Class Interest & Rich Communists

[Capitalist Octopus]

I've heard people here put across the idea that communists are communists because it works in their class interest to be.

How do you explain those with which communism goes against their class interest?

Are they not real communists in some way? (This would seem weird.) Are they communists then out of idealism? Can they be communists then? Are they communists because they see it being in their interest in the long term?

Just some thoughts.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

You could say they've transcended their class by conscious support of revolutionary ideologies.

[Ned Kelly]

They see which way the tide of history is going and decide they don't want to be against the wall later on :)

[Capitalist Octopus]

They see which way the tide of history is going and decide they don't want to be against the wall later on :)

In that case it would be in everyone's class interest to be a communist. That's not the case.

[Capitalist Octopus]

You could say they've transcended their class by conscious support of revolutionary ideologies.

Transcended their class how? Would a proletariat supporting capitalism also be an example of one transcending their class?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Transcended their class how? Would a proletariat supporting capitalism also be an example of one transcending their class?
A proletarian supporting capitalism would be a class traitor. We have to keep in mind though, they're bombarded with capitalist propaganda, and we should seek to educate.

[Ostrinski]

Well, one could simply understand that capitalism is unsustainable. On such a premise it would make sense to be a communist, no?

[Amal]

Rich communists are a very vague word. Workers who work in the industries with higher productivity can be paid well but still they remain workers and part of working class. The way a single human being's class is defined is how he/she is connected to production/service. His/her income may be higher even on being a worker if the productivity of the sector is high enough.
IMO, the word "rich" can only be applicable to those who exploits other peoples surplus labor.

[Capitalist Octopus]

A proletarian supporting capitalism would be a class traitor. We have to keep in mind though, they're bombarded with capitalist propaganda, and we should seek to educate.

Why is one a class traitor while the other is transcending class?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Why is one a class traitor while the other is transcending class?
It's the same. You're transcending class by supporting another class, and hence a class traitor. Bourgeois class traitors who can provide funding, etc, to the revolution, are a good thing, though.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Well, one could simply understand that capitalism is unsustainable. On such a premise it would make sense to be a communist, no?

Again, would this not make it in everyone's class interest to be a communist?

I guess I would say it depends. If capitalism is going to crash in 150 years for example, and I'm 20 and very rich, I don't think it would make sense to be a communist. In this sense it would be like living as a criminal all your life, with the distant possibility of jail in the future. It makes sense for most to reap the rewards, and take the risk. And the risk of jail is far greater than communism most likely.

[Capitalist Octopus]

It's the same. You're transcending class by supporting another class, and hence a class traitor. Bourgeois class traitors who can provide funding, etc, to the revolution, are a good thing, though.

Ok so why would they transcend the class then is essentially what I'm asking..

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Again, would this not make it in everyone's class interest to be a communist?

I guess I would say it depends. If capitalism is going to crash in 150 years for example, and I'm 20 and very rich, I don't think it would make sense to be a communist. In this sense it would be like living as a criminal all your life, with the distant possibility of jail in the future. It makes sense for most to reap the rewards, and take the risk. And the risk of jail is far greater than communism most likely.

You answered your own question. The bourgeoisie's class interests in preserving capitalism are only short term.


Ok so why would they transcend the class then is essentially what I'm asking..

Because, as I said, the bourgeoisie's class interests are only short term.

[Ostrinski]

Again, would this not make it in everyone's class interest to be a communist?

I guess I would say it depends. If capitalism is going to crash in 150 years for example, and I'm 20 and very rich, I don't think it would make sense to be a communist. In this sense it would be like living as a criminal all your life, with the distant possibility of jail in the future. It makes sense for most to reap the rewards, and take the risk. And the risk of jail is far greater than communism most likely.Well, even if a bourgeois understands the fact, they're in no position where adopting a communist stance would in any abstract way address their direct interests. I don't think we're going to see communism soon, and I'm sure the bourgeoisie don't either.

[Capitalist Octopus]

You answered your own question. The bourgeoisie's class interests in preserving capitalism are only short term.



Because, as I said, the bourgeoisie's class interests are only short term.

Lol but short term is relative. Short term in human history is the time for a capitalist to grow up, have kids, have grand kids, while reaping the benefits of capitalism, with communism as a mere possibility in the future.

I mean, would you really say to a rich capitalist now that it is in his or her class interest to be a communist?

