I don't know if it's just me, but I seem to come across anti-bourgeois opinions if a lot of the literature I read...

I don't know if it's just me, but I seem to come across anti-bourgeois opinions if a lot of the literature I read, there almost seem to be a general hatred for the rich and bourgeois. Why is that?

Either ressentiment or just general disgust with decadent values/behaviors and their effects on people, society and the world

read the communist manifesto

not even memeing you - its a very short and approachable intro to Marxism and very clearly explains why Communists think the bourgeois are damaging to society.

Its all online if you google for it.

Yeah I get the movement and why they have their views. I just find it interesting that so rarely do I encounter any literature with either characters or plot that has anything that seem pro-bourgeois. Is the majority of writers just part of and/or sympathizer with the proletariat? Is it really that uncommon to have a positive view on bourgeois lifestyle?

We-ell, whats to like about the bourgiouse?

Leftist writers will be anti-bourgiouse to show the flaws they see in society, and rightwing writers will ignore the bourgiouse because they dont want to draw attention to such an embarassing part of the system they support.

I reckon, anyway.

In what way is it embarrassing?

Nope, I see tons of elitism towards the illiterate, the unenlightened, and those who do not agree with the author. God help you if the writer is a poet and your job description might involve keeping itinerant troubadours out of the palace.

Even as a commie you are always free to hate people poorer than you under charges of false consciousness, laziness and the like.

archetype turbo-plebs

people who read pop science/pop criticism and think they're intellectual/elite but basically have no understanding of the world and live a relatively sheltered existence

You ever been called a "classist" by the entire leftist community? Elitism in the left exists, sure, but I'm not allowed to call ppl "rednecks" or "plebs" anymore.

I just don't see how modern Communists can view the system as corrupt or faulty. If you were to overthrow our society as it is and create a modern society without the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, how would that society operate? To me it seems simply impossible to keep our standards of living without a free market and the promise of success. How do we produce means of living that are anywhere near the quality of the bourgeoisie for everyone? If we want a Communist society we have to force our entire society back to a simpler form of living. We have to erase technological advancements in favor of "equality". The way I see it the sympathizers with Communism, and the anti-bourgeoisie, are very hypocritical. If you truly believe in Communism in our modern society you should be willing to sacrifice your current means of living and your materialistic belongings before you expect me to sacrifice mine. In no way does the modern Communistic society feature any of the luxury available to the common labourer today

>Is the majority of writers just part of and/or sympathizer with the proletariat?

Bourgeois isn't necessarily "rich people", imo Flaubert is more accurate in his use of the term, which for him is a mindset of people who are dumbasses but think they're above average.

It isn't about the illiterate or unenlightened. You can be literate and intelligent whether you are a part of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie.

Its almost like a majority of the people in the world arent rich and buy the most books.
also up against the wall porky

the bigger problem is why the communist leaders always live in mansions

and why commie shills are retarded enough to believe that the proletariat emancipation must come through an elite vanguard, and that this elite will "naturally" wither away once the oppressing capitalist are all killed

meet the new boss, same as the old boss

>which for him is a mindset of people who are dumbasses but think they're above average.
Are they snobbish by nature? Not an anglo nor frenchie so the bourgeois term has always confused me as to what the archetype would act and look like.

Go visit your local law school.

>there almost seem to be a general hatred for the rich and bourgeois. Why is that?
The third estate, despite the numerical advantage, rarely were given opportunities to oppose the writer in any meaningful way.

Aristocrats can get the writer censored, fined, exiled, executed, and so on.

>I'm not allowed to call ppl "rednecks" or "plebs" anymore.
You're on Veeky Forums, work on that vocabulary.

>Go visit your local law school.
My closest friend is a law student and his fellow students all sound like bourgeois pigs now that I think about it, thanks user.

>Are they snobbish by nature?

In subtle ways, yes. But they're not really the 1%. It's basically upper-middle class liberals with mainstream world views.

For Marx it was a clear battle between the proletariat and the bourgeois, with the bourgeois being the owners. What Marx called "petit-bourgeois" is closer to the middle-class liberal that I'm describing. After all, in Marx, the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, so the bourgeois aren't exactly THE problem, it's more the petit-bourgeois who are stupid/naive enough to delay the implosion of capitalism.

An example would be Emma Bovary, being a dumb bourgeois for Flaubert because she's stupid enough to read shitty romance novels and believe that her life could be like that (she ends up realizing this and kills herself when she sees she's running out of money - even though that itself was a relatively minor trouble). He thinks bourgeois are idiots and won't ever get ahead, so he wrote a novel where all the characters are repulsive and only the style is beautiful, to trigger the bourgeois sensibility basically. And it did, they tried the novel for immorality.

she realizes it's not possible for her life to be a romance novel*

I just want to be clear that I think there's two uses of the term bourgeois, one in Marx and one coming out of Flaubert. They overlap in ways, but like Nabokov says, Marxism would be considered bourgeois by Flaubert.

The anti-bourgeois sentiment you're picking up in literature (I think) is coming out of the Flaubert, because smart Marxists never liked explicitly pro-Marxist literature. They liked literature that unconsciously described the process of history as Marx perceived it, so they can go "a-ha! you see here it is, it's everywhere, we're right." Sort of why Zizek thinks Hitman 2 is one of the 10 best films ever made.

So let's put in the Marxist way. There is the owner and the owned. There is a upper-class bourgeoisie benefiting off the work of a proletariat.

The problem I see with our modern society is that rarely do I encounter anyone who actually is proletariat. If you're a factory worker today, you will earn decent money, counting on the fact that you do not have a lot of debt. This money that you've earned will inevitably be spent, either on things you actually need, or on things you feel the urge to have. A very capitalistic and bourgeoisie way of life. As a proletariat you can go on vacations, you can buy a house (albeit you probably have to take a loan), you can strive to live as close to the upper-class standard as possible, which I think most people do. Modern proletariat doesn't want to change the system, even though they are "slaving" 40 hours a week to earn a decent pay.

Fuck, I'm getting off-topic.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think every westerner today is willingly or unwillingly living a bourgeois and capitalistic lifestyle. So if a author feels the need to express his own, or his characters views on why the bourgeois lifestyle is incorrect, he is hypocritical. Where in western society can you see anyone living a non-bourgeois lifestyle? Everyone arguing for anti-materialism and anti-elitism will still be buying things they don't need and will still inevitably have conceited thoughts to either people with lower class status or people you have negative prejudice about.

Because no fortune is innocent.

> So if a author feels the need to express his own, or his characters views on why the bourgeois lifestyle is incorrect, he is hypocritical.

yeah but that's not really it
see
writers don't write anti-bourgeois literature in the marxist sense like what you described, at least not good ones, and marx and his descendents hated it when writers came to them and said "hey read my novel im critiquing the bourgeois"

and you can totally write a book about how everyone is a hypocrite, including yourself

Best answer

Spoilers for Madame Bovary in this post

How are not Monsieur Homais dreams any less romantic and self-indulgent than Madame Bovarys?
> He thinks bourgeois are idiots and won't ever get ahead
except that Homais gets his Medal of the Legion of Honor at the very end