The Petty bourgeois economy is one dominated by the petty
bourgeois class. In a particular national sphere the ruling petty bourgeois
class do assume the characteristics of the dominant bourgeois seen in the
advanced industrial nations but this façade is shattered when their clout,
influence or wealth becomes diminished as they encounter the advanced bourgeoisie that exist outside
of their shores. In that moment, at that point of contact, they retain their
petty bourgeois status even though they do control the means of production in
their own respective national territories. This domination by the petty
bourgeois class in their territories provides the basis for the functioning of
a petty bourgeois economy and reveals many limitations and weaknesses that
forever leave those economies in a vegetative state. In the advanced bourgeois
economies the petty bourgeois class keep the system functioning however the
dictates do not come from them. They become caretakers for the dominant
bourgeoisie in those economies but never the leaders. If they did become the
actual leaders then the economy of the dominant bourgeoisie class would be
ruined by fatalistic ideology and rampant idealism. In this post I give brief outlines of the
characteristics of a petty bourgeois economy and the closed, small minded
attributes of its population. The petty
bourgeois economies fall within the context of the national order as a means to
enforce the will of the dominant bourgeoisie that exist in the advanced
industrial states. Their role is
therefore twofold: on the one hand the dominant petty bourgeois class in a
petty bourgeois economy must assume the characteristics of a national
bourgeoisie in their own country in
order to promote the values of capitalism and secondly they must enact the will
of the dominant bourgeoisie that exist in the advanced industrial nations for
it is the dominant industrial class that provide the security for the tenure of
the ruling petty bourgeois class. A theoretical
discussion of petty bourgeois economies are important in understanding how far
capital has advanced from the 19th century. It also speaks to the
increasing division of labour in the world economy and the extent that
capitalism can still expand by breaking many of the fetters that keep some
petty bourgeois economies in a vegetative state. The existence of petty
bourgeois economies proves that capitalism still has more room for expansion.
These petty bourgeois economies are integrated into the world economy on the
basis of capitalist principles however the mode of production is not reflective
of capitalism in a developed state but a developing one.
I have already
discussed the
petty/petite bourgeois or middle class groups and so I will not dwell
on a discussion here only to say that the first major characteristic of a petty
bourgeois economy is the existence of such a ruling class. The petty bourgeois
class is characterized by a middling approach to most matters. It is incapable
of aggressive expansion because it benefits from the fragmented means of
production under its sway but it also benefits from the exploitation of wage
labour that is the prime, characteristic feature of capital. This middling
approach of the petty bourgeois class permeates the rest of the society and so
aggressive expansion is frowned upon and every process associated with
jump starting a progressive agenda is tedious or results in a lot of time being
wasted. On the other hand it cannot fully exploit wage labour because of the
low productivity that characterizes the economy. Low labour productivity is a
feature of the tedious, drawn out processes initiated by the petty bourgeois
class. The ruling petty bourgeois class, by its very approach, sets the tone
for low labour productivity. Labour productivity only improves when the
dominant bourgeoisie, from overseas, are granted a foothold in the economy. The
petty bourgeois class gladly welcomes their masters into the fold only when
there is a crisis although with the improvement in labour productivity the
ruling petty bourgeois class will eventually lose its claim to domination
within the petty bourgeois economy. The dominant bourgeois class will erode
much of their influence. The very basis for its domination is a resistance to
aggressive expansion or change within the economy and this reflects a middling
approach to how the economy should function. Aggressive expansion always
involves a rapid increase in labour productivity, investments and a
consolidation in the means of production on a much larger scale; these are
things the ruling petty bourgeois class cannot guarantee. This view point associated with slow growth
actually permeates the entire society and the people eventually feel that they
only have to do just enough to survive. This is because the petty bourgeois
class is almost incapable of leading in a style that requires aggressive
expansion of capital investments in the market which will increase labour
productivity. This is a role reserved primarily for the dominant bourgeois
class in the advanced nations. I must repeat that the petty bourgeois class are
considered the leaders that must set the pace for the petty bourgeois economy
to function whereas in the advanced industrial nations they act only as
caretakers for the dominant bourgeoisie in those territories. This reveals that
they are incapable or unwilling to lead the economy into an advanced industrial
state because they would lose their foothold or reveal their weaknesses. In those petty bourgeois economies that
attempt to become a dominant capitalist nation the state does play an active
role in consolidating the means of production by taking over certain
industries, tariff hikes and the training of skilled individuals for the
international market. This training of skilled workers in line with advanced
industrial capitalism will be a significant encouragement for the giant
corporate firms to invest in the petty bourgeois economy and set it on the path
to rapid industrialization. This is one of the reasons for Singapore’s rapid
transition from a petty bourgeois economy to an advanced industrial state. The
people themselves had to demonstrate the capabilities necessary to manage
advanced industrial and financial processes. With this consolidation the state
can promote a more effective industrialization program with the aid of both
local and foreign capital.
