The Bourgeoisie, Egalitarianism, and the Death of Culture

The American Thinker ^ | December 02, 2010 | Larrey Anderson

[Scanian]

Three crucial points underlie our crisis of culture in the Western world:

1) There is no culture, at least as we know it in the West, without the bourgeoisie.

2) The notion of egalitarianism, which in the last few hundred years has come to dominate our thinking, is wreaking havoc on Western culture.

3) By embracing the concept of egalitarianism, the bourgeoisie is precipitating the dissolution of our culture and the self-destruction of the middle class.[i]

1) Culture and the Middle Class

The middle class has supplied most of the innovators in Western culture, science, and economics. The philosopher David Stove, who does the math, puts the percentage of important philosophers, historians, artists, scientists, inventors, etc. who have emerged from the bourgeoisies at 97%.

The reasons for the amazingly high number of cultural and economic contributions from members of the middle class are simple. The upper classes already have political and economic power. Stove describes the intellectual motivation of the aristocratic classes thus:

"An aristocrat is someone with more opportunity than other people to indulge his or her mere will. Most people, if given that opportunity, will flow into the typical aristocratic activities -- war, government, conspicuous display..."

At the other extreme sit the poor. Stove bluntly describes their situation:

"It is very obvious why people of the abyss play no part in culture. They are too tired, or too sick, or too hungry, or too drunk, to acquire even elementary education. And no one can contribute to physics, philosophy, music, or whatever, unless they have not merely elementary education ... but a good grasp of what others before them have done in that field."

In between the elite and the indigent are the members of the middle class. The motivations of the bourgeoisie vary.

[griswold3]

S510 an attack on kulaks

Social Justice:

“The term “social justice” is often employed as a euphemism by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism (a state of economic affairs in which the participants of a society are of equal standing and equal access to all the economic resources in terms of economic power, wealth, and contribution. It is a founding principle of various forms of socialism), which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.”

Isn’t that what Obama told Joe the Plumber when he was campaigning?

[Madam Theophilus]

“S520, an attack on kulaks.”

EXCELLENT observation!

[SMARTY]

The author makes a distinction between classes based on their respective material and economic differences.

America did away with these kinds of class distinctions as soon as we got out from under George III. Colonists didn’t (and we DO NOT) give a da&^ about kings. That whole archaic, Byzantine muddle of rank and titles held completely and perpetually without consideration for personal merit.).

I don’t think that ‘aristocrats’ exist in America ...but rather, there are Americans with greater economic worth and material ease than others. They are not better OR worse than anyone else.

Instead of a rigid and fixed ‘patrician’ element, Americans recognize only distinctions based on ‘nobility of spirit’ or character, which is a MUCH more refined and superior distinction than ‘nobility of birth’ … which was the basis of all hereditary Monarchies and was/is strictly random, luck-of-the draw in the ‘getting yourself born’ lottery.

OUR problem in America is that this crowd of undifferentiated humanity has been shamefully shortchanged by the educational system, overly indulged by unscrupulous politicians and systematically exploited by a criminally irresponsible MSM …forever urging this mob to further and more relentless demands on a society they make NO effort to comprehend, do NOT appreciate, do NOTHING to perpetuate and to which they DO NOT and NEVER WILL contribute.

Ortega y Gasset was right-of course!!

[IronJack]

Marx’s greatest enemy was the middle class, not the capitalist. It is telling that the Tea Party movement has its roots in the most overburdened, oppressed, exploited, and maligned class in America: the bourgeoisie. Awaken their wrath — as Obamateur has done — and you have truly unleashed a history-making force.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Marx’s greatest enemy was the middle class, not the capitalist. It is telling that the Tea Party movement has its roots in the most overburdened, oppressed, exploited, and maligned class in America: the bourgeoisie. Awaken their wrath — as Obamateur has done — and you have truly unleashed a history-making force.

The Democrat Party is the wealthy* and the poor** conspiring against the middle*** class.

* "wealthy" defined as "willing to patronize people with less money than themselves.

** "poor" defined as "willing to be patronized as "poor."

*** "middle class" defined as unwilling to patronize others and unwilling to be patronized on the basis of income.

[IronJack]

Your assessment is spot on. I would expand it to say that the Liberal Establishment is little more than a kommisariat of elitists bent on leveling the classes beneath themselves while preserving their own superior caste.

They are the worst kind of self-appointed overlords, playing both ends against the middle while remaining above the fray themselves. Our war isn’t with the leeches; it’s with the people who empower the leeches.