Can a consistent revolutionary Marxist work for Goldman Sachs?

[getfiscal]

I am presently looking for a job. One field I am interested in is financial analysis, and the related field of economic analysis (particular macroeconomic conditions). At the same time, I am a revolutionary Marxist. I support the creation of a socialist economy over time. Part of this troubles me a bit. I know everyone generally needs to have a job, but I'm worried I'd get caught up in it and end up with right-wing opinions. Beyond that, there's the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.

Perhaps? Goldman Sachs is very obviously opposed to socialist goals.

As for whether it is ethical - I personally don't think so. You can work in jobs mainly involved with money that aren't Goldman Sachs.

[gorillafuck]

Beyond that, there's the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.yes, there is the slight possibility that goldman sachs may not be revolutionary socialists.

what do you want to do as the job?

[Ocean Seal]

If you are interested in fiscal analysis chances are you are going to be working somewhere unethical most probably a goldman sacchs esque corporation so I don't know why goldman sacchs is particularly bad.

Also here I used particularly bad because I would assume that nearly all your options are ethically questionable if you wish to work in money.

[getfiscal]

Goldman Sachs is very obviously opposed to socialist goals.Well I'm not so sure. For example, you could be a manager of a factory and still be a Marxist, I think, if you supported the workers rising up. Likewise, you could be a banker for that factory, if you also supported socialism. Obviously all existing socialist states had banks too, so you could be a banker and still be a socialist.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Well I'm not so sure. For example, you could be a manager of a factory and still be a Marxist, I think, if you supported the workers rising up. Likewise, you could be a banker for that factory, if you also supported socialism. Obviously all existing socialist states had banks too, so you could be a banker and still be a socialist.

It's not that you can't be a socialist and work for GS, it's that GS is a giant corporation that is notorious for lobbying in favor of capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

Well I'm not so sure. For example, you could be a manager of a factory and still be a Marxist, I think, if you supported the workers rising up. Likewise, you could be a banker for that factory, if you also supported socialism. Obviously all existing socialist states had banks too, so you could be a banker and still be a socialist.you are aware of the difference between a company and an individual person?

also, I don't know what kind of person who opposes capitalism would be a big banker.

[Fawkes]

Well I'm not so sure.
That Goldman Sachs is in opposition to socialism...?


For example, you could be a manager of a factory and still be a Marxist
Until you do managerial tasks such as fire workers, set wages, etc.


It works on a gradient. At my job, I can't give everyone free food or else I'd be fired. By charging people for food, I'm inherently supporting the capitalism. The thing is, I have no choice but to do so. However, if I work as a financial analyst for Goldman Sachs or as a police officer for the NYPD, I'm supporting capitalism in a much more direct and oppressive manner. No matter what you do, you're going to somehow aid in the perpetuation of capitalism, it's just a matter of trying to minimize the degree to which you do so. So I would suggest for you to find whatever it is about economic analysis that most interests you and try to find a way to channel that interest into something that plays a smaller role in perpetuating capitalism.

[getfiscal]

GS is a giant corporation that is notorious for lobbying in favor of capitalism.Is that different than any other company? Even small mom and pop stores give money to right-wing lobbyists like the Chambers of Commerce.

[getfiscal]

So I would suggest for you to find whatever it is about economic analysis that most interests you and try to find a way to channel that interest into something that plays a smaller role in perpetuating capitalism.Thanks. But shouldn't compensation fit into it? For example, if I am a minor union bureaucrat making $35,000 a year, I don't have a lot of money left over for causes and such. But if I'm a financial analyst making $70,000 a year, I could give tens of thousands to socialist causes.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Is that different than any other company? Even small mom and pop stores give money to right-wing lobbyists like the Chambers of Commerce.

But not all of them do. Goldman Sachs on the other hand, I would put on the top 10 list of the most anti-socialist companies in the US.

[getfiscal]

But not all of them do. Goldman Sachs on the other hand, I would put on the top 10 list of the most anti-socialist companies in the US.
Would that change at all just because I didn't work for them? Probably not.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Would that change at all just because I didn't work for them? Probably not.

No, it would not. However, I would be hesitant to think of you as a real "socialist", since you are willing to work for them.

Every penny counts.

[getfiscal]

Every penny counts.
Well there is also the question of if I want to be some beardo who rants about socialism all day, if you know what I mean. As in, we should contribute to socialist causes in what capacity we can, but we should also have nice lives and not get obsessive about it. That's probably part of the reason most people think socialist activists are a bunch of insane creeps trying to sell you terrible newspapers.

[Ostrinski]

Why must "socialist ethics" be discussed again and again? Why can't we realize that ethics is a pillar of liberal bourgeois philosophy and is of no use to us anymore? If you want to be a financial analyst, then become a financial analyst. It's not like the the proletariat won't become class conscious if getfiscal becomes a financial analyst for Goldman Sachs.


I would put on the top 10 list of the most anti-socialist companies in the US. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. As if any company is any more anti-socialist than the next. The fact that you think you can qualitate that displays your unapologetic idealism.


No, it would not. However, I would be hesitant to actually think of you as a "socialist", since you are willing to work for them.
And why should anyone care what you or anyone thinks of their understanding of things? Maybe I'm hesitant to think of you as a socialist because you chose an uncreative username? Opinions of people who think that socialism is realized through ideals and not an actual process are irrelevant.

[getfiscal]

Why must "socialist ethics" be discussed again and again? Why can't we realize that ethics is a pillar of liberal bourgeois philosophy and is of no use to us anymore?Here I stand with Lenin:

"But is there such a thing as communist ethics? Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants."

Marxists are not opposed to ethics, we simply think that ethics is connected with building socialism, and that we probably won't build socialism simply by trying to convince people based on a priori truths.

[Ostrinski]

Ethics =/= morality. Ethics is a method of understanding morality, and a decadent one at that. It supposes that one moral conception of something is unreliant on its context and can transcend the changing of social conditions. Which is anti-materialist.

[getfiscal]

Ethics =/= morality. Ethics is a method of understanding morality, and a decadent one at that. It supposes that one moral conception of something is unreliant on its context and can transcend the changing of social conditions. Which is anti-materialist.
Are you familiar with virtue ethics?

