Wiping Out the Bourgeoisie

I read a fascinating interview recently with internationalist Doug Casey.

Don't confuse the term internationalist with globalist. Casey is as independent as they come and realises that true freedom comes from not having all your eggs in one basket.

He openly describes himself as an Anarcho-Capitalist, which is defined as:

"An economic theory that seeks to abolish centralised states in favour of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies, based on concepts such as the non-aggression principle, free markets and self-ownership. In the absence of statute, anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilise through participation in the free market, which they describe as a voluntary society involving the voluntary exchange of goods and services."

Now, I'm not sure that I'm a fully paid-up member of the Anarcho-Capitalist club, but I do see more and more merit in freeing yourself from the shackles of government.

But it was Casey's recent comments about history that captured my attention.

The middle class, the bourgeoisie, emerged with the death of feudalism, the inception of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and finally, the Industrial Revolution.

“Middle class” has been given a bad connotation in recent times. Leftists want everybody to believe that the bourgeoisie is full of consumerist faults. They’re mocked for being concerned with material well-being and improving their status. The elites feel threatened by them. Unlike the lower class plebs, grunt workers who don’t expect more from life.

Bourgeoisie simply means city dweller. Starting in the late Middle Ages, city dwellers were independent, with their own trades and businesses. Living in towns got them out from under the control of the feudal warrior elites.

Now, we all know that the Communists loathed the Bourgeoisie and sought to eliminate them.

Not much has changed.