Definition of bourgeoisie? - I've heard conflicting views

[commie kg]

I've heard people referring to the proletariat as only the factory workers who do all the hard, dirty work and make horrible wages.

They say the bourgeoisie is everyone else.

I thought Marx defined bourgeoisie as the capitalists who owned the means of production. That would make common proffesions like cubicle workers proles, right?

Alot of people think that these workers should be considered among the bourgeoisie, but I see them as part of the proletariat.

What do you think?

[redstar2000]

You see with clear eyes.

If you go back far enough, the word simply meant "town-dweller". Over the centuries, it came to mean the "middle-class"...that is, the class "in between" the aristocracy and the serfs.

Then the definition narrowed again, to refer to the rising class of merchants, bankers and early manufacturers.

By Marx's time, this definition had solidified in the popular mind...though it was still not unusual to also refer to them as the "middle class".

It would probably have been better if Marx had not shown off his education with words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletarian" -- working class and capitalist class would have been perfectly adequate for his use and ours.

But habits of language die slowly...and so, on a leftist message board, you will see the words used with some frequency "out of habit"...particularly in arguments between people familiar with the old terminology.

We ought to quit doing that, but we probably won't...at least for a while.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Most people are incorrect on the meaning of the "bourgeoisie". As you pointed out most people think they are simply every one who is not a serf or a proletariat.

This is infact incorrect the bourgeoisie is an extinct term for the French upper middle classes, the part of the middle class directly below the Gentry or Émigrés. The Émigrés were the Aristocracy who were forced to flee France during the bourgeoisie funded and organised revolution. The bourgeoisie were in control right up until the Napoleonic time when the system was replaced with despotic rule. In 1814 after the first fall of Napoleon Louis XV111 came to power, he was inevitably going to be more Ultra or bais towards the Émigrés as an Émigré himself.

When Louis died in 1824 he was replaced by Charles X, who was an extream Émigré and infact lead the White Terror in 1815 (a different story). The bourgeoisie were not happy with him and unified to overthrow him in 1830. Charles was forced to abdicate and flee the country.

He was replace by Louis Philippe, for several complex reasons Louis Philippe was also replaced in 1848. However during the reign of Louis Philippe the bourgeoisie were hugley powerful, they had vast amounts of control of Louis Philippe as they were the ones who put him in power. These hugley rich almost aristocratic members of the middle classes were the group whome Marx was writting about during the reign of Louis Philippe. Marx wrote the communist Manifesto in 1848 when the bourgeoisie were most powerful and forced the overthrow of Louis Philippe and placed Louis Napoleon in power.

Those who refer to the bourgeoisie as simply rich or upper class are fundermentaly mistaken and know nothing about what they are talking about as the bourgeoisie is a specific section of the Middle classes.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:23 am on June 11, 2003
You see with clear eyes.

If you go back far enough, the word simply meant "town-dweller". Over the centuries, it came to mean the "middle-class"...that is, the class "in between" the aristocracy and the serfs.

Then the definition narrowed again, to refer to the rising class of merchants, bankers and early manufacturers.

By Marx's time, this definition had solidified in the popular mind...though it was still not unusual to also refer to them as the "middle class".

It would probably have been better if Marx had not shown off his education with words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletarian" -- working class and capitalist class would have been perfectly adequate for his use and ours.

But habits of language die slowly...and so, on a leftist message board, you will see the words used with some frequency "out of habit"...particularly in arguments between people familiar with the old terminology.

We ought to quit doing that, but we probably won't...at least for a while.

:cool:



COme on there is nothing wrong with the terminology.
Granted it is a bit old, however i believe most socialist grasp the meaning, and if they don't they can have it explained to them.

We shouldn't have to dumb down the words we use because someone misunderstands them.

And honestly who thought that the bourgeoisie was anything other than a serf.

You don't need to be a serf to be opressed. I think the peropls who misunderstand them were never sure of anything to beginw ith and just used the word because they saw someone else use it.

Even posers who read teh Manifesto can see within the first few pages what it means.

[mentalbunny]

Ok, this doesn't really come form anywhere but me. The proletariat are those who sell their labour, the borgeoisie are those who own the means of production. So most people are actually proletariat under this definition, fine by me! I ran that by my dad and he was quite interested to hear that although he earns lots of money and has a job in a computer programming company as an expert in some field he's still part of the proletariat.

[Invader Zim]

Quote from: mentalbunny


Ok, this doesn't really come form anywhere but me. The proletariat are those who sell their labour, the borgeoisie are those who own the means of production.



Interesting definition... It would certainly apply to modern day capitalism except in one important respect.

You say that the proletariat sell there labour, and the borgeoisie are the ones who own the means of produse, however in modern day western finance even the company Managing director will not own the company. Often the company is owned by a large group of share holders. These share holders may be members of the proletariat as they work as a sales assistant at Halfords for example. So by your definition as they own a part of the means of produse of a different company as well making them fit under the definition of borgeoisie as well. You see the problem? Of course there are many different aspects of this such as companys who buy shares and invest them who are also owned by share holder etc. It can get very complicated.

The only real borgeoisie left which actualy fit the definition are very rich buisness men like Richard Branson and Bill Gates who fit the description almost exactly. However due to modern changes to the class system they would probably be better placed under upper class, meaning that they fundermentaly cannot be part of the borgeoisie as they are part of the Gentry.

