Talk:Bourgeoisie/Archive 1

Etymology
The 2nd paragraph of the etymology section is false. Both M-W and AHD gives the etymology of the French word as from (Late) Latin burgus, from Germanic *burgs, "hill-fort", cf. borough. --Salleman 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beat
The person who wrote this article needs to reconsider the mindset of Karl Marx when he founded Communism. He was not lenient toward the upper class, so then why would Bourgeoisie be preoccupied with property values and other affairs that are adherently connected with the upper class? Think this over. You guys are retarded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.172.230.12 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Origins and Rise
From Columbia Encyclopedia in its entirity (cont.)

The bourgeoisie as a historical phenomenon did not begin to emerge until the development of medieval cities as centers for trade and commerce in Central and Western Europe, beginning in the 11th cent. The bourgeoisie, or merchants and artisans, began to organize themselves into corporations as a result of their conflict with the landed proprietors. At the end of the Middle Ages, under the early national monarchies in Western Europe, the bourgeoisie found it in their interests to support the throne against the feudal disorder of competing local authorities. In England and the Netherlands, the bourgeoisie was the driving force in uprooting feudalism in the late 16th and early 17th cent.

In the 17th and 18th cent., the bourgeoisie supported principles of constitutionality and natural right, against the claims of divine right and against the privileges held by nobles and prelates. The English, American, and French revolutions derived partly from the desire of the bourgeoisie to rid itself of feudal trammels and royal encroachments on personal liberty and on the rights of trade and property. In the 19th cent., the bourgeoisie, triumphantly propounding liberalism, gained political rights as well as religious and civil liberties. Thus modern Western society, in its political and also in its cultural aspects, owes much to bourgeois activities and philosophy.

Subsequent to the Industrial Revolution, the class greatly expanded, and differences within it became more distinct, notably between the high bourgeois (industrialists and bankers) and the petty bourgeois (tradesmen and white-collar workers). By the end of the 19th cent., the capitalists (the original bourgeois) tended to be associated with a widened upper class, while the spread of technology and technical occupations was opening the bourgeoisie to entry from below.
 * Prof Kouji Miyazaki has written a book on the "Origin of the Rich" investigating the rise of the bourgeosie in Northern France, claiming that they originated when farmers and craftsmen started saving to have prayers said for them post death at churches and monasteries. The funds that they saved for this purpose, were used during their lives as business working capital. --Timtak 05:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is it hard for a native English speaker to pronounce 'bourgeois' or 'bourgeoisie'?


 * It's not. Still most people pronounce it incorrectly due to the spelling, Burg-ee-oys is how most people try to say it. Bourgeoisdude 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never had problems, nor have most of the other native speakers of English I know, in pronouncing the word correctly. This entry seems rather unsubstantiated editorial, and so should be removed.  The rest of the passage "it is not used as often in politics in English speaking countries as in other Western ones, and is not in common use in the United States. From the late nineteenth century through the Great Depression, the pronunciation "bushwah" was used in political satire portraying radical leftists. Critic H. L. Mencken coined the portmanteau "booboisie" to label middle America, which he viewed as conventional and unintellectual" seems to be more an under-handed diatribe against anglophones than a useful exploration of the orgin of the word as the section heading implies.  It should also be removed.  Kemet 16 March 2006


 * "I have never had problems, nor have most of the other native speakers of English I know, in pronouncing the word correctly. This entry seems rather unsubstantiated editorial, and so should be removed."  I think the issue is just in the way the sentence is worded; all the phonetic sounds in the word exist in english, but as Bourgeoisdude said, it's just people that have no experience with french letter combinations (or just french in general) would naturally prounounce it 'boor-gee-oy-see' (or some similar variant).  I don't believe it doesn't really need to be removed, but instead reworded.--Charibdis 04:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one looked up the word here to see how it was pronounced :)


 * I always thought it was "boo-zhwah-ZEE"

Awesimo 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In re "all the phonetic sounds in the word exist in english", all except the French "r" sound. Can Anglophones hear the difference between trois and toi? Jack Waugh 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Added control of means of coercion, further discussion needed
Added reference to control of armed forces. Definitely lacking throughout the article. Although Marx and Engels were primarily concerned with developing the economics and philosophical sides of communism, they also acknowledged that the political superstructure was an extension of the bourgeoisie's control of the economy. This was particularly evident in their works after the failure of the French proletariat in 1848. See "The Class Struggle in France, 1848 to 1850" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/index.htm) and "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njfuller (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed art definition
Hello all. I've just removed the following sentence from the intro:
 * ", but in English-speaking countries usage of the word as a term of art is associated with those with socialist or anti-capitalist political leanings."

It's not cited and doesn't make sense. Since when has bourgeois art meant anti-capitalist? Dissident members of the bourgeoisie may have adopted anti-capitalist attitudes (Marx being one of them), but its by no means a definition of the term. DionysosProteus 12:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, 'term of art' doesn't actually have anything to do with what you might find in an art museum. The phrase 'term of art' means that the word has specific meanings in a particular context, i.e., it's jargon. For example, most of the terms that non-lawyers refer to as 'legalese' are formally called 'terms of art'.

