Hatred of the bourgeois is the beginning of wisdom

Hatred of the bourgeois is the beginning of wisdom.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering
businessinsider.com/what-do-you-do-when-you-hate-your-job-2010-10?IR=T
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Is that his actual quote? No way.

idk if it's a quote, but it's a way to equality between social classes

To George Sand:

Axiom: hatred of the bourgeois is the beginning of wisdom. But I include in the word bourgeois, the bourgeois in blouses as well the bourgeois in coats. It is we and we alone, that is to say the literary men, who are the people, or to say it better: the tradition of humanity. (10 May 1867)

The quote is on his fucking wikipedia page, come on guys

I'm not that interested to check it out. I trust your words, user.

Has anyone here managed to improve his concentration abilities and reading speed without taking medications?
I enjoy reading and want to read as much as possible, but my mind just pauses or wanders to irrelevant places and sometimes I feel very impatient and struggle to suppress that feeling.
Even when I read an interesting and easy book in a quiet place, I barely get to 15 pages an hour. I know it's not a race or something like that but it's really frustrating, because I have a tremendously long to-read list and I feel like I'm not making any progress and loose the motivation to continue.

Its ok to be a dipshit with no attention span. Try skateboarding instead

>Lel I fucking h8 those stinking burgouises.

What Flaubert should I read?

you read balzac.

Everything, he's one of the best (and my personal favourite)

...

>hate the bourgeois
>wouldn't hate the bourgeois if you were suddenly them
>hate em cause you aint em
I really doubt most people would still hate the bourgeois if they woke up with a few million or hundred million dollars in their bank account.

>hate
>beginning of anything but descent
who is this knave

flaubert's family was very rich, tf you're talking about

Marx was also rich, but that wouldn't stop the modern man from being heavily influenced against their beliefs by money. You can't really compare man of then to man of now, especially if you're born in heavily capitalistic countries.

probably, but you were talking about flaubert first

I should have made really differentiated.

I agree.

>the bourgeoisie are necessarily rich
>the rich are necessarily bourgeoisie
Undergrad pls go

Marx wasn't rich, Engels was.

>It is we and we alone, that is to say the literary men, who are the people
The irony is staggering. What % of the population could read in 1867?

>Starting with his late work
It's like you guys actually go out of your way not to say the simple answer : Madame Bovary.

The bourgeois aren't enemies, they're merely an obstacle.

You shoild licc my balzac
Llmmaaoo

The lit people were the only ones apart from cartoonists telling it straight back then, it'd be easy for them to think they were hot shit

>Starting with his late work
I don't see the issue;

>it's "trust fund babies discussing the end of capitalism on Veeky Forums" episode

Except it's not, bourgeoise dumbshit.

Especially for the "trust fund babies". I don't get where this idea of Veeky Forums being for bourgeois comes from. It's an international website and it's considered pretty lame by most social hierarchies. I think there are more poor people here than on most websites. I know I'm broke, I feel very legitimate talking shit about capitalism on Veeky Forums. And anyway, even if it wasn't the case, how is practicing something keeping you from criticising it ? I know many bourgies who realizing their world and practices are shit, and they were sincere. The fact that their education and free time helped them doesn't change anything. If any movement in the world recognized that it was obviously easier for people with time to think to realize capitalism was a dead-end, it was communism ; it's just that poor people have other means (like their personal interests) of realizing that, and that bourgies also have to leave their class at some point, which is harder.
Maybe this guy just meant "how can you both criticize capitalism and USE THE INTERNET lolol" but if that's what it is then it's just beyond retardation.

>I'm poor therefore capitalism is shit.

This is why America needs better social insurance, to stop the losers from the system from advocating the overthrow of the system. Capitalism doesn't directly provide for everyone but it makes the average person better off, let the winners aid the losers of the game so that the game can continue. What is the reason you are broke? Most losers are in the hands of cruel misfortune.

