Talk:Bourgeoisie
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bourgeoisie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Stray Thread(s)
edit18 June 2007: I'm wondering about this line here: "They eventually allied with the kings in uprooting the feudalist system" It makes no sense, the "kings" did not uproot the feudalist system, in fact Louis XVI was opposed to the revolution and capitalist society.
February 6, 2005 I'm confused about why this is a hard word to define...in coming up with a complex definition, the writers of the page contradict themselves:
Example A: "Bourgeois is a classification used in analyzing human societies to describe a class of people who are in the middle class nobility, whose status or power comes from employment, education, and wealth as opposed to aristocratic origin."
- aristocracy IS nobility. There is not a "contrast" between the two, unless perhaps you're trying to make a distinction using nobility in the moral sense. - middle class nobility? There is no such thing. Middle class is *gasp!* MIDDLE. Not upper.
Example B: Despite the many references to bourgeois meaning anything having to do with privilege, which I presume all stem from the original, and in my opinion, incorrect, Marxist context, the article then refers to bourgeoisie as "merchants and traders." In fact, that _is_ the meaning of the word in both French and English. And, as is probably very obvious, merchants and traders are not, socially speaking, classified as members of the aristocracy/nobility/upper class.
It is my understanding, based on personal education and study, that Americans use the word according to its French usage during the French Revolution. I certainly think there should be something about that time frame and the uprising (overthrowing of the nobility -- which was not done by the nobility!). Also, this usage, both French and American English, significantly predates the work of Marx. Certainly Marx's usage was based on something, and I think it stems from, as Mirriam Webster mentions in their dictionary, the idea that the bourgeois were driven by commercial and industrial interests. This makes sense given their livelihood.
"Why the revert?"
editStblbach, why the revert? The change was correct. The entire article is Marxist theory. I have changed it yet again and made another change to try to make it more neutral. Johnwhunt 19:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The bourgeoisie is a derisive term from Marxism
- To start an article lead sentence with "derisive term", it means the rest of the article needs to support and expand on the idea that bourgeoisie is a pejorative, political and non-neutral term. That would be original research. The article doesnt do that, instead the article simply reports on what Marx said, as it should. In Marxist theory the term is simply a descriptor for a class of people with the pejorative aspect being one facet of his theory. The article is a description of the use of the term in his theory, and the lead paragraph should be a summary of what is contained in the body of the article. If others have called it "derisive" then we can report on that also, with citations and attribution on who (or what partys) said it. I'll await your reply before changing.Stbalbach 22:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have eliminated the word "derisive" based on your comments above. Johnwhunt 23:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You have more problems than that in your changes. Mikkalai 03:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Not only marxism uses this term.
- "aristocracies" is a correct term it the considered historical context. Mikkalai 03:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What other theories besides Marxism use the term? Johnwhunt 13:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Google is your best friend. But you may start from Columbia Encyclopedia. Mikkalai 21:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- When someone asks you for your sources, or asks you to provide the information behind what you state is true, then responses such as "Look it up on Google," or "it is common knowledge" are self-defeating. Content on Wikipedia is not "commonly accepted knowledge," just because you give your word on it. If so, there would be no need for Wikipedia- the knowledge is already commonly known. Please provide sources, and information, when asked to justify your contentions- it is only academically correct, not to mention polite.§
Went to Google and plowed through the first page of links. All references said it was a Marxist theory term. Are there any other economic theories that use the term? (oh, oh, theories derived from Marxism don't count.) Johnwhunt 21:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is not a solely marxist theory term. Marxist do put a special meaning into it, but don't "own" it. You say you "plowed" thru first page. The columbia reference is among the very top ones (at least in my google report). Did you read it? If you did and you still insist that it says it is a marxist term, then you have serious problems with comprehension. Many sources do say that in modern political theory the notion is a predominately Marxist one, but the word was in use well before Marx was born. 01:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From Columbia Encyclopedia in its entirity:
"(brzhwäz´) (KEY) , originally the name for the inhabitants of walled towns in medieval France; as artisans and craftsmen, the bourgeoisie occupied a socioeconomic position between the peasants and the landlords in the countryside. The term was extended to include the middle class of France and subsequently of other nations. The word bourgeois has also long been used to imply an outlook associated with materialism, narrowness, and lack of culture—these characteristics were early satirized by Molière and have continued to be a subject of literary analysis.
In Marxism
editFrom Columbia Encyclopedia in its entirity (cont.)
Within Karl Marx’s theory of class struggle, the bourgeoisie plays a significant role. By overthrowing the feudal system it is seen as an originally progressive force that later becomes a reactionary force as it tries to prevent the ascendency of the proletariat (wage earners) in order to maintain its own position of predominance. Some writers argue that Marx’s theory fails because he did not foresee the rise of a new, expanded middle class of professionals and managers, which, although they are wage earners, do not fit easily into his definition of the proletariat."