Check this page for more info- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.62.227 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

refs
This article is completely reference less. The Fact tags will only highlight this situation. No negatives present. Please tell me what is so bad about the tag. It can only help. Moreover this is such an important term. The better to call attention to its woeful OR--72.93.80.5 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie
In Marxist theory the class that in contrast to the ptoletariat or wage earning is primatily concerned with property values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.73.181 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is generally a very poor quality article, it should be rectified. It is a disgrace. This is coming from a historian. I will clean this mess up once my exams are over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertysocks (talk • contribs) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie (section)
This article covers what it needs to cover, I guess, but it reads more like a definition from a Marxist explanation than it does an encyclopedic article. AND IT IS MISSING CITATIONS ESPECIALLY IN THIS SECTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.41.55 (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused sort of
Is this another name for a prep? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

World view
This article does the classic bourgeois thing of claiming the bourgeoisie are of more importance than they actually are. They are not the "new ruling class" or "at the top of the social hierarchy", and especially not in Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, or even in the two countries who call themselves Belgium. Even in the US, the military, a fundamentally aristocratic organization, taxes the country like a royal family, or three or four. Apparently Marx was not bright enough to understand this. So I am tempted to remove these statements from the article. DinDraithou (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I eagerly await the citations you intended to present to support your view point, and over come the solidity and extensively cited Marxist view of the bourgeoisie to the point that you can remove the marxist claims from this article.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DinDraithou, I take it that you haven't visited any of these countries in the last few centuries? Things have changed since then. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All I've just been told is that you two belong to the bourgeoisie, are probably American, and grew up watching television. DinDraithou (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're bourgeois Brits. DinDraithou (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations are still needed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you don't understand that whoever grants Knighthoods and maintains a Peerage is still technically in charge. Move to China if you don't like it, and don't try to present your class as princely in a country which still has Princes. It is dishonest. I had to make the edits because the article was expressing aspiration and not reality. DinDraithou (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

According to "The rise and fall of Renaissance France, 1483-1610" by Robert Jean Knecht (available on Google books, page 268 and following), historians have generally made the case that the bourgeois were filling in the place of a declining nobility because that claim is quite fruitful in explaining why history happened as it did. However, he argues that the evidence for that assumption is insufficient.

For wikipedia, we could take that as a token summary of a "mainstream" POV and go with DionysusProteus's version, but there would be a case to be made for adding language showing how there's some academic doubt on the facts. Arxack (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't academic doubt on the facts of the transfer of power from an aristocratic class to the bourgeois class. And DinDraithou you are completely wrong in your assessment both of my class origins and current social class. The article describes historical fact. You need it explained more fully? Try reading a book. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see... I now understand that DinDraithou thinks that aristocrats are something to be proud of? You gotta be kidding me? Try familiarising yourself with the article at parasite. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Foolish move and you've just lost all academic credibility. To Arxack, thanks and I agree with your suggestion. A change of language with a little doubt thrown in is all their otherwise well written article, which they so stoutly defend, needs. France it seems is the biggest social suicide case in Western Europe, after Ireland and Germany. They still have bitterly sniping factions in Paris. DinDraithou (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're claiming credibility? Spouting that nonsense? Recently arrived from the feudal era have we? DionysosProteus (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The academic "doubt" appears to be expressed in an article whose subject is the Renaissance. This article explicitly discusses the 19th century. As such, it doesn't look like that one may be used to make the claims of academic doubt that you are suggesting. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Arxack, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know what to do or how to deal with the uninformed or uniformable. There is a class issue here and a lack of understanding. DinDraithou (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only class issue is that you strongly believe in the importance of the aristocracy while most other wikipedians do not. It's certainly not a problem that you think that, but it's a problem if that's the central theme of all your editing.

I would say the real problem is that you take your claims to be self-evident. Dionysos Proteus isn't being all that nice, but you must sort out his real point from the random insults. If you want to argue about the sociology or history of nobility, that's also wonderful, but you should do that by becoming a historian or sociologist and publishing books and articles which other people can consider and respond to. Wikipedia is meant to reflect and report the common views from those sources, not to be such a source itself.

I find things on wikipedia which are wrong (or at least not 100% for-sure true) all the time. But why should anybody take my word for it? I have to respond with citations of facts or wikipedia guidelines to show them why I think things should be my way, and I often find that I'm wrong.

So it's hard for you to call Dionysos "uninformable" when you really haven't tried to inform him why you think you're right. Instead of arguing from scratch, use Google, JSTOR, or get out a book, to show why you are right and he's wrong. If you try that, I suspect he will respond by saying "Jee, you're right" or "Well actually, if you look at this other source, you'll see that's not quite true" rather than just making fun of you.

I'm hardly the most experienced person around, but if you want to learn more about what wikipedia does and doesn't do, I suggest you start here. You will want to pay THOROUGH attention to the section on truth and verifiability.

Good luck in future editing, and I truly hope you aren't scared off by all this. Arxack (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's a bit much and cyber-parental, which always makes the writer feel in the know. I asked you to deal with the problem but instead you've remade a cyber-foe and said nothing relevant. Well done. DinDraithou (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine how "I'm hardly the most experienced person around" makes me sound 'in the know.' What were you asking me to do? Agree with you when you still haven't provided any reason? There's no reason to be cyber-foes, and I apologize if you think I insulted you. Arxack (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Class minded, you appealed to the majority of wikipedians: irrelevant nobodies. They aren't concerned with this article. Now I can't trust you to be objective. Sorry. DinDraithou (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway what we have here is an emotional argument (miscommunications) and not an issue. All we're doing is trashing the Talk page and we should stop and refocus on the language problem. DinDraithou (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Military-industrial complex
Military-industrial complex. Discuss. Should it be included? See also? This is what I was describing in the United States. It involves industry but isn't a bourgeoisie-related phenomenon. DinDraithou (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, to quote you just there "It involves industry but isn't a bourgeoisie-related phenomenon". Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Globalise (2009)
Can the editor responsible for tagging this article for globalisation come forward and outline the issues? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie. Since the term originates in France, I think the article should include French perspectives, and some translation from the French article. Notice how they cover La bourgeoisie dans le reste du monde. DinDraithou (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The history of the bourgeoisie in the United States differs from that of the European bourgeoisie in several ways: its recency, associated with the history of the country itself; the relative absence of gravity in the sociological history of the United States, by its nature as a "pioneer society"; democracy and economic rules of the country, which from the first time, promote mobility socialen 1; the importance, from the earliest times also, paid employment, highlighted by Alexis de Tocqueville. [fr.wiki > google translate]


