Who are the bourgeoisie?

[Questionable]

Okay, simple question, but what I'm really asking is more complex.

We all know they're the elite ruling class who own the means of production, but I really want to know WHO the bourgeoisie are. I've been reading Michael Focault's works where he describes the system of discipline and punishment that the bourgeoisie use in order to enforce their social order, and this has gotten me really interested in the bourgeoisie as a class, what their psychological mindset is, the ideals they cling to, their specific roles in society, their individual lives, how they compete with each other in the capitalist system, the bourgeois cultural hegemony, etc. I've read dozens of books talking about the plight of the proletarian and the details of their existence, but I realized the bourgeoisie remain a vague group of "bad guys" to me. I really want to read a deep analysis of them. Does anyone know any kind of written work that goes over the bourgeoisie in detail, preferably from a Marxian standpoint?

[Prometeo liberado]

We all know they're the elite ruling class who own the means of production
You want names? I don't understand. Your first sentence answers your question, no?

[Positivist]

You want names? I don't understand. Your first sentence answers your question, no?

That is the bourgiose reduced to a productive relation, the OP is asking about the conscioussness of the bourgiose.

[Art Vandelay]

Those who make a living off of their reinvestements of capital and their monopoly on the means of prodution :confused:

There not :"ad guys," simply have different interests then our own.

[Questionable]

That is the bourgiose reduced to a productive relation, the OP is asking about the conscioussness of the bourgiose.

This. I understand them as an economic class, I want to understand them as a social class. I'm also interested in how they facilitate their rule from a cultural and psychological standpoint.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You want names? I don't understand. Your first sentence answers your question, no? He wants to understand what the bourgeoisie are as people, rather than as a technical designation.

Though perhaps it is a bit silly to ask for such. There is what was called bourgeoisie culture and bourgeoisie ideology, but it is not really exclusive to the bourgeoisie. Anyone with 10 bucks or an internet connection can get a copy of Goethe, and even the poorest of wage workers can (and will) declare themselves anarcho-capitalists. It is bourgeoisie only in that it promotes society favourable to them as a class.
And, really, at the point of view of consumption the most glaring difference is of scale. The middle class socialite buys a Lexus, the upper crust socialite buys a Maserati.

[Questionable]

He wants to understand what the bourgeoisie are as people, rather than as a technical designation.

Though perhaps it is a bit silly to ask for such. There is what was called bourgeoisie culture and bourgeoisie ideology, but it is not really exclusive to the bourgeoisie. Anyone with 10 bucks or an internet connection can get a copy of Goethe, and even the poorest of wage workers can (and will) declare themselves anarcho-capitalists. It is bourgeoisie only in that it promotes society favourable to them as a class.
And, really, at the point of view of consumption the only difference is of scale. The middle class socialite buys a Lexus, the upper crust socialite buys a Maserati.

But I would still like to study the actual process of how the bourgeois propagate their own culture. Yes, poor workers will describe themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but I want to read an actual analysis on how the bourgeoisie shape society after themselves.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Well I'm not sure if this is exactly what you want but from my study of Marxist sociology, it's clear that the bourgeosie use the media as a tool to spread their ideals. This affects people from birth as their parents socialise them with norms and values that force acceptance of the bourgeoisie as well as competition. I'm sure you've noticed that a lot more people live isolated lives as a family, hardly wanting to communicate with neighbours because they are seen as a threat. This is, in my opinion, the result of the media spreading certain values of life over a long period of time. Bit like indoctrination but no one knows it is happening. Why do you think Communism suffers a bad reputation? Because of the globalisation of communication and the freedom for the press to report what their overlords want while pretending that they report the truth etc.

[Questionable]

Okay, there seems to be confusion here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

Has anyone ever read this? That's what I want. I want an in-depth analysis of the bourgeoisie, not just "Oh, they control the media and stuff and uhh yeah."

[Lynx]

The bourgeoisie own varying amounts of property, which gives them power over those who do not. Their existence as a class is entirely dependent upon the enforcement of property laws.

[Prometeo liberado]

Okay, there seems to be confusion here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

Has anyone ever read this? That's what I want. I want an in-depth analysis of the bourgeoisie, not just "Oh, they control the media and stuff and uhh yeah."

Guess I'm not the only person confused by this question. Good question though.

[Lynx]

Guess I'm not the only person confused by this question. Good question though.
It's fudging between wanting to discuss the contents of a particular book, and wanting people who haven't read the book to respond.