[Susurrus]

I think that it's not better nor worse than most jobs in the capitalist system. work there until we overthrow them, and perhaps a comrade on the inside could dig up interesting tidbits.

[Prometeo liberado]

I am presently looking for a job. One field I am interested in is financial analysis, and the related field of economic analysis (particular macroeconomic conditions). At the same time, I am a revolutionary Marxist. I support the creation of a socialist economy over time. Part of this troubles me a bit. I know everyone generally needs to have a job, but I'm worried I'd get caught up in it and end up with right-wing opinions. Beyond that, there's the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.


Lets not kid ourselves here. This is Goldman-fucking-Sacs! As I've said before many a good man has walked down that hallway only to be found laying dead on the side of a road like a dog. And for no good reason at all.

You will in all probability work for them or some ilk of their kind. You will make them much money, probably more than most. You will always believe that you are a marxist. You will learn to disconnect those hours at the office from who you "really" are. But in the end its like the final pages of Animal Farm. The pigs turn into man and they won again.

[NewLeft]

What's in your interests? Taking that job, so go ahead.. You're not making it any more or less ethical. And if you end up with right-wing opinions, well.. shit happens.

[Prometeo liberado]

Well there is also the question of if I want to be some beardo who rants about socialism all day, if you know what I mean. As in, we should contribute to socialist causes in what capacity we can, but we should also have nice lives and not get obsessive about it. That's probably part of the reason most people think socialist activists are a bunch of insane creeps trying to sell you terrible newspapers.


Maybe its just me, and it is, but I can not imagine seeing what I see. Reading what I read and not wanting to work for revolutionary change all day everyday. Anything else is just betrayal and collusion. Yet I would be the first to say that no one can tell another person how they can feed their family. It ain't my business. You gotta live in that head for the rest of your soon to to be capitalist/banker life. Live it with some bailouts and fun.:laugh:

[workersadvocate]

Whatever. Another one sooner or later gonna bite the dust as a consequence of the class struggle. Another fool who bet "all in" on this system and believe in its continued hegemony. Another narcisistic elitist 33-percenter who thinks that the working class supermajority of humanity can never get itself together to fully destroy this order and replace it ourselvess for ourselves by ourselves.

[Firebrand]

Personally I think you should take the job and attack them from the inside. If nothing else you can take their money and give it to revolutionary causes.
Look at it this way, someone is going to work for golden sachs in that position. It could be another capitalist in that position in which case they will do all they can to strengthen capitalism and put their money into enriching themselves and the system. Or it could be you in which case you can work to weaken capitalism where they least expect it, and you can give the money to revolutionary causes and thus hasten it's end.
If you want the job I wouldn't advise telling them you're a revolutionary marxist though. I doubt they'd be impressed.

[trubkin pipeface]

I could give tens of thousands to socialist causes.
why the fuck would you give ur money to activist weirdos? spend it on drugs instead they are more conducive to building communisms. i couldn't work somewhere like goldmann sachs cuz it'd make me likely to kill everyone and that's not fun because i'd rather drink wine and tea and listen to classical music and dance badly and laugh and have sex with my boyfriend and stuff like that. what kind of life is fiddling with money anyway? i don't think its immoral it's just really dull you should aim higher have a really lovely life learn lots of stuff and walk around in the forest and hug your friends a lot.

[kuros]

Socialism is't a lifestyle, so you can do whatever you want and still be a socialist. I would however, recommend that you donate money to socialist and progressive causes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you want to be a banker, go ahead.

If you want to think of yourself as a Socialist, go ahead.

But don't expect your neck to be saved when the revolution comes for the ruling class, just because you 'sympathise' with Socialism. It would be ridiculous to simultaneously preach revolution whilst working to enhance the efficacy of the current Capitalist system. It's called hypocrisy.

[Renegade Saint]

Well there is also the question of if I want to be some beardo who rants about socialism all day, if you know what I mean. As in, we should contribute to socialist causes in what capacity we can, but we should also have nice lives and not get obsessive about it. That's probably part of the reason most people think socialist activists are a bunch of insane creeps trying to sell you terrible newspapers.
Not get obsessive. About revolution[?]. Are you serious? Anyone who has credibly called themselves a revolutionary throughout history has been fairly "obsessed" with the idea.

It seems that there's a difference between being a part of the capitalist system by fulfilling a job role that's necessary and productive (and would be in a socialist society). For instance we'll still have teachers, firemen, journalists, construction workers, scientists, etc. Investment bankers... Not so much.

Morality isn't really my department, but you'd be incredibly naive to think that your class interests wouldn't color your politics. It will. And you'll end up throwing out your politics before your job-because you could only deal with the cognitive dissonance for so long before your head exploded.

And re thread title: "revolutionary Marxist" is redundant.

[gorillafuck]

But not all of them do. Goldman Sachs on the other hand, I would put on the top 10 list of the most anti-socialist companies in the US.no, he's right. ranking companies on how anti-socialist they are is ridiculous.

[workersadvocate]

I don't think this guy is talking about trying to work as a janitor or other wage-slave at Goldman Sachs.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Become a janitor. If you're going to do financial analysis, do it from a revolutionary perspective, and distribute it to folk who can use it for radical ends on stolen photocopies. Steal toilet paper from work.

No seriously though, if you're thinking, "Should I do this thing that would make me a class enemy?" the answer is, "No, you shouldn't, because then you'd be a class enemy."

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think this guy is talking about trying to work as a janitor or other wage-slave at Goldman Sachs.

I think the real question is if he's talking about career advancement within specific lines of work within Goldman Sachs. There are, after all, grunt financial analysts doing the bulk of the math there, grunts auditing the company's own business processes for the purpose of adding value and operational improvement, and so on.

[getfiscal]

No seriously though, if you're thinking, "Should I do this thing that would make me a class enemy?" the answer is, "No, you shouldn't, because then you'd be a class enemy."
Why is working for a financial group a class enemy?

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As I asked above, what line of work are you really seeking there?

[getfiscal]

I'm far off from applying to GS or any particular firm. My skills are still limited and my only training is an economics degree. It was more a thought experiment about a possible future career.

