Really fucking long post, I apologize.

The USA is an extremely petite bourgeois country. Only about 12% of the population owns a home without a mortgage, but 65.8% of the country owns a home with a mortgage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a pretty basic definition for being petite bourgeois.* Owning a house or apartment, even if you have to pay a bank, makes a massive difference in how you view the world. And at least according to this definition, the proletariat in the USA is in the minority. (And yes, I know, many homeowners can easily lose their homes if the market contracts.)

65.8% of the country owns a home. About half the population voted in 2020. For the most part, I think these are the normies. These are the people who might shake their heads when a cop kills someone, but who will fly into a rage if rioters burn down a single abandoned building. A lot of these people don't even get their news from places like Facebook or Fox News. They get it from the radio or local TV channels, which is almost nothing but stories like: "a criminal did something bad, but thankfully the cops stopped him."

I can remember, early in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich says something like: imagine if you could excite ordinary people about leftwing politics the way they are excited by sports. And then in Age of Awakening, the Chinese TV show about the founding of the communist party, one of the main characters talks about the urgent need to raise the consciousness of the Chinese people. For a lot of Chinese Marxists in the 1920s, my guess is that it would have looked completely hopeless to talk with illiterate peasants about communism, just as it honestly seems pretty hopeless to discuss the subject with the American petite bourgeoisie today. (The American petite bourgeoisie is literate, but in some ways they might as well be illiterate because most of them don't read much of anything, and if you show them revolutionary literature, it might as well be written in a completely different language.)

We've talked a lot on hexbear about radicalizing normies. We know that American fascists are also extremely interested in this subject. But until now, I think we've completely failed to make much of a dent in the consciousness of the petite bourgeoisie—which I know empathizes much more with people like Jeff Bezos than with workers in the Global South. I don't know that we can just wait for the system to collapse or for the collapsing system to radicalize large numbers of people on its own. Any hope we might have in the generational divide, for instance, is probably misplaced. Once the boomers really fucking start to die off, the millennials who inherit their property are going to become just as shitty as they are, for the most part. Back in the '60s, the boomers were "pretty radical," although few of them seemed to give much of a fuck about the Global South or allying themselves to China or the USSR. (Most of the cool ones died or went into exile a long time ago.) Their beef with the Vietnam War was largely with getting drafted, not with millions of dead Vietnamese people.

I honestly don't know how to radicalize normies. 99% of what I have tried has failed. I only stopped being a normie myself because I started running in elections as a Bernie Democrat and I kept encountering Democrats (especially those in power) who were really hostile to the idea of Medicare for All. But almost nobody in this country has that experience. And lots of Bernie Democrats run in these elections and run into the same problems that I did, but they almost never radicalize, so maybe whatever makes me a communist is actually a lot deeper than just running into shithead Democratic bigwigs.

I was glancing through the wikipedia page on Edward Bernays, and I saw that the CIA hired him to spread doomerism in Guatemala, making the defeat of the revolution there look like a foregone conclusion. If people want to vent here, I'm fine with that, even if some of them may actually be cops. But I think we are running out of time. The planet is going to literally run out of oxygen, and the workers of the world are not uniting. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising comes to mind. Fighting the Nazis on the inside was basically suicide. (Just as it was basically suicide for John Brown to fight the American government almost completely on his own.) If the Nazis had been a little smarter and hadn't declared war on basically everyone at the same time, the Third Reich might still be around today (instead of surviving inside the CIA and the West German government).

In short, the American proletariat probably isn't ever going to unite to overthrow the government. There are just too many barriers. The CIA and the FBI are just too powerful and too good at destroying proletarian movements. Our only hope seems to be in the Global South uniting, strangling the economy of the USA from the outside, and then finding a way to stop the bourgeoisie from launching nuclear missiles. But that process is going to take at least twenty or thirty more years.

I don't know. Before the 2020 Uprising happened, I would have laughed if you had told me something like that could happen. But because there was no revolutionary leadership (because the police will kill or imprison any organizers who present a serious threat), the uprising petered out. It still seems to be continuing now, but in more of a hidden way with American workers refusing to put up with the same old shit from their bosses and landlords.

This is just a bunch of disjointed thoughts born out of my general frustration with things and the fact that for weeks or months I've been thinking to myself that we need a Maoism for the petite bourgeoisie even though I don't know what that actually is or if such a thing is even possible.

  • Although I know that in Vietnam and Cuba, the home ownership rate is 90%! I guess it makes a pretty big difference if the proletariat is running your country. I'm not sure about Vietnam, but it also looks like Cubans are not allowed to own more than two homes.
  • duderium [he/him]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    But how else can we define what the petite bourgeois is? Is it wrong to look for a specific definition?

    • Pezevenk [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      It does have a specific definition and it is not that. Petite bourgeois generally means small time capitalist who typically works alongside their employees. It doesn't have anything to do with houses, it has to do with whether they are employed by someone else or if they have their own independent job (self employed/small business owner). Home ownership rates are not and have never been a particularly important factor, if anything the US is evidence of that. Or Switzerland. Or Hong Kong. Or South Korea.

      • duderium [he/him]
        hexagon
        ·
        3 years ago

        BUT if you own a home you can rent out a room or you can use it as collateral to get business loans or even buy other homes to rent out.