[maskerade]

If you want a good analysis of how different social classes are 'fashioned', in terms of their tastes, beliefs, ideas, and behavior you could read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste by Pierre Bourdieu. He is similar in some ways to Foucault, and also influenced by Marx.

[Lynx]

what their psychological mindset is, - varies with the individual. Management and people skills are almost a requirement for being an entrepreneur.
the ideals they cling to, - self-serving ideals.
their specific roles in society, - property ownership.
their individual lives, - varies, some enjoy leisure, some work very hard.
how they compete with each other in the capitalist system, -they try to reduce their variable costs, they rely on marketing or predatory pricing, they attempt to engage in rent-seeking.
the bourgeois cultural hegemony, etc. - there is an entire ideology, economic "science" and narrative that attempts to explain their role as being part of the natural order of things, and of being the best of all possible worlds.

They are not bad guys, they are people who are in a social position that affords them power and wealth over the majority of the population. Their relationship to the majority is an exploitative one, thus necessitating the use of force.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm reading a book at the moment by Keith Wrightson, 'Earthly Necessities, Economic lives 1470-1750'. It details the emergence of the bourgeoisie as a class-in-itself in the 16th century.

At the time, there were three methods of production.

a) handicraft, where a 'small' master would produce one type of good in his own workshop/house, maybe with employed labour to help, and would sell the good straight to locally-based market.

b) a 'small' master would produce goods in the same way as handicraft, but would sell the goods not straight to market, but to a merchant, who would have access to non-local markets. Thus the 'small' master had access to wider markets, but was actually subordinated to a wage labourer himself, with the merchant investing and accruing capital.

c) the 'putting out' system, whereby a merchant would control the entire production process. He would hire work out to lots of labourers to be completed in their own homes/workshops, normally under no supervision. They would be paid according to a piece rate system and the merchant would derive all the profits, invest all the capital, make all the decisions.

Earlier on, the handicraft system was the dominant method of production. So you had surplus being produced, but a very simple and under-developed market mechanism and the proletariat and bourgeoisie were not really established as stand-alone classes. Gradually, starting with textile towns and the bigger, urban towns, method C started to become the dominant method of production. This, I believe, is where the modern-day Capitalist - the bourgeois - comes from: the early-Capitalist merchant, who originally extracted profit from one sort of good, but gradually moved into whichever industry could turn him a profit. Interesting stuff, really.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It's fudging between wanting to discuss the contents of a particular book, and wanting people who haven't read the book to respond.


Right, well that wasn't clear originally. The reason I mentioned the media was because it is a way that the bourgeoisie spread their culture. Judging by the irritated response I think I need a rephrase of the original question.

[Questionable]

It's fudging between wanting to discuss the contents of a particular book, and wanting people who haven't read the book to respond.

No, that's not what I was asking for at all. The book was an example for what I was searching for.


If you want a good analysis of how different social classes are 'fashioned', in terms of their tastes, beliefs, ideas, and behavior you could read Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste by Pierre Bourdieu. He is similar in some ways to Foucault, and also influenced by Marx.
I'm reading a book at the moment by Keith Wrightson, 'Earthly Necessities, Economic lives 1470-1750'. It details the emergence of the bourgeoisie as a class-in-itself in the 16th century.

At the time, there were three methods of production.

a) handicraft, where a 'small' master would produce one type of good in his own workshop/house, maybe with employed labour to help, and would sell the good straight to locally-based market.

b) a 'small' master would produce goods in the same way as handicraft, but would sell the goods not straight to market, but to a merchant, who would have access to non-local markets. Thus the 'small' master had access to wider markets, but was actually subordinated to a wage labourer himself, with the merchant investing and accruing capital.

c) the 'putting out' system, whereby a merchant would control the entire production process. He would hire work out to lots of labourers to be completed in their own homes/workshops, normally under no supervision. They would be paid according to a piece rate system and the merchant would derive all the profits, invest all the capital, make all the decisions.

Earlier on, the handicraft system was the dominant method of production. So you had surplus being produced, but a very simple and under-developed market mechanism and the proletariat and bourgeoisie were not really established as stand-alone classes. Gradually, starting with textile towns and the bigger, urban towns, method C started to become the dominant method of production. This, I believe, is where the modern-day Capitalist - the bourgeois - comes from: the early-Capitalist merchant, who originally extracted profit from one sort of good, but gradually moved into whichever industry could turn him a profit. Interesting stuff, reallyThis is exactly what I was asking about. Thank you both.