If you could competantly you can see he doesn't mean the people as in average Joe, he means those who have a truer understanding of reality and human history outside cultural and time specific conventions that the poor are also subject to

The bourgeois are just people who've managed to achieve some stability in their lives. Sometimes they sacrifice individualism, or independence or time out of young lives for that, but in the end they're just people who want things that maybe a trust-fund artist like Flaubert doesn't prioritize that highly. I seriously doubt that nurturing hatred towards such people is a great leap forward in wisdom. Besides, the audience for novels that aren't romance crap and Clancy is pretty much only the middle class and higher.

it's lame to acknowledge using Veeky Forums in public (because of the dogshit on most boards), not to merely use it

I agree, but not for the reasons you think.

The love and nostalgia for 'Bourgeois Residues' is antithetical to Tradition and the eternal values entailed.

t. Evola
t. Evola

blind resentment is actually the ending of any attempt to be wise.

Almost finished reading the metaphysics of war which contains his essays on war and its fuckin great

You guys are taking this quote/Flaubert too literally. Read it in the context of his work, not Marx's.

Being a hard core leftist activist was part and parcel of being a 19th century French novelist.

don't read Madame Bovary

>he thinks flaubert gives a shit about marxism
Lel

Madame Bovary is the revolutionary novel that influenced every novel afterwards. He spent years on it, days on the placement of a comma etc. If you haven't read it you're the absolute pleb of this board, a complete embarrassment to the rest of us.

Jesus you're an imbecile

It hurts doesn't it

>the bourgeois are just people who've managed to achieve stability in their lives
>they're just people who want things
>They sacrificed individualism

I'm not anti-leftist, your misconceotions about flaubert are just cringeworthy

for what? the singular year of the Paris Commune?

>I don't see the issue
Of course, but explain this thing to me: Why ? Especially considering his prose's evolution.

Disdain maybe? Hating somebody because of the class is just retarded.

what would social climbers do if there was no social ladder to climb? would classlessness kill human ambition?

It doesn't help with the key issue, a system that is build on the idea of infinite growth and promoting greed is shit.

>managed
Most people are born into wealth.

"Niggas always tryin'ta be swagga jacking but they can't keep up with my dank lines." -- James Augustine Aloysius Joyce

He was a reactionary.

>Infinite growth

Where did you get this idea from?

>Greed

Do you think the USSR didn't run on greed, do you think early communist china didn't run on greed (where it ran at all)? People respond to incentives, not everyone does everything out of the kindness of their hearts at all times. Besides the system ought to be set up that it is in greedy people's self interest to fulfill people's needs. Butchers don't feed the population out of the kindness of their hearts by out of concern for their pockets.

>Born into wealth

I don't see a major problem here. If someone earns wealth why should they be allowed to only consume it now, but not let someone that they choose to give it to consume it?

>Most people are born into wealth.
Yeah, this is what we call stability. Most people don't work just so they themselves and not their children can have comforts and advantages. Being born into wealth also doesn't mean you can't lose it. Lots of people do.

>Where did you get this idea from?
Capitalism is all about growth, stagnation, no matter of what level is considered failure and lowers the initiative to invest.
Next to greed it's another pillar to the system.

>Do you think the USSR didn't run on greed, do you think early communist china didn't run on greed (where it ran at all)?
While they did it wasn't the main motivation. Besides, you're wrong to assume if you think that I'd prefer another faulty system like socialism/communism. It's just less destructive. With the looming automatisation, neither will have any relevance. Capitalism builds too much on people working and competing with each other, which won't be possible against our robotic overlords. Communism fetishes work too much too.

>People respond to incentives, not everyone does everything out of the kindness of their hearts at all times.
And greed is a horrible one, sure it served pretty well to advance us (like almost any shitty reason can) Without restriction, it leads to dystopian, neo feudalistic shitholes and even with restrictions it lead to fucking up the earth pretty bad, and while some of us are better of, the majority gets fucked like it always did, especially compared to pre industrial times.