 * Is a long way from the tripe on the page.Fifelfoo (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In American film
I'll concede that there are inclusion but not factual problems with the following line: "Recent examples of bourgeois stereotypes in American entertainment are The Talented Mr. Ripley and The Game, in which the wealthy characters are still fundamentally middle class, although this is not a view present in the films". DinDraithou (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes in the United States

 * Dear DinDraithou, Thank you kindly for your civilised engagement. I think, the problem with these films that your point out are actually a useful illustration of a wider problem that I see in the section on " stereotypes in the US". While I agree that there is a point for making a link to issues of middle classes (including perception) to Bourgeoisie, I found it difficult to see a sound case being made in this section. Instead we find new terms being introduced, without any definition (eg "haute bourgeoisie", "bourgeois social networks") mixed with a stream of rather generic statements: "Classic bourgeois occupations include..." or "Physicians and psychiatrists, however, are considered bourgeois". At the moment, judging from the existing "material", we supposedly are merely in a position to develop two paragraphs (the most!) stating that bourgeois is nowadays often associated with middle-class and its values in the US. Everything else sounds high speculative and unsubstantiated if not something else in Anglo-Saxon. Yours Mootros (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but you made the choice to fully merge the lighter-hearted Bourgeois personality where the text was more appropriate. Perhaps that article should be restored. DinDraithou (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, lets expand some of lighter-hearted aspects, especially in the popular culture section. Best, of course, with some citation. Mootros (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well my fears have been realized. I think we might need to recreate the lighter-hearted article and leave the club here doing what they're used to. Significant expansion in the spare and rather Marxism weighted environment of this article may not be possible. The fact that Marxism is so so serious and idealogical means its presence and theft of the term may not allow for much of anything light-hearted, making it look "improper". Ideally there would be a separate article for the Bourgeoisie in Marxism and then we could expand this article to our hearts content, but I don't think it will happen. DinDraithou (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For one, the US middle classes have no connection with the historical French "bourgeoisie", or any other burger-ist cultural mentality; they're products of capitalism's hunger for professionality. Also, learn how to selectively undo. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The section was, on edit, OR shit refuse from someone with a wank fest inordinate love for the military. Deletion was correct the first time around.  The verifiable content is miniscule. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

struck and rephrased some commentary Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear user:Fifelfoo, please use language that is more appropriate for this discussion forum. Thank you kindly for your consideration. Yours, Mootros (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on 'bourgeois' vs 'bourgeoisie'
What is the difference between bourgeois (bor-zwha) and bourgeoisie (bor-zwaa-zee )? Wikipedia redirects 'bourgeois' to this article and gives both pronunciations, but does not explain why there are two spellings/pronunciations for this word. Is it singular/plural, masculine/feminine, etc? Overlook1977 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further research suggests 'bourgeois' is an adjective and 'bourgeoisie' is a noun. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on this topic can clarify this on the main article?  Overlook1977 15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bourgeois is both an adjetive and the singular noun of bourgeoisie. (75.74.196.215 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

I don't think anyone would refer to the Bourgeoisie in the singular form, rather than "he is Bourgeois" more likely is "he is a member of the bourgeoisie". Therefore I agree with first definition: Bourgeois - adjective Bourgeoisie - Proper noun

Bourgeois is an adjective, it can also be a kind of noun in the sense of "he is a bourgeois"/"she is a bourgeoise" eg. "A bourgeois of Paris..." It's not a singular noun of bourgeoisie, but more the nominal form of the adjective - the same way you can be "noble" and also be "a noble". 129.67.138.111 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

yo
watsup bros —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.14.39 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah
probably should merge if you ask me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.7.146 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

make distinction between haute bourgeoise & petit bourgeoise
In Marx's thinking there were 2 distinct economic divisions between the two sorts of bourgeoisie:

haute bourgeoise: – capitalists who possess sufficient economic power over the means of production to render a surplus which can be reinvested to expand their wealth.

petit bourgeoise: – skilled tradespeople who do not possess sufficient economic power to render enough of a surplus to increase their holdings, but own enough property to avoid being themselves exploited, exploiting others to tread water & sustain an elevated standard of living above their employees. They were considered by Marx to be notable for their haute bourgeoisie pretensions: property, art, exotica etc. wishing to socially consider themselves to be of a different class to the workers, aspiring to the status of haute bourgeoisie. (and hence a particularly reprehensible proponent of the class system, often displaying culpable vulgarity in their base desire for refinement as the trappings of wealth).

