Author Topic: Who was worse: the aristocrats or the bourgeois? (Read 673 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **on:** May 25, 2013, 02:01:17 AM »

You know I was reading this book "The Magnificent Ambersons" (perhaps you've heard of it or the 1942 movie) and I must say during the first half I resent George and his snobbishness but in the second half I really see pity for him as his aunt just treats him coldly even when he's nice to her and he's forced to become a factory worker as his family loses wealth.

I also despise the bourgeois attitude of Eugene and the bourgeoise attitude of his daughter as well at the whole "doing something for yourself" nonsense that is the typical bourgeois attitude towards everyone (i.e. becoming a rich lawyer or politician). This book was written at the turn of the century and really shows the attitudes of the new class of rich industrialists and capitalists popping up replacing the old aristocrats.

So to come belatedly to the point in the history of Western society who has been worse in your opinion: the aristocrats or the bourgeois (the rich capitalist class)?

Spork · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2013, 11:25:14 AM »

This is in the spirit of the Great Gatsby, which is now getting a reprieve in theaters. I think that the aristocrats were far superior as society was ordered differently. Everyone knew their places. And it was our Holy Church that protected the poor and oppressed from landed scoundrels. With liberalism, the average 100,000 a year earner considers himself royalty, sans a noblesse oblige.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2013, 11:33:20 AM »

It really doesn't matter anymore. They all watch the same insane movies and tv shows.

Spork · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2013, 12:51:25 PM »

there is nothing noble about that.