What constitutes Bourgeois?

[Subversive Pessimist]

A guy from another forum posted an interesting question.


"What distinguishes a member of the Bourgeoi class from one of the proletariat class? Where do you draw the line and who decides where to draw it?

I am a poor college student working for a corporation. I occasionally have the opportunity to direct other employees as to what they need to work on next. Does that make me bourgeois? By the same token, there are several assistant managers who tell me what to do next. Are they bourgeois? They are directed by the store manager. So is he the only bourgeois person there? He gets instructions from the corporate headquarters. Are they the bourgeois of the company? They ultimately answer to a single company president. So is everyone below him proletariat? Is he the only one in that company that should be overthrown in a communist revolution? Where do you draw the line?"

[Roses in the Hospital]

The lines aren't as solid now as in Marx's time, but basically the bourgoisie is the class which is not dependant upon a wage for their survival, ie. the employer. Anone who is dependant on earning a wage could be considered a protelariat, regardless of how high up in the 'food chain' they are. So, if both the cleaning lady and the manager of the factory are relient upon their wage to make their living then they are both proletearian. The factory owner however, who makes his living through the exploitation of his employees is bourgois.
It's worth noting, however, that the term bourgois can be used as an adjective to describe items or characteristics which are typically regarded as middle, or upper, class. Generally regarding items which are 'unnecessary.' For example a particulary lavish dress could be described as bourgois, without the wearer of the dress necessarily being of the bourgoisie.
I hope this helps...

[Misodoctakleidist]

Strictly speaking a bourgeois is anyone who the means of production.

Justice, you aren't a bourgeois becuase you don't own the corporation.

There are grey areas, such as people who own a small number of shares but still work in a reletively low paid job.

There is also a petit-bougeois class, this consists of people who own their means of production but don't employ anyone else or only employ one or two people, an example is a shop keeper.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

It's probably better to use post-modern Marxian terminology here, for example the proletariat is generally associated with all disenfranchised people of society, the economic issues I believe are becoming too blurred in a post-capitalist society to be so easily distinguished.

[Subversive Pessimist]

What about myself and my family?

We have a cafe with a lot of things for sale, like paintings, arts etc. but we can barely survive. We don't even make enough to pay the bills, although a lot of folks come here. The things we sell, are either owned by other people, and we will only get a little amount of those money. We can't afford hiring anyone, and we are dependent on others people money. We usually don't own what we sell...

So if someone buys stuff for 10 $, we get 1 $. Actually, we made more money when we had a regular jobs.
If I was to have a job in the "real world" IE outside this place, I would have a lousy job, flipping burgers at McDonalds or something, working for 8 dollars or less.

So in what class do I belong?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 11:19 AM
"What distinguishes a member of the Bourgeoi class from one of the proletariat class?
Class is distinguised by your relationship to the means of production. The bourgeosie or the ruling class control the means of production and are the ones who take profit while the proletariat or the working class work to create profit.


Where do you draw the line and who decides where to draw it?

Karl Marx used a scientific method to solidify class definitions but I think before that class was simply distinguised by people based on whether they were rich or whether they were poor.

The problem with modern society is that there is a whole different class who's relation to the means of production doesn't really exist. The professionals, or the petty-bourgeois class, or the middle classes. Doctors, lawyers or teachers. These people recieve wages which are not at all related to their ability to create profit. Doctors and teachers for example generally do good for society as do lawyers to a certain extent, although some law firms are about making money and lawyers are used to create profit. Can you class these people as working class. Technically they are being used to create profit. The difference however, between people such as lawyers and someone who works in a factory is that the lawyer is consciouslly choosing to accept those conditions because in turn it creates excess wealth. They benifit from the profit, where as working class people are not consciouslly choosing to work in a factory, rather they are forced to by the circumstances and are used to create profit because they have no other choice.


I am a poor college student working for a corporation. I occasionally have the opportunity to direct other employees as to what they need to work on next. Does that make me bourgeois?

Many modern revolutionary socialist organisations define class "enemies" based on whether they can hire or fire. Managers are often employed by the bosses, or ruling class, as tools to suppress workers dissent. In the UK the chiefs of the British postal service instructed their managers to betray their own class interest to spy on workers and trade union activists. Managers are often keen to do what their bosses say because they seem themselves as becoming like those people one day.

