/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The petite-bourgeoisie are said to be the class of small merchants which aspire to become big, that grow and follow the insensitive to profit, that flock to fascism when threatened by big capital. However, does that apply to those who aspire or see themselves as aligned with the communist movement? I have spoken to such people, who run pizzerias with no employed labor, the only labor they use is their own, those who grow crops and sell them engaging in individual entrepreneurship, not with hopes to grow but to sustain themselves and live a decent life in regions of poverty. Are they too the enemies of the working class? Are they enemies if they claim to align themselves? Are they to be trusted with giving up their wealth? What we saw with figures like Engels who received great sums of money through his father's business, or Lenin who came from the better off Blank family who's members had owned serfs, or Kropotkin who stepped down from his title as a knyaz, as did Tolstoy in spite of their shortcomings are we to accept them as special abnormalities to be overlooked?
If a petite-bourgeoisie entrepreneur does not employ labor besides his own and only makes enough profit to sustain his middle class lifestyle are they absolutely to be considered enemies of the working class? Should they be given a chance to give up their position as entrepreneurs if it is necessary and is it so necessary in the condition that they work to make a living for themselves? It seems as though a lot of the self-employed would fit into this category, which now compose more and more of the labor market in service of others for personal income in which what differentiates them from the proletariat? It seems like an oddity to me and some would write that this is all illiterate, but if they work to produce commodities to make a living are they not selling their own labor power just like the proletariat, with the only difference being benign as the employer is replaced by varying actors from the market? What differentiates a wage worker in a fast food chain who also works to produce commodities from an individual entrepreneur who does it by himself with no aspiring to growth - for the same sum of money in the contrast between salary and profit. It seems that the only thing that would push them towards fascism is being unable to compete at risk of going bankrupt - being forced to employ labor and grow. And what if they do not wish to do that at all? Has their attitude always remained the same since they were called by name? Or have times changed to consider most modern "workers" as petite-bourgeoisie in the likes of programmers, artists, bakers, street performers, mechanics and such? What differentiates a prostitute which was considered lumpen from these other fields? They all self-employ, they all run on individual entrepreneurship, produce commodities, profit and remain lower to middle class. A food street vendor in India, where he profits no more than the average salary, is he an enemy of the proletariat?
I am curious about this. I don't have the patience to sift through Capital to figure this out at the moment, so I am making this thread to ask, though I will definitely continue reading Capital another time.

With all this written, in addition here is an anecdote:
I argued with this one anarchist, who claimed that anarchists, communists, socialists and such should work with the bourgeoisie against the capitalist class. I asked him why he thinks the capitalist class is different from the bourgeoisie and where he read that from. He told me that he didn't read it, but came to that conclusion naturally. The story being that he started a business to make enough money to support his wife who had an illness which he would not have been able to on a normal wage. When his wife had passed, he had closed down the business. But with the money he earned he had afforded a house to live in, while others in his region could only afford to live in apartments. He had afforded a car as well. So he was better off than most people in his place. I was wondering if I should call him a leech until he told me that he worked all on his own and never employed anyone for a wage. Yet I still wondered if I should call him a fascist over promoting class collaboration between workers and the bourgeoisie. Even so, it seemed wrong.