Jeffrey Fisher >
is this essentially what we mean when we call N "petit bourgeois"?
i need to get back to CB's note, but i've been wondering why the burden of proof necessarily falls on me to argue that he's not petit bourgeois, and thinking about that made me wonder what exactly we mean by that phrase. i suppose as someone who likes to think of himself as a good marxist, i should know, but i wasn't sure, since the phrase seems to be thrown around a lot, rather like a shibboleth. but reading carrol's response to brian (and i think brian's essentially right when it comes to N), it occurred to me that there is something petit bourgeois in N to the extent that there is a certain radical individualism at the bottom of it. i haven't thought this through, yet, so forgive me, and i wouldn't want to commit to that yet, but . . . so maybe i'll have to surrender on the petit bourgeois thing. but again, more thinking on this. and then, i'm not sure how great a sin that is, but it comes back to ravi's point -- clearly N thinks we *as a culture* need to get beyond where he himself is. and then i start wondering whether he's really arguing that we do that individual by individual.
j
^^^^^^ CB; Yes, the radical individual thing gets at it. With due respect to the lists many anarchists, this is an aspect of the Marxist critique of libertarianism, and some have noted the libertarian strains in N.
Maybe it will help here if I say I'm petit bourgeois. I'm not working class, bourgeoisie , a peasant or an aristocrat. So, I'm using it as an objective social category, not entirely as a negative epithet, though I fully understand your taking it as a pejorative. The petit bourgeois (including me) have good reason to be alienated in capitalism. N. had good reason. They have legitimate gripes. But the anger and rebellion that results _can_ just go in the a direction that adds to "the problem", rather than helping to solve it. Radical individualism will not defeat capitalism, will only divide the masses into individuals ( see recent post where I think Joanna makes a similar point, if I read her accurately).
Sometimes it can go in an extremely bad direction.
A lot of fascists were petit bourgeoisie rebels with legitimate gripes against capitalism. This even results in some analyzing fascism as a petit bourgeois movement.
Let me admit here , I am secreting in a Marxist dogmatic posture in that we do mechanically label correct approaches as "working class" and some incorrect approaches as "petit bourgeois" or "bourgeois". But I'm conceding for the sake of argument in my usaage of "dogmatic", because I think of it as a "generally valid" approach which must be applied thinkingly, not really a mindless, rigidity as is meant by "dogma". In other words, it is valid and important to do a class analysis at this level, even and only, as I said before recognizing that this is one-sided, a necessary "side" , but only part. I have developed the other sides some.