Because you instruct employees on tasks does not automatically make you bourgeois. Just remember your beliefs when you are in those situations. As long as people recognise themselves as revolutionary socialists or communists then their class background is not that important. Although i'd always suggest not putting yourself in positions where you have to act like a manager.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 01:50 PM
The professionals, or the petty-bourgeois class, or the middle classes. Doctors, lawyers or teachers.
Im not sure that a teacher goes in the same catergory as a doctor or a lawyer at all unless the teacher is a professor.Then he makes alot more money and is at his own freedoms and methods more so then a school teacher. Teachers, at least where I am from, do not make alot of money at all compared to doctors or lawyers, are prohibeted to strike and are scrutinzed for their students to meet the state standard on the state tests. Teachers are employees who can be fired for no reason here because it is a Right to Work state and that means that an employer can fire an employee for nothing, because that is his right. He doesnt have to have a reason.
So under that, it is very obvious who is the employee and who is not. And a teacher often has no qualms telling you about their issues, and all the work that they do after their hours that they are not payed for.

[Invader Zim]

Originally the term "Bourgeois" was a description of the antics and lifestyle of the "Bourgeoisie". The bourgeoisie was the upper part of the middle classes. They took power from the Émigré’s, following the French revolution. Typically the bourgeoisie were very rich yet untitled.

Marxists cling to the term for some rather inconceivable reason, despite the fact that the actual class no longer really exists. Indeed they now use the term to describe practically everything (completely ignoring the existing class structure) above the Proletariat as "Bourgeoisie". This is of course stupid, but I suppose that this is far too deeply routed now, and that they will stubbornly stick to their inappropriate use of the terms.

And why not? Everyone knows who and what they are talking about, so why change what appears to work?

[DaCuBaN]

"Bourgeois"

Personally, I've always used this as a term meaning 'extravagant and excessive', as it clearly can have no valid meaning in the modern world.

[Gen Arkan]

bourgeois behaviour is as dacuban said excessive but also impractical unneccesary.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Gen [email protected] 7 2004, 04:22 PM
bourgeois behaviour is as dacuban said excessive but also impractical unneccesary.
What you are DaCuBaN are saying doesn't make any sense. What relevance does peoples personalities have to class struggle? Which is the context of the question Justice has asked. Bourgeois class is what he wants to to be defined and told how it is actually defined.

There are many working class people who have "bourgeois behaviour." Does that make them bourgeois?

[DaCuBaN]

My point was that bourgious 'class' doesn't exist anymore, and defining them is self-defeating. We need to combat peoples behaviour - not their origins. They can control one, not the other.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:51 PM
My point was that bourgious 'class' doesn't exist anymore,
But that's absurd! As I have explained class is defined on your relationship to the means of production. You either control them or you work for them. By all means rename these classes if you want but you will not get rid of them until the workers have seized control of society and created communism. That's the point.


and defining them is self-defeating.

Class struggle is defined in this way, otherwise what are you fighting for?


We need to combat peoples behaviour - not their origins. They can control one, not the other.

And then what?

[Gen Arkan]

people can be bourgeois in behaviour and in their class. You can have a bourgeois person, ie middle class or higher, who beleives in working class ideals and acts working class

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Gen [email protected] 7 2004, 05:19 PM
people can be bourgeois in behaviour and in their class. You can have a bourgeois person, ie middle class or higher, who beleives in working class ideals and acts working class
And then what?

[DaCuBaN]

And then what?
'Then what' ???

If everyone is thinking as a 'worker' then we'd have satisfied the material conditions for communism!


Class struggle is defined in this way
You've got to understand, this word holds about as much credibility with me as Illumnati does...


what are you fighting for?
In the west of today, 'class' doesn't even come into it. I'm fighting for redistribution of land, for redistribution of wealth, for institution of democratic, demarchic or technocratic governance and the end of the capital economy.

What did you think I was fighting for?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:29 PM
If everyone is thinking as a 'worker' then we'd have satisfied the material conditions for communism!
What does this mean?


You've got to understand, this word holds about as much credibility with me as Illumnati does...

But that doesn't make class any less existent.


In the west of today, 'class' doesn't even come into it.

