question about nobility, bourgeoisie revolutions, proletarian revolutions

[BH]

I started a thread about why democracy is important:

why is democracy so great

Why is democracy so great and worth defending? I'm talking about it in its American (USA) setting. To me, it seems it is just a word thrown about to raise emotions and manipulate. To me we are not and never have been a democracy. Please educate me different.

iidb.org

It got me thinking about nobility, the bourgeoisie and its revolutions against the nobility, and the proletarian revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

I wanted some opinions from you and if you know of any sources confirming or denying my pondering let me know.

Since recorded history all major powers have been ruled by a nobility which is generally hereditary, at least up until a few centuries ago in Europe. This nobility educated its members in statecraft and other sciences and sometimes a few people from other classes to aid them in the running of the country or empire. These countries prosper and last centuries. The nobility was rich and had power but then the bourgeoisie arises in the late Renaissance and really kicks off the late 1700's and early 1800's. The bourgeoise becomes well off through trade and later development and commercial use of science and industry and eclipse the nobility in power. Ultimately through various revolutions the bourgeoisie overthrow the nobility. If they do not kill the nobility, it is limited to basically figurehead ceremonial positions. They tend to run things well and the countries don't fall apart. The proletarians come along and have their revolutions against the bourgeoise. But they run their countries into the dirt.

Why is this the case? I can understand why the bourgeoisie succeeded in taking power and destroying the nobility but why were the proles unable to pull it off? I know there are a lot of uneducated and stupid people among the proles but there are many that are very intelligent and even well educated.

 

[bilby]

I can understand why the bourgeoisie succeeded in taking power and destroying the nobility but why were the proles unable to pull it off?

The simple answer is that they didn't.

The borgeoisie took power and kept the nobility (mostly as figureheads).

Destroying the nobility seems to be a disaster; Hiding it works much better. The mistake made by proletarian revolutions was to believe that destroying the nobility had worked, and attempting to emulate that approach.

The European nobility are (mostly) alive and well. They're mostly still very wealthy, despite being politically far less powerful than their ancestors. They spend their time complaining about inheritance taxes and about their inability to find decent servants at wages they can afford.

The North American nobility are also alive and well. They have very effectively persuaded the rest of their countrymen that they don't exist, and that the society they lead is egalitarian and led by merit rather than birth; But try getting into their social circles and you will soon discover that they aren't welcoming any outsiders.

Trump is very much not a part of the nobility; Biden very much is. The Kennedys had to work to get in, and mostly succeeded - but it takes wealth, power, and above all time to be accepted, and you need to understand the subtle nature of aristocratic power.

 

[barbos]

but why were the proles unable to pull it off?

There is only one data point supporting your conclusion - USSR.
And there is another point which I say refutes it - China.
Why USSR failed? In my opinion they failed because their enemies were bigger and hell bent on destroying USSR by any means possible.
That meant that military was a priority at the expense of everything else including long term development.
China, on the other hand, since the early 80 have been building market economy within communist regime and they succeeded. By the way, chinese did not come up with that idea themselves, it was idea from USSR (~1970), it's just they decided not to go that route in Soviet Union. Also in 1920s USSR had experience with market economy too.

Also India, which was a Democracy and capitalist all the way. Yet, compare China and India. India does not look so good.
So association between regime and its success is not that strong.
As for aristocracy, Besides UK they have very little political power. In UK with a wrong accent you can't hope to get far in most of the fields.

Speaking of aristocracy, Chinese communists aristocracy is a thing too. Same in USSR, it was a thing as well.
People do tend to keep their children employed well, regardless of the system.

 

[Bomb#20]

Since recorded history all major powers have been ruled by a nobility which is generally hereditary, at least up until a few centuries ago in Europe.

Ancient Athens was a democracy. That was part of the reason for the Peloponnesian War -- the noblemen ruling Sparta didn't like it that another major power wasn't likewise ruled by noblemen.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Since recorded history all major powers have been ruled by a nobility which is generally hereditary, at least up until a few centuries ago in Europe.

Ancient Athens was a democracy. That was part of the reason for the Peloponnesian War -- the noblemen ruling Sparta didn't like it that another major power wasn't likewise ruled by noblemen.

It was a democracy if you were male and not a slave. It was near identical to the early Virginia colony where you could vote if you were wealthy, white, male and a member of the Church of England.

 

[rousseau]

I can understand why the bourgeoisie succeeded in taking power and destroying the nobility but why were the proles unable to pull it off?

The simple answer is that they didn't.

The borgeoisie took power and kept the nobility (mostly as figureheads).

