Bourge and Prole

How did the bourgeois get where they are? For at some point, not all persons who are now bourgeois had the money and the resources that they currently possess! Such a position can potentially be inherited, true; but, what is the path which made it possible before the vicious cycle was established to keep it alive? Or, then again, is it even possible for them to have their status as bourgeois at all without the influence of capitalism--capitalism which can be seen as essentially inventing simultaneously the bourgeois and the system necessary to keep that position alive? Otherwise, the question seems to me like a "chicken-or-the-egg" conundrum, and I can't figure out which is which! At some point, true, persons like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got their start that led to their future positions--however, they got that start within an already-established capitalistic system! I wonder what it would look like for individuals with similar capacities for what, in the world of capitalism, manifests itself as successful entrepreneurship--those traits such as creativity and a willingness to try new ways of doing things (and, ideally, a desire ultimately to improve peoples' lives!)--to reach their fullest potential in a marxist sense? In what ways would operating within a marxist system develop and display such attributes?

As another point, within the issue of the proletarian rebellion (and, ultimately, dictatorship), as best as I can understand, one hurdle for why people will not stand together for a cause... Is the fact that we do not expect everybody to cooperate for that effort. Now, when I say "everybody," I mean, among the proletariats, to include all of the persons who otherwise would be willing to go along with the system, and otherwise would effectively thwart any nascent strikes by filling in the abandoned positions of the rebelling workers. If well and truly everybody comprising the proletariats would indeed band together, it is difficult to imagine their onslaught not prevailing. "But the bourgeois have people who will stand up against--" No. Those people, by definition, are proletariats, and I mean if ALL the proletariats rebel: how then is it conceivable that a scant handful of individuals, with no-one else cooperating to carry out their whims and enforce their system, can possibly resist the revolution?

In light of that thought, I include this link... This clip is one that I always think of when the question of an oppressed majority arises; I believe it sums up things absolutely perfectly--and I would absolutely love to know other persons' reactions to it!

Edit--in case anyone is unable to view the video, I've typed in the most-relevant lines:

[Context: the grasshoppers are debating whether they need to reassert their position over the subjugated ants, who supply them with food.]

Hopper: You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up. Those "puny little ants" outnumber us a hundred to one, and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life! It's not about food: it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back!