        However your points are pretty persuasive.

        • Pezevenk [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          BUT if you own a home you can rent out a room or you can use it as collateral to get business loans or even buy other homes to rent out.

          You can, in theory. But it doesn't matter all that much for most people, especially those who own, like, a small apartment.

          It's a bad idea to keep shrinking the spectrum of what counts as "acceptable" working class.

          • duderium [he/him]
            hexagon
            ·
            3 years ago

            That's true. The overwhelming number of small business owners I've encountered have seriously just been...the worst. I can think of only one or two who I thought were okay human beings. Many of them honestly seem, like, completely unhinged.

            What do you make of the concept of the labor aristocrat, though? My uncle, a white boomer teamster truck driver, was going to vote for Mayo Pete before I managed to convince him not to. (It took half an hour of me pleading with him on the phone. He eventually decided not to vote at all.) I know liberals with decent white collar nonprofit gigs who own their homes who themselves will immediately ally with the police the moment any kind of violent revolution looks like a threat to them.

            Material reality makes us who we are but subjective factors must also be accounted for I guess.

            • ToastGhost [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              being a liberal with a stable job doesnt mean youre not proletariat, its entirely based on your relationship to the means of production, not some factor based on the nonsense of liberal culture wars.

              • duderium [he/him]
                hexagon
                ·
                3 years ago

                I'm thinking of another labor aristocrat I know, a cis white male environmental engineer in his fifties who has a cushy nonprofit job doing who the fuck knows what. He's run unopposed in a couple of local elections where I live and literally stole state delegates from Bernie at the caucus last year right in front of me. This guy seems friendly, polite, and intelligent when you speak with him, but he has fucking SPD-working-with-the-Freikorps vibes written all over his actions.

                • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  He's not a laborer or a prole, period. He's likely either a manager or some sort of highly paid expert, with significant Capital investments who works because he wants to get out of the house, or because he enjoys the work. He likely gets to make significant decisions about how his non-profit operates (how Capital is spent and how much). He's employed out of convenience - he could almost certainly be a freelancer if he wanted to be one.

            • Pezevenk [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              That’s true. The overwhelming number of small business owners I’ve encountered have seriously just been…the worst. I can think of only one or two who I thought were okay human beings. Many of them honestly seem, like, completely unhinged.

              It doesn't have to do with whether or not they're cool or whatever. It's not about character, it's about class function and class interests in general, not in particular. It's about how their class functions, not what they're like personally. In certain circumstances the petite bourgeoisie may side with the working class, that's because their class interests aren't as stable as the working class or the high bourgeoisie, and occasionally the second may fuck with them too much. Propaganda, false consciousness and ideology are also important factors for political opinions, not just class interests.

              • duderium [he/him]
                hexagon
                ·
                3 years ago

                Yeah, I agree. The petite bourgeoisie seems open to allying with the peasants / proletariat in colonial contexts or in the imperial core when shit is seriously fucked. But even in 2020 things didn’t get fucked up enough in the USA for the petite bourgeoisie to ally with the proletariat here.

          • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            It's not about shrinking the definition of "acceptable". It's about taking a sober look at actual ~material conditions~ in the US as opposed to the martyrdom/pity party that usually takes place (omg everyone is broke, about to be evicted, going to starve, going to die of a toothache tomorrow, why don't Americans rise up????!?!?!) and interferes with strategies.

            • Pezevenk [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Nah. Every time this stuff crops up is to make up some kind of excuse why nothing is ever gonna work in the US or whatever. And it's clearly not sober material analysis, it's just not correct. "Americans are petite bourgeois because 65% own a home" is just not a correct take. This stuff interferes way more with strategies, because the only conclusion they ever seem to lead to is "everything where I live in is irredeemable, so the only course of action for me is to shout into the void about how the third world will rise up". Like, somehow people are confused by how a working class person is not automatically a communist because they seem to forget there are many other factors which are currently more important than class position when it comes to influencing people's ideology, so they conclude they must not be the right kind of working class, queue the weird justifications.

      • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        The majority of Americans own significant Capital through homeownership or a 401(k) or IRA plan. How do you convince those people to work against Capital?

        • meme_monster [none/use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Those things aren't even capital. Imagine being bought off by the promise of returns in 20-50 years.

          • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            Yes they are. There's lots of ways to get money out of retirement accounts early without paying big penalties.

            • meme_monster [none/use name]
              ·
              3 years ago

              If you own a thing you can do whatever you want with it. The threat of any penalties at all reveal it ain't capital and you don't own shit.

              • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
                ·
                3 years ago

                By "penalties" I mean extra taxes lol. You don't get sent to jail.

                IRAs are literally no different than owning a bunch of stocks, except that you get special tax treatment in exchange for special rules. That's it. It's still your Capital, despite American "leftists" trying to cope HARD for reasons why their PMC friends/parents are aktually good old salt of the Earth proles.

    • ToastGhost [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      both working for a wage, and taking surplus value from wage workers, the small business owners of the world

    • meme_monster [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Matt Christman would say it doesn't fucking matter what these definitions are because "normies" aren't invested in the terms so they are meaningless as agitprop and for leftists it's all bullshit posturing because nothing is getting done irl while you are arguing about it online.