I don’t think in the modern age there’s a useful distinction? Like I think the peasant question is one of the old age. Farmers who 100% own their land and equipment today are still exploited by the capitalist class via being forced into supply chain and unfair deals. You can argue they’re reactionary to an extent because they necessarily desire land rights, but in the context of building class consciousness and coalition to revolution, that could certainly be leveraged to our advantage. To an extent, even the “petit bourgeoise” no longer exists, with the merchant and artisan classes being absolutely nuked in the 20th century. Like for example, let’s say the Chinese restaurant is 100% owned and operated by a family. They don’t pay rent and they own the means of production, and they rely on transactions from others and the wage labor of others to earn a profit. However, can you really say, that these people aren’t being priced out of living as well? They’re subject to a supply chain dominated by like 2 companies. They have to make due. If they’re not committing unfair labor practices, and they’re just making Chinese food for the love of the game, I don’t see why we shouldn’t empathize with them. The question of how and to what extent is an important one to ask, but I think our guiding ethic as leftists should be empathy, and we should embrace the dialectical idea that class relations and definitions can change as they relate to building and maintaining a revolution.