Why should one’s labor define them? I am not identified by my profession as I’m a multifaceted individual. I do the work of my profession and I own my side projects.
It’s the difference between describing an occupation and LARPing as a “small business owner”. Unless you employ others, it’s just your labor and IMO describing yourself as a “business owner” in that situation is bourgeois mentality. It could be “I work as a pet photographer” if you prefer.
You’re right technically, what I really meant was that they were LARPing as bourgeois. They’re not bourgeois if they don’t employ others. Without being bourgeois, “business owner” is a technicality and the only effect of using it to describe oneself is that it (attempts to) liken oneself to the actual bourgeoisie (the LARP). They are freelance photographers, not “photography business owners” because they make money by taking photographs, not owning a photography business.
Ik its a small detail but the petty bourgeoisie are defined by the characteristic that they have to work as well as owning their own means of production. The freelance photographer is technically petty bourgeoisie as much as it just means they have the privilege of exploiting themselves.
The bourgeois (capitalists) are defined by their exploitation of labour
The petty bourgeois are defined by having to work as well as exploiting labour.
The haute bourgeois no longer needs to work because they employ sufficient labour to produce enough surplus for them to live on
Artisans own property but do not employ labour. They do not exploit workers and are therefore not bourgeois.
As property owners, they are not wage labourers and have some stake in the perpetuation of property
But until they employ labour they have no direct conflict of class interests with the working class.
As a class they will waver more than proletarians bc their class interests are still attached to the preservation of property, but less than the petite bourgeois because they have no class interest in exploitation
They can be considered petty bourgeois, yes, though IMO “artisan” is more specific and useful, as @into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml said. A common characteristic of the petty bourgeois is that they seek to identify themselves with the “haute” bourgeoisie, which is what freelance photographers who employ no other people are doing when they describe themselves as “photography business owners”.
I don’t think “there is a class difference between those who are self-employed and those who employ others and describing both as business owners only flattens that difference” is a reach. Describing oneself as a business owner instead of a laborer when doing freelance labor is an example of the tendency of the lowest of the petty bourgeois to try to liken themselves to the “haute” bourgeoisie.
I am attempting to explain what OP said in the title.
people’s brains are so addled by capitalism that people who take pictures of people’s pets for a living will tell you that they have a “pet photography business”
Why should one’s labor define them? I am not identified by my profession as I’m a multifaceted individual. I do the work of my profession and I own my side projects.
It’s the difference between describing an occupation and LARPing as a “small business owner”. Unless you employ others, it’s just your labor and IMO describing yourself as a “business owner” in that situation is bourgeois mentality. It could be “I work as a pet photographer” if you prefer.
They are objectively a small business owner its not really a larp its just a tiny business.
You’re right technically, what I really meant was that they were LARPing as bourgeois. They’re not bourgeois if they don’t employ others. Without being bourgeois, “business owner” is a technicality and the only effect of using it to describe oneself is that it (attempts to) liken oneself to the actual bourgeoisie (the LARP). They are freelance photographers, not “photography business owners” because they make money by taking photographs, not owning a photography business.
Ik its a small detail but the petty bourgeoisie are defined by the characteristic that they have to work as well as owning their own means of production. The freelance photographer is technically petty bourgeoisie as much as it just means they have the privilege of exploiting themselves.
The bourgeois (capitalists) are defined by their exploitation of labour
The petty bourgeois are defined by having to work as well as exploiting labour.
The haute bourgeois no longer needs to work because they employ sufficient labour to produce enough surplus for them to live on
Artisans own property but do not employ labour. They do not exploit workers and are therefore not bourgeois.
As property owners, they are not wage labourers and have some stake in the perpetuation of property
But until they employ labour they have no direct conflict of class interests with the working class.
As a class they will waver more than proletarians bc their class interests are still attached to the preservation of property, but less than the petite bourgeois because they have no class interest in exploitation
They can be considered petty bourgeois, yes, though IMO “artisan” is more specific and useful, as @into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml said. A common characteristic of the petty bourgeois is that they seek to identify themselves with the “haute” bourgeoisie, which is what freelance photographers who employ no other people are doing when they describe themselves as “photography business owners”.
christ this is such a reach
I don’t think “there is a class difference between those who are self-employed and those who employ others and describing both as business owners only flattens that difference” is a reach. Describing oneself as a business owner instead of a laborer when doing freelance labor is an example of the tendency of the lowest of the petty bourgeois to try to liken themselves to the “haute” bourgeoisie.
I am attempting to explain what OP said in the title.