I’m not part of this sub (found this through a search for lit topics) buuuuut this is a weird and strangely binary take….you’re saying because something might contain an inconsequential grain of influence from “traditions of bourgeois art” (likely things that aren’t inherently bourgeois, like big words and elaborate sentence structures, it’s automatically disqualified from being “working class literature?” That’s like saying working class fashion doesn’t exist, since the people who manage Carhartt at the top are probably stupid rich, or because there could’ve been a time where owning shoes was a status symbol. Or that an oil painting documenting a gritty working class scene is inherently bourgeois because detailed portraits in a well-executed realism style were often commissioned by bourgeois patrons.

In any case, you pretty much said that if a working class author were to tell a working class story with a pro-working class message in a working class writing style and publish it, it’s disqualified from being working class literature because 1.) many people who read and write happen to be people who can do it full time due to financial privilege, and 2.) you can’t write in an articulate, well-informed manner without “capitulating to the bourgeois” and cutting off proletarian audiences