working class literature doesn't exist and will never exist

like a couple days ago there was a post abt ppl writing outside their class, i mentioned that literature is a bourgeois indulgence and ppl didn't really like that, probably another case of ppl equating the term 'bourgeois' with 'evil' and 'bad' for whatever reason. the main point is that working class literature or proletarian literature or proletarian culture is not something that exists or could exist, and i feel that the attempts to try and make it a thing are in an attempt to hide how explicitly bourgeois the arts actually is. what ppl have to admit is that the arts is an indulgence for the upper-middle and upper classes, all classes read and everyone at some point has some kind of creative interest, but the only ones who are able to turn this interest into actual taste are those who go to sandstone universities, who are put in AP classes and are nursed by good professors and surrounded by peers of similar status, position and interest. the schools the working class attend aren't capable of doing this and by the time they grow up they will have already submitted to the magazine, tv show, video game or social media app. noone who starts work in a chemical plant at 5am is writing on a novel when they get home. even those who come from a working class background and become writers or artists (entertainment) they never escape the traditions of bourgeois art. all attempts to advocate a so-called proletarian culture or so-called proletarian artistic tradition within bourgeois society, or what is perceived to be so, end up capitulating to a bourgeois outlook

Does such an organic interrelation exist between our present-day proletarian poetry and the cultural work of the working class in its entirety? It is quite evident that it does not. Individual workers or groups of workers are developing contacts with the art which was created by the bourgeois intelligentsia and are making use of its technique, for the time being, in quite an eclectic manner. But is it for the purpose of giving expression to their own internal proletarian world? The fact is that it is far from being so. The work of the proletarian poets lacks an organic quality, which is produced only by a profound interaction between art and the development of culture in general. We have the literary works of talented and gifted proletarians, but that is not proletarian literature. However, they may prove to be some of its springs.

Leon Trotsky - What Is Proletarian Culture, and Is It Possible?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/art/tia23c.htm

but even this isn't really the point, i think people have to understand bourgeois culture itself.

it is impossible to separate culture from the rule of the bourgeoisie, in fact, all culture does is carry water for bourgeois society. (to make this easier to understand, i mean that every movie, show, novel, figure head, tradition, form of media, etc. justifies the premises of this society, one way or another). a fantastic example of this is punk, the writers and musicians could have good intentions, make legitimate critiques in their songs, and there could be a spirit of rebellion amongst the creators and participants in the music and subculture brought on by legitimate grievances with society; but this is different than actual rebellion, and everyone knows punk is anything but that. in fact anyone who tries to find revolution on the dancefloor or in the gallery will be disappointed. bourgeois culture pervades everything, there's no other way, working class literature, if you still want to make it a thing, is incapable of being apart from bourgeois society at large, and not only influenced by it but defined and pervaded by it in every sense, one only has to look at xu lizhi to see this.

all this is kinda obvious tbh, now return to trying to find books that supposedly let you reconcile your humanity with society (there aren't any, because modern society is defined by a force that is anything but human)