You seem to be missing the point. Marx defined the "unfairness" in society by analysing it and making scientific conclusions. It's very easy just to say "redistribute wealth" but that's just a hollow rhetorical sound bite that has no meaning by itself. Redistribute what wealth? Who's wealth? and why?

Marx looked at society and came to the conclusion that history developed based on a struggle between different groups of people, because of their different relationship to the means of production. He also concluded the communism would be achieved based on that class struggle. The working class, being the last exploited class in society and who work in the means of production would come to understand their class position and move to change it. Taking control of the means of production, removing the bourgeoisie from power, and creating a communist society, thus eliminating class and creating a classless society. The point of communism


I'm fighting for redistribution of land, for redistribution of wealth, for institution of democratic, demarchic or technocratic governance and the end of the capital economy.

Who's land? Who's welath? Who's institutions? And why do you want to do any of these things?


What did you think I was fighting for?

You cannot dismiss class as something which does not exists and then say you are fighting for communism. Communism is founded in class struggle.

[DaCuBaN]

My apologies... I didn't realise I'd capitalised Communism and hence added the Marxist twist. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm no Marxist.


What does this mean?

Social awareness/consciousness. If every man was in the mindset of 'the worker' then noone would seek to better himself by climbing over others, and hence the material conditions would be present. Land owners and capitalists alike would feel enclined to redistribute their 'wealth'. Their origins are irrelevant.


But that doesn't make class any less existent

I say it does. It's entirely irrelevant as it's such a broad term that it solves nothing.


Marx looked at society and came to the conclusion that history developed based on a struggle between different groups of people, because of their different relationship to the means of production. He also concluded the communism would be achieved based on that class struggle. The working class, being the last exploited class in society and who work in the means of production would come to understand their class position and move to change it. Taking control of the means of production, removing the bourgeoisie from power, and creating a communist society, thus eliminating class and creating a classless society. The point of communism

Stick the word socialism in there after taking control of the means of production and you've got Marx nailed as far as I can see. I think he saw it too simplisticly, and that class has no real bearing. There's just capitalists and wage-slaves. Some of the latter may have delusions of grandeiuer(sp?) but this is just my point - we need to be fighting both the cause of their mindset and their mindset itself - not because you believe that someone might conform to a certain class stereotype.


Redistribute what wealth? Who's wealth? and why?

Anyone and everyone's, equally amongst the populous.


You cannot dismiss class as something which does not exists and then say you are fighting for communism. Communism is founded in class struggle

I'll dismiss whatever I choose, that is my perogative. Communism by Marx and Engels might be 'founded in class struggle' but I don't think his ideas stand up undoctored in modern day society. There is plenty to learn from the ideals laid down, but it is not the be all and end all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:58 PM
Social awareness/consciousness.
That's the first step. Then what?


If every man was in the mindset of 'the worker' then noone would seek to better himself by climbing over others, and hence the material conditions would be present.

I'm having difficulty understanding you?


Land owners and capitalists alike would feel enclined to redistribute their 'wealth'.

:lol:

This is just a fantastical view. There is no way on this planet that the land owners and capitalists will just resdistribute their wealth. Why would members of the ruling elite suddenly decide to do this? What motivation do they have? These people control the capitalist system and believe rightously and vehemently that they are right. Why do you think a movement will be able to convince them otherwise? Why and when will they listen? There have been movements throughout the last two centuries attempting to convince them. Why hasn't it happened already?


Their origins are irrelevant.

Again you miss the point. Marxist or not, and at the risk of sounding dogmatic, what Marx concluded is fact. There is such a thing known as the means of production and there are groups of people related to that in some way. This is how society is structured and it is how society has developed thus far. If you don't agree with that, i'd be interested to know what you think the alternative is?


I think he saw it too simplisticly

Can you explain what you mean by this?


class has no real bearing.

Then why do you want to change society?


There's just capitalists and wage-slaves.

Better known as the ruling class and the working class.


Some of the latter may have delusions of grandeiuer(sp?)

It's irrelevant whether or not these people are delusional, they control society and can apply force when and where they desire and for what ever purpose that may be.


we need to be fighting both the cause of their mindset and their mindset itself

Rhetoric! What does this mean?


because you believe that someone might conform to a certain class stereotype.

