NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I've worked out the class systems of the modern day.

Ruling class/nobles: virtually extinct

Bourgeoisie: the current ruling class and the rich upper class

??? class: the white collar office workers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

"Proletariat": urban and factory workers

"Peasants": farmers and such

So, what do we, the members the ??? class, call ourselves

Isn't the ??? class the middle class bourgeoise?

The relevant to specific jokes class.

Isn't the ??? class the middle class bourgeoise?

Yes. Yes they are.

Isn't the ??? class the middle class bourgeoise?

You can't have a middle class bourgeoisie. Classes don't work on gradients, they're solid.

The bourgeoisie moved up from the middle class during the French Rev to the rich ruling class of modern times, and as the gap between rich and poor got smaller, that left a distinctly new class, not quite rich bourgeoisie, not poor urban worker or peasant.

Ok, I've worked out the class systems of the modern day.

Ruling class/nobles: virtually extinct

Bourgeoisie: the current ruling class and the rich upper class

??? class: the white collar office workers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

"Proletariat": urban and factory workers

"Peasants": farmers and such

So, what do we, the members the ??? class, call ourselves

Poor distinctions, given that the professionals are a class to themselves.

You can't have a middle class bourgeoisie. Classes don't work on gradients, they're solid.
The bourgeoise is the middle class.

bour‧geois1  /bʊrˈʒwɑ, ˈbʊrʒwɑ; Fr. burˈʒwa/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[boor-zhwah, boor-zhwah; Fr. boor-zhwa] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -geois, adjective

–noun 1. a member of the middle class.

where do army officers go they use to be noble class

Poor distinctions, given that the professionals are a class to themselves.

So, aren't the professionals just the ??? class?

why are farmers below factory workers?

So, aren't the professionals just the ??? class?

Not if you encorporate office workers.....

The bourgeoise is the middle class.

You've got to take it in historical context, though. The true bourgeoisie were wealthy commoners, who would have been nobles had it not been for the feudal restrictions of the time. Nowadays, the closest thing to the bourgeoisie is the rich upper class. The middle class of today has more in common with the lower classes than the original bourgeoisie.

I call this thread totally without worth.

why are farmers below factory workers?

The peasants are usually just a step below the proletariat. It's just how it's always been listed.

You've got to take it in historical context, though. The true bourgeoisie were wealthy commoners, who would have been nobles had it not been for the feudal restrictions of the time. Nowadays, the closest thing to the bourgeoisie is the rich upper class. The middle class of today has more in common with the lower classes than the original bourgeoisie.
Well, your ??? class, at least the doctors and lawyers, are wealthy commoners. I'd think they'd fit the original bourgeoisie.

You've got to take it in historical context, though. The true bourgeoisie were wealthy commoners, who would have been nobles had it not been for the feudal restrictions of the time. Nowadays, the closest thing to the bourgeoisie is the rich upper class. The middle class of today has more in common with the lower classes than the original bourgeoisie.

The German word "Burghers" means the same thing as bourgeousie, a word which roughly translates as "free townsfolk". They were not tied down to the land like the peasants, and could move anywhere within not only the fief, but the kingdom. They were typically local craftsmen, such as the local cobbler or the miller. Only a very few of them were wealthy.

Well, your ??? class, at least the doctors and lawyers, are wealthy commoners. I'd think they'd fit the original bourgeoisie.

Not on the same level as the original bourgeoisie; they were very wealthy. Not just four-bedroom house, plasma TV and swimming pool wealthy.

Besides, what the doctors and lawyers lack is the political and social ambition of the original bourgeoisie.

The German word "Burghers" means the same thing as bourgeousie, a word which roughly translates as "free townsfolk". They were not tied down to the land like the peasants, and could move anywhere within not only the fief, but the kingdom. They were typically local craftsmen, such as the local cobbler or the miller. Only a very few of them were wealthy.

That's not what I learnt. In France, the bourgeoisie were the wealthy, up and coming middle class. The craftsmen and artisans were just urban workers; essentially, the early proletariat, although they were generally very few. Your burghers were just... well-off peasants.

That's not what I learnt. In France, the bourgeoisie were the wealthy, up and coming middle class. The craftsmen and artisans were just urban workers; essentially, the early proletariat, although they were generally very few. Your burghers were just... well-off peasants.

No, not exactly.

A peasant, or serf, was tied to the land. He was not allowed to leave the land, and he was roughly equivalent to a slave.

A burgher is a bourgeousie, take note of the similarity in the words. Burg, after all, being a fortified castle or town, was a word that worked it's way into French, in the form of bourgeoisie. They are identical groups, and much of the mythos of the French Revolution have twisted the truth of the matter.

The peasants are usually just a step below the proletariat. It's just how it's always been listed.

I don't think you understand my question.

How do you decide who is where? why is a farmer automatically a peasant? what are your criteria for classing people together?

Why would I class people in this archaic fashion when it is so easy for a people to jump from class to class to class these days?

