It is rare for people to identify as members of the bourgeoisie in the English-speaking world, but many of the world’s middle class identify with them. A social class of people who possess the means of production which put them above the status of the merchant class and whose power comes from employment, education, and wealth, and not from aristocratic political origins, is the simple coffee-house and factory-owner bourgeoisie.
In Marxist philosophy, the term bourgeoisie refers to a social class where the means of production and social concerns about the value of the property and the preservation of capital belong to secure its economic supremacy in society. The bourgeoisie is a social order dominated by the so-called middle class. In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that has come into possession of the “means of production” through modern industrialization, and the social concerns about the values of property, conservation, and capital in safeguarding its “economic supremacy” over society.
In sociology and political science, the noun bourgeois and the adjective bourgeoisie are terms that describe the historical range of socio-economic classes. The first definition of the bourgeois in the dictionary is a member of the middle class which is considered conservative, materialist, capitalist and exploited by the working class. The other definition of a bourgeois is a mediocre, unimaginative, and materialistic person.
In fact, the term “bourgeoisie” covers all upper and middle strata, and therefore the use and specific application of the bourgeoisie lies in the sphere of the social sciences. The Moyenne bourgeoisie, or middle bourgeoisie, is the equivalent of the British and American upper middle classes.
To regard the conflict of the 1640s as a simple struggle between the rise of the bourgeoisie and the decline of the aristocracy is untenable. The current situation is best understood through the differential education and development of modern British society since the 17th century. Only a change of policy is possible without the overthrow of the bourgeois system.
It is the result of the bourgeois rationalization of the state economy, it is the principal and immediate beneficiary of the true bourgeoisie, and it is the bourgeois revolution through proxies. In this ambiguous vacuum, mercantile capital, the only bourgeois nucleus of the revolution, inherits the fruits of victory.
Aristocrats were not the only class to benefit from the economic and social changes of the 18th century. In some parts of Western Europe, the aristocratic class gained both economic and social importance. Like the landed aristocracy, the merchant class arose as a result of the socio-economic transformations brought about by the colonial states.
Many bourgeois Englishmen were able to enter the assembly and rise through the ranks of social acceptance because they were willing to maintain the reverence of the landowner classes. In France, Germany, and other countries where the monarchy reigned, the bourgeoisie blocked social advancement through the monopoly of political power by the monarchy and the system of royal patronage reserved for the social privileges of the aristocrats. The bourgeois undertone gained importance in the eighteenth century when professional middle-class manufacturers and their literary and political allies began to demand influence in politics commensurate with their economic status.
In bourgeois society, ownership of the means of production (capital and land) allows the bourgeoisie to employ and exploit the wages earned by the working class (urban and rural population) as the sole means of economic labor, and bourgeois control by coercion to suppress the socio-political challenges of the lower classes and maintain the economic status-quo so that workers remain workers and employers remain employers. On the other hand, members of the bourgeoisie envy the aristocratic class and criticize it as inferior.
Mercantilism is an economic trading system that stretched from the 16th to the 18th century. In the early sixteenth century, European financial theorists understood the importance of the merchant class for wealth creation. The commercial peak of the ports led to the mercantile-bourgeois dynamism of the 18th century, with additional income from land leases and public service.
As a staunch monarchist, the French financial planner Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-1693) called for an economic strategy to protect the French crown from the rise of the Dutch trading class. The port’s maritime trading activities led to a mercantilist bourgeois dynamic. In this act, the ruling capitalist class has betrayed its own bourgeois laws and civil society. The revolution was not only directed against the class, but it also destroyed numerous institutional and legal obstacles to feudalism and economic development, but it did nothing to change the basic property statutes of the Commonwealth.
It serves as an example of how sinful the economic structure is and how it works for the bourgeoisie. It is as if the Cuban people elected themselves to authority through power and elections, not through bourgeois democracy imposed by the West. Times have changed, not only for the proletariat but also for the bourgeoisie and a new generation of agricultural and commercial strata who will tell you that Pakistan’s political system is rotten and that it does not bring good governance.