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.
    • Pezevenk [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Actually I've had experience with mortgages being a somewhat major point of radicalization during the Greek debt crisis for many people, so it's not even that. The left disrupting auctions was one of the best and most popular ideas we've had. Like, who'd have thunk that being slave to a capitalist institution that threatens to take your home away would make people dislike capitalism lol

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yeah, my understanding is:

      • Bourgeois = makes the vast majority of their money off of owning things; does not need to exchange their labor for money. A large landlord, the owner of a large company, a trust fund kid.
      • Proletariat = makes the vast majority of their money off of exchanging their labor for money. A wage worker who at most has some small retirement account.

      Petite bourgeois would be someone who still has to work for a living, but who also makes significant money off of owning things and aspires to make that their major source of income. High-wage workers (doctors, lawyers) who have put their excess wages into significant investments, small business owners who may still work full time at their business.

      I'm not sure owning a home even gets you there (you don't make enough money to live off that), and paying a mortgage definitely wouldn't qualify.

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

        High-wage workers (doctors, lawyers) who have put their excess wages into significant investments, small business owners who may still work full time at their business.

        Another aspect of this is decision making. High wage workers usually don't own the means of production as partners or shareholder, but they do get to make a lot of the decisions about how the business is run and what happens. That's why the term "professional managerial class" gets thrown around. These people are technically workers who labor for a wage, but they're paid either directly for their services (a lot of doctors/lawyers/engineers who freelance or own a consultanting biz) or primarily to make the rate of exploitation of other workers higher for the owner.

        That's not even bringing up the fact that they almost always make enough money to have significant capital investments. If you have half a million or a million dollars, realistically you probably don't need to work for wages even if you'd have to cut expenses to survive. Homeownership makes this even more possible because you can just pay off the debt and lower your bills significantly.

    • LeninWalksTheWorld [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      yeah, I figure that with mortgages people are really just now beholden to the damn bank vs a landlord. You still feel the sting of someone else eating most of your paycheck

      • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Sure, but lots of people with mortgages don't ever think about it on any level more heavily than "part of my paycheck goes to this thing, but really, I own the house, the house is mine." So they'll freak out the same as any landlord or corporate ghoul that owns hundreds of buildings outright would over the concept of someone throwing a brick at a window.

      • SiskoDid2ThingsWrong [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I mean the difference is those mortgage payments go towards you actually owning the house. If the bank wants the house back they have to buy you out of what you already paid, you can sell the home if and when you don’t want to live there anymore. The bank is still making, well, bank, but unlike a landlord that money isn’t just going into their pockets, it’s actually helping you gain ownership over something of value.

    • SiskoDid2ThingsWrong [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I don’t really buy the whole “owning your home makes you petit bourgeois”

      It doesn’t. Whether it makes you a “labor aristocrat” really depends on the home. There’s corners of this country where a UPS driver can buy a rancher with barely any debt. You’ll either be living in a place that’s ugly as fuck or has an OxyContin problem, but you’ll own it.

      Anyone who owns a home an hour drive from the coast in CA is a fucking Kulak tho.

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

    Oh my god not the weirdo anti-house posts again...

    BTW the US if anything has a LOW home ownership rate. I guess the only western country that is not petite bourgeois is Switzerland of all places lmao. Pls make these weird ultra analyses go away, they're not useful in the slightest other than convincing people to become more insular, eclectic and counterproductive...

      • Pezevenk [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I think this is a pretty hostile response for someone making a good-faith effort post,

        Tbh I confused them with someone else who used to make somewhat annoying posts about home ownership.

        I’m not sure that organizing around labor is feasible for a cross-section of the US; many of us are gig workers or independent contractors or unemployed, and many others work at places with high turnover rates and/or small numbers of coworkers. So discussing organization tactics along other axes of economic status, such as tenant rights, has a lot of utility.

        Tenant unions are extremely limited in scope. The jobs you are describing are just harder, not unfeasible to organize around, and more importantly they are not the only jobs. Creating a baseline level of organization in these other jobs and also probably campuses ensures you will have enough people willing to go to the street and strike about the jobs you are describing too, as well as aid organization there. The main reason it ended up like that in the first place was because there weren't enough unions pressuring to block legislation allowing these shit forms of employment. Now a lot of the more stable jobs are of the kind that people like to describe as le evil PMCs/whire collars which as we all know are evil and impossible to organize around (false). That's why I'm kind of sick of people drawing these lines, twitter and democrat party adjacent politics have conditioned everyone to constantly means test for the 0.0001% most oppressed minority which you can do anything about instead of trying to build broad social alliances and it flies into the face of any target you may have.

    • 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.

  • sam5673 [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I thought petty bourgeoise was where you own your own means of production on a small scale potentially hiring a couple of workers.