[dodger]

I am presently looking for a job. One field I am interested in is financial analysis, and the related field of economic analysis (particular macroeconomic conditions). At the same time, I am a revolutionary Marxist. I support the creation of a socialist economy over time. Part of this troubles me a bit. I know everyone generally needs to have a job, but I'm worried I'd get caught up in it and end up with right-wing opinions. Beyond that, there's the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.

Whatever your choice I wish you well. You might even find yourself shuffling papers with a future ruler of an African state. I am sure if you get an entry plan together you will just as quickly conceive an exit one , fiscal. Goldman's will be buying your time, precious time, don't sell it cheap. You might even start your own permanent thread or blog. Goldman's must have quite a rumour mill. It might still be renovating the Labour party.....it has certainly made off with our gold reserves. They might go the same way as Lehmans, next time, but they still got friends in high places, and some laid low. You might like the chance to bale out, work abroad or wait patiently for that retirement clock. As always the advice is always the same "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst!" It was advice given to me nearly 4 decades ago, I survived 3/4 depressions/recessions. Just. Strangely enough it was a communist lady in a bookshop gave me that gratuitous advice, now I recall. Good Luck.

[workersadvocate]

Ever considered getting into education?
Maybe doing something like what Prof Richard Wolff does?
http://rdwolff.com
Check out his Economic Updates show in WBAI especially, and note his method for reaching and educating his audience.

[Khalid]

No.

[NoMasters]

I am presently looking for a job. One field I am interested in is financial analysis, and the related field of economic analysis (particular macroeconomic conditions). At the same time, I am a revolutionary Marxist. I support the creation of a socialist economy over time. Part of this troubles me a bit. I know everyone generally needs to have a job, but I'm worried I'd get caught up in it and end up with right-wing opinions. Beyond that, there's the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.

Absolutely man! I hope you get that job. You have to feed yourself and your family. And when the time comes, you will have the money and resources to help the revolution if the time comes.

Remember Che Guevara said that when he was helping the wounded during the beginning of the revolution that he was doing his part in the revolution by healing the wounded.

Good luck!

[Prometeo liberado]

Socialism is't a lifestyle, so you can do whatever you want and still be a socialist. I would however, recommend that you donate money to socialist and progressive causes.

And walk the occasional picket line right? Whats the word for that? Liberal.
Look I'm am not opposed to gaining first hand knowledge of a complex system in order to either unmask it or the use of your skill to pay your rent. But like everything else there will be a price to pay. It is impossible to be a revolutionary whose politics are, I'll work for the exploiters until other people get it started. Maybe it is possible not to lose yourself in the world of high finance by also being a committed activist as well? I gotta go my tree needs a hug.

[Fawkes]

For what it's worth, it's highly unlikely that you would stay a marxist if you cease to be a member of the proletariat. Most of us aren't revolutionaries because we think it would be "fair" or "just" or "morally right", we're revolutionaries cause we don't have a choice. It's material conditions that drive most of us, so if you aspire to be a member of the bourgeois, there's no need to ask yourself if you can somehow reconcile being a marxist, because the fact of the matter is that you're probably not gonna be one if you don't need to be.

[Ostrinski]

Engels, Trotsky, Che, Kropotkin: Capitalists, according to some people's standards here. You don't have to be oppressed by a system to understand that a system is unsustainable.

[Rafiq]

So long as your economic analysis is Marxian, for the sake of theoretical consistancy.

However you can be a communist either way

[gorillafuck]

Absolutely man! I hope you get that job. You have to feed yourself and your family. And when the time comes, you will have the money and resources to help the revolution if the time comes.

Remember Che Guevara said that when he was helping the wounded during the beginning of the revolution that he was doing his part in the revolution by healing the wounded.

Good luck!there's a drastic difference in being a doctor and in being a banker.


Engels, Trotsky, Che, Kropotkin: Capitalists, according to some people's standards here. You don't have to be oppressed by a system to understand that a system is unsustainable.they were born into wealth. they didn't pursue careers as bankers.


For what it's worth, it's highly unlikely that you would stay a marxist if you cease to be a member of the proletariat. Most of us aren't revolutionaries because we think it would be "fair" or "just" or "morally right", we're revolutionaries cause we don't have a choice. It's material conditions that drive most of us, so if you aspire to be a member of the bourgeois, there's no need to ask yourself if you can somehow reconcile being a marxist, because the fact of the matter is that you're probably not gonna be one if you don't need to be.I actually think that's not true at all.

[Binh]

Louis Proyect did. His blog is Unrepentant Marxist. Check him out.

[The Idler]

Could a consistent revolutionary Marxist work for Lenin's Russian Foreign Development Bank Vneshtorgbank? Socialism is not a lifestyle.

[Ravachol]

All human activity trapped within the gears of Capitalism contributes to it's continued expansion, whether it's through the streams of finance-Capital at Goldman-Sachs or otherwise. When I work for a construction company and build a road, I lay the foundation for the infrastructure that allows corporations to transport their commodities around the world, thus aiding in the circulation of Capital and, indirectly, in the expansion of it and all that entails. When I work as a computer programmer and code a database management system, it is going to be used to optimize the business flows within a corporation, maximizing profit accumulation and minimizing cost (including the cost of labour). When I work in the grocery store and stock the shelves with commodities, freshly arrived through the distribution centers, I contribute my labour to their distribution, their sale and thus to the overall process of Capital-accumulation. The accumulated Capital by a retail chain may be invested in hedge-funds or the stock of some shady oil corporation cleansing native lands in the third world, thus using a minuscule part of my labour to contribute to these horrors. It's all connected.

All labour integrated within Capital contributes to it's expansion, it's strengthening and the daily misery that flows from it. The irony of Capitalism is that it works because we work, the whip and carrot make us run the treadmill that powers the gears of this vale of tears.

On the other hand, there are some positions which are of far more influence on the functioning of Capitalism and the shit it produces than others. It's obvious that someone working for the intelligence services, someone working as the head of the 'human resources' department, someone working in an executive function in the banking world, someone developing 'crowd control' weaponry or techniques, etc. contributes a disproportionate amount to the daily misery suffered under Capitalism and it's overall armoring. Choosing between the variety of gears we want to be, I'd opt for one whose impact isn't as crucial or horrifying as some of the others. But that's about it.

