The French and The Bourgeoisie


Recommended Posts

Hey Guys/Gals,

First, I know you have probably noticed I changed my profile picture, and yes I am still a Cowboys fan; I just wanted a change of pace. If you are wondering what it is, it is me drawn as a Family Guy Character. Even though Family Guy is pretty liberal I do enjoy the episodes that don't involve politics. My question is about The French Revolution and The Bourgeoisie. In my class we have been reading Gramsci and we keep referring to the French Bourgeoisie as Capitalists, isn't this a tad bit of an ignorant statement. The Bourgeoisie held power by oppressing their people which is as far from capitalism as you can get. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, let me know what you guys/gals think?

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1680, French finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, asked a merchant named M. Le Gendre what the state could do to promote industry. According to legend, the reply came: “Laissez-nous faire,” or “let it be.” This incident was reported in 1751 in the Journal Oeconomique by the free-trade champion Rene de Voyer, Marquis d’Argenson. http://dailyreckoning.com/what-is-laissez-faire/

So, long before the Revolution, bourgeois merchants were begging the government to leave them (and their customers) alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it is French which means we will rarely have to pay attention to anything about them.

bourgeoisie, the social order that is dominated by the so-called middle class. In social and political theory, the notion of the bourgeoisie was largely a construct of Karl Marx (1818–83) and of those who were influenced by him. In popular speech, the term connotes philistinism, materialism, and a striving concern for “respectability,” all of which were famously ridiculed by Molière (1622–73) and criticized by avant-garde playwrights since Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906).

Are the Marxist's roots of the phrase discussed by your instructor?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my class we have been reading Gramsci and we keep referring to the French Bourgeoisie as Capitalists, isn't this a tad bit of an ignorant statement. The Bourgeoisie held power by oppressing their people which is as far from capitalism as you can get.

The French bourgeoisie were capitalists in the sense that they owned capital and used it to make a profit.

@Selene

The term "bourgeois" predates Marx by about a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it is French which means we will rarely have to pay attention to anything about them.

bourgeoisie, the social order that is dominated by the so-called middle class. In social and political theory, the notion of the bourgeoisie was largely a construct of Karl Marx (1818–83) and of those who were influenced by him. In popular speech, the term connotes philistinism, materialism, and a striving concern for “respectability,” all of which were famously ridiculed by Molière (1622–73) and criticized by avant-garde playwrights since Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906).

Are the Marxist's roots of the phrase discussed by your instructor?

A...

Basically we have just accepted as fact that the Bourgeoisie were capitalists oppressing the people. We have not discussed the phrase Bourgeoisie at all. I want to correct my opening question, in my question I stated that the Bourgeoisie weren't capitalist because they suppressed their people, from what I gather they were capitalist who didn't suppress the people. If I am incorrect please correct me, and if I am correct can someone direct me towards more information backing this claim. Everything I find online simply says the Bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, it is French which means we will rarely have to pay attention to anything about them.

I can misinterpret this to infer that you are bigoted towards "the French," and that can't be so.

Perhaps you meant that since the French language has its roots in the perfidious French people ... we can ignore the French language.

English vocabulary is of course shot-through with French or derived from common origins, which is great, I think. And English vacuums up 'foreign' terms ten a penny. Look at the roots of the word 'bourgeois' as an English term, and see its cognates in our own cousin languages. Burgh, Burg, Bourg, Borough, Burgomaster/Burgermeister, 'rotten Borough,' Burgess, etc. Have some fun finding the French remnants in US common law, derived from the Anglo-Norman practice -- or more fun exploring where English and French blended in law in unique and unusual ways, like on the Channel Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Sark ...

I am mostly kidding about anti-French bigotry, but you should remember that a proud Canadian can be proud of his country's French fact, and happy to use the language of our compatriots. Me, I am bilingual, and can even swear mightily in Montreal slang, so don't get me started.

I expect you to show more savoir-faire, Adam. Honi soit qui mal y pense and all that.

