The Left is the Party of the Lie. This is because their desires are so evil and insane that they cannot survive discourse in which truth prevails, or is even a reasonably prominent element. One kind of lie they like is to change the meaning of words, to corrupt language so that it is harder to think non-leftist thoughts. On that subject…
The word “bourgeois” comes from a root word that means city-dwellers. It derives from the same root as borough, burg, berg, etc. Marx, being an asshole, deliberately confused things when he used the word in a new way, to mean, basically, “capitalists.” What it really meant until then— and still means subtextually as neo-Marxists use it— is normal people.
Even left-slanted Wikipedia admits that “bourgeoisie,” aside from its original meaning of city-dweller, denotes
a sociologically defined class, especially in contemporary times, referring to people with a certain cultural and financial capital belonging to the middle or upper middle class: the upper (haute), middle (moyenne), and petty (petite) bourgeoisie (which are collectively designated “the bourgeoisie”); an affluent and often opulent stratum of the middle class.
During the centuries in Europe before Marx was born, which centuries were the focus of much of Marx’s “history,” there were two main groups of normal people: Peasants and city dwellers. (In medieval Europe, peasants were about 85 percent of the population. Towns grew throughout the medieval period and eventually started to become cities.) Peasants were generally too poor to be worth expropriating, so parasites like Marxists weren’t much interested in them— although as history has shown, they’ll expropriate anyone in a pinch.
Plus, so many of the peasants were dispersed out in the boonies. There’d be so much travel per peasant expropriated, it would hardly be worth it.
But the bourgeois, now that was a different story. They were reasonably prosperous, those city-dwellers, and there were so many of them! And they were conveniently concentrated in metropolitan areas. There was some real stuff you could get your hands on. And all you had to do was assemble a mob and attack them. So simple! There wasn’t enough there to last the parasites very long, and certainly expropriation can’t be the basis of an economic system, but since when do parasites think about the long run?
One Marxist actually wrote a book called The Right to Be Lazy, which I imagine made the other Marxists hiss, “Dude, shut the fuck up, you’re exposing us!”
So, Marx thought, let’s come up with a theory that says that normal people are somehow attacking us, so that when we attack them it can be portrayed as merely the taking back of our own stuff which they stole from us. “The expropriators are expropriated,” he cheekily said.
Of course, you could also expropriate the nobility, and that was fine and dandy, but there simply weren’t enough such people to provide much loot. Not when their loot was distributed among a mob large enough to actually defeat them. So for Marxists’ main target: the great middle classes it was!
Later in the Wikipedia article on “bourgeoisie” we get:
In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.
Right: People don’t want to keep their stuff just because it’s…their stuff. They want to keep their stuff TO ENSURE THE PERPETUATION OF THEIR ECONOMIC SUPREMACY!
Uh-huh. I don’t like my Bose stereo because I like well-balanced, high-res music; I like it because I enjoy imagining all the poor proletarians shivering in the cold on the street outside, unable to afford high-fidelity audio reproduction.
Marxists are assholes. That’s all, just particularly violent assholes.