[Renegade Saint]

I remember a thread a few months ago when someone asked everyone's opinion of them wanting to join the French Foreign Legion, because he "liked a fight".

I don't remember anyone saying "well socialism isn't a lifestyle, so go right ahead."

Goldman Sachs, like finance in general, is a part of the imperialist machine. Would people here want to be comrades with someone who pursued a career in the IMF or World Bank? I wouldn't. Just because they're not wearing a uniform or carrying a FAMAS doesn't mean they're not actively working to preserve and expand imperialism.

[The Idler]

I remember a thread a few months ago when someone asked everyone's opinion of them wanting to join the French Foreign Legion, because he "liked a fight".

I don't remember anyone saying "well socialism isn't a lifestyle, so go right ahead."

Goldman Sachs, like finance in general, is a part of the imperialist machine. Would people here want to be comrades with someone who pursued a career in the IMF or World Bank? I wouldn't. Just because they're not wearing a uniform or carrying a FAMAS doesn't mean they're not actively working to preserve and expand imperialism.
Goldman Sachs is a private bank, the IMF and World Bank are not, they are governmental institutions. Linking Goldman Sachs to part of imperialism is reminiscent of historical slurs about a cabal of bankers controlling the world. At least be consistent, either all big powerful private institutions are imperialist, or only governmental institutions (which would include the Russian Foreign Development Bank under Lenin). Personally I don't agree either way, but at least be consistent on your own terms.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

For me the dividing line is weather you are a part of management. If so, it is really a contradiction. If you do tech support, cleaning, anything like that, It's not. Similar to the difference between being a manger at GM and an assembly worker. We would mostly agree, right, that a factory worker can be a socialist. You become an agent for the bourgeoisie, or bourgeois, when you become part of management or a major share holder. These are not moral categories. It has to do with one's relationship to the means of production. We could argue about the pernicious nature of what investment banks actually do, but really, it's not the point. Capitalism is amoral -- and it's all about exploitation and extracting surplus value.

[Revolutionair]

sure why not, go for it

[gorillafuck]

I'm astounded that some people would say they don't have anything against a leftist pursuing this. bankers are more directly involved in facilitating capitalism than cops are but you'd all think it was terrible if someone said they were going to be a cop.

[Renegade Saint]

Goldman Sachs is a private bank, the IMF and World Bank are not, they are governmental institutions. Linking Goldman Sachs to part of imperialism is reminiscent of historical slurs about a cabal of bankers controlling the world. At least be consistent, either all big powerful private institutions are imperialist, or only governmental institutions (which would include the Russian Foreign Development Bank under Lenin). Personally I don't agree either way, but at least be consistent on your own terms.
The dividing line between private bank and public bank is less than clear when private banks receive hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds.
What's more, quite frequently governments borrow from private banks, which then use that as leverage. Look at Greece. Greece's private creditors along with Germany are forcing austerity on its people. Is that not imperialism? Are the 'private' bankers not very effective agents of imperialism in that case?

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxism doesn't relate to petty moral dillemmas of certain personalities. It has no ethic to impose except for the "work ethic" concerning political work in certain organizations.
But in this case, it's not a matter of Marxism, but rather of formal and informal rules and "customs" of organized political work. You should be concerned how would your comrades in the org react, and how would they evaluate the significance of your job in relation to your political engagement.

Apart from that, it's a non-issue. Personally, I don't think conscious job choices can play a role in the development of class struggle, and this whole problem resembles what people call lifestylism.

[The Idler]

The dividing line between private bank and public bank is less than clear when private banks receive hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds.
What's more, quite frequently governments borrow from private banks, which then use that as leverage. Look at Greece. Greece's private creditors along with Germany are forcing austerity on its people. Is that not imperialism? Are the 'private' bankers not very effective agents of imperialism in that case?
I'm not sure this even fits Lenin's dubious definition of "Imperialism" (of states exploiting other particular states rather than banks exploiting people of particular states) let alone Hobson's. It sounds more like a revival of the bankers conspiracy rubbish.

[NoMasters]

there's a drastic difference in being a doctor and in being a banker.


No there is not. A banker could fund 100 doctors to help the people.

And he can give advice on how the workers can hurt the corporations that own them most.

[smk]

I am presently looking for a job. One field I am interested in is financial analysis, and the related field of economic analysis (particular macroeconomic conditions). At the same time, I am a revolutionary Marxist. I support the creation of a socialist economy over time. Part of this troubles me a bit. I know everyone generally needs to have a job, but I'm worried I'd get caught up in it and end up with right-wing opinions. Beyond that, there's the question of whether it is morally right to work for an organization that is perhaps opposed to socialist goals.

if you are skillful enough for a job with goldman sachs or another financial company, you can probably find a job with some more ethical firm. Or go into academics.

[gorillafuck]

No there is not. A banker could fund 100 doctors to help the people.

And he can give advice on how the workers can hurt the corporations that own them most.this is how to get fired from a bank. you do not understand how banks work if you think that this will work.

[NoMasters]

this is how to get fired from a bank.

Of course it is. But if the time for true change came, would it matter if he was fired?

[Thirsty Crow]

if you are skillful enough for a job with goldman sachs or another financial company, you can probably find a job with some more ethical firm. Or go into academics.

Ridiculous. As if there's a significant divergence between jobs based on the inherent morality of it all, in this society of all.
You'd do yourselof a favour if you went over Ravachol's post again (if you did at all).

[Ostrinski]

I'm astounded that some people would say they don't have anything against a leftist pursuing this. bankers are more directly involved in facilitating capitalism than cops are but you'd all think it was terrible if someone said they were going to be a cop.I never said it wasn't a dick move, but the question pertained to theoretical consistency, not lifestyle consistency. You can be a banker or a cop and still be a Marxist. Doesn't mean you're not a shithead, but you can still be a Marxist.