Another characteristic of the petty bourgeois economy is the
fragmented means of production. The
fragmented means of production become the basis
for the entire economy because there is no corresponding revolution that
would be characterized by a progression to an advanced industrial nation. There are pockets in the economy where the
consolidation of the means of production takes place but not sufficient to
dominate the economy. Only the great lever of foreign capital from the advanced
industrial nations can fully effect this revolution by consolidating the means
of production, however, because local capital is incapable of effecting such a
change in the petty bourgeois economy which became so reliant on the means of
production being fragmented. The fragmented means of production is
characterized by several people working for just enough to get by or enough to satisfy
their independent livelihood because the means of production are distributed
among these many individuals. Every man/woman has a small plot of land or
particular instruments to put his or her labour into motion. They use this as a
means to provide for their subsistence as well as to, maybe, generate a surplus in the form of profit. In
many cases they pay their own wages and provide their own surplus value/unpaid
labour time/profit. They are known as the independent producers and they
flourish in the petty bourgeois economy. Whereas in the advanced industrial
nations some of these independent producers eventually grow to become members of the dominant bourgeois class, by accumulating a significant amount of
capital through the exploitation of a wage labour force, in the petty bourgeois
economy the independent producer becomes a mainstay of the economy and does not
expand significantly. The expansion of the independent producer is quite
limited or remains within certain limits because so many of them exist. The
ruling petty bourgeois class is reluctant to promote such expansion because it
will lead to the destruction of its class and its noble pedigree. In Britain,
home to the first industrial revolution,
the state played a great role in catering to the interests of the dominant bourgeois class by destroying,
in brutal fashion, the independent producing group represented by the peasantry
and by converting them into a working class that relied primarily on selling
their labour power to the ruling bourgeois class. This would never occur in a
petty bourgeois state that relies on this independent producing group as a
mainstay for the economy. The petty bourgeois state can only be forced to do
this unless the dominant bourgeoisie class can force their hand by increasing
their indebtedness and liability to the lords of capital or by a determined
effort to encourage the rapid accumulation of capital through expropriation,
expansion and the exploitation of a significant wage labour force.
This independent producing group, therefore, acts as a
stabilizing and stagnating element in society. It stabilizes the economy for
decades because there is no risk of the constant flux associated with advanced
capitalism. The cultural values of this
independent producing group are passed down for generations and eventually most
people are brought up believing that doing just enough to survive is
enough. Doing enough to get by with your
own labour even if that means you only live in a board or zinc house. It should
be enough. In Jamaica the rastafari movement is typical of such a value system.
In other countries that preach about such a mystical vibe it is also a
recurring theme because it leads to a promotion of a lifestyle where
individuals are one with nature. You do not disturb the balance of nature but
you do enough, in terms of applying your labour power, to satisfy your own needs. Whereas the dominant bourgeois class tries to subdue nature for the benefit
of raw material extraction thereby dispelling a lot of fantasies associated
with nature worship the members of the
petty bourgeois economy do not wish to disturb the balance that comes with
working for just enough to get by. This
can become a stagnating element because of
the low labour productivity that comes with such a belief system. This
belief system eventually becomes a means to keep the people in a state of
bondage whereby change can only come from above or from the gods on high. The
people themselves become incapable or unwilling to disturb this balance. The growth
of a criminal class that adopts primarily material values also presents the
people with a lot of headaches because the fragmented means of production means
that the lack of registration and accountability becomes an issue. It becomes
difficult to track people and incorporate them into the state and this is a
gateway for exploitation by the criminal class that use intimidation and fear,
so called illegal activities as a means to accumulate capital by plundering the
independent producers of their product. In certain spheres the criminals adopt
the values associated with the dominant bourgeois class when it was just being
formed in Western Europe from the 13th to 16th centuries.
Obviously it has cleaned up its act by now.
The criminal class eventually disturbs this balance in a petty bourgeois
economy because the means of production are so fragmented and are difficult to
incorporate into a consolidated whole and so people get lost or cannot be
accounted for unless something dramatic happens. The petty bourgeois state
keeps some semblance of order through a nationalist agenda but it is incapable
of consolidating the means of production which is the primary way, from a
material perspective, to unify the country i.e. the means of production will be
socialized more effectively. Even in the advanced industrial nations petty
commodity production associated with a petty bourgeois economy thrives until
the dominant bourgeois class eventually takes over those areas. Prior to their
takeover those areas are normally promoted in the media as crime infested or
impoverished areas and the value of property actually goes down and this makes
it very easy for the dominant bourgeois class to expand into these territories.
