/lit/ - Literature

>>19278677
boo-juh-wah-zee

>>19278677
>boor-zwah
>boor-zwah-zee
Please tell me you're joking. ZWAH? Dude, ZWAH? Have you NEVER HEARD THIS WORD IN YOUR LIFE? That's honestly astounding. You're asking if it's BOUR ZWAH or BOUR ZWAH ZEE? It's fucking neither you dumbass. Do you know how a G is pronounced? In what universe is G pronounced Z? Fucking nowhere

>>19278677
boar jawaazee

>>19278689
wait no it's boar jwa zee

Boor-jwah-zee I think and Boor-jwah when you're using it as an adjective (like "Boor-jwah music" or "Boor-jwah art" or "Boor-jwah morals" or something like that, I think). Idk, I don't speak French but that's how I've always used it.

>>19278677
Also which word are you asking about? Bourgeois or bourgeoisie? You realize they are two different words, right? You do realize they're TWO DIFFERENT WORDS, right? Please tell me you recognize that there are two different words. And please tell me you recognize that NEITHER of them has a G that is pronounced as a Z. Its BOUR-JWAH and BOUR-JWAH-ZEE

bore-jew-zee

Why are all you guys making the "r" sound. I (>>19278681) have always thought the 'r' is silent.

>>19278694
He might be a chang where zhang is pronounced as "jang"

>>19278684
This nigga pronouncing it boor-djwah

>>19278704
They're retards, ignore them

>>19278704
You're retarded, do what they do.

>>19278677
bour ge oise

>>19278677
More like "Booze? Wa-hee! *glug glug glug*"

>>19278677
jfc they're two different words

bour·geoi·sie - the noun
bour·geois - the adjective

bur-goise is how i say it

>>19278932
kek

>>19278932
how do you say stoic?

>>19278677
it's pronounced like bourgeois and bourgeoisie, duh

>>19279591
stoike of course. unless you mean stoïc

>>19278677
THEYRE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS. BOURGEOIS IS AN ADJECTIVE AND BOURGEOISIE IS A NOUN. I HATE AMERICANS

>>19278677
DON QUICK-OATS

boor-jhwa-zee

>>19278677
boy-or-ghee-oy-see

>>19280976
this anon is correct

Does beourgeosie just mean middle class

>>19281134
no

>>19279591
stwah

>>19281134
there's no such thing as a middle class anon

bohr-ghost-zee

>>19281134
originally means city residents (burg) as opposed to country residents, eventually comes to mean that part of the "third estate" (the "everybody else" estate after nobles and clergy) that got increasingly uncomfortable being in the everybodyelse estate as it began to eclipse the nobles/clergy in wealth and opulence

the rise of the bourgeoisie is the rise of a class or stratum that didn't "fit" the traditional feudal hierarchies, until they simply broke the existing class system and its ideology. that's why people say the french revolution was a bourgeois revolution, because it followed a century of bourgeois infiltration and takeover of the public sphere and its discourse, asserting its own class rights against a system that initially didn't recognize it, and then only begrudgingly recognized it but expected it to accept an outsider or second class status, and eventually submitted to it entirely

the bourgeoisie saw this as a revolution against arbitrariness and irrationality, because from its perspective, the old system had irrationally excluded "merit," i.e. it had looked at a wealthier, more talented bourgeois and a talentless semi-retarded nobleman and said "yep looks like a random peasant who should be quiet and an important nobleman deserving of running the government to me." from the perspective of the bourgeois, whose ideology was the enlightenment and whose century was the 18th century, with kant as its highest representative and hegel as its capstone, the triumph of the "middle class" was the triumph of everybody, the triumph of reason itself overcoming artificial and merely "traditional" barriers to status and success, which should only ever be judged on the basis of rational criteria

the marxist critique is that the bourgeoisie stopped there, content to have had its bourgeois revolutions with their merely ABSTRACT criteria for recognition and success in society. where the nobles and clergy had had arbitrary traditional criteria for excluding the lower caste, the bourgeoisie has an abstract ideology of castelessness, and now congratulates itself all day on its abstract commitment to abstract rational meritocracy. this is good as far as it goes, but abstract rational meritocracy is not sufficient for ACTUAL, concrete meritocracy. the french revolution was ideologically dominated by people of a certain economic standing as a matter of necessity, they were the ones with the freedom and leisure to receive educations and articulate their concerns and bring their consciousness forth from being merely subjective (latent desires, demands) to being objective (concrete political forms, representation).