Social mobility kind of renders the class system obsolete. You only encounter real classism at the very top of the ladder, and if you have enough money to achieve that it really doesn't matter what people think of you then.

Why the hell do you insist on using outdated and irrelevant words from a different language? Because Marx had a hard-on for them?

Bourgeoisie is a French word. It means "middle class" and originally meant the property-owning class. By that logic, the farmers that you listed as "peasants" are actually Bourgeoisie because farmers today tend to be very wealthy landowners. You're confusing yourself with your own twisted Etymology. Speak English for Christ's sake!

Western society exists on a gradient; feudal castes are obsolete no matter what your little red book says. You don't need unnecessarily obscure words to tell you that.

Human and thats all. No class no race no religion no sex no etc.

..

There are scumbags, partialy acceptable working families, and the rich.

Duh.

Why would I class people in this archaic fashion when it is so easy for a people to jump from class to class to class these days?

My great-grandfather was an immigrant coal miner, my grandfather worked in a factory, my father is Division VP of his company and now I'm going to college with to major in finance, and if I work hard I'm going to make a lot of money and rise up to the top, quite possibly farther than my dad did. I might mention he worked in construction to pay for night school to get his BSBA and get a white-collar job.

We've moved from the mines to Morgan Stanley in four generations...social mobility is real and classes are dead no matter what Marx said. My own experience and that of my parents and relatives prove it.

Upper Crust, elite > George Bush, New England establishment, Andover, Yale set, old money.

A good rule of thumb: An upper-class house can't be seen from the road.
Upper-class people don't buy their own furniture, &c &c.

Why the hell do you insist on using outdated and irrelevant words from a different language? Because Marx had a hard-on for them?

Bourgeoisie is a French word. It means "middle class" and originally meant the property-owning class. By that logic, the farmers that you listed as "peasants" are actually Bourgeoisie because farmers today tend to be very wealthy landowners. You're confusing yourself with your own twisted Etymology. Speak English for Christ's sake!

Western society exists on a gradient; feudal castes are obsolete no matter what your little red book says. You don't need unnecessarily obscure words to tell you that.

It would help your argument if I was a communist. I'm not.

Ok, I've worked out the class systems of the modern day.

Ruling class/nobles: virtually extinct

Bourgeoisie: the current ruling class and the rich upper class

??? class: the white collar office workers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

"Proletariat": urban and factory workers

"Peasants": farmers and such

So, what do we, the members the ??? class, call ourselves

What a load of crap. There are only two classes in modern society. The owning class and the working class. Blue colar, white colar, professional, etc. are all working class. This attempt to subdivide is just an attempt (and a very tacky one at that) to make one group of working class people feel superior to another. But it doesn't change the fact that we are all still dependant on the owning class for our income/lives.

And since when are farmers "peasants." My boyfriend is a farmer. He has assets in excess of four million dollars, an advanced degree, and is a world traveler. If that is what it means to be a peasant, sign me up!

What a load of crap. There are only two classes in modern society. The owning class and the working class. Blue colar, white colar, professional, etc. are all working class. This attempt to subdivide is just an attempt (and a very tacky one at that) to make one group of working class people feel superior to another. But it doesn't change the fact that we are all still dependant on the owning class for our income/lives.

And since when are farmers "peasants." My boyfriend is a farmer. He has assets in excess of four million dollars, an advanced degree, and is a world traveler. If that is what it means to be a peasant, sign me up!

Farming may not be what it used to be, but today's version of yesterday's farmers are the peons and serfs of america - migrant farm workers, construction-work mexicans, fruit-pickers, &c.

The middle class is real, the owner/worker dichotomy is a false one in real life in the developed world.

The middle class is real, the owner/worker dichotomy is a false one in real life in the developed world.

The middle class IS the working class. If you have to sell your labor (physical or mental) to someone else to live, you are working class. It doesn't matter if you make 15K or 150K a year. You're still working class. If you can live comfortably off of your investments without having work (though you may still choose to do so), you are owning class. The distinction is real. That is not, however, to say you can't become owning class ala Bill Gates. There is some degree of social mobility.

Social mobility kind of renders the class system obsolete.

does the same principle work for the various mountain biomes?

The middle class IS the working class. If you have to sell your labor (physical or mental) to someone else to live, you are working class. It doesn't matter if you make 15K or 150K a year. You're still working class.

though in terms of interests and political alliances, you are rather more likely to have the professional/managerial class siding with the real bosses than with the other workers.

The middle class IS the working class. If you have to sell your labor (physical or mental) to someone else to live, you are working class. It doesn't matter if you make 15K or 150K a year. You're still working class. If you can live comfortably off of your investments without having work (though you may still choose to do so), you are owning class. The distinction is real. That is not, however, to say you can't become owning class ala Bill Gates. There is some degree of social mobility.

Uh... no. What, you think the bourgeoisie didn't work? There's no way the bourgeoisie were working class.