Sympathy for the Bourgeois
In my analyses I'm usually firmly anchored in the proletariat, because arguably, it's the position that tends to be sensible to side with, considering material realities of the vast majority of people, as well as the consequences of historical analysis. However, it's good to remember that in hierarchies of power, oppression tends to harm everybody, even the oppressors. As such, maybe inspecting capitalist structures from a bourgeois - or broad non-proletarian - perspective might yield some insight and stave off the more outlandish ideas about the bourgeois.
A Question of Sympathy
The title of this essay is maybe a little misleading. I do not as such harbour any particular sympathy for members of the bourgeois, but at the same time, they exhibit about as much influence on their surroundings at the beginning of their life as most proletarian children do. They will experience a similarly skewed world-view through the means of social interaction with the looming system of capitalism and education, which may or may not hold a certain measure of exclusivity. But as the American education system proves time and time again, exclusivity in education does by no means equal better education. Where there is more capital, its presence will be felt more strongly. Social mobility is just as restrictive for the bourgeois as it is for the proletariat, though they may have fewer proletarian aspirations than the other way round. To be a member of the bourgeois is a constant dance along the line between being in competition with everything, or needing to abolish ones own class.
These problems are by no means equal to worrying about basic human needs and selling most of ones functional life to corporations, as is pervasive in proletarian circles, but they are problems that follow directly from the duality of their position and the class divide.
Out of Your League
Capital stands in for a lot of things, regardless of which class one belongs to. Especially once the primary function of capital - the exchange for goods - is rendered trivial by the amount of capital accrued, then it needs to take a fetishistic nature in order to retain significance. These values are aspoused to not only the proletariat to justify the unequal distribution of money in relation to work, but the values that follow as a consequence from this will also be present for members of the bourgeois.
In its least convoluted form, money signifies the classical virtue of studiousness, or the willingness to work. The flawed line of thinking goes a little like this: One is paid only for work (this premise is false already), so then in order to own a lot of money, one must have worked a lot (which is ridiculous, considering people can earn in between less than 20 Euros per hour and about 50.000 Euros an hour, including bonuses and stocks, which I will, because that's how the big-wigs get paid). To then establish oneself within the bourgeois, capital must not only be retained, it must be cultivated, faster than that of ones peers. The importance of this is visible in the rankings of the richest something or other, 30 under 30 or whichever voyeuristic listicles pop up at the end of fiscal periods. As a member of the bourgeois, not only does one exist in competition with the proletarian class whose interests conflict directly with ones own, but also with other members of the bourgeois. Ironically, this state of universal competition could be laid to rest with a "socialism of the bourgeois", which would however be a surefire way to stoke the flames of revolution.
The Decision-Makers
The bourgeois, by the nature of the station they have within capitalist structures, carry the "burden of responsibility". I find this quite funny, considering it's not quite clear whom this responsibility is toward. The responsibility for themselves and their own is so far universal, so let's look at the two options that are sensible to cite as an answer.
Responsibilities to society should not be in the hands of the wealthy, even if they had the capital, at least not in democratic systems. While capitalism claims itself to be democratic by nature, a system in which the wealthy call the shots is a technocracy at best, and anarcho-capitalism at worst. I have an essay on technocracies here, and my issues with anarcho-capitalism is a branch of ultra-liberalism, which derives its foundations from the right to property. In short, a rich person could buy all sources of water and decide only them and theirs get access to it, and the system would have to side with them. I find this dystopian. In defense of technocracies, the concept of the "good billionaire" and maybe an example or two are often cited. This feels disingenuous to me, considering these "good billionaires" have a history of putting money into causes of personal interests first, and even if that happens to be a good thing (technically), it's also a good tool for spicy, spicy tax fraud.
Responsibilities to Employees is a notion that's equally tragic and laughable. For one, the bourgoise absolutely can't function without the actual work done by the proletariat, so to suggest that the employer is somehow carrying responsibility for the well-being of their employees feels a little reminiscent of past structures that have rightfully been legally abolished. Even if the employer were exercising responsibility over their employee, wage-theft and exploitation seems like an odd way to express this. One could argue that the workers are not billionaires and thus don't know how to take care of themselves, which when put like this is infantilizing and more often than not false. Where the largest parts of the proletariat is able to live on less than the capital that is spent to uphold bourgeois pleasures alone, I'll comfortably call this invalid.
Nero and Aurelian
As the bourgeois has the habit of cultivating high-level administrative positions, their role in government too can be diverse. Political figures tend to be remembered for their accomplishments first, their personal lives second. People like to pretend that Marxism is purely an economic theory, and that could only ever be the case if one were to go only by the contents of Capital. Modern, especially post-Lenin Marxism has a highly sophisticated model for statecraft that clearly lays out the interests of the proletariat and how the ones in administrative positions ought to interact with them. In Lenin's seminal work about the state he gave a description of the relationship between the state and its citizens that is somewhat detrimental to the idea that a state and its actors may act in the proletariat's best interest. In short, the bourgoise and the state gravitate towards each other by nature of the former's position within a structure that forces those not within the bourgeois to work and quickly assimilates those within the government into the bourgeois. As such, the state is not only an ally to bourgeois interests, but also a tool for reinforcing the class divide and the relation between both classes wherein the proletariat's role is chiefly concerned with cultivating capital for the bourgeoise. The state that acted in the interest of all, or even just the majority of its citizens, would have to work towards its own obsolescence.
Within geopolitics as they are this is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are still ways to bridge the gap while the greater goal of equity is being worked towards. Maoism introduced the concept of the mass line, a place for state and regular people to interact, not on terms of a legal hearing, but on a very direct, human level. Often, the citizen will have worries, not expressly of a political nature, but within a grasp that a political organization should be able to remedy or at least soothe. This is a good way to take care of people. Troubles about food for example can be remedied by giving them food directly, and, should it turn out to be a pervasive issue in an area, hand it out. This might cost a political organization money, but considering state political organizations pay their politicians too much and keep them fed most days, I'm sure feeding people that can't afford nice suits a simple meal isn't too much to ask. Besides, history has had examples of this from groups without state funding. The Barbudos successfully deployed the mass line during their revolutionary guerilla war against the Batista regime, and they didn't have the means to shave.
The Nature of the Game
Leftists (mostly) like to think of themselves as revolutionaries, and their analysis is mostly grounded in historical materialism. On the other hand, the set of beliefs that undergird the position of the bourgeois is in fact market liberalism (social liberalism, though quite welcome, is mainly a tool to feign progress in order to appease the exploited), however, attempts at analysis from the liberal perspective is somewhat more squishy than that from the historical materialist perspective. While of course the philosophical basis of liberalism is mostly grounded in utilitarian views, liberal analysis and praxis tends to break down into individualist value questions, such as ethics or philosophical questions, which - while entertaining in the classroom - can hardly be implemented as a principled approach. Historical materialism however can take the individual into account, while drawing from a sort of natural history which provides a framework that, while not objective, can give clear, principled direction for further action. The title of this Essay, then, describes an endeavor that will do little but to conserve the order of things as they are, but at the same time promote stagnation.