G4b3n
14th August 2013, 21:52
Once again, I wrote this for a forum filled with reactionaries. I feel like this short essay contains good examples of how the ruling class imposes its morality upon lower classes. If you see any errors or have changes to offer, please let me know.
The word bourgeois simply means "of or relating to the middle class". In order to understand this, we must first debunk the "middle class myth" that exists in western society today. The myth is the notion that the working class consists of or exists within the middle class. The French term "bourgeoisie" was originally used to describe the middle class during the feudal area, this term encompassed the merchants, the investors, and the profiteers of trade. These people, who would today be considered to be at the very top of class society, were considered to be middle class because they existed below the aristocracy but above the workers.
Now that we understand the difference between the ruling class, i.e the bourgeoisie (formerly the middle class) and the working class, we can discuss the morality of the ruling class that is imposed upon the lesser classes. One might ask, how does a ruling class impose its morality onto the lesser classes? The answer is quite simple, through education, more specifically dogmatic propaganda that exists within education.
Let us address some examples of bourgeois morality.
"Violent protesting is never the answer"
This is a notion that is beaten into the minds of children beginning at the age they are capable of understanding political structure. That is radical notion, for something to always be incorrect or undesirable, so one must ask, why is this undesirable? Who benefits from assuring peaceful protests? This form of dogma is not without historical backing. Men such as Martin Luther King Jr, who were champions of non violent protest are portrayed as our moral heroes, the ones we ought to take after. Now, let us look at the other side of the coin, people like Malcolm X who's use of violence in opposition to the brutal oppression facing African Americans and the working poor was quite apparent in his rhetoric. It is also worthy of note that champions of peaceful protest like MLK, never once challenged bourgeois class rule, in fact they gracefully accepted it. While their more "radical" counter-parts such as Malcolm X did come out and address not only racial oppression, but all forms of oppression perpetuated by bourgeois class rule, the conditions facing the working poor, i.e, their position in contemporary society.
It is more than obvious that those who benefit from the working poor being in their powerless and miserable position were sure to support our peaceful protest advocates like MLK and go to great lengths to either speak out against or look in the other direction of people such as Malcolm X. This is the manifestation of bourgeois morality, it is every moral notion that contributes to perpetuating class rule, whether it benefit the vast majority of people or not.
Let us address another example.
"Trespassing on to another's property is wrong"
I do not need to go great lengths to explain how this notion is established, in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is self-evident in bourgeois society. This notion is based on the assumption that one is justified in securing a portion of the Earth and declaring exclusive rights to it. Historically, bourgeois property has been established through shockingly violent means. This can mean forcefully removing Native Americans from their communal lands in order to claim them for redistribution, or the increasingly wealthy merchants of early bourgeois Europe purchasing the lands of the small peasant and the handy craftsmen, forcing them into the gutter poverty of early industrial structures.
Finally we must ask, who benefits from this notion? Once again, it is the profiteers of labor, i.e the bourgeoisie. The worker has no use for private property, his labor has the potential to rest upon more egalitarian forms of social relations. However, the bourgeois need private property like the human body needs oxygen. Without these notions of private property, that would have no means of accumulating labor power, claiming the right to products produced by the labor of others.
Finally, I would like to conclude this discussion with an example of aristocratic morality in order to defend aristocratic rule against the rising bourgeoisie within feudal society. Morals of the ruling class have been the dominant morals of society long before capitalism, so this example is worthy of note.
In feudal society, it was a moral obligation to respect one's Lord and his right to control the labor that existed upon his land. One can conclude that this notion existed to secure the power of that lord over his serfs. Merchants were morally ambiguous because their rise threatened the legitimacy of lords, kings, etc.
The word bourgeois simply means "of or relating to the middle class". In order to understand this, we must first debunk the "middle class myth" that exists in western society today. The myth is the notion that the working class consists of or exists within the middle class. The French term "bourgeoisie" was originally used to describe the middle class during the feudal area, this term encompassed the merchants, the investors, and the profiteers of trade. These people, who would today be considered to be at the very top of class society, were considered to be middle class because they existed below the aristocracy but above the workers.
Now that we understand the difference between the ruling class, i.e the bourgeoisie (formerly the middle class) and the working class, we can discuss the morality of the ruling class that is imposed upon the lesser classes. One might ask, how does a ruling class impose its morality onto the lesser classes? The answer is quite simple, through education, more specifically dogmatic propaganda that exists within education.
Let us address some examples of bourgeois morality.
"Violent protesting is never the answer"
This is a notion that is beaten into the minds of children beginning at the age they are capable of understanding political structure. That is radical notion, for something to always be incorrect or undesirable, so one must ask, why is this undesirable? Who benefits from assuring peaceful protests? This form of dogma is not without historical backing. Men such as Martin Luther King Jr, who were champions of non violent protest are portrayed as our moral heroes, the ones we ought to take after. Now, let us look at the other side of the coin, people like Malcolm X who's use of violence in opposition to the brutal oppression facing African Americans and the working poor was quite apparent in his rhetoric. It is also worthy of note that champions of peaceful protest like MLK, never once challenged bourgeois class rule, in fact they gracefully accepted it. While their more "radical" counter-parts such as Malcolm X did come out and address not only racial oppression, but all forms of oppression perpetuated by bourgeois class rule, the conditions facing the working poor, i.e, their position in contemporary society.
It is more than obvious that those who benefit from the working poor being in their powerless and miserable position were sure to support our peaceful protest advocates like MLK and go to great lengths to either speak out against or look in the other direction of people such as Malcolm X. This is the manifestation of bourgeois morality, it is every moral notion that contributes to perpetuating class rule, whether it benefit the vast majority of people or not.
Let us address another example.
"Trespassing on to another's property is wrong"
I do not need to go great lengths to explain how this notion is established, in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is self-evident in bourgeois society. This notion is based on the assumption that one is justified in securing a portion of the Earth and declaring exclusive rights to it. Historically, bourgeois property has been established through shockingly violent means. This can mean forcefully removing Native Americans from their communal lands in order to claim them for redistribution, or the increasingly wealthy merchants of early bourgeois Europe purchasing the lands of the small peasant and the handy craftsmen, forcing them into the gutter poverty of early industrial structures.
Finally we must ask, who benefits from this notion? Once again, it is the profiteers of labor, i.e the bourgeoisie. The worker has no use for private property, his labor has the potential to rest upon more egalitarian forms of social relations. However, the bourgeois need private property like the human body needs oxygen. Without these notions of private property, that would have no means of accumulating labor power, claiming the right to products produced by the labor of others.
Finally, I would like to conclude this discussion with an example of aristocratic morality in order to defend aristocratic rule against the rising bourgeoisie within feudal society. Morals of the ruling class have been the dominant morals of society long before capitalism, so this example is worthy of note.
In feudal society, it was a moral obligation to respect one's Lord and his right to control the labor that existed upon his land. One can conclude that this notion existed to secure the power of that lord over his serfs. Merchants were morally ambiguous because their rise threatened the legitimacy of lords, kings, etc.