And I know the bourgeois aren't "bad guys," I just meant that many people on the left treat them as some invisible threat without really saying who they are or what they're doing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Should point out that Keith Wrightson is primarily an economic historian of the reformist-Capitalist tradition, but his analysis of the early-modern period, in particular the detailing of how modern socio-economic relationships have prevailed (which would probably be useful to answering the OPs question) is very interesting and quite scholarly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Okay, simple question, but what I'm really asking is more complex.

We all know they're the elite ruling class who own the means of production, but I really want to know WHO the bourgeoisie are. I've been reading Michael Focault's works where he describes the system of discipline and punishment that the bourgeoisie use in order to enforce their social order, and this has gotten me really interested in the bourgeoisie as a class, what their psychological mindset is, the ideals they cling to, their specific roles in society, their individual lives, how they compete with each other in the capitalist system, the bourgeois cultural hegemony, etc. I've read dozens of books talking about the plight of the proletarian and the details of their existence, but I realized the bourgeoisie remain a vague group of "bad guys" to me. I really want to read a deep analysis of them. Does anyone know any kind of written work that goes over the bourgeoisie in detail, preferably from a Marxian standpoint?I think Focault is pretty idealist when it comes to some of these issues: as if capitalist hegemony was a conscious plot rather than ideas which developed because they were useful in some way to the capitalists.

I don't think they have "one mind-set" or psychology as people - they do have some basic common interests (maintaining the ability to make profits) but on a day to day basis, as people they are, as Marx put it, like "a warring band of brothers". So people involved in finance capital might have interests which actually go against the interests of manufacturing or agricultural capitalists and the other way around. But unlike the working class, they are at least clear enough in their interests in maintaining profits, which by extension means preserving their positions as rulers of society and this gives them strength against a fragmented working class where most people can only imagine reforms under the capitalist system at best - of course they also try and cultivate this situation by pitting workers against each-other and trying to get them to identify with capitalist rule as being "for the common good".

So the way Focault sometimes puts it kinda suggests to me a sort of formulation like: the ruling class came up with the idea for cops as a way to control workers and ehert their hegemony and then implemented police forces. When really I think these systems come out of a certain kind of ruling class logic which is much more plain when you look at it from their class perspectives: hmm, these cities have developed and they are really good because all the labor is right there and they have to come to us and stand in line for jobs... but there also this problem where they all hand out after work and drink and sometimes riot or organize strikes or promote discontent against their bosses... we should maybe have some people other than the army that can be in cities and break up these large congregations of workers... (years later) hey now that we have this force of people policing in cities, why not use them to stop that violent strike!

So in other words, it's all part of "their logic" and their desire just to keep the wheels of profit turning that develops these systems, not the idea of controlling workers or creating hegemony. Even the way they create hegemonic ideas comes out of a development - while often it is individually conscious (like think-tanks or the Koch brothers and so on) it's also just a development stemming from the logic of "how can we maintain profitability" rather than an abstract desire/ideal for hegemony or control.

[pluckedflowers]

For a historical perspective, from the perspective of Western Europe, you might check out Colin Mooers' "The Making of Bourgeois Europe."

[Lowtech]

Indeed a seemingly complex question...

Although in appearances these divisions of class appear to change overtime, however the mathematical terms they follow do not. The ruling class is anyone that consume more than they produce. The class that is subjugated are those that consume less than they produce.

The working class consume less then they produce due to forced artificial scarcity (commodities sold above production cost) and being underpaid for their labour

Observing it mathematically cuts through the noise of social constructs, historical context etc.

[Manic Impressive]

The ruling class is anyone that consume more than they produce.
So the unemployed are part of the ruling class?

Class is determined by the person's relation to the means of production.

[Lowtech]

III
So the unemployed are part of the ruling class?

Class is determined by the person's relation to the means of production.

The rich are unemployed...however, you're right, someone needing to collect unemployment is different than being one of the elites...on small scales, it is benign and needed especially for the disabled and elderly, however excessive consumption far beyond one's ability to contribute is exactly the mathematical destinction the rich have compared to the working class

The elites are in actuallity people who chose not to work; not to contribute, while consuming several thousand times what they need; the profit system is the true "welfare" and runs rampant outside of society's control

If the rich lived by "if you don't work, you don't eat" they'd all voluntarily starve to death

[o well this is ok I guess]

But I would still like to study the actual process of how the bourgeois propagate their own culture. Yes, poor workers will describe themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but I want to read an actual analysis on how the bourgeoisie shape society after themselves. Well shit, I can help with that.
Here's a quick primer on the matter.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm