this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
29 points (91.4% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1026 readers
12 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As military officer you could say he was a (disloyal) servant of the bourgeois state, but to say he was bourgeois just by being a military officer is stretching the definition. Saying he held "power and relative privilege" is a reach. He didn't own capital; he made money selling his labour to the state: he wasn't and isn't bourgeoisie.