In defence of the bourgeoisie

JD, at my place, waxes lyrical about the Blaydon Races, which “celebrated” their 150th anniversary yesterday:

… stating:

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.


12 comments for “In defence of the bourgeoisie

  1. john in cheshire
    June 10, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    James, really good. I just hope a few socialists read it and are persuaded that they are misguided in all that the hold to be true. And in reading, pass on the truth to a few of their comrades. If it wasn’t for the middle-class; into which category I place myself with pride; there would have been no advancement in peoples lives.

  2. June 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    I have to say James, from time to time, you do some really outstanding posts and this is amongst the foremost.

  3. Greg Tingey
    June 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Your point 3:
    “Judaeo-Christian values of tolerance, fair play, individual choice, discretion”
    Tolerance & fair play as espoused by christian saints like Dominic, Loyola and Cyril of Alexandria, presumably?
    Or the inventor of the modern police state – Jean Calvin?
    Or Luther on the evils of the Jews, and how horrible reason is?

    So I am calling: LIAR – or possibly, just possibly incredibly self-deluded?

    Religion (incluiding communism, of course) is probably the greatest tyrranical evil of absolutist rule on the planet.
    Five minutes reading of the history of oppression, torture and lying by the churches over the past 2000 years should disabuse you of this nonsense!
    Islam is just more of the same, of course, only 622 years behind christianity …..

  4. June 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    SA of T – cheers.

    Greg – “So I am calling: LIAR – or possibly, just possibly incredibly self-deluded?” Possibly it’s the latter you are but can’t be sure. I’d not have applied that terminology to you, being bourgeois ‘n all. You’re certainly labouring under the delusion that this thing that so many across the world are saying – I’m just reporting on it – is somehow my personal thing. Don’t know how to disabuse you of your errors, Greg.

  5. June 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    it’s the State which is hell-bent on destroying the very bourgeoisie which stands as a bulwark against it

    Yes, that’s it. Exactly.

  6. john in cheshire
    June 10, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    The difference between Christianity and islam. Jesus didn’t demand death to unbelievers. Jesus didn’t conspire to persecute unbelievers. The Christian church may have been complicit in some questionable activities but that is man not Jesus. Jesus came to save mankind, not to destroy it.
    On the other hand, mohammad demands that muslims kill, convert or tax non-muslims. mohammad demands that muslims regard non-muslims as inferior. All this is justified because he claims that he was visited by allah who gave him the word as written in the koran.
    There is no equivalence. One faith is born of goodness, and the other is the complete antithesis.

    • Voice of Reason
      June 10, 2012 at 10:22 pm

      Really? Read about the Crusades, for example. The Christians, when they took back Jerusalem, killed Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. The Muslims allowed kaffirs to live.

      Then read about the ma ny holocausts before the 20th century, including the lovely one where every Jew in London (1358, if I recall), was put on a mudbank in the Thames to await a boat that didn’t exist. They all drowned, and only because they weren’t Christian.

      • June 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm

        Oh for goodness sake, VofR. How many times does it have to be stated and you just ignore it.

        They were the state dressed in tunics with big red crosses on the front, weren’t they eh? Take the weaponry for a start.

        Come on monks, grab yer bazookas and let’s go – no, leave tht winemaking and healing the sick and needy – we’ve got s-l-a-u-g-h-t-e-r to get into. Oh yeah, ankle deep in blood, what any self-respecting monk’s trained for all his adult life.

        No, no, I don’t want to go.

        Oh don’t be such a wimp – the Vikings didn’t have any qualms, why should you – here’s your chainmail.

        No Christians kill, VofR, otherwise they cease being Christian – read the book and see for yourself. That’s the other team you’re talking about there and they know they can rely on people such as yourself who, ordinarily witty and knowledgeable, get this amazing blind spot over this one issue. Quite interesting actually. 😉

        • The Nameless Libertarian
          June 11, 2012 at 10:20 am

          This sort of explanation ironically does remind me of the Marxist who, when faced with the horror of the Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc regimes turns round and simply says “they are not Marxists as anyone who has read Marx can tell you”.

          Which is fine, and we duly head back to the original texts to find that, aside from a few references to the potential of demoncracy, Marx is all about revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat (albeit viewing this dictatorship as something that would “wither away”, a staggeringly naive assertion for a supposed political realist). The justifications for those dictatorships are right there, in what he says. Little distortion need to turn the more bellicose Marx into Lenin.

          Which is the problem you have here James. Those crusaders, the inquistors, the witch burners; they all make the claim to be Christian and as you delve into the “good” book there are all sorts of justifications that they can use (especially in the Old Testament that was big on the old smitin’ of enemies and non-believers).

          For the record (and for anyone who doesn’t know this) I am neither a Marxist nor a Christian, and I can see the destruction that, whateber the intentions, both have wrought over the histories.

        • Voice of Reason
          June 11, 2012 at 10:09 pm

          The problem with invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy is that you have to exclude rather a lot of people on the basis of their writings and actions. Looking only at a few examples of Christians:

          – All of those in the Crusades

          – All of the church-going Lutherans and Catholics who participated in the Holocaust

          – All of the good Christians who persecuted the Jews throughout European and American history

          – All of those who were involved in the witch trials and Inquisitions

          – Mother Teresa, who deliberately denied pain medication to terminally ill patients, on the grounds that the pain was ordained by God

          – Most of the popes

          – The pedophile priests, and all who protected them

          – Martin Luther, whose writings inspired the Holocaust

          – Paul, whose writings were quite hateful

          – The Christian mobs in Constantine’s time, who destroyed the temples of all other religions, killed all in competing Christian sects, and murdered Hypatia

          – The modern TV evangelists

          – The C of E bishops, who supported Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in letters to the Times before WWII

          – The Puritans, who persecuted and killed Quakers and others who were not of their sect

          – The good Christians who ordered and implemented the death of many Mormons in the 1800’s

          – The Christian clergy in the US who wrote most of the pamphlets supporting slavery

          – The Christians who massacred the Muslims in Sbrenica

          The basic problem is that once people are convinced that they are ‘right’, whether in a religion or political system, they will easily be led to do terrible things which are even against that very belief system.

    • June 10, 2012 at 11:26 pm

      Quite right, John of Cheshire. People need to step back and look at what really goes down. And isn’t it fascinating how a post on the bourgeoisie, with one solitary reference to “Christian” has the obsessives completely ignore what it was about and foam at the mouth about Christianity. Psychiatrist’s field day.

  7. Greg Tingey
    June 11, 2012 at 7:52 am

    If you are arguing in FAVOUR of a church and religion.
    ANY church or religion, then you are emphatically NOT a “Libertarian”.
    You are a theocrat.

    The excuse of a “god” (even if that “god” is caled “the party” – see note below) and “holy books” to allow the authorities to inflict any excess on their subject populations is a pure lie.

    Note: The logical end of communism is, of course, North Korea.
    The God-Kings of the Kim dynasty rule through their church (the party) and the whole place is like a christian heaven, with the subject populace singing eternal hymns to the Great/Dear Leader and his son(s) – and they don’t even need food!

Comments are closed.