BM2-001.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the Marxist's roots of the phrase discussed by your instructor?

Basically we have just accepted as fact that the Bourgeoisie were capitalists oppressing the people.

Is it clear that you are examining (rather than being encouraged to accept as true) a Marxist theory? One can understand that a Marxist analysis of the so-called bourgeois class is such and so, but also understand that furious counter-readings exist in contraposition to the theory. One can study an influential theory without being expected to adopt that theory as one's own.

We have not discussed the phrase Bourgeoisie at all. I want to correct my opening question, in my question I stated that the Bourgeoisie weren't capitalist because they suppressed their people, from what I gather they were capitalist who didn't suppress the people. If I am incorrect please correct me, and if I am correct can someone direct me towards more information backing this claim. Everything I find online simply says the Bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat.

Believe it or not, Wikipedia has a useful, wide-ranging page on 'Bourgeoisie' -- interesting and well-sourced historically. You probably have already read it. Here is a part of the section on the word's etymology:

The Modern French word bourgeois derived from the Old French burgeis (walled city), which derived from bourg ( market town), from the Old Frankish burg (town); in other European languages, the etymologic derivations are the Middle English burgeis, the Middle Dutch burgher, the German Bürger, the Modern English burgess, and the Polish burżuazja, which occasionally is synonymous with the intelligentsia.

And from the section on the word's history:

During the 17th and 18th centuries, the bourgeoisie were the politically progressive social class who supported the principles of constitutional government and of natural right, against the Law of Privilege and the claims of rule by divine right that the nobles and prelates had autonomously exercised during the feudal order. The motivations for the English Civil War (1642–51), the American War of Independence (1775–83), and French Revolution (1789–99) partly derived from the desire of the bourgeoisie to rid themselves of the feudal trammels and royal encroachments upon their personal liberty, commercial rights, and the ownership of property. In the 19th century, the bourgeoisie propounded liberalism, and gained political rights, religious rights, and civil liberties for themselves and the lower social classes; thus was the bourgeoisie then a progressive philosophic and political force in modern Western societies.

-- though I am not as knee-jerk anti-French/Marxist as Adam, I do agree with him in a way: whenever I hear or read the word 'bourgeoisie' I know that I am in Marx territory, and that the lecture I receive will probably be dreary and tendentious.

I suggest doing a lot of side-reading to fill in history that may likely be left out of the course. Explore the fuller meaning and historical change in terms to understand just how hog-tied by Marxist premises are the arguments that use the term to class and disparage 'bad' actors.

If you need to write an essay or two on this course later, I'd suggest you fasten on a period before Marxism reared its head. The actual post-feudal power struggles among royalists/nobles and the prosperous and productive 'bourgeoisie' of the time can be informed by your Objectivish understanding of capitalism, while showing your instructor you can wield the terms and concepts of the course.

On the one hand, understanding the Marxist class analysis of 'bourgeois' can give you sharper weapons in debate and discussion with statists. You gain access into the foundations of their arguments -- you will be able to tell when those arguments are based on a stale rehash of Marxist verities, and when they are informed by independent thinking.

On the other hand, you may have to grit your teeth at gross simplifications and lazy parroting of long-dead cliches about homo economicus.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William:

Sadly, there are very few instructors that make distinctions that need to be made.

This "instructor" appears to be a one note symphony.

David:

Do you research "terms" like "bourgeoisie?"

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William:

Sadly, there are very few instructors that make distinctions that need to be made.

This "instructor" appears to be a one note symphony.

David:

Do you research "terms" like "bourgeoisie?"

A...

