JD, at my place, waxes lyrical about the Blaydon Races, which “celebrated” their 150th anniversary yesterday:
The aristocracy and the working class have a great deal in common, such as a love of drinking and horse racing and drinking and gambling and drinking and fornicating and other sins of the flesh.
When arguing against the bourgeoisie*, who better than the Marxists themselves with their distorted definitions? And who else to quote but good ole Vlad Ilyich himself, via our less than friendly local Marxist site:
In all capitalist Countries throughout the world, the bourgeoisie resorts to two methods in its struggle against the working-class movement and the workers’ parties. One method is that of violence, persecution, bans, and suppression. In its fundamentals, this is a feudal, medieval method.
Would that be the “violence, persecution, bans, and suppression” of the very Statists this guy is arguing for, applied by Them § to the bourgeoisie itself?
Everywhere there are sections and groups of the bourgeoisie—smaller in the advanced countries and larger in the backward ones—which prefer these methods, and in certain, highly critical moments in the workers’ struggle against wage-slavery, the entire bourgeoisie is agreed on the employment of such methods. Historical examples of such moments are provided by Chartism in England, and 1849 and 1871 in France.
Naturally he writes the diametric opposite of the true situation – it’s actually “larger in the advanced countries and smaller in the backward ones, such as we see today with the shrinking middle-class”.
The other method the bourgeoisie employs against the movement is that of dividing the—workers, disrupting their ranks, bribing individual representatives or certain groups of the proletariat with the object of winning them over to its side. These are not feudal but purely bourgeois and modern methods, in keeping with the developed and civilised customs of capitalism, with the democratic system.
No need, of course, to point out the fallacies in the Marxist static view of society, ascribing the diversity and differing aspirations of the “working class” to divisiveness on the part of some “aristocratic” bourgeoisie – he actually means Them – and the conflating of Them with the respectable middle-class. They’re entirely different demographics in reality. See note* below.
It’s a child’s understanding of society. Now for a more grown-up, more sane view of the bourgeoisie.
Perhaps the most important role of the bourgeoisie, though an unwitting role, is to prevent the encroachment of totalitarianism. This is why the totalitarian Them have the following manifesto:
1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government
1. Marxism assumes all “workers” are happy to wallow around in a stagnant pool of mediocre world workerdom, proud of their working class Kray Brothers traditions, all sharing the misery equally, none allowed to rise above the other – “we’re all individuals”, as Python would say and happy to share their jobs with any Romanian, Bulgarian or Jamaican – one big happy family, no national values, no traditions to be proud of anymore.
Perhaps they should read Lord T’s Base Instincts, maybe the extreme Ayn Rand as well but the principle of what motivates people has some currency. As a Christian, naturally I reject Rand and yet there’s something about incentive, aspiration, discretion and other such traits to commend them.
2. The only reason JD’s “the aristocracy and the working class have a great deal in common such as a love of drinking and horse racing and drinking and gambling and drinking and fornicating and other sins of the flesh” is able to continue is because the bourgeoisie keeps the ship of state stable and tied to ideals of freedom, such as those enjoyed by smoky-drinkies and race-goers. The only reason smoky-drinkies are being prevented these days is the State and it’s the State which is hell-bent on destroying the very bourgeoisie which stands as a bulwark against it, turning us into infantilized serfs, incapable of our own futures.
It may be that “The Maily Dail reading middle classes are afraid of such things because they just don’t know how to misbehave” but at least they remain free to fail to misbehave [or not].
3. We, as a society, either keep to the much derided Judaeo-Christian values of tolerance, fair play, individual choice, discretion and the right to own things and find a job in a vibrant workplace or else we can descend to the quagmire of a nasty, chav-infested land of fatherless babies, mothers on the teat of the State, rampant behaviour euphemized by JD which can only exist as long as the bourgeoisie exists, cannabilism of our young, the mediocritization of society which allows for no aspiration or advancement and the increasing paucity of art and aesthetics in general – the snuffing out of nobility in Man and his reduction to bland serfdom.
It is the bourgeoisie which is currently fighting this rearguard battle against the dark forces of Them and the State so I, for one, am not going to help tear down our very foundations, committed to freedom of speech, association, worship and the press and instead substitute this [courtesy of the Mail]:
Do you seriously want a State where no one can rise above penury, where jobs are either blocked or don’t exist, where you don’t even eat without the say-so of Them and where improvement and higher things are simply not possible?
The bourgeoisie may have a limited mindset according to the Marxists and other extremists but has it ever crossed the mind of these people that the bourgeoisie is happy with a roof over the head, a family, two cars, a leafy suburb, a good job, good education and clothing for the kids, holidays by the seaside and the teaching to children of the values of respect for themselves and of others?
Why shouldn’t they embrace the values of Christianity, if not its chapter and verse? Would you prefer the sociopathy of the new wild children who’d slash you up for opposing them in any way? JD paints a rosy picture, leaving out certain quite key elements which I hope I’ve touched on above.
Even sanitation, mod cons and a relatively pleasant home situation is a bourgeois value. If it’s a choice between the dystopia of a Bladerunner society or the insufferability of the bourgeoisie, vive la bourgeoisie thank you very much.
* Bourgeoisie is used in this post in its original form, before it was hijacked by the Left. It means those of the middle classes – in French, bourgeoisie et petite bourgeoisie – meaning those not of upper/aristocratic nor of the peasant classes.
The bourgeoisie are the ones in the middle, the ones who embrace the values of free enterprise, employment, bread on the table, trade, the ability to self-improve, those without a silver spoon in the mouth but have done well for themselves or who are able to. Tradesmen are bourgeois, as are shopkeepers.
If you read Wiki or most other definitions on the net, these are written by the Left – the giveaway is their use of “capitalism” in place of “free enterprise” – and so they are not helpful in defining the term. In the Leftist dialectic, such a definition must not be allowed. To the Left, there are the oppressor v the oppressed, capital v labour, haves v have nots, all blindly conflated. One could extend that to the self-entitled victimhoodists v the self-motivated.
§ Them means the global oligarchs, currently hellbent on destroying the middle-classes, turning everyone under them into the new serfdom, infantilizing them and culling their overall numbers. It includes, Davignon, Trichet, Rumpy-Pumpy, Mandelson, Sutherland, Morali, Mueller, Strong, Gore, all current legislatures in the west, Common Purpose, the UN, WB, IMF, CBs everywhere, the BIS, Tavistock’s successors and so on. The middle-classes are not the workers’ enemies. These people are. Them.