What exactly does 'bourgeoisie' mean?

[Tree_Hugger]

Technically i could look up the definition of 'bourgeoisie' in a dictionary or something, but i figured that someone more knowledgable than myself would be able to tell me. thanks ^_^

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I asked this question a while ago too. the bourgeoisie is basically the class which owns the means of production. For example, in a company, the boss or CEO would be bourgious. The workers would be the protalitarian.

[Tree_Hugger]

That's kinda what I thought it meant but then my dad was like 'hey man, it actually means poor people' and then I got all confused. Thanx ^__^

[EusebioScrib]

That's kinda what I thought it meant but then my dad was like 'hey man, it actually means poor people' and then I got all confused. Thanx ^__^

Highschool history books (and catholic school religion books *laughs*) try to pass of the merchant classes of the feudal ages, the bourgeoisie, as the spearhead of the modern middle class :lol: That may be what your father meant.

The reason Marx chose the term was because the modern capitalist class derived from the feudal bourgeoisie. Just like the communist human will derive from the working class.

Anyway, LH defined bourgeoisie in the only way you can define them.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah I heard that too along time ago and so when I came here I was like what? Why are you after the middle class? You attack the upper class!

The middle class could actually be a potential ally because they are mostly white collar cubicle workers who have a really sucky and abusive work atmosphere that's just cleaner and less dangerous than the protaletarian work place

[rioters bloc]

i could be wrong but i see &#39;lower&#39;, &#39;middle&#39;, and &#39;upper&#39; classes as being distinctly different from &#39;proletariat&#39; and &#39;bourgeoisie&#39;, as i see the former as referring to one&#39;s socio-economic position and the other as their role in the means of production. so say, my parents are propbably middle-class because we&#39;re fairly well off, we live in a house (although we have a mortgage) and we own a car. we don&#39;t have to rely on welfare to survive, and some of their income is disposable. however, they&#39;re both still part of the working-class. my mum works in a factory on which 90% of the employees are migrants who can&#39;t speak english all that well (including my mum). my dad recently got fired from a job as a plane engineer, along with 450 others cos apparently they &#39;couldn&#39;t afford to keep them&#39; (this from a company that makes billions in profit yearly <_<)

so they&#39;re still part of the exploited working class. but our living standards are middle-class.

[apathy maybe]

According to Marxian class analysis, there are two main classes. The Proletariat and the Bourgeois (there are also Lumenproletariat and petit-bourgeois and probably others, however, they are not important as they are either subsumed into the Proletariat or can play no part in the revolution).

The Proletariat are the workers they are the exploited. The Bourgeois are the owners of the means of production and generally do little work they are the rulers.

It gets complicated when you actually start applying it to real life, the CEO of a company does not actually own the company, they simply run it. They might not even own any shares, but they are still bourgeois.

Historically it was the bourgeois who fought against feudalism and brought about capitalist economies, thus you see the French and the Russian revolutions were Bourgeois revolutions (the coup that happened after the Russian revolution was a coup, not a revolution).


Many anarchists and most capitalists do not accept Marxian class analysis. Capitalists point often to Weber&#39;s work on the subject, while different anarchists have different ideas.

rioters bloc for example (correct me if I am wrong) uses socio-economic position rather then relation to the means of production to classify class. (Actually so do I, politicians are still ruling class, even if they do not own any factories or mines.)

It gets even more complicated when you consider class at an international level rather then a national level.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:56 PM
The middle class could actually be a potential ally because they are mostly white collar cubicle workers who have a really sucky and abusive work atmosphere that&#39;s just cleaner and less dangerous than the protaletarian work place
Here you&#39;re mixing up the bourgeois definition of "class", with the marxist definition of class.

Cubicle workers are certainly proletarian, and not "middle-class". Proletarian does not always imply a dirty work place, it has to do with relation to the means of production.

[bezdomni]

Interesting note;

Bourgeoisie is a plural noun, and bourgeois is usually an adjective.

Use it in a sentence? Alright&#33;

Death to the bourgeoisie&#33; (plural noun)

Fucking bourgeois politicians&#33; (adjective)

[emma_goldman]

One problem in America is we&#39;ve made class all about wealth when it&#39;s not necessarily so. If you don&#39;t own the means of production, like it or not, you&#39;re a proletariat whether you&#39;re a factory worker or a college professor. However, characteristically it is the lower classes who are proletariats because they don&#39;t have the finances to own the means of production. Speaking of which I found a cartoon on the internet I thought was interesting.