    For example a small business or a farmer who owns their own land

  • El_Quico [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago
    1. I agree with others here that home ownership doesn't equate with petit bourgeois, but it does mean those people have skin in the game for the existing system - that even if they hate it they have to go to work, they have to pay their bills, etc, all of which puts a tamper on anything revolutionary/insurrectionist that could come up.

    2. John Brown could have escaped Harper's Ferry and had the slave uprising he wanted if he would have left earlier and gone into the Blue Ridge mountains and formed a guerrilla fighting force as he had originally planned. Attacking the US is not an automatic death sentence. Someone has to be the first to rise up and fight.

    3. Uprisings probably have to happen in the US, even if they also happen outside of the imperial core. Waiting on them to rise up as a unified front is foolish to put it kindly. You might as well wait for the US working class to spontaneously rise up. You can't wait for either one, you have to take action now.

    • NaturalsNotInIt [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      The US was still a relative backwater in John Brown's time, as opposed to the world's main superpower. Attacking the US in the 1850s was a lot different than doing it today.

      • El_Quico [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yes and no. It's different now, but the principles are very similar. Guerrilla warfare can and does still work against the world's main superpower.

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

    I do think that this question about how apathetic/brought off the people here are can only be answered once we have a mass party with democratic discipline and we can observe its experience.

    I am also a bit pessimistic but I honestly can't imagine what it would mean for people's politics if the squad say started voting against every military budget as a bloc and demanded a rewriting of the constitution. (Speaking of have you heard of the cosmonaut mag?, I have found their argument for party building and democratic centralism very very convincing)

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

      I'm a big fan of Cosmonaut. I think a real Workers' Party operating in the USA would hopefully act like Sinn Féin: its elected representatives would just refuse to participate in government entirely. I think that approach is so unbelievably fucking based.

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

        Based indeed. Well I suppose the question we have to ask then is how to go forward with building said party. I have been a bit reluctant to join the DSA but now I think I should see for myself if there is anyhope for creating programatic unity in that org.

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

          I would join them if I could, but there's no DSA where I live—a very rural area. I've also tried starting an org here, but it went nowhere. I did make a few cool new friends, but we live at least forty minutes away from each other. People have suggested that I start a DSA chapter here, but I can't ask people to pay dues to an organization so focused on electoralism and legalism.

          • machiavellianRecluse [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            I can’t ask people to pay dues to an organization so focused on electoralism and legalism.

            This makes sense. I think the idea is that DSA has enough good faith actors who can be convinced for rallying under a single program and running candidates beholden to it. You can try to get people to pay the min dues and if you build a successful chapter then you get a bloc of people who will vote for a marxist program during a national convention. I am currently involved in a local org but I am wondering if we should be connecting to some national or at least state wide org.

  • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Class consciousness can be more about vibes than about hard distinctions between classes alone. Vanguard parties tend to be made up of the members of an educated middle economic class and petit bourgeoisie. What has never happened is raising the proletarian class conscious of the masses of the imperial core, and I think part of that is there is always so much exploitation of the global south bolstering the domestic economy to an extent that even wage labourers are relatively comfortable.

    Best bet is to find a way to start radicalizing whatever local org you can get your hands on. Make attempts to build union consciousness a time to build class consciousness. I think we're finally reaching a point where enough people are fed up enough to be open to left radicalization, partly because the reactionary right culture war matters the most to the rural and to the wealthy. Not because of solely because of automation, as Marx expected, but because it's cheaper to industrialize a global south nation like China for fifty years than it is to build fully automated capitalism at home out of short term necessity, only to watch the starving take it from you by force.

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

      . What has never happened is raising the proletarian class conscious of the masses of the imperial core,

      It's happened, just not in the US and not successfully to the highest degree.

        • Pezevenk [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          It very nearly happened in France in '68 for example. People should study that and see how that was managed and also why it eventually failed.

  • dengdidnothingwrong [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I did not expect Age of Awakening to be mentioned in /c/tactics, thanks for the share. If you guys want to watch the show, we're adding subtitles onto it and we need volunteers. Here's the YouTube link to the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSS5jfgI5yo&list=PLMc1KlemyBkwA6Pg8Pdfj9EL-FMJXcFNX

  • StellarTabi [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    in Vietnam and Cuba, the home ownership rate is 90%

    In the US, only about 12% of the population owns a home without a mortgage, but 65.8% of the country owns a home with a mortgage

    yo homie, if u still carrying, where can a sister get this information in meme form and in citation form? just saying

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

    Perhaps a municipalist approach would be more feasible (at least in the short-medium term while material conditions are still tolerable for most people) than trying to organize a revolution?

    I think for the most part, the average person just wants trusted organizations/officials to throw a bit of money at and/or :vote: for to solve their problems (shitty/expensive internet, shitty public infrastructure, shitty public transportation, unaffordable housing, climate change etc.) for them so they can just go about living their own lives without having to risk anything.