The Petty Commodity Producer in Third World Cities: Petit-Bourgeois or ‘Disguised’ Proletarian?
The definition of class according to the nature of the relations of production has traditionally centred on the distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, a focus which has involved the identification of concepts which are in direct contradiction — the private ownership of the means of production by a privileged minority and the necessary sale of labour power by the majority. This situation is mirrored in the essentially antagonistic relationship normally existing between the two classes, which finds expression, at least in theory, in the ideologies of each class. Whilst the division between bourgeois and proletarian may be used as the foundation of class analysis, it does not take account of the complexities of class formation which may exist at any stage in the development (or, indeed, the overthrow) of capitalism. The dissolution of ‘pure’ ownership of the means of production into separate but closely related functions of possession and control (Wright, 1976, pp. 21–6) and the consequent existence of more complex technical relations of production (for example the functions of foremen, supervisors and managers) is evidence that there are some jobs- perhaps the majority in advanced industrial society — which combine within the individual, elements of both the classical bourgeois and proletarian roles in the production process. Additionally, there may be persons who are self-employed and who appear to lie outside the principal sphere of large-scale capitalism.
KeywordsMigration Europe Income Assure Stratification
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- S. Amin, Le développement inégal (Paris:. Maspero, 1973).Google Scholar
- S. Barry, Le Royaume de Waalo: Le Sénégal avant le conquête (Paris: Maspero, 1972).Google Scholar
- F. Bechhofer and B. Elliott, ‘Persistence and Change: the Petite Bourgeoisie in Industrial Society’, European Journal of Sociology, XVII (1976).Google Scholar
- R. Cohen and D. Michael, ‘The Revolutionary Potential of the African Lumpenproletariat: a Sceptical View’, Bulletin of the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, 5 (1973).Google Scholar
- M. Diop, Histoire des classes sociales dans l’Afrique de l’ouest: le Sénégal (Paris: Maspero, 1972).Google Scholar
- F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967).Google Scholar
- A. G. Frank, On Capitalist Underdevelopment (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
- D. C. Hodges, ‘The Anatomy of Exploitation’, Science and Society (1960).Google Scholar
- International Labour Office, Towards Full Employment: A Programme for Colombia (Geneva: 1970).Google Scholar
- International Labour Office, Employment, Incomes and Equality: A Strategy for Raising Productive Employment in Kenya (Geneva: 1972).Google Scholar
- G. N. Kitching, ‘Modes of Production and Kenyan Dependency’, Review of African Political Economy, 8 (1977).Google Scholar
- O. Lebrun and C. Gerry, ‘Petty Production and Capitalism’, Review of African Political Economy, 3 (1975).Google Scholar
- K. Marx, Capital (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1970).Google Scholar
- N. Poulantzas, ‘On Social Classes’, New Left Review, 78 (1973).Google Scholar
- N. Poulantzas, ‘The New Petty Bourgeoisie’, in A. Hunt (ed.), Class and Class Structure (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1977).Google Scholar
- D. G. Reynolds, ‘Economic Development With Surplus Labour: Some Complications’, Oxford Economic Papers, 21 (1969) 89–108.Google Scholar
- A. Scott, ‘Notes on the Theoretical Status of PCP’ (University of Essex: mimeo, 1977).Google Scholar
- A. Sfeir-Younis, ‘Institutional Arrangements and Economic Development: Access to the Solid Waste Economy’, World Bank, Urban and Regional Economics Division, 1977.Google Scholar
- G. Williams and T. Mutebile, ‘Petty Commodity Production in Nigeria: a Note’, World Development (1978).Google Scholar
- E. O. Wright, ‘Class Boundaries in Advanced Capitalist Societies’, New Left Review, 98 (1976).Google Scholar