May I ask who exactly are the bourgeoisie?

The owners of significant amounts of capital.

What is the amount that serves as a threshold above which you deem amounts of capital to be deemed "significant"? Does this figure rise from time to time in line with one of the inflation indices and could it fall in line with severe economic woes? How amenable would you be to the differing opinions of others on such an amount? Does the amount concerned apply to UK only and would you cite different amounts applicable to other countries whose economies differ from that of UK? By "capital", do you mean disposable capital in the form of readily realiable assets such as cash on deposit or total worldwide assets of all kinds (including individuals' homes)? Would you apply different interpretative standards to individual and corporate entities in this regard? In arriving at such figures for each country (were you to do so), what allowances, if any, would you make in countries such as France and Spain who impose a wealth tax (which UK does not), in the sense of regarding wealth net (i.e. after payment of) such tax as being below such a threshold?

Sorry to ask so many questions in one go, but they are, I believe, all directly pertinent to an understanding of what you mean by "significant amounts of capital"; in particular, for example, if home ownership is incorporated in calculations, it is worth noting that many who have owned their main residences for some years might once have fallen below the threshold but now find themselves above it purely due to the vagaries of a property market which is by definition beyond their control.

I don't know whether you would, for example, take inheritance tax thresholds as any kind of indicators here (although, since they are so low, I would very much hope not), but it may also be worth noting that, in countries whose governments currently impose such tax, the thresholds under which liability does not apply differ widely from one to another.

Best,

Alistair

Anyone notice how whenever Greece was shown in the greenroom, the camera pretty much zeroed on the four girls rather than on the 6 foot 3 singer "who can cook". : (


I have to say I rather liked the sound of georgia's chorus-bit.  Germany were entertaining; it's a pity that Belgium (or whoever had the badly lyricked funk set) didn't make it to the finals I think.

Alistair, I don't think that membership of the bourgeoisie is means-tested or index-linked - it has more to do with the relationship to capital than the possession of specific amounts of it.

The classic Marxist definition (to which I imagine Ian subscribes) characterises the bourgeoisie as those who derive their income from ownership or trade in capital, as opposed to the working class who derive theirs from selling their labour-power. I think that puts the idea on a more secure footing!

Did anyone else think the Irish lead singer was decidedly off key?

As for those cliches and cheesy moments that have been mentioned, how many of us remember how it was in the 1960s and 70s? So many songs seemed to be of the Binga Bang Bong, Ding Ding Dong, Boom Boom Boom type, which Monty Python made a lot of fun of.

Yes, well, the fact that Dylan Thomas was a cynical alcoholic with a nice line in wit and a slightly more tangled line in poetry doesn't mean we all have to suspend our critical faculties.

I haven't seen anyone 'band[ying] terms about pejoratively' actually, PG, just a couple of people trying to do a bit of objective economic and sociological analysis. Now, you may not agree with their conclusions, but I certainly don't think Ian was the one using bourgeoisie as a term of abuse. Read what he said again -- and now tell me who's engaging in cynical point-scoring and who's actually expressing human concern about a significant political issue.

Sorry for that. Your post appeared just as I was about to type a response to Alistair. All I was going to say to him is that the amount of detail within his post (and previous posts by him in other threads) about inheritance tax, 'the vagaries of the property market' etc. makes it quite clear that he is quibbling about details within precisely the system that Ian would like to see the back of. Asking for a definition of 'significant amounts of capital' and then effectively giving a selection of multiple-choice answers on a spectrum from small business owners to the landed gentry is hardly going to get us anywhere.

Please note that I'm not expressing a political opinion in this post, just asking for a bit of analytical rigour in the discussion of other people's politics.