[gorillafuck]

I never said it wasn't a dick move, but the question pertained to theoretical consistency, not lifestyle consistency. You can be a banker or a cop and still be a Marxist. Doesn't mean you're not a shithead, but you can still be a Marxist.I have always assumed that part of being s socialist is to not deliberately become an enemy of class politics.


Of course it is. But if the time for true change came, would it matter if he was fired?your advice is to go into the banking industry and immediately be fired for being terrible at what he is supposed to do?

that is really ridiculous.

[NoMasters]

Don't listen to these people saying not to get the job. They are probably sitting at home calling for change or a revolution without any means of doing so.

Get the job, make the money, and put your middle finger up to those who oppose. Cause when the time comes, the ones saying to make less money and not flourish for your brain and talents, will be nothing compared to you because of what you can do with your money..

[Ostrinski]

I have always assumed that part of being s socialist is to not deliberately become an enemy of class politics.Well I guess its up to what socialism means to each individual then, if we're going to play that game. For me it means understanding that capitalism is unsustainable and therefore supporting proletarian revolution and socialist development. However, it may entail lifestyle choices for you.

[gorillafuck]

Don't listen to these people saying not to get the job. They are probably sitting at home calling for change or a revolution without any means of doing so.whereas your idea of promoting revolution is to become someone who is forced to go against the working class, and will lose their job if they do not. I don't think you understand this, so I'll explain. if you do not do the job that the bank wants you to do, which is to maximize profit at the expense of the working class, then you will be fired. so your suggestion is either become a direct class enemy by fulfillinf the duties of a banker, or to try to become a pro-worker banker for GS, which will mean get fired immediately, have no job, have made no money, and have wasted a lot of time.


Get the job, make the money, and put your middle finger up to those who oppose. Cause when the time comes, the ones saying to make less money and not flourish for your brain and talents, will be nothing compared to you because of what you can do with your money..if revolution is a matter of having more money on the side of revolutionaries than the revolution is pretty fucked. do you realize how much money the governments of the world and the ruling class have?


Well I guess its up to what socialism means to each individual then, if we're going to play that game. For me it means understanding that capitalism is unsustainable and therefore supporting proletarian revolution and socialist development. However, it may entail lifestyle choices for you.it entails lifestyle choices to me in the same way that being anti-rape means not being a serial rapist. I hope you can tell the difference between lifestylism as in trying to drop out of capitalism and lifestylism as in not becoming a banker for goldman sachs.

[NoMasters]

whereas your idea of promoting revolution is to become someone who is forced to go against the working class, and will lose their job if they do not. I don't think you understand this, so I'll explain. if you do not do the job that the bank wants you to do, which is to maximize profit at the expense of the working class, then you will be fired. so your suggestion is either become a direct class enemy by fulfillinf the duties of a banker, or to try to become a pro-worker banker for GS, which will mean get fired immediately, have no job, have made no money, and have wasted a lot of time.

if revolution is a matter of having more money on the side of revolutionaries than the revolution is pretty fucked. do you realize how much money the governments of the world and the ruling class have?

it entails lifestyle choices to me in the same way that being anti-rape means not being a serial rapist.

How is he going against the working class? I hate how so many Marxists think that people leave the working class if they make more money as a banker for a multinational corporation. I don't see much of a difference of thinking that he is leaving the working class, and even if he is in your definition, how is he doing anything wrong if he is still a revolutionist? The Nazi regime thought that anyone who wasn't a Nazi was an enemy. Very similar lines there in your logic.(Not calling you a fascist or anything like that). But my point is that you are thinking that he is doing something wrong in trying to get that job, which is just absurd in my opinion, and completely irrational. The most successful revolutions were always supported by some elitists or nobles. Without them, the revolution cannot be funded. A man with a million dollars can supply the workers with much more food and supplies necessary for revolution than a worker at McDonald's.

[gorillafuck]

How is he going against the working class?because he would be required, by the duties that his job implies, to fuck over the working class as much as possible and squeeze out as much money as possible for GS.


I hate how so many Marxists think that people leave the working class if they make more money as a banker for a multinational corporation.they very clearly do leave the working class if they become a banker for a multinational corporation.

what you said is kind of like saying "I hate how so many antifascists think that people leave the antifascist movement if they become a career SS officer"


I don't see much of a difference of thinking that he is leaving the working class, and even if he is in your definition, how is he doing anything wrong if he is still a revolutionist?because he would be required to fight against revolution in the same way a police officer would be.


The Nazi regime thought that anyone who wasn't a Nazi was an enemy. Very similar lines there in your logic.you're accusing me of thinking like a nazi because I don't think that people who advocate the overthrow of the capitalist system should become bankers.

[gorillafuck]

I hope you can tell the difference between lifestylism as in trying to drop out of capitalism and lifestylism as in not becoming a banker for goldman sachs.I'd like to reiterate this part of my earlier post in case anyone missed it and intends on saying anything about lifestylism.

[NoMasters]

because he would be required, by the duties that his job implies, to fuck over the working class as much as possible and squeeze out as much money as possible for GS.

they very clearly do leave the working class if they become a banker for a multinational corporation.

what you said is kind of like saying "I hate how so many antifascists think that people leave the antifascist movement if they become a career SS officer"

because he would be required to fight against revolution in the same way a police officer would be.

you're accusing me of thinking like a nazi because I don't think that people who advocate the overthrow of the capitalist system should become bankers.

I am NOT saying you think like a Nazi at all. I said in the post earlier that I wasn't. I obviously put that there for a reason. And I know that you aren't a fascist or think like a Nazi in anyway.

All I am saying is that you are going on the lines of black and white, which is radical and useless. The Nazis thought the same way, as did the post Lenin Soviets.

Him leaving the working class like you said isn't true. My family are elitists and we support the left movements all over the world. Just because he moves up in the class system, which to be sure, is a blessing in this capitalist class structure that is more like a caste system overall. Without people like him, and people like my parents, the capitalist class would forever control the lower classes. The ones like us can move up and change things for the better, and just because we do move up in class, doesn't mean we are the "evil bourgeoisie" that look to exploit all the "proles" in the world. My parents made an honest living and were lucky and became wealthy.