_____

Neither of these are in the traditional sense aristocracy, since the preceding medieval concept of aristocracy relies on the concept of divine right, military power, direct taxation/tithing of fiefs etc.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopdante (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In a totally secular & capitalistic society, the upper class are the haute bourgeoisie, and the middle class are the petit bourgeoisie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopdante (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge from History of the bourgeoisie

 * Merge The subject is misscoped and also erroneously stated as having arisen in the 17th and 18th century in the merge from, dunno about here, apparently confounding capitalism with the bourgeoisie whose origins would more properly be in the 13 or 14th century. Other than that didn't look into it, but seems like it should be merged here and also maybe some mention of Fukyama, the socialist state experiments, their devolution, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * done. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems there is no rational basis to dispute the merging of the History of the bourgeoisie with its subject, the Bourgeoisie. They should be merged.  The arguments of definition and specification otherwise may then proceed in tandem.  the enemies of god (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The End of History
I retitled the tagged § ("Political triumph and social decline in the 20th century") to its current title, so it can be properly reworked. First, the bourgeois can be identified by elimination: by the classes and political tendencies opposed to or separate from it, the underclasses and those seeking to overthrow capitalism (some of whom may be more or less bourgeois themselves and the rule of the bourgeoisie has the greater antagonism of the petty bourgeoisie to the haute bourgeoisie as its main battle¹, the conflict between the whole bourgeois class and the rest of society is itself a non-starter), the latter identified as its rule. So the content of the section would recount the role of the class in 20th century, how it sees itself as the end of historical development and the impasse it finds itself in in the early 21st century. Also that this class formation existed before capitalism and seems to reform itself even in presumptive worker states would seem to indicate that it could also survive the elimination of capitalism generally. Something about its (or some ideal of it) absorption of all the other classes as said end could also be said. Lycurgus (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC) ¹ For "proles" read the global masses, "party": the global bourgeoisie, inner party: the professional classes, BB: the billionaires.

Grammar
This sentence does not make sense: Something or someone is described in the as bourgeois it generally lacks authenticity, is superficial, and/or is counterrevolutionary.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre March 2005 comments
This page is inherently incorrect.

Bourgeoisie means MIDDLE class, not upper class. And even in Marx's work, he did not use the term to refer to the upper class, but rather those considered "above" working class, who held traditionally professional jobs, i.e. NOT the upper class, which Marx saw as those in the monarchy/aristocracy/gentry.


 * See note at bottom*

Also, the American usage of "bourgeoisie" and "bourgeoise" certainly does not refer to high society or refinement, but rather, the "middle class masses."
 * There are middle class workers, and they don't belong to bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie are bussinesmen, employers, private transporters, and current capitalist class, as far as I'm concerned, and it's sub-divided among upper bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, middle bourgeioisie. But whatever the case, a requirement, for belonging this class, is the private owning of production media or bussiness or enterprises of a certain size, that generates capital, and the chance to invest it. I wouldn't even considere the little merchants or modest shop assistants as a part of bourgeoise class, or if do, they would belong to petite bourgeoise class. DeepQuasar 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Page needs some spelling and grammar work

"In contemporary Marxist parlance, bourgeoisie refers to those who control corporate institutions through majority share holdings, options, trusts, funds, intermediaries or by making public statements regarding market transactions."

This doesn't make sense. With majority share holdings you might have more control over a public corporation the a minority share holder, but again the amount of people with that type of holding is extremely small (and primarily the companies that are owned in this way have no significant power or influence above other companies in their same market cap). The largest "owner" of the means of production today is CALPERS (the california public retirement system). But besides all this, I don't believe owning stock in a company is an example of "ownership" of the means of production that Marx was talking about. There is much less control in stock ownership then outright ownership. The possible negative effects of capitalism almost assuredly still occour in corporations however, because they have a fiduciary duty to constantly increase profit. Stock ownership though causes a disconnect in this, where now the workers who are being exploited might be the largest percentage owner.

In the French society, Bourgeois and Bourgeoisie implied Middle class, however, in the US system, it'd be the upper class. The time period and social structure of the French society when the term Bourgeoisie was used, applied to the lords, and 'secondary' people of the government. So in America, pretty much the rich people that go to private schools and can get into politics with much more ease. And, if there were masses of the middle class, wouldn't that imply that they were the majority? I don't feel that I should edit your words, but that there are some word choice issues that I notice.
 * Note*


 * I think its important to distinguish between the 'common' useage of class and Marxian class. Upper middle and lower class really just refer to how much money you got. But thats not marxism. Marx argues quite specifically that class is defined by a relationship to the means of production. Do you own that car plant you work in? No, well your a prole. Own the car plant? Your bourgoise. In terms of the earlier french "middle class" connotation, thats really rooted in the pre-revolutionary arangement of feudalism where the upper class where the lords and aristocracy, an arangement that doesnt really exist in a particularly meaningful way in the modern world. 121.44.243.227 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Common knowledge and respected dictionary definitions say Bourgeoisie is middle class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-workers, not middle-class
Bourgeoisie simply refers to those in the class spectrum who don't work (unlike the proletariat), and do not wield any political or military power. And personally, I don't see why members of the bourgeoisie have to get so indignant about the word, considering how there are so many insults that they have made for the workers.