Destroying the nobility seems to be a disaster; Hiding it works much better. The mistake made by proletarian revolutions was to believe that destroying the nobility had worked, and attempting to emulate that approach.

The European nobility are (mostly) alive and well. They're mostly still very wealthy, despite being politically far less powerful than their ancestors. They spend their time complaining about inheritance taxes and about their inability to find decent servants at wages they can afford.

The North American nobility are also alive and well. They have very effectively persuaded the rest of their countrymen that they don't exist, and that the society they lead is egalitarian and led by merit rather than birth; But try getting into their social circles and you will soon discover that they aren't welcoming any outsiders.

Trump is very much not a part of the nobility; Biden very much is. The Kennedys had to work to get in, and mostly succeeded - but it takes wealth, power, and above all time to be accepted, and you need to understand the subtle nature of aristocratic power.

These are serious questions because you seem to know more about this topic than me:

- what is the defining characteristic of the nobility that makes them different from someone who is just plainly ultra-rich? Is it a tie into politics?

- what would be the distinguishing factor between, say, being a noble, and being a moderately wealthy local politician with a wide and deep local network? Beyond scale of wealth?

 

[bilby]

These are serious questions because you seem to know more about this topic than me:

- what is the defining characteristic of the nobility that makes them different from someone who is just plainly ultra-rich? Is it a tie into politics?

Breeding. The nobility are descended from kings.

Well, that's the medieval difference; And modern aristocrats will talk about 'breeding' as though it were significant, even while concealing the fact that their great-grandparents were lowly peasants.

Ultimately it's a clique - an ingroup of people who share common ideas and ideals, usually derived both from their aristocratic parents, and their attendance of exclusive schools. While such schools might well be eyewateringly expensive, typically they aren't exclusive only because they are too expensive for those without noble backgrounds; They have both scholarships available to aristocrats who have fallen on hard financial times; And non-cash barriers to entry for non-aristocrats.

- what would be the distinguishing factor between, say, being a noble, and being a moderately wealthy local politician with a wide and deep local network? Beyond scale of wealth?

They speak a different language (or rather a different dialect). They have different manners and mannerisms, and rules of "polite behaviour" that are ingrained and arbitrary, making interlopers easy to spot.

Wealth (and even influence) are typical, but not required, for members of the noble class. An understanding of what to wear (and what not to wear) and when; Which fork to use for which course at dinner; And which words to use and how they are pronounced, is far more significant.

Even in Europe, the door to becoming noble is not closed; But it's very difficult to get in, and it typically takes at least three generations of wealth and power to achieve full acceptence.

It helps that the middle classes have their own styles, dialect and behaviours that they cultivated to separate themselves from the working classes.

A miner or street-sweeper in theory couldn't pretend to be a noble without his rude manner giving him away; But in fact he would do a much more convincing job than his middle-class employer would.

An English Lord is likely to be found on his estate wearing a worn and dirty Barbour jacket*, that a middle class Englishman would consider beneath his dignity. He calls a napkin a napkin, like the working man does; Only the middle classes would say "serviette". But he wears "trysers" rather than trousers, and he went to the same school as the Prince of Wales.









*Sam Vimes would understand - the Lord wears a forty year old jacket, because he could afford to buy a jacket that was such high quality as to last forty years.

 

[rousseau]

These are serious questions because you seem to know more about this topic than me:

- what is the defining characteristic of the nobility that makes them different from someone who is just plainly ultra-rich? Is it a tie into politics?

Breeding. The nobility are descended from kings.

Well, that's the medieval difference; And modern aristocrats will talk about 'breeding' as though it were significant, even while concealing the fact that their great-grandparents were lowly peasants.

Ultimately it's a clique - an ingroup of people who share common ideas and ideals, usually derived both from their aristocratic parents, and their attendance of exclusive schools. While such schools might well be eyewateringly expensive, typically they aren't exclusive only because they are too expensive for those without noble backgrounds; They have both scholarships available to aristocrats who have fallen on hard financial times; And non-cash barriers to entry for non-aristocrats.

The bolded is partly what I'm interested in. I guess I'm trying to think about this in terms of Sociology and class concepts. Anthony Giddens' would argue, for example, that when we try to define the concept of 'class' scientifically, it's not that easy to do. There are people who are, roughly, on the top of the economic ladder, and a cascade of people toward the bottom.

So my thinking is that the basic social phenomenon of being a 'clique - an ingroup' exists in the same away across the entire economic spectrum. People form networks of like people within their reach to increase their wealth and social standing. But as for the Nobility, there's got to be someone at the top.

Then there's the intelligentsia, which is another thing.