It has absolutly nothing to do with stereotype. It has everything to do with material facts.


Anyone and everyone's, equally amongst the populous.

Why? How?


I'll dismiss whatever I choose, that is my perogative.

Indeed, but it doesn't make you right.


Communism by Marx and Engels might be 'founded in class struggle' but I don't think his ideas stand up undoctored in modern day society.

Then dispell them. I'm interested to know what you mean?


There is plenty to learn from the ideals laid down, but it is not the be all and end all.

Rulers like Tony Blair very often attempt to tell us how class doesn't exist! How we are all the same! But all this does is white wash and hide what is really going on. Why? Because it is in their interest. That interest is the exploitation of the workers and the control of a profit making system, protected and perpetrated by the state. Class exists, and that is exactly what the workers need to understand if they are ever going to create communism.

[DaCuBaN]

I think I can possibly get what I intended across to you quite easily here TAT...


What relevance does peoples personalities have to class struggle?

I say class is irrelevant, and that each individual must simply be treated as such, and decision must be made on this individual level. There are people out there who technically are capitalists, but would willingly give away everything they have to see the end of exploitation. These people would probably be considered to be 'bourgeois', yet they would support a revolution. Similarly, there are members of the working class who would dearly wish to go 'up a rung' of the social ladder (petit-bourgeois I believe they are generally called) and as such would betray any revolution to suit their own end.


Can you explain what you mean by [Marx's explanation being too simple]

As I have outlined above, class is not the division - there are people who are desperately poor but are staunch royalists, for example. Similarly, there are plenty of 'rich kids' who, although they arrived by less than admirable means (perhaps not getting a train set for their birthday?) vehemontly advocate social change.


It has absolutly nothing to do with stereotype

It has everything to do with stereotype.

If you want to continue this discussion, please start a new thread - we've derailed this one far enough already.

[redstarshining]

DaCuban - Since you are not a marxist, but strive for a society where wealth is equally redistributed,I would like to know how you would disprove the labour theory of value, and how do you think wealth is created in a capitalist market economy?

[DaCuBaN]

Marx isn't purely surmised in the LTV of course, so I have no intentions of 'disproving' it at all. In fact, I believe it to be one of the better ways of looking at capital economics. I'm no economist though, and hence in no position to even try to refute Marx's economic teachings. I would like to make it known that I don't think he was wrong in what he said, but that his ideas have actually been taken on further in other forums.

These days I'm beginning to call myself a 'Technocrat' - although I'm still in the preliminary stages of learning about this ideology.


Technocracy defines a Price System as any system whatsoever that effects the distribution of its goods and services on a basis of commodity evaluation and that employs any form of debt tokens or money.
By this definition, every major society in the world today employs some form of Price System whether they call it capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism or by any other label. Whatever their form, all were geared to conditions of natural scarcity and hence are unsuitable for distributing abundance


Energy Accounting is a method of Distribution based on the only measurable factor common to all products and services, and that is Energy. In an Energy Accounting system, all the energy used in the production, conversion, and transportation of goods and services would be accurately accounted for. This would be done by the relevant personnel in each Functional Sequence.
Primarily, Energy Accounting provides the accurate measurement of consumption, as well as production. This would be done with a device relevant to the available technology of the time. Technocracy's first proposed device was called the Energy Certificate. It would be distributed to all citizens and have the features of both a blank cheque and a traveller's cheque. It would be a document that would identify the user, with spaces to record information concerning the purchase, including what was purchased, the time and date, and what distribution center it was purchased from. This information would be immediately tabulated and sent to the Distribution Sequence , which could then use the information to determine what products were needed and where. Today, it is more likely that some sort of smart-card would be used. It could contain a microchip that could record all the relevant information, and also make the card far more difficult to tamper with.
What this would allow is for the Continental Control to know exactly how much of what items are being consumed and where. This information would allow production to be geared to consumption, and that the appropriate amounts of goods be delivered to the areas where they are desired. Since the energy it takes to produce and transport an item does not change, cost of items, measured in terms of energy, would not fluctuate, except in cases where a more efficient method of production was discovered, in which case the cost would only go down

Technocracy FAQ (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm#2.0)