Basically, the Bourgeoisie/Proletariat scheme has nothing to do with the Rich/Middle-class/Poor scheme, as there can be poor Bourgeoisie and rich Proletarians. But for the most part, due to our class system, a great majority of the Proletariat are poor and most of the Bourgeoisie are rich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.243.126 (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, then we have a concurring voice that Bourgeoisie is a slur word in Marxist parlance. Prezen 06:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * not necessairly. I think what anon was attempting to point out is that the Marxist concept of 'Bourgeoisie' has more to do with ownership of the means of production-  with being a Businessman-  than it has to do with how wealthy you are.  For example, somone starting a company could be called Bourgeoisie, even if his income was quite low (as income often is in the begining.) Luke S. Crawford 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't work in physical terms, by using or requiring physical strengh to develop their usual function or job. Maybe they do are the whole day making calcules, bussiness or managing enterprise and overviewing/controlling employees, tasks, production rythm, etc., either directly or indirectly, but from above to below. That's what they most often do, since it's the basis of their material conditions, their economy and lifestyle. That is actually what makes them 'bourgeoisie'. DeepQuasar 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely a slur word and I use it quite frequently --Kelt65 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This anon's definition sounds right to me; I've always been taught that this is the Marxist use of the term. However, that doesn't mean that the article has to reflect that POV (see POV tag section above). Nyttend 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. The bourgeoisie belongs to a different typology than upper/middle/lower class. It would be best to separate different analysises in different sections, and not clutter the intro that much. --LC 19:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what other people have said that this article focusses almost entirely on Marxism when before the 19th century this word had a lot less to do with class in that sense and more to do with a legal status that you could acquire by occupying certain professions in a town. A lawyer or a doctor or a government official could be a bourgeois, not just a merchant. The status of bourgeois was just as much part of the society of privilege and order as someone who had noble privilege. 129.67.138.111 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate is becoming circular. The term is defined according to Marxist precepts and then justified on the talk page by reference to Marxist political categories. 'Ownership of the means of Production; and 'the workers' are Maxist political categorisations too. Therefore this article is being used to present Marxist definitions as fact. Someone needs to be bold here and yank this article out of the grip of the dead hand of Marxist theory and into the light of changing practical language usage. Because the main problem is language: by using a French word that is seldon used by English native-speakers, English-speaking Marxists have petrified the definition, taken control of the concept it purports to describe and finessed the doubtfulness of its social reality.Cacadores (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph needs to get to the point
"Bourgeoisie is a French word." I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think we can do better than that. After reading the whole first paragraph, the reader still hasn't been told what bourgeois is. Maybe someone more familiar with the subject could summarise the meaning in a few concise sentences and replace that as the introductory paragraph. The etymology maybe could be placed elsewhere in the article. A Pattern O 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like the last sentence, should we use it for the introduction instead of the conclusion? "According to these interpretations, the bourgeoisie is composed of any individuals who have exclusive control over the means of production, regardless whether this control comes in the form of private ownership or state power."   ~Freddie


 * Freddie: you are simply applying Marxist categorisations when the ideal is to remove political bias from the descriptions used here. Cacadores (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Communism Means a Classless Society
I have deleted this sentence from paragraph one:

"However, the social class that owns the means of production in a communist society is not bourgeoisie."

In a communist society there are no social classes; by definition, no social class owns the means of production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakaal (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

'In a communist society there are no social classes; by definition, no social class owns the means of production' Pakaal, we've had Communist countries. When the Communist political elite can order the products of production for their privite use; free dachas, free food, free travel, free limousines, free holidays etc, then the difference between 'own' and 'control' becomes mute. Lenin tried factory democracy, found it damaged production and banned it. Moreover, if Leninist Russia was not 'Communist', then Communist society never existed and these ruminations should be placed back where they came from: back in the world of pipe dreams a work-shy Marx created for himself at the British Library. If we voice them in the article, we should continue to remind readers that we are describing Marxist theory, not fact. Cacadores (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Artists or artisans?
In the etymology section the bourgeoisie are described as "artists and the craftsmen," while in the history section they are described as "tradesmen, artists, merchants, et alii." I'm not sure if "artist" was exactly a separate profession in those days. Some of the greatest renaissance-era painters such as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci started out as apprentice goldsmiths at age seven, because goldsmith was one of the types of craftsmen that did painting. I suspect that what was meant was artisan, which means craftsman. The main difference is that craftsman carries the connotation of master craftsman, while artisan implies the more ordinary sort of craftsman. Similarly, tradesman were considered members of the artisan class. I think what we should be getting as is something like "merchants and craftsman," as both of those terms combined are broad enough to encompass business (merchants) and industry (craftsmen). In other words, we don't need to go into that much detail, especially if we're not getting the details right. Also, et alii seems excessively formal for the Wikipedia, or is it just me? Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Zyxwv99:


 * The point is that, despite their specific occupations and trades, they were BUSINESSMEN, thus the necessary et alii is comprehensive, precisely to include the pertinent fine distinctions that you have cogently noted; from our 21st-century perspective, businessmen are businessmen, thus the detailed exposition.


 * Thanks for the observation.
 * 24.1.181.44 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pejorative Meaning
I don't think it's just communist cultures in which bourgeoisie becomes a pejorative term for wealthy or high class people. I think even here in the states calling someone bourgeoisie is an insult. I'd bet many a fight here in the states got started with someone calling someone else bourgeoisie. JesseG 01:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's because in the English-speaking world it is a purely left-wing term for middle class which has almost entirely pejorative usage. It's only function is to serve as an insult. English speaking non-socialists don't need the word as we are happy to use "middle class". Twittenham 09:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked for an example of a language where bourgeios is not pejorative. I know for a fact that it is in mine. Prezen 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very Marxist-centred article. The fact is that not only that Right or Conservative political wings in Common Law and English-speaking countries never use the term, but mainstream political debate as evidenced by national newspapers and news programmes, NEVER use the term to describe current events. The term 'bourgeoisie' may have a living meaning in France, but in English-speaking countries it is purely a theoretical term which brings with it the heavy baggage of political slant. The term is used to catorgorise and collectivise individuals so that they can be critically analysed using Marxist precepts. This fact is not sufficiently stressed in this article. Cacadores (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you go into the extreme fringe right, you will find some who use the term very disdainfully, because they aspire to bring back the aristocracy, and disdain their own usually middle-class roots. 198.188.6.56 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

