The bourgeoisie are literally the antithesis to revolutionaries, you really have no idea what you're blabbering on about, the revolutionaries are the aristocrats, whether that be the American planting aristocracy, the Jacobins, the Wall Street abolitionists, or the Marxist intellectual elites, bourgeois is literally the word to describe the class of people who cling to the ancien regime to the last, the bourgeoisie are not the have nots, they are the middle classes who will not kill nor die for a cause, but are otherwise quite powerful politically, because they are the proverbial merchants and shopkeepers who keep the burg afloat.brewster wrote:Don't know what you're talking about, aristocrats are rarely revolutionaries, though they're sometimes "reformers" like Lafayette, till it got away from him. They're the conservative "haves", and revolutions are by the "have-nots", but what the have-not leaders historically mostly lack is not wealth, but power. The bourgeois.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's because you don't know what bourgeois means apparently /shrugs.