You saying that he shouldn't do so because it is a "stab in the back" for the workers isn't right.

[Ostrinski]

it entails lifestyle choices to me in the same way that being anti-rape means not being a serial rapist. I hope you can tell the difference between lifestylism as in trying to drop out of capitalism and lifestylism as in not becoming a banker for goldman sachs.Ah, the analogy. That argument only works if you're a socialist on moral grounds. I am anti-rape on moral grounds and anti-capitalist on systemic grounds.

[gorillafuck]

I am NOT saying you think like a Nazi at all. I said in the post earlier that I wasn't. I obviously put that there for a reason. And I know that you aren't a fascist or think like a Nazi in anyway.okay. I don't understand why the comparison was made, then.


All I am saying is that you are going on the lines of black and white, which is radical and useless. The Nazis thought the same way, as did the post Lenin Soviets.if you are a banker, it is very clear cut that you are a class enemy. this is just knowledge about class politics and the way that class society works. I also don't see why you used radical as a pejorative. I am a radical leftist.


Him leaving the working class like you said isn't true. My family are elitists and we support the left movements all over the world. Just because he moves up in the class system, which to be sure, is a blessing in this capitalist class structure that is more like a caste system overall. Without people like him, and people like my parents, the capitalist class would forever control the lower classes. The ones like us can move up and change things for the better, and just because we do move up in class, doesn't mean we are the "evil bourgeoisie" that look to exploit all the "proles" in the world. My parents made an honest living and were lucky and became wealthy.okay what you are saying requires a LOT of clarification. I have questions for you.

1. what do you think the bourgeois class is? I am fairly sure you do not know what it actually means. which is nothing to be ashamed of but it's necessary to know for a leftist.
2. how does your family becoming bourgeois prevent the bourgeois class from controlling the working class? if that is true then what it would mean would be that your parents are a part of the ruling class and therefore, necessarily control the working class. that is the relation between the ruling class and the working class.
3. are you aware of the difference between gaining wealth through being a member of the ruling class (the exploiting class), and gaining wealth by non-exploitative means?

[NoMasters]

okay. I don't understand why the comparison was made, then.

if you are a banker, it is very clear cut that you are a class enemy. this is just knowledge about class politics and the way that class society works. I also don't see why you used radical as a pejorative. I am a radical leftist.

okay what you are saying requires a LOT of clarification. I have questions for you.

1. what do you think the bourgeois class is? I am fairly sure you do not know what it actually means. which is nothing to be ashamed of but it's necessary to know for a leftist.
2. how does your family becoming bourgeois prevent the bourgeois class from controlling the working class? if that is true then what it would mean would be that your parents are a part of the ruling class and therefore, necessarily control the working class. that is the relation between the ruling class and the working class.
3. are you aware of the difference between gaining wealth through being a member of the ruling class (the exploiting class), and gaining wealth by non-exploitative means?

I would label the bourgeoisie as Marx did, the owners of the means of production. But you must also remember that the banking industry isn't what it was in the 1850's, and you could make the argument that the banking corporations indirectly own the means of production. So yes I do think I know what it is, but Marx to me is quite irrelevant in our economic systems today. He was wrong on a few economic conclusions he made but that doesn't make him wrong. I look at Marx for his theoretical critique of capitalism in general, and further more, I admire Marx to the fullest for his ability to analyze things with such great detail as well.

Becoming a class enemy to me is no different than a Nazi when he says that if you aren't part of the Nazi party you are an enemy,

I don't think Marx or any serious Marxist thinker like David Harvey would say that a banker with revolutionary ideals is a class enemy because he makes more than them, or is part of the reason why they are exploited. Hell, I can stretch your position and say that a homeless person is a class enemy because he doesn't fit into the "workers' category, which I believe that you think is only the "blue-collar" type people. I find workers in Marxist terms to be anyone who works in the capitalist system that wants to change it for the better of all. You must also remember I am an extreme individualistic anarchist. Although that doesn't mean I am not socially anarchistic.

For you, the person who has revolutionary ideals and leaves the workers class is an enemy. So then you would say that he is now part of what the dictatorship of the proletariat must destroy. That sounds extremely tyrannical and violent, and even treasonous in many aspects. If the grand revolution were to start tomorrow, myself and the revolutionary idealist bankers would contribute a hell of a lot more than you ever could. In fact, with my families wealth, I could buy arms for thousands of people in theory, or buy food for communities if they needed it.

Now I am not saying that the worker is not just as important as the rich revolutionary, I am simply saying that the rich revolutionary is not an enemy, but rather should be a best friend to the workers' struggle since it is them with the help of the workers that can bring freedom and change to the world.

Most "workers" are in my opinion not very educated. They lack professional skills in most cases and don't have P.H.Ds or M.D.s or J.D.s. Now I know there are workers who do fit in those categories, but a majority don't. Remember that Che Guevara made his comrades in the revolution learn to read and write, and stated that education was just as important as fighting. And without education, change would be rendered useless because of class trickery as I would call it.

My family owns a massive restaurant corporation in the South. We pay our workers in the kitchen more than most places pay their top chefs at 5 star restaurants. Some are illegal immigrants and I won't sit here and deny that, but we also provide them with protection from the state in many ways and provide them with means of becoming an American and educating their children and etc.. This stops the bourgeoisie exploitation in a way because we are not taking part of exploitation when we easily could be.

And yes I do know the difference of obtaining wealth in those ways. However, the power the non-exploitative people is just as powerful as the exploitation people. My family is involved with several congressman and I will say that I go to the school I am at because of the help of those powerful people. Now this is a classic definition of power abuse, but is it? I am contributing to the left movement just as much as anyone. In fact, my father was personally responsible for a lot of the advancement of Kosovo independence.

This is the problem with our current struggle today I think. People like you think so black and white. And it's so useless and wasteful. If we don't unite for change because someone thinks a bourgeoisie family is an enemy because of their title, how can we bring about any good change? There are people like us who want the same kinds of things you want. But to sit here and have grandiose delusions of mass revolution and complete utopia for the world is laughable. It is why radical leftism has become a fairly weak actor in the global stage. If we can unite for a common purpose and refrain from sticking to radical traditional leftist fundamentals, we can change things for the better. And not all radical leftists fundamentals are bad, but some are in my opinion. Thinking like you do in my opinion falls within the black in white thinking atmosphere.

fascism, radical religious sects, radical environmentalists, and etc. these groups only bring about horrible things in the end, and by radical environmentalists I am talking about those who advocate the murder of the human race or involuntary sterilization of the population.