Another characteristic of the petty bourgeois economy that
can be counted as both progressive and regressive is the deification of labour.
This deification promotes labour as the epitome of excellence. You are
encouraged to work hard for what you want and to apply yourself as a worker. It
provides some aura of invincibility when you interact in the social scene
because you’re revered for your hard work ethic. Your labour alone can
guarantee a significant surplus when compared with other independent producers.
In some cases the hard working independent producer will apply himself and
become a small capitalist within the confines of the petty bourgeois
economy. The primary downside to this
deification of labour is that it can lead to exploitation from the dominant
bourgeois class or by the criminal element.
It also provides the basis for an erosion of the independent producing
group because with the rise of very hardworking independent producers there
will be a significant accumulation of capital that can drive your competitors
out of the market and so begin the process of rapid capital accumulation. In a
lot of cases, however, the hardworking independent producer does enough for his
own well being despite all the hard work. The surplus he generates beyond his
daily needs are seen as a blessing instead of a means to aggressively expand and
become a lord of capital. In the end when this hardworking independent producer
has done enough his limit is shown as a worker and the standards he employed
with his labour may be glorified by the populace in a petty bourgeois state but
in the international arena he still cannot compete with output per worker in
the advanced industrial nations. For instance a successful independent producer
in a petty bourgeois state like Jamaica rises above the average per capita
income of US$5000 per annum to about US$50, 000 per annum. In the end however
that hard work will meet the standard of a normal wage earner in an advanced
industrial state. Even if the independent producer meets the requirement of a
small capitalist by employing labour that 50, 000 is seen as good business up
to a certain limit. In other cases the earning of a successful independent
producer can be outstripped by the wages made to skilled workers in the
advanced industrial states. In a petty bourgeois state it is not the norm and
so the success actually reflects the low productivity levels of labour, the
inadequate investment climate and the fragmented means of production which
inhibits considerable expansion. Some petty bourgeois states produce one or two
individuals whose skills dazzle the world but their success and earnings are
considered the norm for a petty bourgeois in the advanced industrial states.
It still reflects a petty bourgeois mindset where your input is sufficient;
your skill set that guarantees you success reveals your limits but it should be
enough.
This is why the celebrity status is an important vehicle in
the petty bourgeois economy or the lifestyle of many of its citizens. People
use the ethic of hard work in a particular field to become a success within a
certain limit. Eventually the field in which they are a success becomes the
basis for fame and fortune that are tied into the image or activity in their
field. Even if they try to extend into other fields or to become a dominant
capitalist it will be difficult because it will not compare with the earnings
associated with their success in the particular field that made them famous and
rich within petty bourgeois limits. It reveals the petty bourgeois as a skilled
worker and nothing more and although they tap into the fantasy of those that
aspire to be successful through their labour it does not guarantee the
progression of the petty bourgeois economy into an advanced industrial state. In an advanced industrial state the petty
bourgeois celebrity class might be revered on a social level but the economy
does not rely exclusively on their prowess to do well or to be seen as a
dominant force in the international arena. Many petty bourgeois states tend to
exaggerate the success of their petty bourgeois success stories on the international scene whereas in the
advanced industrial nations they are a dime a dozen.
The deification of labour in the petty bourgeois economy
also reflects a backward approach to the adoption of advanced technology. People
are keen to rely on outdated machinery or other materials to get work done
because the input of human labour is valued above all else. Even some members
of the national bourgeoisie use outdated machinery and technology as the means
of production and not just the peasant or artisan classes. It’s not just the government
that’s slow to change. The use of outdated technology is one reason for the low
levels of growth and the inadequate response of labour. When new technology
comes on stream in the advanced industrial economies the industries in the
petty bourgeois economy normally receive them much later and only the truly elite companies can
acquire this technology as it becomes available. By the time they fully implement
these new technologies weary travelers never fail to remind them of
their outdated qualities. In the petty bourgeois economy a significant amount
of importance is attached to these wonderful outdated creations but at the core
remains the mantra that human labour is much more noble. This mantra permeates
the many members of the peasantry that stubbornly resist the introduction of
new technologies.