>Born into wealth
>I don't see a major problem here.
It's a problem when people imply that merit and working hard will gets them anywhere. Obviously the very best will always make it on top, no matter where they start while complete failures will always fail but an average person born poor/wealthy will stay that way.

It takes considerable skill to fuck up the initial benefit of being born into money, not just on monetary side but from networking too. If you have a wealthy family, they are likely to have wealthy friends who will help you to stay wealthy, unless you're completely retarded.

This was before "bourgeois" became a meme insult for communists. Bourgeois meant, routine, safe, comfortable, not straying off the beaten path, etc.

I think it has more to do with having scorn for people who refuse to take risks and, living in France, he was probably surrounded by stiff bureaucrats with cold marriages and went about their lives soullesly and dishonestly.

We need to consider that French people were saying bourgeois long before Marx.

Infinite growth can only be achieved though renewable sources anyway. That helps the planet no?

>Main motivation

Most of the population had to barter on the black market for things in these countries. It was only in the minds of the planners that most people weren't self interested.

>Automation
Humans are not horses. Capital is a compliment to labour as well as a substitute.

>Greed is a horrible one
People accumulate by helping others, it's their reward for supplying others demands, greed is the best one. It isn't always good but in many cases it can be harnessed for good.

>Without restriction

What is the the role of the state in a capitalist society? To guard property rights, prevent monopolies, provide things that markets can't, fix market failures and social insurance (etc).

>Majority gets fucked

Load of nonsense - manifest, arrant nonsense.

Mein gott

This should be obvious for anyone with so much as a passing interest in literature.
Kek at all these commiebabbies who thought Flaubert was on their "side." Flaubert would have considered Marx a bourgeois, and Marx would have thought the same about him.

This just in: millennials can't fathom how different opinions were back in the day.

The modernist myth of progress didn't die, it became even more fucking fanatical.

Go to bed Milton

Too many people think it's the end

>The modernist myth of progress didn't die, it became even more fucking fanatical.

that's one scary thought

>Hey Balzac
>No, not you, Balzac, I named my ballsack Balzac, how do you like that?

If you're poor then capitalism isn't for you.

It's still a dumb quote. Hatred for people you find boring is pretty silly.

Stendhal

>2016
>being poor

it's only your fault user, the system is perfect for people who are willing to work hard.

Sentimental Education blew everyone away when it was written - people actually memorized it - So read that, but read Old Goriot first.

>working hard
eh he he

You're still a dumb poster. Thinking he hates them simply because they're boring is pretty silly.

Lmao capitalism has provided the best opportunities for the worlds poor. And I'm not talking about ex factories workers in the US, I'm talking about the really poor.

At least you recognised the quote. I would have loved to have met the man. Pity his son is an ancap. There should have been a Chomsky-Friedman debate.

It's isolated from its context, he could have been disingenous, as many French are, in his use of "hatred". Besides, it's not unheard of for people who feel different or isolated to hate their surroundings and thus the people in them. Cutting ties with the way of life prescribed to you by society and its elders opens up a world of freedom and new experiences and I think this the ultimate source of the quote. Not "fugg rich people". To spend one's life for the purpose of feeding the machine except on evenings and weekends and the notion that this is the most reasonable way to live, is sort of cancerous when you think long and hard about it. I don't blame him.

Here's another quote where Flaubert mentions the bourgeois:

"Be regular and orderly in your life like a bourgeois, so that you may be violent and original in your work."

Go back to /pol/ - you drooling moron.

True

I'm far too socially liberal for /pol/ thanks.

just take your prescribed meth and don't talk about it. Do cocaine, the more socially and intellectually acceptable drug, to mask it -- but less. Don't smoke weed, and don't forget to drink water

ITT self-styled bullshit artists

>Infinite growth can only be achieved though renewable sources anyway. That helps the planet no?
The markets don't think that far and are too volatile to plan ahead either way. The massive regulations needed to steer them the right way are pretty anti capitalistic.

