“I have now reached the point, Gentlemen, where it becomes necessary that, in order to avoid a possible gross misapprehension of what I have to say, I explain what I mean by the term ‘bourgeoisie’ or ’great bourgeoisie,’ as the designation of a political party—­that I define what the word ‘bourgeoisie’ means in my use of it.

“The word ‘bourgeoisie’ might be translated into German by the term Buergertum (citizenship, or the body of citizens).  But that is not the meaning actually attached to the word.  We are all citizens—­workingmen, petty burghers, commercial aristocracy and all the rest alike.  On the other hand the word ‘bourgeoisie’ has, in the course of historical development, come to designate a particular political bias and movement which I will now go on to characterize.

“At the time of the French Revolution, and, indeed, even yet, that entire body of subjects which is not of noble birth, was roughly divided into two sub-classes:  First the class comprising those persons who, wholly or chiefly, get their income from their own labor and are without capital, or are, at the most, possessed of but a moderate capital which affords them the means of carrying on some employment from which they and their families derive their subsistence.  This class comprises the workingmen, the lower middle classes (Kleinbuerger), the citizen class and also the body of the peasants.  The second class is made up of those persons who have the disposal of a large property, of a large capital, and who are producers or receivers of income on the basis of their possession of capital.  These latter might be called the great burghers or commoners, or the capitalist gentry.  But such a great burgher or capitalist gentleman, is not by reason of that fact a bourgeois.  No commoner has any objection to raise because a nobleman in the bosom of his family finds comfort in his pedigree and in his lands.  But when, on the other hand, this nobleman insists on making such pedigree or such landed property the basis of a peculiar importance and prerogative in the State, when he insists on making them a ground for controlling public policy, then the commoner takes offense at the nobleman and calls him a feudalist.

  “The case is entirely similar as regards the distinctions in respect
  of property within the body of commoners.

“That the capitalist gentleman in his chamber takes pleasure in the high degree of comfort and the great advantage which large wealth confers upon its possessor,—­nothing can be more natural, simpler or more legitimate than that he should do so.”

Incidentally, then, Gentlemen, so far am I in this pamphlet from instigating the unpropertied classes to hatred and contempt of the wealthy, that, on the contrary, I expressly declare myself for the legitimacy of such property.  I explicitly declare that the satisfaction taken in the advantages and amenities which flow from such wealth are the most natural and legitimate things in the world.