Do you realize those ideals you stand behind, or at least in how true you stay to those ideals, lead to some of the most complete utter destruction and murder of people? Over 60 million Chinese died because of the ideal of collectivization and suppression of the opposition, and more than 20 million in Russia, and more than 70 million because of Nazi Germany?

[Ocean Seal]

To entertain the first point. You really can't preach revolution and be part of the class enemy. That's pretty much it. If you are making hundreds of thousands of dollars helping the bosses make exploitation more efficient then you have changed the objective conditions around you and revolution has become your material enemy.

[Ostrinski]

NoMasters, skipping over your mediocre points, what has led to your obsession with ideals?

[Igor]

Marxism isn't a lifestyle, so yes, you can, as long as your analysis of the system remains intact. This doesn't mean you wouldn't be a dickhead Marxist, though.

[NoMasters]

NoMasters, skipping over your mediocre points, what has led to your obsession with ideals?

Ideals? What do you mean?

I strongly object to principlism in political theory, but I am strongly in favor of ideals such as that of liberty, justice, freedom, and things alike.

Ideals to me seem to be better factors in change than leftist principles, and also ideals to me makes a person who they are, and no matter what, the ideals of a person will always triumph their principles if the situation became questionable.

I guess you can say I have a lot of respect for virtue. But I do not respect principles in any way for any ideology over ideals.

[ColonelCossack]

Well, from an ethical perspective, not really. But fuck ethics. I don't really see any real problem from a materialist perspective; if you work, then you probably work in the private sector, so you're making money for a capitalist prick whatever you do. I don't suppose it matters which poarticular meember of the bourgeoisie you make money from; they're all the same. but thjen again, Goldman-Sachs is one of the most uber-capitalistic ones out there.

[NoMasters]

Well, from an ethical perspective, not really. But fuck ethics. I don't really see any real problem from a materialist perspective; if you work, then you probably work in the private sector, so you're making money for a capitalist prick whatever you do. I don't suppose it matters which poarticular meember of the bourgeoisie you make money from; they're all the same. but thjen again, Goldman-Sachs is one of the most uber-capitalistic ones out there.

Finally, someone with a bit of reality

[Igor]

Well, from an ethical perspective, not really. But fuck ethics. I don't really see any real problem from a materialist perspective; if you work, then you probably work in the private sector, so you're making money for a capitalist prick whatever you do. I don't suppose it matters which poarticular meember of the bourgeoisie you make money from; they're all the same. but thjen again, Goldman-Sachs is one of the most uber-capitalistic ones out there.

It's not like there's no difference. It's not wrong to make lots of money per se, it's just that the process usually involves fucking over lots of people. It doesn't make you an inconsistent Marxist or shit like that because not a lifestyle etc etc, but if you're making lots of cash in a bank job, chances are fucking over people and making their lives more miserable is a central part of where that money is coming from, and if you don't have problems with that, you're a dick.

[Ostrinski]

Ideals? What do you mean?

I strongly object to principlism in political theory, but I am strongly in favor of ideals such as that of liberty, justice, freedom, and things alike.

Ideals to me seem to be better factors in change than leftist principles, and also ideals to me makes a person who they are, and no matter what, the ideals of a person will always triumph their principles if the situation became questionable.

I guess you can say I have a lot of respect for virtue. But I do not respect principles in any way for any ideology over ideals.Fool. Your liberty, justice, and freedom won't move large masses of people, their self-identified interests will. Ideals are only the reflection of material developments, social relations, and institutional conditions. Ideals may be what an individual uses to define his or herself, but they are not the vehicle of history. This is one of the trumps that socialists have over libertarians politically speaking, socialism and the socialist movement are the fallout of the recognized interests of the proletariat, while classical liberalism caters to the ideals of pseudo-intellectuals with a nostalgic yearning for the age of enlightenment.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How is he going against the working class? I hate how so many Marxists think that people leave the working class if they make more money as a banker for a multinational corporation. I don't see much of a difference of thinking that he is leaving the working class, and even if he is in your definition, how is he doing anything wrong if he is still a revolutionist? The Nazi regime thought that anyone who wasn't a Nazi was an enemy. Very similar lines there in your logic.(Not calling you a fascist or anything like that). But my point is that you are thinking that he is doing something wrong in trying to get that job, which is just absurd in my opinion, and completely irrational. The most successful revolutions were always supported by some elitists or nobles. Without them, the revolution cannot be funded. A man with a million dollars can supply the workers with much more food and supplies necessary for revolution than a worker at McDonald's.

So a banker for a multinational corporation is a member of the working class? right.

In case you hadn't noticed, Marxism is a two-class theory. If you're not inside the working class, you're outside of it, and you're against it.

Okay, so you finish off with a wonderful assumption, implying that a millionaire is more of a friend to the working class than...a member of the working class.

[workersadvocate]

So a banker for a multinational corporation is a member of the working class? right.

In case you hadn't noticed, Marxism is a two-class theory. If you're not inside the working class, you're outside of it, and you're against it.

Okay, so you finish off with a wonderful assumption, implying that a millionaire is more of a friend to the working class than...a member of the working class.

Of course this is NoMasters' outlook, since he or she is a millionaire.
Those "successful" revolutions from above...not such a success from the point of view of workers self-emancipation, workers' control and workers' democracy.
Saviors from above tend to flip into our new exploiters and tyrants quickly.

[Fawkes]

I actually think that's not true at all.
You think it's not true that most revolutions are fought by those driven into such dire situations by their material circumstances? There's a reason why most leftists don't waste time trying to win over members of the bourgeois. There's also a reason why it's called "class war".

When you become a member of the bourgeois, your class interests change.

[Creative Destruction]

I apologize necroing this really old thread, but a lot of these responses from the Marxists are ridiculous considering Engels owned a mill.