[Capitalist Octopus]

Well, even if a bourgeois understands the fact, they're in no position where adopting a communist stance would in any abstract way address their direct interests. I don't think we're going to see communism soon, and I'm sure the bourgeoisie don't either.


Agreed, which contradicts your first point. So again, why do rich people become communists?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Lol but short term is relative. Short term in human history is the time for a capitalist to grow up, have kids, have grand kids, while reaping the benefits of capitalism, with communism as a mere possibility in the future.

I mean, would you really say to a rich capitalist now that it is in his or her class interest to be a communist?
You're looking at it in an individualist perspective. Individuals alone cannot change the course of history, and as such that's not really all that relevant.

[Ostrinski]

Agreed, which contradicts your first point. So again, why do rich people become communists?I don't think it contradicts it, I think there's a difference between being in a position to acquire massive amounts of capital and simply being well off (like a professor etc).

And I dunno. They feel like I guess. Trotsky, Che, Sartre, Engels, Kropotkin, and Dzerzhinsky were all born wealthy.

[Capitalist Octopus]

I don't think it contradicts it, I think there's a difference between being in a position to acquire massive amounts of capital and simply being well off (like a professor etc).

And I dunno. They feel like I guess. Trotsky, Che, Sartre, Engels, Kropotkin, and Dzerzhinsky were all born wealthy.

Ok so you're saying rich people are communists because they know their wealth is unstable due to the flaws within the capitalist system? What about the really rich though, who likely won't ever be poor within capitalism?

And I know of the wealthy communists lol. Does just feeling like it make them idealists?

[Ostrinski]

You're looking at it in an individualist perspective. Individuals alone cannot change the course of history, and as such that's not really all that relevant.I don't think s/he is looking at it from an individualist perspective, s/he's addressing a class issue. And I disagree about your "short term interests" point. The bourgeoisie certainly do have an interest in preserving the life of capitalism.

[Ostrinski]

Ok so you're saying rich people are communists because they know their wealth is unstable due to the flaws within the capitalist system? What about the really rich though, who likely won't ever be poor within capitalism?Not everyone is a communist because of their class interest. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that, in the West at least, most aren't. It's one thing to say that communism addresses the interests of the proletariat, and another to say that only people who's interests it addresses can be communists.


And I know of the wealthy communists lol. Does just feeling like it make them idealists?You might say that, Che certainly was an idealist. Trotsky and Dzerzhinsky lived during a revolutionary time, etc. I think there are specific reasons for each case. I wouldn't say they were idealists in the traditional philosophical sense, but they were certainly dedicated and passionate about their positions.

[Art Vandelay]

Well my parents are bourgeois and I am a communist/anarchist and I can say that its not in my best interest to hold the beliefs I do. I have heard the idea put forth that since I fell out of a bourgeois vagina I cannot be "as good" or a "proper" commie, but then again I have never claimed to be either of those things. If you have any questions ask away.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People act against their own interests all the time, I don't see what's hard to understand about this.

[gorillafuck]

being a communist isn't in anyone's interest in America.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've heard people here put across the idea that communists are communists because it works in their class interest to be.

How do you explain those with which communism goes against their class interest?

Are they not real communists in some way? (This would seem weird.) Are they communists then out of idealism? Can they be communists then? Are they communists because they see it being in their interest in the long term?

Just some thoughts.
Yeah, it's perfectly possible that out of a myriad possible reasons, some daughters and sons of the bourgeoisie have come to the conclusion that they support the revolutionary working class and advocate communism, and it seems to me that education in social sciences or humanities might be some kind of a trigger in such a process.
Though, I'd be wary of any prejudice they've inherited from their social background and carried it into the communist movement (for example, I can see how substitutionism - the idea that the political organization should conqeur political power and rule on behalf of the working class - might be nourished by such prejudice which is related to elitism and snobishness).

Their actual practice and work in the communist movement will show whether they will remain communists. It's silly to disregard them as "non-communists, fake commies who claim that they ae commies".

[MustCrushCapitalism]

being a communist isn't in anyone's interest in America.

Tell that to a single mother who works as a prostitute to feed her children.

Exploitation exists in the US, and that third-worldist bullshit is something that annoys the hell out of me...

[gorillafuck]

Tell that to a single mother who works as a prostitute to feed her children.yes and what could she individually gain from studying and publicly advocating communism in a country extremely hostile to the idea?