It went like this, a man talking to the bourgeoisie boss:

MAN: How much products do your workers make a day?
BOSS: &#036;400 worth.
MAN: How much do you pay your workers a day?
BOSS: &#036;100.
MAN: So you technically rob them &#036;300 a day.
BOSS: No, I own the means of production&#33;
MAN: How do you get the money to own the means of production?
BOSS: I uh...bought and sold products.
MAN: Well..
BOSS: Sssh...they&#39;ll hear you&#33; :)

[Redmau5]

The middle class could actually be a potential ally because they are mostly white collar cubicle workers who have a really sucky and abusive work atmosphere that&#39;s just cleaner and less dangerous than the protaletarian work place

"White collar cubicle workers" are working-class. They are exploited just the same as any other working-class person. Just because they don&#39;t do hard physical labour doesn&#39;t mean that they are middle-class.


the coup that happened after the Russian revolution was a coup, not a revolution

That&#39;s only your opinion, yet you speak as if it&#39;s scientific fact. Very ignorant.


Actually so do I, politicians are still ruling class, even if they do not own any factories or mines.

Politicians, at least for the most part, are only puppets of big business. The politicians may not own the means of production, but they are under the thumb of the people who do.

[EusebioScrib]

That&#39;s only your opinion, yet you speak as if it&#39;s scientific fact. Very ignorant.

Sorry to but in but... :unsure:

That&#39;s because it is scientific fact&#33;

YAY for Historical Materialism&#33; :wub:

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Makaveli+--> (Makaveli)That&#39;s only your opinion, yet you speak as if it&#39;s scientific fact. Very ignorant.[/b]LOL&#33; :lol: I speak as if it is fact. Not scientific fact. The reason I say it is because it is true. I think you will find that apart from Leninists most people (on the left or otherwise) when shown the facts will agree with me. It did not have the support of the majority of the population, therefore it was not a revolution. It was a small group of people who took over the running of the government from another group of people. I.e. a coup&#33;


Makaveli
Politicians, at least for the most part, are only puppets of big business. The politicians may not own the means of production, but they are under the thumb of the people who do. I disagree. Yes sometimes they are not their own persons, but we can look at Venezuela for an example of where politicians are not under the thumb of big business. Greens are not under the thumb of big business (even if they are not in power). Some politicians get money from big business, some do not. Regardless they are still part of the ruling class, I think you would agree?

[Redmau5]

It did not have the support of the majority of the population, therefore it was not a revolution.

Well the Bolsheviks where elected democratically by almost every soviet in Russia. It was only when they tried to take from the peasants etc. that people on a large scale turned against them.


I disagree. Yes sometimes they are not their own persons, but we can look at Venezuela for an example of where politicians are not under the thumb of big business. Greens are not under the thumb of big business (even if they are not in power).

Which is why I said for the most part. I didn&#39;t say all politicians.


Some politicians get money from big business, some do not. Regardless they are still part of the ruling class, I think you would agree?

Most politicians around the world aim to make their country strong economically. They do this using the free market economic system, which is the system used by most countries. So by trying to make their economy strong, they also serve the interests of big business. Although most politicians do not serve big business consciously, they are still generally under the control of capitalist corporations.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14 2006, 06:38 AM
LOL&#33; :lol: I speak as if it is fact. Not scientific fact. The reason I say it is because it is true. I think you will find that apart from Leninists most people (on the left or otherwise) when shown the facts will agree with me. It did not have the support of the majority of the population, therefore it was not a revolution. It was a small group of people who took over the running of the government from another group of people. I.e. a coup&#33;
Read some fucking history :angry:

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:22 AM
Technically i could look up the definition of &#39;bourgeoisie&#39; in a dictionary or something, but i figured that someone more knowledgable than myself would be able to tell me. thanks ^_^
In the Marxist sense, the Bourgeoisie is the class that invests capital into industrial production, recieves the surplus value and then reinevests it...it means the same thing as capitalists or private owners of the means of production.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 12:07 PM
The politicians may not own the means of production, but they are under the thumb of the people who do.
And then you&#39;ve got Bush & Co...