as an insult
I was called bourgois yesterday, clearly as an insult - but having read the article I'm no wiser as to my crime - and philospophy still bores me. Could someone do a short section on what is being wrong with a member of the capital owning classes? as I think that;s what they meant? It does seem to be a word used by 'social liberals', the leftwing and BBC journalistsAlice-edmund (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very much an insult. The article on Ayn Rand actually says she was born into a "Jewish bourgeois family", and that's been in the article for some time. I'm amazed that a phrase with such heavy overtones of derogative has managed to stay in an article that's being violently fought over all the time by Rand's supporters and detractors - you'd think those two words with their suggestions of, like, "tight-fisted, narrow-minded Jews" would have got kicked out before the digital ink had dried under them. ;) 83.254.151.33 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alice-edmund: Two possible answers: 1) Marxists and the like think that a "capital owning class" is a bad thing, which oppresses the workers. See the section on the "The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie" for a bit on what Marxists think of them.  2) Separate from Marxism, the term has developed implications or stereotypes of being pretentious, materialistic, out-of-touch with ordinary people, overly concerned with things that [the person insulting you thinks] are unimportant, etc.  See the section on "Bourgeois culture".  Without knowing the context, I can't say which of these two the person was accusing you of.  83.254.151.33: I expect Rand and her followers wouldn't think there was anything wrong with being "bourgeois" Iapetus (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

POV notice
I have added some comments on usage to the opening paragraph, which sounded like it came straight out of a left wing textbook, but I am still not happy with the article, which does not really really recognise that in the English-speaking world the term is highly rhetorical and just not used by most people. Twittenham 09:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The bias in the article begins with the first reference justifying the definition of the term. It's from a 'Marxist Encyclopedia'! Cacadores (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is interesting to find out how much wealth he created for himself by this theory." Was removed for obvious POV. Source if you've found this in a source somewhere. Otherwise, who finds it interesting, and why? Sources on this, otherwise it comes across as POV.

Still no neutral POV. This page is straight Marxism from top to bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.69.163 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be split
It looks like the Marxists have written up a well-detailed article of their conception of the Bourgeoisie. However the name is this article is "Bourgeoisie" not "Marxist conception of the Bourgeoisie". People come to this article looking for information about actual members of the urban middle-class, rather than boogeymen. I don't see any mentions of the Hanseatic League or German town law, and very little discussion of guilds. Basically this article is misnamed and this has prevented the creation of an article that fits the name.

The Marxist stuff should be split to another article. This article should have no more than 5%, perhaps 10% Marxist stuff, with links to the Marxist article.


 * The concept of the bourgeoisie was DEVELOPED by Marxism. It has all the right to stay where it is. SpaceMilk (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Spacemilk Who or how was it decided? If the word and the concept are older than marx.

What was that quotation from?
Something to the effect of "Working class grandparents, bourgeoisie children, degenerate grandchildren". Someone HAS to have heard of this. Its right on the tip of my tongue. --RThompson82 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Moliére's picture
Is using the picture from a satirical comedy on the Bourgeois really a NPOV stance to take? Sure someone must have a better image to use than that, which actually reflects the Bourgeois rather than being a snipe at it?

And no, I don't know how to do that myself - I'm not techy enough. LeapUK (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie is a sociology
Having only a sidebar about Marxism gives the impression that "bourgeoisie" is primarily a term used in Marxist philosophy. But it is also widely used apolitically or by other political traditions in looking at society -- i.e., it is highly relevant in sociology. Moreover, the equivalent terms in French (bourgeoisie) and German (Bürgertum) do not have the connotations of being terms of Marxist analysis or Marxist opprobrium. There are names for a specific part of society. Therefore, I added a box for sociology. Poldy Bloom (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Bourgeoisie
The definition about owning the means of production should be clarified to explain why medieval landowners, who owned the means of production (including the workers), were not bourgeoisie, while industrialists, who did not typically own the means of production but managed them on behalf of the stockholders, are considered bourgeoisie. Philgoetz (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Bourgeoisie: Originally named for the inhabitants of walled lawns in medieval France. As artisan and craftsmen, they occupied a socialeconomic level between peasants and rural land workers.


 * Sorry, the above was atrocious. I hope I preserved the original person's intent.

I think our entire definition is wrong. The bourgeoisie != capitalists. The communist manifesto refers to the bourgeoisie as a parasitical class yet capitalists are actually tasked with the role of maintaining, allocating and increasing capital.

The bourgeoisie are actually highly promiscuous and incestuous professional breeders. They will sleep with the wives and daughters of the capitalists just like they will with the wives and daughters of the proletarians. They do not work for a living.

When the communist manifesto talks about the bourgeoisie creating society (using women as "instruments of production") in its own image and creating the modern proletariat it is actually talking about breeding them. i.e. the modern proletariat is the genetic offspring of the bourgeoisie.

The "weapons" with which they will bring capitalism to the ground are their penises.

"  The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations;"

The wife of the proletariat is adulterous with a member of the bourgeois. The children of the proletariat are not his genetic offspring. They are products of paternity fraud.

" modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. "

All these systems protect and are fronts for bourgeois interests. e.g. the family courts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.16.93 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed references to the French Revolution in the early paragraphs
I removed the following:

This bourgeoisie destroyed the original orders of aristocratic privilege which founded their own society, and established a new, chaotic civic equality that further abused the indebted and poorly educated after the French monarchy collapsed. The aristocracy crumbled because it refused to reform institutions and financial systems.