I have but it all appears pretty bias, I can't find something that gives proof to the oppressive acts the Bourgeoisie supposedly did. All I can find was that the working class was paid very little but if they were paid very little and it was actual capitalism the market would correct this problem. william.scherk suggested I read the wiki page but even it has a pretty bias stance on the matter, It even uses Marx and Gramsci terms to make its points. Here is the quote from wikipedia-

"in the event, despite its initial philosophic progressivism — from feudalism to liberalism to capitalism — the bourgeoisie social class (haute and petite) became reactionary in their refusal to allow the ascension (economic, social, political) of people from the proletariat (peasants and urban workers) in order to maintain hegemony.[8]"

If this quote is in fact true I would like something more then the workers were paid little to support it. In what way were the Bourgeoisie able to maintain power? Was this true capitalism? Are the bourgeoisie actually evil?

Edited by DallasCowboys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, since we are in a correcting mood...

"william.scherk suggested I read the wiki page but even it has a pretty bias biased stance on the matter,.."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, since we are in a correcting mood...

"william.scherk suggested I read the wiki page but even it has a pretty bias biased stance on the matter,.."

A...

I seem to be one being corrected :( haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, since we are in a correcting mood...

"william.scherk suggested I read the wiki page but even it has a pretty bias biased stance on the matter,.."

A...

I seem to be one being corrected :sad: haha

Spelling Punctuation & Grammar Police™ protect and serve people we like. (Commas in brand identities are optional.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like "per say." I'm working on usage right now.

--Brant

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832), economist, per Say's Law

... which states that supply creates its own demand. Over the years Say’s Law has been embroiled in two kinds of controversy—the first over its authorship, the second over what it means and, given each meaning, whether it is true. On the first controversy, it is clear that Say did invent something like Say’s Law. But the first person actually to use the words “supply creates its own demand” appears to have been James Mill. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Say.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheop's Law [applies to all government projects]:

"Nothing get's built on time, or, within budget."

Might have been a Heinlein Lazarus Long quote...this one certainly is...

Do not confuse “duty” with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can

entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and

to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with

the leech who wants “just a few minutes of your time, please--this won’t take long.” Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice

of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time--and squawk for more! So learn to say No--and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you. (This

rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice

be yours. Don’t do it because it is “expected” of you.)

There's more...lol

"Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance--"

I love this one:

" Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal,

conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides

politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such

desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of

the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in

altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

"Natural laws have no pity."

"Inductive logic is much more difficult --but can produce new truths."

This next one is brilliant...

"A man does not insist on physical beauty in a woman who builds up his morale. After a while he realizes that she is beautiful--he just hadn’t noticed it at first."

OK last one for now...

A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other, professionals offering

services for pay--such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc.

Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her

clients? It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher

than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are words to strike fear into any wide person: "I am from the Government and I am here to help you"

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it the case that during that time blood lines were still highly valued? Therefore while it may have been possible for the average citizen to accumulate capital in order to buy some land, many times they would be blocked from buying it because they were not of noble decent. Much like black people were blocked from buying into neighborhoods and today buyers of extremely high end art work are literally chosen by the dealer for their added provenance, less prominent buyers would be turned away regardless of whether they can afford the art or not. Voltaire, though rich, had to flee France because he wasn't of proper lineage and he got into a beef with someone who was.

If what I'm saying is true than that is definitely a form of oppression

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it the case that during that time blood lines were still highly valued? Therefore while it may have been possible for the average citizen to accumulate capital in order to buy some land, many times they would be blocked from buying it because they were not of noble decent. Much like black people were blocked from buying into neighborhoods and today buyers of extremely high end art work are literally chosen by the dealer for their added provenance, less prominent buyers would be turned away regardless of whether they can afford the art or not. Voltaire, though rich, had to flee France because he wasn't of proper lineage and he got into a beef with someone who was.

If what I'm saying is true than that is definitely a form of oppression

This is an excellent point that I simply hadn't thought of. This basically answers my whole questions, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol reminds me back in the day when Ralph Klien was drunk and told some homeless guy to get a job.

When the media tried to crucify him he basically said "Fuck off I was drunk" end of media attack.

I remember that! Ah, Ralph... Those were the good old innocent, wholesome days .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now