illicit trade thereby controlling the labour of
others. The mob does call on the service of the petty bourgeois in order to facilitate
the smooth functioning of the mob economy. Lawyers, accountants and corrupt police officers and
politicians offer their services to these lords of capital in order to facilitate
their business activity.
The petty bourgeois status has changed somewhat over
the centuries and the evolution of the petty bourgeois emerged from this
dynamic historical process. Firstly prior to the bourgeois revolution in the
Netherlands, France and England the ruling classes were those who had vested
interest in landed property. These aristocrats controlled most of the land with
the monarchy representing the largest landholdings. These classes charged
exorbitant rents from which they lived their extravagant lifestyles. The rise
of the tenant farmer and his capitalist mindset began to set in motion the
creation of a bourgeois middle class. The merchants in the towns also formed another sect of petty bourgeois
individuals who had the necessary money capital however the extent of
production was limited in that period until the great colonial expansion which
created more markets for trade. Production increased dramatically and so
interest rates were driven down from highs of 70% to a more modest 5-6%. In any
case these elements formed the core of the middle classes in this period and
even with the expansion of the bourgeois mode of production the lords of
capital still assumed the demeanour of the junker aristocrat classes which was
seen as the ideal particularly in the western European countries. America which
has developed capitalism in its purest form had no such qualms and the lords of
capital were immediately established following the end of the civil war. In
Western Europe, which gave birth to capital, the industrial capitalist was
considered middle class until the hegemony of the aristocracy was shattered
following World War 1. It was only then that the lords of capital assumed their
rightful place on the throne of the former ruling class, particularly in
Western Europe. The petty bourgeois role was then passed to the peasants and
artisans that were self subsisting and in some cases continually being destroyed
by the expansion of capital. It then became a moniker of the various
professional classes that were always considered middling, even under the great
aristocratic nations, such as doctors, lawyers, those responsible for
stewardship of the land etc and of course government officials.
Lastly, the petty bourgeois group is represented in
complex forms by the government service. There are individuals that have large
incomes who partake in government activity. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City
is a billionaire and so is he a lord of capital or a petty bourgeois. It is a
mixture or a conflict of interest. As mayor he is in service to the citizens
and must facilitate social harmony in order for the bourgeois class to continue
to thrive in its sphere of investment. In another case he can be considered a
capitalist who controls the means of production in some aspects related to the
sphere of production particular to him. He can be considered both based on his
dual function however in the majority of cases the government
service is not comprised of such wealthy individuals. Barack Obama is a
thorough petty bourgeois who came up through the political system and made it
his profession or his job. As president of the United States he facilitates the
production and the circulation of commodities in order to ensure a secure
livelihood for his citizens. His main weapon, like most politicians, is his
political power for he will never be a lord of capital and his functions reduce
him to one who serves the interest of the lords of capital. This also reinforces the fact that some
members of the petty bourgeois class will rise into the ranks of the dominant
capitalist class which is determined by the strength of their product
offerings.
This concludes my discussion of the petty bourgeois
group and marks my entry into the debate. There are a lot of other issues to
iron out and I will be revisiting this post to make updates. I maintain that
the primary social function of the petty bourgeois or middle class is to
facilitate the development of capital. By doing so this class acts as a buffer between
the two extremes of the lords of capital and the brutalized members of the
working class. The ideological centre of capital thrives in this class which
partakes in most of the public discussions on a particular matter on the basis
of their role as social mediators. They are the great professional classes and
so when I refer to petty bourgeois in my blogs you know what I mean.
