This is a brilliant and provocative book and I recommend it highly. Not because Evans gets it right as I am unconvinced by his primary thesis. Just to give an example, he endorses Trotsky’s line of argument the petty bourgeoisie don’t support labour movements because they’re weak but argues that they’re weak because they’re dominated by the professional-managerial class…but the original argument is unrelated to that and its historical context was one where that domination didn’t exist. So there must be another reason why labour movements are weak or another reason the petty bourgeoisie don’t support them. To me the latter seems more plausible chiefly because of arguments *Evans convincingly made earlier in the book*.

This analysis is much more helpful than a purely cultural or a rigidly economic one, as it allows us to get to grips with divisions in the workplace and society and the comlex relationships of power involved. It helps us understand the ‘intermediary classes’ between proletariat and capitalist, with whom this book is primarily concerned. Evans thinks of the middle class or the petit bourgeoisie as a “DNA double helix” with two distinct fractions; the Traditional Petit Bourgeoisie and the New Petit Bourgeoisie, which have arisen due to profound changes to the economy over the last fifty years but have not yet been adequately examined by the Left. What is the ‘Traditional Petit Bourgeoisie’? Bradley, Chester D.; Bradley, Miriam D. (1952). "Craven and O'meara: Medical Boswells to Jefferson Davis and Napoleon Bonaparte". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 26 (2): 141–152. JSTOR 44443688. PMID 14916285. , p.142; "[T]hough Napoleon generally conversed in Italian with me, as I spoke the language with considerable fluency, from having resided several years in that classical country, whenever he became animated, he always broke out into French, and also whenever he was at a loss for a word": O'Meara, Barry E. (1822). Napoleon in Exile. Vol.II. Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. , p.22 n. The author recommends that the new petty bourgeoisie abandon social mobility, to dispense with its obsessive focus on climbing the career ladder, to embrace and accept downward social mobility, to realise one can have an identity and meaning without a "career", and that there is nothing wrong with staying rooted and not leaving your small town. The logic is that this would lead to the gradual erosion of class boundaries between the subordinate classes and help guarantee the formation of broad political alliances. The petty bourgeoisie - the insecure class between the working class and the bourgeoisie - is hugely significant within global politics. Yet it remains something of a mystery.Discover the best radical writing, carefully curated for you, with the UK’s leading not-for-profit book subscription. Left Book Club was founded by Victor Gollancz in 1936 to oppose fascism and inequality. Relaunched in 2015, today it is a thriving subscription book club building reading groups across the UK – and a membership would make the perfect radical Christmas gift. Left Book Club history

A Nation of Shopkeepers: Trade Ephemera from 1654 to the 1860s in the John Johnson Collection by Julie Anne Lambert (Oxford, Bodleian Library, 2001) shopkeepers". Napoleon.org. Angleterre…a people which he [Napoleon] so disdainfully used to call a nation of shop-keepers This complimentary term, for so we must consider it, as applied to a Nation which has derived its principal prosperity from its commercial greatness, has been erroneously attributed, from time to time, to all the leading Revolutionists of France. To our astonishment we now find it applied exclusively to BONAPARTE. Than this nothing can be further from the fact. NAPOLEON was scarcely known at the time, he being merely an Officer of inferior rank, totally unconnected with politics. The occasion on which that splenetic, but at the same time, complimentary observation was made was that of the ever-memorable battle of the 1st of June. The oration delivered on that occasion was by M. BARRERE [sic], in which, after describing our beautiful country as one "on which the sun scarce designs to shed its light", he described England as a nation of shopkeepers. Historical context [ edit ]

Other displays

Thought this was great until the conclusion, at which point Evans made a few claims that were larger than justified or poorly argued. Initially identified as a powerful political force by theorists like Marx and Poulantzas, the petit-bourgeoisie was expected to decline, as small businesses and small property were gradually swallowed up by monopoly capitalism. Yet, far from disappearing, structural changes to the global economy under neoliberalism have instead grown the petty bourgeoisie, and the individualist values associated with it have been popularized by a society which fetishizes "aspiration", home ownership and entrepreneurship. So why has this happened? This confused me. I remember thinking that there must be plenty of people who didn’t ‘own the means of production’, but who also wouldn’t qualify as ‘working class’. My parents were teachers with no power over the curriculum, but they were hardly proletarian. I flipped the problem round. Tradespeople controlled their own ‘production’, but I wouldn’t have called a plasterer or electrician ‘bourgeois’. Well-meaning though the speaker had been, I felt like his simplistic interpretation of class made little sense.