You do get lesser buisness men such as small buisness owners who employ know people only run there own company are they borgeoisie? As they sell there own production to them selves.

This is a very complicated subject, personally I think that the definitions were made obsolite over 130 years ago, but each to there own.

[mentalbunny]

Well yes that is true AK47. Any definition will be flawed unless it's miles long. Essentially it depends on income, whether it comes from selling your labour or the profit of other people's labour. I knwo that CEO's do work, but their salaries are more profits rather than directly performance related. I know there are falws in that statement but I'm too tired to go into all of it now, and it's pretty irrelevant when you look at the big picture.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Technically, mentalbunny is right: the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production, while the proletarians are the ones who must sell their labour (i.e. work as employees).

However, things are more complicated than that nowadays, with the way big corporations are organized...

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Edric O on 10:48 pm on June 12, 2003
Technically, mentalbunny is right: the bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production, while the proletarians are the ones who must sell their labour (i.e. work as employees).

However, things are more complicated than that nowadays, with the way big corporations are organized...

Not really because the gentry or Émigrés also owned the means of production as well as the bourgeoisie. Like I say the bourgeoisie only ever can be related to the specific french section of the middle class of which they were members. They never owned all means of productiona and never were necessarily the richest group, they just happened to be a major power in Marx's time.

[Blibblob]

Maybe thats why you can ditch the history lessons and let us just stick with what Marx meant? :biggrin:

Bourgeoisie is the powerful and rich and let's add own the means of production.

Proletarians are the poor ones with little to no power, and we can add sell their means of production.

It looks as though you, AK, are seeing the Bourgeoisie as the powerful? Modern times places the power in the hands of people with money and the means of production. Expanding upon a former definition?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:43 pm on June 12, 2003
Maybe thats why you can ditch the history lessons and let us just stick with what Marx meant? :biggrin:

Bourgeoisie is the powerful and rich and let's add own the means of production.

Proletarians are the poor ones with little to no power, and we can add sell their means of production.

It looks as though you, AK, are seeing the Bourgeoisie as the powerful? Modern times places the power in the hands of people with money and the means of production. Expanding upon a former definition?

No I see the bourgeoisie as what they are and were a specific section of the French middle class, with little or no relevance with today. Marx was wrong to use them to describe them as the sole oppressors of the proletariat.

That gives the impression that they are the be all and end all of capitalism, which is an error. In this case the facts are what are important not what Marx meant, or wanted to mean etc. As he is long dead we cant ask him so any guess work like that is to use ignorance to gain understanding. Which is completely illogical.

[Blibblob]

BUT as lardlad said "Even posers who read teh Manifesto can see within the first few pages what it means".

It is quite obvious to tell what Marx meant. And what he meant works, as your old form of Bourgeoisie doesn't, because the gentrys and the Emigres don't really exist much anymore. And you appear to be ond the miniscule side here. Everyone else is lazy(I guess you appear as lazy) and just feel like going with the dumbed down version. The history is nice, but doesn't fit in that well. Time has changed you know. ;)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 12:44 am on June 13, 2003
BUT as lardlad said "Even posers who read teh Manifesto can see within the first few pages what it means".

It is quite obvious to tell what Marx meant. And what he meant works, as your old form of Bourgeoisie doesn't, because the gentrys and the Emigres don't really exist much anymore. And you appear to be ond the miniscule side here. Everyone else is lazy(I guess you appear as lazy) and just feel like going with the dumbed down version. The history is nice, but doesn't fit in that well. Time has changed you know. ;)

Who cares what Marx described as the Bourgeoisie he was wrong plain and simple, or at least he generalised the truth of the matter.


Time has changed you know.

Exactly thats why the old terms of Bourgeoisie are now meaningless to anyone with a basic knowladge of French historys, or anyone who actualy wants to have a vaug accuracy with what they post.

Even Marx's ideals on what the term Bourgeoisie should mean is now obsolite as it does not take into account any modern changes to money patterns, share's, etc.

[Blibblob]

Even Marx's ideals on what the term Bourgeoisie should mean is now obsolite as it does not take into account any modern changes to money patterns, share's, etc.
Maybe that's why Metalbunny's works!


(Edited by Blibblob at 8:31 am on June 13, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 12:48 pm on June 13, 2003

Even Marx's ideals on what the term Bourgeoisie should mean is now obsolite as it does not take into account any modern changes to money patterns, share's, etc.
Maybe that's why Moskitto's works!

What???

Moskitto???

What has he got to-do with this?

Anyway what do you mean works?

He's not got a job...

[Blibblob]

I appologize sincerly. I meant to put metalbunny, and moskitto popped into my head... I'm a little off today.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 1:32 pm on June 13, 2003
I appologize sincerly. I meant to put metalbunny, and moskitto popped into my head... I'm a little off today.

ohh...

PS I love the lemmings thing on your page...

[Blibblob]

PS I love the lemmings thing on your page...
:biggrin: It's kinda old...

[mentalbunny]

Thanks Blibblob, it does kinda work in a simplified kinda way, as long as you realise that being borgeois and proletarian are not mutually exclusive, it is the ratio that is important as that decides where your interests lie. And also, being borgeois does not instantly make you an evil capitalist pig, although off the top of my head I can't think of any examples.