This is an article about a specific sociological concept, not about the history of the French Revolution. For that reason, the language I removed is irrelevant. If the point offered in this text is valuable to Wikipedia, it would be in an article on the French Revolution, not here.

Poihths (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Evaluate an article

Name of article:Bourgeoisie

This article is closely related to the recent subject of marxism in my class and I wanted to see a neutral historical description of "Bourgeoisie"..

Lead evaluation

There are 3 different definitions of it which can make it confusion at first but they all basically say the same thing. There are brief descriptions of the article's major sections

Content evaluation

Most information is relevant to bourgeoisie. They also mention other uses of it or other versions that may have been used in discourse throughout the world. content was last edited September 16.

Tone and balance evaluation

Majority of the information is historical and descriptive. there is a wide range of material going from films, to art, to culture, which is important for this type of article

Organization evaluation

it could be better organized id say. it is odd to me that the biggest sections after the list of different Bourgeoisie is the Nazism section.

Images and media evaluation & Sources and references evaluation

Yes with 38 total sources, majority of them are credible and books by prominent historians and authors. Majority of it are secondary sources though.

Talk page evaluation

Some would say that the article gives the hint that Bourgeoisie means upper class and not middle class. its implied to be that way in the US however. perhaps the article may need to specify this case.

Overall evaluation

Overall the article is descriptive and has good definitions but some who are stingy about the specifics of whether Bourgeoisie refers to the middle or upper class may have some issues with the definitions.

Riananjara (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Intro is bad, not historicised
The current intro is very confusing, IMHO. Obviously, as a social class, the bourgeoisie has changed over time, and varies between societies.

What we have currently introduces three meanings. The first is a decent general description, but it comes from a perspective of mixed time periods (mixing descriptions of different periods), and goes into a little too much detail about gradations too early. The second is a properly historicised description of the origins of the class, and the third describes a particular legal definition of it that developed in France (fair enough, since we now use the French term more generally than it was then intended).

(The rest of the lede is a fairly arbitrary couple of related facts.)

It would seem best to me to take a general description out of the first definition, avoiding anything historically specific, then use the rest of the text as the basis of a historical overview of the development of the class. Either before or after that there should be a description of what the bourgeoisie (could) refer to in contemporary societies. 78.146.199.163 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

boldly adjusting lead according to the normal methods on WP
I note the lead has come in for a lot of criticism over time, but an obvious fix seems clear and I've gone ahead. My reasoning is that the main topic of this article, which it is important for us to define in the opening, is only the social class. The older historical meanings have their own articles and so we can add a disambiguating template at the top of the article and handle anything we need to handle here in special sections about things like etymology, or history. Here is a chunk I have deleted from the lead, which may be useful in this or other articles...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

History
Who were the bourgeoise 196.188.181.75 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Some Problems
There are some odd style choices throughout the article. There are lots and lots of parentheticals for publishing dates of books mentioned, lifespans of people mentioned, and unnecessary clarifications. Also a lot of semi colons which aren't used right and long oddly structured sentences with too many clauses and commas that don't quite parse.

The lead describes a 5 part classification of the Bourgeoisie, but given that this is expanded on later in the article and only relevant to French speakers it seems unnecessary to give it so much space in the lead. It's also redundant to say that the bourgeoisie is separated into groups and then also say that collectively these groups are the bourgeoisie.

"The bourgeoisie in its original sense is intimately linked to the existence of cities, recognized as such by their urban charters (e.g., municipal charters, town privileges, German town law), so there was no bourgeoisie apart from the citizenry of the cities. Rural peasants came under a different legal system."

This doesn't really make sense without more historical context. Since there isn't any historical context in the body of the article I suggest removing it.

Joseph Schumpeter doesn't come up again in the article, and it's not clear that his particular analysis of the bourgeoisie is relevant enough to be in the lead.

The etymology section gives the translation of to 'walled city', but only explains the relevance later and gives a second definition. This should all be done in one sentence. It's not necessary to use three separate clauses to describe the 18th century ancien regime, or to note that it was before the french revolution. Clarifying that the third estate is the one that deposed King Louis XVI is also unnecessary. 'Usually is' should be changed to 'is usually'. There are three different definitions given, and it's not clear whether they're all describing different usages or the same usage in different ways. "Since the 19th century the term bourgeoisie [is synonymous with] the ruling upper class of a society" seems identical to "contemporarily, the terms "bourgeoisie" and "bourgeois" (noun) identify the ruling class in capitalist societies, as a social stratum."

Why use the german word for worldview in an english article and then, in parentheses, translate it back to english?

It's not necessary to describe what play mocked the worldview of the bourgeois within the etymology

The examples of pretentious activities and virtue signaling seem unnecessary here. Also it's a bit of a misrepresentation of the article which provides multiple possible definitions and doesn't endorse any one.

Structurally it seems odd to have just the first part of the history of the bourgeoisie, and then just the second half from the Marxist point of view.

'Denotations' is an unusual word, it has a slightly technical linguistic meaning, but it seems like it's supposed to be 'Definitions' here.

Given the importance of the term to marxism / communism it seems more convenient to have just one section of "in marxism" with the history, definition, and analysis.

To say that the English use of the word is such and such, but that in fact the French use is so and so implies that the French usage is somehow more correct, as does "a misunderstanding which has occurred in other languages"

it's confusing to have a definition of petit bourgeoisie right under a link to an article which gives a very different definition. Also odd to say that it's the equivalent of the modern day middle class, but then also that it refers to a class between the middle and lower class. Why 'modern day', are these terms not in use anymore?