[tachosomoza]

Yeah, a mill, not an investment bank that essentially deals in and profits from others' misery.

[Creative Destruction]

Yeah, a mill, not an investment bank that essentially deals in and profits from others' misery.

What are you talking about? A mill was a horrible place to work in Engel's time, just like any other factory. But that doesn't even matter: the criteria for being a Serious Socialist in this thread is whether or not you can set wages or do any sort of managerial tasks. Surely being a goddamn owner of a business means you can do that and more.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

all workplaces deal and profit from the misery of others

[tachosomoza]

What are you talking about?

You should be answering that question, you necrobumped a thread to mention something that pretty much everybody knows.

[Creative Destruction]

You should be answering that question, you necrobumped a thread to mention something that pretty much everybody knows.

I necrobumped it because I was, frankly, surprised that people were forming these opinions despite the granddaddy of our ideology was an owner of capital. I'd figure it's pretty relevant to bring that up and hash it out in order to be consistent, since the guy who started this thread was catching shit for considering being a middling analyst. Are we going to say that Engels was a class enemy or wasn't a revolutionary?

[Popular Front of Judea]

I necrobumped it because I was, frankly, surprised that people were forming these opinions despite the granddaddy of our ideology was an owner of capital. I'd figure it's pretty relevant to bring that up and hash it out in order to be consistent, since the guy who started this thread was catching shit for considering being a middling analyst. Are we going to say that Engels was a class enemy or wasn't a revolutionary?

So start a new thread, describe Engels without naming him and ask if he can be properly considered a revolutionary Marxist. Watch the fun begin.

[Creative Destruction]

lol

[Creative Destruction]

I think that this is a topic that needs to be clarified, because there is a lot of -- to put it in Marx's terms -- a lot of revolutionary phrase-mongering in this thread.

We've got to lead off with the very basic fact that any company in a capitalist economy exists to make a profit, even worker co-operatives and collectives. Extracting that surplus value creates misery, and it doesn't matter if it's a factory owner or a financial conglomerate.

My personal view is that you can hold socialist views and sympathies, without giving any reason of suspicion, and hold these jobs and it all depends on how you advocate abolishing this system. I include cops in this equation, as well. Intent and what you do with your gains matters. Obviously, with Engel's case, he fed his fortune to Marx, allowing the Marx family to survive and allowing Karl to write and propagate his ideas. We all know Engels also made contributions outside of money, as well.

The OP of this thread said that he'd have a lot more money to funnel into socialist causes, and that's a good point. There are some of sympathetic businesspeople and managers and they advocate revolution despite it being opposed to their material status. I personally know of one. What makes what they're doing, as managers and owners, different from what Engels did? And if we should exonerate Engels as a class enemy, then why not these other folks? What makes those situations different? Or are we to be dogmatically rigid and say that all of those people, including Marx and Engels, were class enemies?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You have a point but the op is actually a troll who used to post a lot on something awful. He wasn't being serious. He once had a good thread where he convinced a bunch of people that he was slowly surgically removing the limbs on the left side of his body because of body dysmorphia.

[Misericordia]

So a banker for a multinational corporation is a member of the working class? right.

In case you hadn't noticed, Marxism is a two-class theory. If you're not inside the working class, you're outside of it, and you're against it.

Okay, so you finish off with a wonderful assumption, implying that a millionaire is more of a friend to the working class than...a member of the working class.
Marxism is not a "two-class theory".


I apologize necroing this really old thread, but a lot of these responses from the Marxists are ridiculous considering Engels owned a mill.
No, he did not.

Friedrich Engels, in the 1860s, was a partner in a firm which among other things operated a mill. He started out as a clerk and rose up the ladder to become a partner. By the end of the 1860s he sold his stake, retired and moved to London to help Marx lead the First International.

[Creative Destruction]

No, he did not.

Friedrich Engels, in the 1860s, was a partner in a firm which among other things operated a mill. He started out as a clerk and rose up the ladder to become a partner. By the end of the 1860s he sold his stake, retired and moved to London to help Marx lead the First International.

That's kind of splitting hairs given what the overarching question is. Being a partner in a firm means you have some sort of ownership stake in that firm, and if that firm owns a mill, then you, too, own that mill. Along with your other partners, you are able to make decisions regarding the fate of that business and its workers. At the very least, you extract profit from those businesses and from its workers. That's even "worse" if the firm owned more than a mill. The only thing you're saying here is that he was a major shareholder in a precursor to a corporation. That's not much better.

Aside from that, it still doesn't answer my question. Troll or not, the original poster made a good point. Now that he's not around anymore, and I'm not a troll, I think this would be a valid discussion to have. What place do the bourgeoisie inhabit in this equation if they are sympathetic (which some are) and would actively support revolutionary socialism. Engels was undeniably apart of the bourgeoisie, and according to a lot of people in this thread (I'm not sure they understood it was a troll, either), he would have been a class enemy and it would've made no sense for him to have advocated for revolutionary socialism.

[Slavic]

We currently live in a capitalist world, and this very fact neccesitates that we participate in the capitalist system on some level. It is inevitable that you will hold a job in a capitalist company, and depending on your level of control within the company your class can be determined. Salaried labor = proletariat, Investor/Management = bourgeoisie, that's grossly oversimplifying the classes.

Now since we all work in a capitalist system, we all are partially responsible for this system's propagation. Also, the type of work we do within this system determines our class since class is determined by its relationship to the means of production within such a system.

Since we all must work, and our work propagates capitalism, I postulate that class does not determine your opinion of socialism and revolution; rather how one utilizes their class in the face of socialism and revolution can be used to determine if one is truly a socialist.

Of course there are tendencies for the bourgeoisie to hold anti-socialist opinions but I do not think that being in the bourgeoisie class is anti-socialist.

[redguarddude]

If you avoid jobs with organizations that are opposed to Socialism, unless you go into academia or government, you will be remain unemployed for life.

[Popular Front of Judea]

If you avoid jobs with organizations that are opposed to Socialism, unless you go into academia or government, you will be remain unemployed for life.

Uh you could learn a trade ...