>>19281304
even worse, because the bourgeoisie has an ideology of "what? everybody is free to (get wealthy enough to) vote and participate in society like me!," it is less honest and frank than the nobles/clergy were about its interests. nobles/clergy just told bourgeois revolutionaries to fuck off, making them a clear enemy. bourgeois tell you to your face that your revolutionary concerns are already encompassed in their paternalistic institutions.

behind this trickery, the bourgeoisie is not just causing social stagnation, but using lingering remnants of the old irrational order to maintain their de facto oligarchic status, like the "right" to alienate property so that magnates can control half the country's land and "let" the actual producers work on it (but it's okay! they aren't TITLED nobles this time and don't wear funny hats, they just have infinitely more wealth than you so everything about their lifestyle is better than yours, but NO TITLES this time around so it's NOT an oligarchy!!). such rights are privi-leges, private laws, which the rational essence of the bourgeois revolution was supposed to destroy in making all citizens equal, i.e. equally subject to the same rational laws. like with the nobility and its arbitrary caste right to monopolize property while contributing nothing to production, the bourgeoisie is DE FACTO doing the same thing, but with an ideological sheen of equality over it. your fifth generation nepotism boss whose investments are too big to fail is your legal "equal" under bourgeois ideology, some are just more equal than others.

the goal of the next revolution is to take what is merely abstractly real under the bourgeoisie (rational meritocracy, universal citizenship, i.e. people not distinguished by any arbitrary class/caste/traditional aspects of themselves, only by their essential humanity and what individuality that brings forth) and make it a concretely real, actual possession of society as a whole. this revolt against hidden irrationality, the irrational oligarchy of wealth concentration and alienated wage-serfdom, will play out the same way the bourgeois revolt against the old, nakedly irrational order did: a series of struggles as the nascent/latent class becomes self-conscious and realizes the old order is fundamentally its natural enemy, that it is not "negotiating" with "other classes" in a "state" but contesting the right to constitute that state on what it recognizes as the sole rational grounds for organizing a state. the enlightenment emanated from the bourgeoisie, the proletarian revolution will emanate its own revolt.

so bourgeois has a lot more connotations than just urbanite or middle class, it has connotations of hypocrite, decadent, philistine, enemy, oligarch, reactionary. i'm a fascist btw but all this is correct, marx is right. also marx didn't invent most of it, french socialists did in the 1830s and he just came in and imposed his own autism on the international socialist scene.

>>19281313
>>19281304
That was a great post mein fuhrer. I am your servant.

>>19281346

>>19281304
>>19281313
didn't read everything, sorry. but I think this has some cool deep relations with the word Villain being derived from villager, in the middle ages. But this disdain for the worker by the noble was also common in Greece.
It seems though that Marx feeds on this resentment to overthrow at once the ''natural'' nobility and the self-indulgence of the bourgeoise.

>>19281313
>i'm a fascist btw but all this is correct, marx is right. also marx didn't invent most of it, french socialists did in the 1830s and he just came in and imposed his own autism on the international socialist scene.
just letting everyone else know the anon that wrote this text wall knows absolutely nothing about marx's thought, as always

>>19281372
Okay I am your brother.

