Marx described History as a non ending fight between classes: esclavagism, feudalism, capitalism, dictatorship of the proletariat… A version of this fight between classes, with real consequences on the history of the economy and politics, was the opposition between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Their rivalry for domination, that the bourgeoise mainly won, shaped a lot the modern economy and society of today.
This opposition was a lot linked to the nature of the economy. The aristocracy dominated the economy of the Middle Ages which was real estate: the notion of property of today didn’t exist to the extend the Nobles owned all the land, and labor was not putting the legitimacy of property as wrote John Locke. The opposition between the aristocracy, the church and the serfs was completely rigid, no evolution could happen: as the serf worked for the aristocracy, the aristocrats had to protect the serfs during wars. However, paradoxically, there were more protection systems that the bourgeois destroyed later.
As the poorest backgrounds are the most violent, the rich backgrounds are often more violent than the middle classes; the fact there is money and power involved create more rivalries and oppositions in general than in the middle classes. This violence can be seen in the rivalry between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, who fought during three centuries for domination in France, is an example of it. The Renaissance, with events like the advent of printing, the secession of Luther with the catholic church, the contestation of theology as the unique source of knowledge and the return to the antique ideals created modern capitalism, which was mobiliary. Cities rose, small businesses grew and ports were more and more important, creating economic power like Netherlands. It is at this time the bourgeoisie appeared, which is linked to mobiliary capitalism, and contested more and more the domination of the aristocracy. The rise of modern capitalism in France for instance was also the rise of the bourgeoisie as the leading economic power compared to the aristocracy. It is the reason why, in the XVIIIth century, the bourgeoisie owned the economic power and the aristocracy was decadent, with less and less power, more occupied in surrounding the King in Versailles (which was in the basis a trick of Louis XIV to control the aristocrats). As often the economic power leads to the political power, because, as Emmanuel Kant says, “the fist measure of power is money”.
The French Revolution was for instance an implicit destitution of the aristocracy from power to the benefice of the bourgeoisie. The Human Rights and the Republican institutions were also allowing modern capitalism to be officialized. There were really good sides even Karl Marx recognized, as he preferred the bourgeois capitalism to the aristocrat feudalism : he wrote for instance that is was fighting mediocrity and stimulating hard work. But there were somber sides as well, for instance the le Chapellier law that dissolved the corporations, destroying as well protections that will lead to the advent of greatly oppressive conditions in factories and companies in general in the XIXth century. This somber side was rightly criticized by Karl Marx but, in my opinion, he distorted reality to the extend he didn’t take enough into account the positive sides of the new bourgeois order. This generalization will partly lead to the totalitarian regime of USSR which was even worse than the oppressive bourgeois order in the XIXth century.
To finish the oppositions between the bourgeois were more important than between the aristocrats. For instance the opposition between the “old bourgeoisie” leading in the XVIIIth century, creating characters like Maximilien de Robespierre and the dominant oppressive bourgeoisie of the XIXth century has always existed and still exists. It is the reason why, for instance, the old bourgeoisie was leading at the time of Charles de Gaulle and Pierre Mendès France as moral leaders and the period of today is dominated by the oppressive part of the bourgeoisie, that Emmanuel Macron represents today between others. This oppressive side won’t be necessarily against democracy but is more acting on the economy and in the shadows. It is the reason why this opposition is not likely to disappear, as the bourgeoisie is in majority the leading class from the XIXth century.
The observer 