>Most of the population had to barter on the black market for things in these countries.
Black markets aren't something the system was build upon, they are a symptom of restrictions. Besides even in the USSR with some being more equal than others bullshit, the inequality never reached the crazy levels we have even in the first world. It wasn't an optimal system, the execution was even worse but it allowed the ex USSR states and China to catch up pretty fast, without using egoism as main motivation.

>Humans are not horses.
From the capitalistic view point workers are just that, human capital. Not too different from horses to be used for work, it's doubtful that there will be any use for most people in the labor market with automatisation, so neo feudalism or new system it is soon.

>People accumulate by helping others
Unless a way where fucking each other over promises to be more profitable.

>It isn't always good but in many cases it can be harnessed for good.
Almost any motivation can be harnessed for good but a destructive one like greed is bound to cause immense harm, not just directly. We are taught to see each other as competition, valuate each other by the ability to acquire money, etc etc. A system that rewards people pushing imaginary money around over caring for the sick/elderly or educating others is a self destructive mess.

>What is the the role of the state in a capitalist society?
Theoretically it's what you said, practically the effectivity ranges from poor (US/rest of the world) to pretty poor (EU). Besides, once the state actually does its job, entitled trust fund babies bitch and get their way thanks to lobbying more often than not.

>Majority gets fucked
Working times went up, given how most people dislike their job, it probably means that happiness went down to. Also environment is even more fucked than "shit lying in the streets" from pre industrial times, specially in the third world. At best the chance to improve your situation became higher.

its what i'm saying, making it and made it are two different things, if you haven't made it yet then try somewhere else.

>Besides even in the USSR with some being more equal than others bullshit, the inequality never reached the crazy levels we have even in the first world
That's bullshit. Education in St. Petersburg was leagues better than it was rural Azerbaijan or Tajikistan, and quality of life in Moscow was totally incomparable to that of Eastern Siberia.

Keeping in mind Stalin was alive until 1953 (because comparing the inequality in the USSR with pre-war Industrial revolution inequality is anachronistic), the USSR was far more unequal than the United States and most of Europe, because socialism couldn't provide abundance for everyone and what little there was was hoarded by the political elite.

>Also environment is even more fucked than "shit lying in the streets" from pre industrial times
I don't really know what you mean by "more fucked" but it certainly doesn't have the same negative effect on quality of life that lack of proper sewage systems does.

being bourgeois is a fucking state of being you moron

IMPORTANT FACT, READ BEFORE POSTING

To Flaubert, the definition of bourgeois was closer to that of 'philistine' than to marx's political definition

holy fuck you dumb fucks the whole éducation sentimentale is built upon flaubert's passionate hatred of the bourgeois

A load of non sequitur points.
How does the government know which way to steer them? Into their own pockets?
Not thinking long run is deeply unprofitable so long as you can be punished for crimes for short run profit.

>Inequality
Not necessarily a bad thing. Better to tackle the causes rather than the symptoms.

>Catch up
But at what human cost? Sure they produced lots of steel but didn't fulfill the demands of the populace as well as a capitalist society. Taiwan, S Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and now China are all catching up much faster under capitalism.

>Doubtful
Nonsense - Labour and capital can compliment each other, automation isn't that close.

>Fucking each other
No one makes long term profits by fucking over people, also what are property rights?

>We are taught
Nonsense, individuals come to their own conclusions about these things.

>Imaginary money
Stocks etc help the elderly they make up part of their savings. Also what is matching saving to investment?

>Self destructive mess
It's still standing unlike other systems

>Trust fund babies
Envious are you? Lobbying is a problem in the states less so in the EU.

>Most people dislike their job
Pure unadulterated nonsense, a significant minority does however.

>Enviroment
You seem to care much more about this idea of the enviroment than about people.

What sort of society would you espouse?

>people have more money than me, fuck them

Explain limousine liberals then

>Most people are born into wealth
>13% of billionaires inherited their fortune, 27% became billionaires from re-investing inherited wealth, and a full 60% of billionaires made their money themselves.
Most of the millionaires and billionaires are new money. Why do you think the bourgeois and new money are hated?

