The bourgeoisie were only a middle class in relation to the aristocracy above them. While there’s still some aristocrats around, they’re not relevant as a societal class. The modern middle class is a subset of the proletariat afforded enough wealth to be good little consumers fuelling the growth of the economy.
The modern middle class is a subset of the proletariat afforded enough wealth to be good little consumers fuelling the growth of the economy.
Sure. But they’re they consequences of industrialized, Fordism, and the population explosion. They aren’t an engineered response to the 1917 Russian Revolution.
That’s the neat part, its selective pressure. Capitalists don’t need to engineer an outcome (though they still can and do, occasionally). Each one merely acts on their own immediate self interest and collectively this has a tendency to move and shape society towards outcomes that further benefit them as a class.
That’s very true, and I think I may have originally misunderstood your comment.
Workers in general, don’t really count as “the middle class”. White collar or blue collar…they’re all still “working class”, no matter how much they earn.
Petit bourgeoisie applies to any entrepreneurs or small business owners. They aren’t “wealthy”, and they are still technically “working for a living”. But, they also aren’t “selling their labor”…they’re buying someone else’s.
They’re the transitional class that sits between the working class and the bourgeoisie. That’s always what I’ve understood the “middle class” to be.
Interestingly someone employed in a highly-sought-after profession may be more financially stable and well-off than a struggling small company owner, even if the latter employs others.
Or to take an example from my wider family: A lady in her 70s (with a more well-off relative securing the loan) managed to buy a small flat to rent out on AirBnB. If not for this, her state pension would not be enough to cover her food and bills, and no one hires older women where she lives. (And she has no savings to speak of.) Like, she’s technically a landlord now, but even with the AirBnB income she’s barely scraping by, so I can’t really see her as bourgeois.
this still all remains true. the bourgeoisie of france and described in classical 1800s socialist theory are administrators of an aristocratic oligarchy. today, this still remains true. they are provided the petty comforts of the plantation overseer in return for carrying out the boring administration work the oligarchs won’t, or can’t, perform. in return, they are given minor aesthetic access to aspect of the oligarchy, like lawns, picket fences, and prepared meals. the bourgeousie of france and classical socialist theory are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and artisans. today they are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and artisans
The bourgeoisie were only a middle class in relation to the aristocracy above them. While there’s still some aristocrats around, they’re not relevant as a societal class. The modern middle class is a subset of the proletariat afforded enough wealth to be good little consumers fuelling the growth of the economy.
Sure. But they’re they consequences of industrialized, Fordism, and the population explosion. They aren’t an engineered response to the 1917 Russian Revolution.
Agreed. This is pretty much what I said in my other comment to this post.
That’s the neat part, its selective pressure. Capitalists don’t need to engineer an outcome (though they still can and do, occasionally). Each one merely acts on their own immediate self interest and collectively this has a tendency to move and shape society towards outcomes that further benefit them as a class.
That would make them “petit bourgeoisie”.
If you sell your labor to make a living, you’re not bourgeoisie. Big or little.
That’s very true, and I think I may have originally misunderstood your comment.
Workers in general, don’t really count as “the middle class”. White collar or blue collar…they’re all still “working class”, no matter how much they earn.
Petit bourgeoisie applies to any entrepreneurs or small business owners. They aren’t “wealthy”, and they are still technically “working for a living”. But, they also aren’t “selling their labor”…they’re buying someone else’s.
They’re the transitional class that sits between the working class and the bourgeoisie. That’s always what I’ve understood the “middle class” to be.
Interestingly someone employed in a highly-sought-after profession may be more financially stable and well-off than a struggling small company owner, even if the latter employs others.
Or to take an example from my wider family: A lady in her 70s (with a more well-off relative securing the loan) managed to buy a small flat to rent out on AirBnB. If not for this, her state pension would not be enough to cover her food and bills, and no one hires older women where she lives. (And she has no savings to speak of.) Like, she’s technically a landlord now, but even with the AirBnB income she’s barely scraping by, so I can’t really see her as bourgeois.
this still all remains true. the bourgeoisie of france and described in classical 1800s socialist theory are administrators of an aristocratic oligarchy. today, this still remains true. they are provided the petty comforts of the plantation overseer in return for carrying out the boring administration work the oligarchs won’t, or can’t, perform. in return, they are given minor aesthetic access to aspect of the oligarchy, like lawns, picket fences, and prepared meals. the bourgeousie of france and classical socialist theory are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and artisans. today they are doctors, lawyers, accountants, and artisans