So, let me ask again, what other economic theories not related to Marx use the term as shown in the wiki article?
My problem with the article is that it is not a neutral POV and is almost entirely Marxist political theory. That's alright by me if it is properly designated. Which it is not. So by not being neutral and spouting only Marxist theory, the article becomes propaganda, which is another violation of the wiki rules. Johnwhunt 14:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Marxist theory is placed into a separate section, cleary titled "B in MT" I don't see nothing non-neutral. You are free to expand the pre-marxist part. As for your question "what other...", at this point I don't know and don't care. My only point is that you cannot say in the very first sentence of the whole article that it is marxist term and nothing else. Back to your question: again, I don't know about modern theories, but I guess the term was is use during the French Revolution, and I see no reasons why modern theories other than Marxism could not operate with it in non-necessarily marxist sense. Mikkalai 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Taken from the article "middle class" in Wikipedia: "For Marxist views on this class, compare bourgeoisie. Note that this is not the same thing asmiddle class." Johnwhunt 17:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So what? In marxism theory "B" is a narrowly defined term: class that owns means of production. It may also be used as a derogatory term, just like the way the medical word imbecile is mostly known for most of laymen. Feel free to cover this aspect as well, possibly in a subsection.
- I have to agree that the intro to the article is poorly written and misleading, but assigning the word solely to Marxism would make it even worse.Mikkalai 19:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, let me give it a shot and let's go from there. Johnwhunt 20:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The intro is better IMO, but please restore all Marxist text you deleted. It is an explanation of Marxist POV and of encyclopedic value, even if most people do not agree with it. Please read WP:NPOV policy carefully. Also, I am not going to edit this article, but your text about who uprooted whom and about values will most probably be deleted.
- Please never do massive changes on complex and controversial subjects. Work piece by piece, so that people have chance to discuss the value of your contributions. Deleting big chunks without explanations is also a wrong approach. Mikkalai 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have read the NPOV articles and found nothing to indicate the article as written violates that. I would appreciate your guiding me toward the parts you want me to read, perhaps by posting them here for all to see.
- I am not saying the current article violates it. I am saying the previous one did not, despite an exsessive amount of marxism in it. The corresponding section clearly indicates that it describes marxist POV. Mikkalai
I did not reduce the Marxist part of the article because of a dislike of Marxism. I did it because the article is about "Bourgeoisie", not "Marxism". There are significant references to Marxism, Marxist and related theories and writings in the article. The article has five long and two short paraghraphs. Marxism is mentioned in the first (introductory) long paragraph and is the sole subject of two long paragraphs. All of the related topics, the references and the external link are Marxist.
- So what? You have no right to cut it away without explanations. And the explanation "it is too much" is inadmissible. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be easier to argue the article is too Marxist than not Marxist enough.
Also, you stated above that the comments concerning "uprooting" and "values" will almost certainly be deleted. Why? They came from Columbia Encyclopedia in the article I posted above. Johnwhunt 18:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK. some details. I am not a historian, and as I said, I am not going to significantly edit the article. Also I am not am educator to teach you. But here are two suspicious phrases.
- In the late Middle Ages, they supported nobility in uprooting feudalism.
- Why would nobility want to uproot feudalism? Nobility fed off feudalism. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concepts such as personal liberties, religious and civil rights, and the freedom to live and trade all derive from bourgeois philsophies.
- Extremely dubious and ungrounded. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- But the bourgeoisie were never without their detractors.
- Detractors from what? Bourgeois were normal people. Some good, some bad, some generous, some greedy. Moliere was making fun of them, but others were making fun off puffy aristocrats and arrogant church. All this "trait" section must be presented as a point of view of certain categories of people rather than indisputable facts. Mikkalai 18:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bourgeoisie
editIn Marxist theory the class that in contrast to the ptoletariat or wage earning is primatily concerned with property values.
OMG
editYou guys have really bought into this stuff, haven't you? Toe the line, and the next thing you know, you are shocked, suffering in a Koryma prison and wondering what the fuck happened.
Preview image: flag of Israel?
editWhen one gets a preview from a linking page you see the flag of Israel as the page image.  I don't see the topic of Israel appearing anywhere on the page. I'm assuming it was some vandal rather than the preview image selection algorithm but I don't know how to change it. Can anyone help? Desiderious Jones (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- I came here to comment this. The bourgeoisie as a class totally predates the state of Israel. Using the preview as a shorthand for Judaism or the Jewish community also seems out of place, because the only appearance of the term is under the Nazism subsection. This seems like obvious anti-Semitism, hopefully the preview is removed soon. 147.9.152.6 (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is indeed a result of vandalism. Please be patient until the cache clears up. Nardog (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
"Boujee" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Boujee has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 6 § Boujee until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)