>Education in St. Petersburg was leagues better than it was rural Azerbaijan or Tajikistan
>quality of life in Moscow was totally incomparable to that of Eastern Siberia.
Fair points although specially the latter is quite an extreme example.

>socialism couldn't provide abundance for everyone
There was not too much choice but actual scarcity of stuff necessary for life was pretty much non existent after the war (and its aftermath), same with shelter, healthcare and education. Not something a low skilled Murican worker today can take for granted.

>doesn't have the same negative effect on quality of life that lack of proper sewage systems does.
Not like a proper sewage system is even standard in some 3rd world countries. Hell, even fucking Dubai struggles with it.

While it's comparable to poisoned water we got now, post industrialism added horrible air quality.

This.

Holy cow @ the other replies. Has Veeky Forums been infiltrated?

>How does the government know which way to steer them?
Research? Take climate change, the only issue we don't fully switch on 100% renewable energy are 0s and 1s on some banks server.

>Not thinking long run is deeply unprofitable so long
Thinking long run for a company is not exactly thinking long run for the environment.

>as you can be punished for crimes for short run profit.
Good that you can buy your way out if the profit was good enough or if you're too big to fail.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering

>Better to tackle the causes rather than the symptoms.
Not that capitalism alone does either.

>But at what human cost?
Given the scale, specially for China but for Russia too, it was inevitable with either system, and unlikely to work out with capitalism for Russia. They would probably be a second Nigeria now if they privatized their resources earlier. Also China made the big step err leap before capitalism, and their current system is a weird ass mix. Similar to Singapore and basically the worst of both worlds. S Korea and Hong Kong were pumped with money, neither had a "natural" development. Not quite sure about Taiwan.

>Labour and capital can compliment each other
Oh certainly but it's not really required.

>automation isn't that close
The resistance is political, and legal in some cases. The technological possibilities are almost there even now

>No one makes long term profits by fucking over people
Depending on what you mean with long term profits, in context of companies it's harder. In context of people the system encourages to push others down

>help the elderly they make up part of their savings
If they were lucky enough to have savings beyond their pension

>matching saving to investment
Not something the poor have to worry about certainly due the lack of capital

>It's still standing unlike other systems
Cuba is still there too. Shittier systems lasted much longer, so it's not saying much for now

>Envious are you?
Hey, I have black err rich friends and can't say I am poor either. You don't need to have cancer to consider cancer bad.

>Lobbying is a problem in the states less so in the EU.
Yeah, like the public discussion about TTIP. Also the car lobby is extremely powerful in Germany (just as the most obvious example I can come up with)

>Pure unadulterated nonsense
businessinsider.com/what-do-you-do-when-you-hate-your-job-2010-10?IR=T
Can't find direct source but guess this should work. Going by personal experience the number seems bit higher than expected but not exactly shocking. Depends on the branche obviously but you don't seriously think that many people in the service sector or doing other menial work love or at least like doing their job?

>You seem to care much more about this idea of the enviroment than about people
We reached the point, where not taking care of it, has horrible consequences for people, specially future generations.

>Better to tackle the causes rather than the symptoms.
Inequality IS the cause, read post-marxian critiques on power before ever posting here again.

Nah I'd rather be the burgouises.

Love is often the root of wisdom.

Love is often the root of wisdom.

One of the things I like to do most is banging whores.
I go out and I bang a lot of whores.

Wisdom is a spook

Appreciate the (you), glad to see you don't fall into either one of the primary sides ITT and I'm not fucking crazy.

side a
>ACCORDING POST-STRUCTURALIST CRITIQUE OF THE CAPITAL BLAH BLAH MARXBABBLE

side b
>What a retard, rich people are great. Bourgeois is great. Fuck Flaubert lol.

I mostly blame Karl Marx and his descendants for defiling the word and language in general. Notice how discussion of Flaubert's writing has been noticeably absent from the dialogue. This is a /pol/ thread.