>>19281378
that is interesting, and that kind of thing in general is amenable to marxian analysis (which is why ricoeur calls him, freud and nietzsche practitioners of the "hermeneutics of suspicion"). for example, "mean" and "base" both mean common, in their simplest and earliest definitions. but even in a modern, notionally equal society we still use them to mean cruel, ugly, shallowly and almost bestially self-interested. the bourgeoisie also maintains a lot of traditional obsession with "good breeding."

one of marx's best bons mots is that the bourgeois is a "transitional class." there's something still respectable in the fossilized noble, because at least he is ingenuous, he's not a hypocrite, he is what he is. the bourgeois is inherently an unstable hybrid, everything about its consciously articulated philosophy suggests its own dissolution but everything about its actions reveals its irrational reactionary instincts.

that's why it's important to capture the tinge of disdain and hate that "bourgeois" has, it's implicitly saying "if you were a good/smart person, you wouldn't BE bourgeois." more commonly it just means self-satisfied philistine though. if you want a good taste of its late phase, gasset perfectly captures it in his "señor satisfecho."

marx and nietzsche both had in common disgust for the philistine aspects of the bourgeoisie, the "good bourgeois" who is thoughtlessly self-confident and doesn't take his existence as a problem. even supposedly aristocratic nietzsche sympathized with the "social question" as a result of that hatred, although for him it was more channeled through wagner's volkisch socialism (proto-fascism). many fascists would reject leftist socialism for the very same reasons nietzsche and marx both rejected bourgeois liberalism, namely its philistinism. sadly a lot of the cultural momentum that european socialism had in the 19th century was due to a hatred of metaphysics, philosophy, and "idealism," which it half-rightly regarded as reactionary ideology.

today, as around 1900, all the best, most sincere and robust socialists simply can't bring themselves to be "leftists," because they instinctively sense the aura of decadence and self-indulgence that leftism is infected by. back in 1900 it was because the masses were one-sidedly anti-idealist and pro-"common sense," pro-materialism, etc., and that unfortunately repelled heroic and aristocratic natures. nowadays it's because the left has been totally and utterly colonized by bourgeois dandies who run "marxism" like a typical bourgeois social club. it primarily exists as a vehicle for drama among the (non-noble!!) "notables."

>>19281387
thank you bro, also sternhell (the book in that pic) is actually a good introduction to these things, so is a. james gregor.

It's pronounced bor-zoi

>>19278677
It's a french word, and french people pronunce it boor - gjwah

>>19281753
No, the French pronounce "boor-gjwah-khhhh-phbbbbbt-(collapse)"

What happened?! What happened?!
He spoke French; he choked to death!

>>19278677
bohr-gweezy

>>19281134
it used to back when there was aristocracy above it. now bourgeoisie is at the top, and the middle class is something else

>>19278677
It's pronounced bor-gar-e, borgare

>>19279591
MMMMMWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH THE FRENCH

>>19278677
Bore jew wah zeeh

every single person in this thread NEEDS to have sex, and quickly.

booze shwah zeh.

[ˌbʊə(ɹ)ʒwɑːˈziː]

>>19278677
>boor-zwah
This is “bourgeois”, the adjective.
>boor-zwah-zee
This is “bourgeoisie”, the noun.
I’m not sure about how to pronounce the words accurately in French though. Your explanation of the pronunciations is how I hear most Americans pronounce the words, so it’s fine.

>>19278677
You are conflating two different words.
Bourgoisie is the group noun pronounced boor-jwa-zee.
Bourgeois is an adjective pronounced boo-jwa
*jwa is meant actually to be a soft-g sound followed by waw, just don't know the right symbol for that sound.

>>19278677
burgués

>>19278677
Bor--gee--OH--sis

bur-gee-oys
bur-gee-o-is
Either is acceptable

>>19278684
Oh doomer gets offended by pronunciation, I hope u're doing well tho.

guys how do you remember how to spell bourgeoisie? why can't yanks come up with an easier spelling for once? like boorj and boorjy or something

>>19278677
Bour-juaw-zee is my take on it.

>>19284961
Usually, I just use the Spanish word because it's not gay french loanword bullshit.

>>19284964
just use the superior german word bürger or bürgertum

>>19278677
It's francophile autism from when France was still actually relevant. Whenever you read the word "bourgeoisie" just replace it in your head or out loud with a synonym: "capitalists", "business owners", "upper class", etc.

>>19285251
>justst replace it in your head or out loud with a synonym: "capitalists", "business owners", "upper class", etc.

>Etymology
>From French capitaliste.
>From Middle French classe,

oh non non non

>>19278684
Kek

>>19278689
>boar jawaazee

>>19278677
bʊərʒ.wɑːˈziː