This notion related to the noble human qualities of labour
also promotes a patriarchal mode of production whereby the strength associated
with male labour is revered particularly as males are stronger than females on
average. The female normally assumes a more supporting role to ensure the man
is well taken care of and that his strength is preserved so that he can endure
as he ventures out to utilize his labour in order to provide for the home. This
patriarchal mode of production is eventually shattered when the petty bourgeois
economy undergoes a fundamental industrial revolution in most spheres. The mode
of production associated with capitalism does take place in pockets but it does
not dominate the society because most of the means of production remain
fragmented. In those pockets women clearly go out and work and are breadwinners
but this occurs primarily in the towns. Petty bourgeois economies are primarily
agricultural and so the patriarchal mode of production is more significant in
those areas that account for the way of life of the majority.
The petty bourgeois economy also relies heavily on the
developments in the advanced industrial economies. This can be seen in
countries like Jamaica that are breathing a sigh of relief for the drop in oil
prices. The petty bourgeois economies have little or no control over external
events and are unable to influence them in a significant way. They are normally
dependent on the activities of the real movers and shakers in the global
economy. In some cases the populace becomes horrified by the dependence on
external foreign capital investments because of the fear that the government
will sell out when in fact the economy does not generate sufficient capital to
handle major or mega capital projects on a large scale. There are some fairly
considerable capital projects that are undertaken by local capital but it is
completely dwarfed by the capital of the dominant bourgeoisie in the advanced
industrial nations. This is because the petty bourgeois market cannot
facilitate significant accumulation unless the state makes significant
concessions to the local capitalists and encourages them to produce.
Petty bourgeois economies are primarily markets for the
advanced industrial capitalist economies. The low level of productivity and
inadequate investment climate make them ill equipped to compete with the
capitalists in the advanced economies. The populace do earn incomes and the
economy does function but there is a lot of wasted potential in terms of
realizing the full potential of the populace.
The income earned in the petty bourgeois economies are primarily through
exports to international markets, by monopolies in the local economy and state
intervention. It is clear how important the export market is for these economies
because of their reliance on foreign reserves in order to purchase imports from
overseas. Economies in the Caribbean rely heavily on tourism and remittances
for these inflows of foreign currency. US dollars, the British pound, the euro, the
Canadian currency are all welcome and the scammers will tell you that. The
local economy cannot satisfy local demand in a globalized market unless petty
bourgeois economies can start designing and making their own cars, phones,
computers, raw materials or semi finished products, high tech machinery etc and
other advanced industrially produced products. Most petty bourgeois economies
are incapable of operating at such a high level and so importing is inevitable
particularly if they wish to imitate or be like the advanced industrial
economies. However even if they wish to be advanced they must demonstrate that
they are capable of operating at an advanced level. If not then their ideas
about being developed remain a fantasy. Most petty bourgeois economies become
integrated into the world economy primarily as consumers and not major
producers apart from raw material production or through foreign investment
which is the only the basis to push on and become an advanced industrial nation by
developing per capita incomes in the local economy.
Most petty bourgeois economies are agricultural in make up.
This is why the dependence on raw material production is essential for growth
in these economies. A lot of the oil producing countries are still petty
bourgeois economies because they are so dependent on the export of such a
valuable raw material. In the era of African slavery from the 16th
to the 19th century Caribbean sugar once held the place that oil
holds today. It remained a significant
source of earning yet these economies never became fully developed and their
local markets remained perennially weak. This had a lot to do with Imperial
policy however but even with the yoke of the imperial authorities gone these
economies are still dependent on raw material production. They have been unable
to create the necessary links to connect the agricultural surplus with the
development of local industry sufficiently. This is due to the dependence on
foreign capital, low labour productivity and the fragmented means of production
which are all a characteristic of petty bourgeois economies. Economies such as
Australia and New Zealand became developed although they were primarily
agricultural countries. This was due, according to W. Arthur Lewis to the high
labour productivity where one individual in Australia would produce and earn
much more per acre than an individual in the British West Indies at the time
although the two were agricultural in their makeup.
Most petty bourgeois economies became integrated into the
world economy through the colonial expedition of the Imperial powers. After the
withdrawal of Imperialist powers and the semi autonomy granted to these newly
founded states most of them still persisted with being dependent on the more
advanced industrial nations. Other petty bourgeois economies were integrated,
historically, as a source of raw materials. A lot of the wealthy oil producing
nations today like Dubai, Saudi Arabia etc were economic back waters before the
discovery of oil.
Petty bourgeois economies are also characterized by
revolutions that lead to a higher stage of capitalism. The transformation of
Singapore is quite clear in the history books as it went from a primarily subsistence
based economy under British imperial rule to one of the wealthiest countries in
the world according to per capita income. The other petty bourgeois economies
remain in a vegetative state until certain factors push a bourgeois revolution
that consolidates the means of production and improves labour productivity.
This concludes my discussion. It is one that requires
further elaboration but this discussion provides the basis for further debate.