It seems like an odd value statement to say that moyenne bourgeoisie don't have the 'aura' of those established at a hgiher level.

Similarly for "They hold only honourable professions and have experienced many illustrious marriages in their family's history. They have rich cultural and historical heritages, and their financial means are more than secure."

it's not clear whether 'ancienne bourgeoisie' really belongs here. It was added independently of the other 4, and is a neologism which might be particular to this one guy's work.

I'm pretty sure that parenthetical about the translation of the middle classes wasn't part of the original quote

I don't think the sections on nazism or italian fascism belong here. They're not giving some definition of bourgeoisie unique to fascist politics, just describing how fascists viewed the bourgeoisie. But even then a lot of it isn't relevant.

Same for the section on Italy. While it's more substantive than the nazi section, it just doesn't seem like the concept of the bourgeoisie is uniquely relevant enough to fascism to deserve these sections. Almost any political regime or ideology will have something to say about class politics.

'Cultural hegemony' section is confusing. It starts with a description of Marx's view of how the culture of a society is controlled by its ruling class, and says that "in that sense" the bourgeoisness of a society is based on how much it practices small business shop culture of early modern france. It's not explained what small business shop culture means or why it's the definitive marker of bourgeoisie society, it just gives a very academic description of a 22 novel series about that culture.

Walter Benjamin is critically deconstructing bourgeoisie culture. It would be fair to have a description of his views sure, but his aim is pretty explicitly to present a negative interpretation so leaning on it so heavily in this section doesn't provide a neutral point of view. Also it's a bit abstract to explain bourgeoisie culture by referring to the "spatial constructs which manifest the bourgeois mentality." At the least I would suggest renaming this 'Criticism of Bourgeois Culture'

Also there's a kind of circular definition. English bourgeoisie culture is a sitting room culture, and a sitting room culture is synonymous with bourgeois mentality. so bourgeoisie culture is bourgeoisie mentality?

The last paragraph in the culture section is also strange. Who is Max Weber? He hasn't been mentioned before. What spheres of life did he formulate? Why does it mention his concerns about large corporations? The bit about how Bourgeoisie values are dependent on rationalism isn't expanded on at all, it seems like it's just a way to get to talking about Max Weber.

The satire and criticism section starts out:

"Beyond the intellectual realms of political economy, history, and political science that discuss, describe, and analyse the bourgeoisie as a social class, the colloquial usage of the sociological terms bourgeois and bourgeoise describe the social stereotypes of the old money and of the nouveau riche, who is a politically timid conformist satisfied with a wealthy, consumerist style of life characterised by conspicuous consumption and the continual striving for prestige.[30][31] This being the case, the cultures of the world describe the philistinism of the middle-class personality, produced by the excessively rich life of the bourgeoisie, is examined and analysed in comedic and dramatic plays, novels, and films. (See: Authenticity.)"

Why name 3 fields of study and use 3 verbs to describe their approach to the bourgeoisie as a social class just to say that you're talking about something else? It could start at 'The colloquial' and lose no information. Same with 'sociological'. If you're already specifying that you're using a term colloquially, why add the clarification about which sense you're not using it in? And why clarify that you're talking about both forms of the word bourgeois.

Surely all stereotypes are social stereotypes.

So does it describe old money or nouveau riche? Or both? Or is "Old money" one stereotype and "nouveau rich who are politically timid conformists satisfied with wealthy consumerist styles of life characterized by continual striving for prestige" the second stereotype, both of which are described by the colloquial usage of the sociological terms bourgeois and bourgeoisie (Which, in this sense, needless to say, are employed beyond the intellectual realms of political economy, history, and political science that discuss, describe, and analyse the bourgeoisie as a social class)

Note also that all of this is a definition of 'bourgeoisie'. If it's the same definition as the previous ones given it's redundant, and if it's a new definition it should have been much earlier.

"This being the case, the cultures of the world describe the philistinism of the middle-class personality, produced by the excessively rich life of the bourgeoisie, is examined and analysed in comedic and dramatic plays, novels, and films."

The case so far is that the term bourgeoisie describes a stereotype. So given that a stereotype exists, cultures of the world describe that stereotype thusly. Why have that whole description of the stereotype only to add on these extra descriptors of philistinism and excessively rich?

The thing about using it as a term of abuse is odd. Why is it in the part about art criticism? even if it's a popular insult among artists.

In general these plot synopses are too long and too detailed. Do I need to know the exact manner in which George F. Babbit is sublimating his desire for self respect? Is it important not only to hear about his flirtations with independence, but that they are heart-felt? And that when they come to naught it is not just because he is afraid but because he is existentially afraid?

Also 'satirizes' is used wrong. Presumably Monsieur Jourdain is a satire of the bourgeoisie, the character himself isn't satirized.

A lot of this stuff is worth cutting. It would make the article shorter, but without much loss of content.

50.125.255.55 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good summary of a lot of problems with this article, and I notice that most of them remain a long time after the comment was made. Also, large parts of the article seem to be organized more as collections of trivia than any kind of systematic text describing something about the concept of the bourgeoisie (many of the sources are not books or articles dealing with the bourgeoisie, but rather books or articles talking about something else, and I suspect in many cases they just mention something about the bourgeoisie in passing). In addition, the word has several different meanings and most of the article makes no effort to distinguish which meaning any particular source is talking about, so there may be some OR in here as well. The sources definitely need to be checked. I plan to start doing that, if I have the time. Ohff (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)