[Franz Fanonipants]

class is not an essential identity rather it is about social relations to labor therefore

[Thirsty Crow]

A proletarian supporting capitalism would be a class traitor. We have to keep in mind though, they're bombarded with capitalist propaganda, and we should seek to educate.
How come you're talking about them as if from an infinitely higher ground than they supposedly occupy (unless you style yourself as a professional revolutionary who will bring consciousness to the inherently limited working class, capable of nothing more than a mere trade union consciousness)?

[Althusser]

Transcended their class how? Would a proletariat supporting capitalism also be an example of one transcending their class?

That's what they're told by people like Glenn Beck.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

How come you're talking about them as if from an infinitely higher ground than they supposedly occupy (unless you style yourself as a professional revolutionary who will bring consciousness to the inherently limited working class, capable of nothing more than a mere trade union consciousness)?
Don't go all semantics on me. Does it matter whether I use a 3rd person or 1st person pronoun?

It's a simple fact that class consciousness is suppressed under capitalism, and for that reason, a party of professional revolutionaries is absolutely necessary to bring it about.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, it's perfectly possible that out of a myriad possible reasons, some daughters and sons of the bourgeoisie have come to the conclusion that they support the revolutionary working class and advocate communism, and it seems to me that education in social sciences or humanities might be some kind of a trigger in such a process.
Though, I'd be wary of any prejudice they've inherited from their social background and carried it into the communist movement (for example, I can see how substitutionism - the idea that the political organization should conqeur political power and rule on behalf of the working class - might be nourished by such prejudice which is related to elitism and snobishness).

Their actual practice and work in the communist movement will show whether they will remain communists. It's silly to disregard them as "non-communists, fake commies who claim that they ae commies".

I agree with everything except the part in bold, in fact I would argue the exact opposite. I can only speak from personal experience, but the sons and daughters of the bourgeois who come to communist or anarchists convictions, generally walk around with a pretty serious amount of guilt on their shoulders and any snobbishness or elitism would probably have vanished; however I do not agree to with the premise that since that my class background is bourgeois that I am more likely to act snobbish or elite.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree with everything except the part in bold, in fact I would argue the exact opposite. I can only speak from personal experience, but the sons and daughters of the bourgeois who come to communist or anarchists convictions, generally walk around with a pretty serious amount of guilt on their shoulders and any snobbishness or elitism would probably have vanished; however I do not agree to with the premise that since that my class background is bourgeois that I am more likely to act snobbish or elite.
I didn't claim that snobishness and elitism were such prejudice; it's elitism that might lead to the formation of prejudice which is afterwards carried into the communist movement without serious reflection, and I think the example I provided serves well to illustrate this possibility. I didn't state concrete examples of this prejudice, that much is true.

Oh yes, and this whole guilt thing is totally unwarranted. It's not like your actions and opinions are predefined by the fact you were born into such and such social conditions.

[Lolumad273]

yes and what could she individually gain from studying and publicly advocating communism in a country extremely hostile to the idea?

I think I get what you're saying... You're saying American Communists don't stand to gain anything because they're not likely to gain any ground in a country feverishly hostile to the cause, and will likely be alienated by employers, and fellow citizens..?

If that's what you mean, then I agree.

[Pretty Flaco]

don't look at certain interests as "communist" or "bougie".
class interests can be much less complex than a revolution. an increase in pay is positive to working class interests. a decrease in pay could be positive to capitalist interests. you're all looking at things from the position of political ideologies instead of from a class perspective. "communism" is not against any american working class interests. a socialist economic system would empower working class people no matter what country they're in, because it doesn't have much to do with making more money or spreading it around as it does with gaining political power.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Bourgeois youths who call themselves communists end up in petty lifestyle politics(anarcho-pacifism/anarcho-individualism) or end up in posh academia spouting dogmatic gibberish that has nothing to do with the concerns of common people. They are not genuine revolutionaries.

[black magick hustla]

communism is a political doctrine, it isn't the same as being part of a trade union or interest group.

[Positivist]

Everybody always seems to hate considering this but people have more than simply material desires but emotional ones as well. Amongst these desires are those for identity and purpose. Social ideologies can satisfy both of them. And those who believe in communistic analyses or are moved by the suffering of the masses under capitalism and see communism as more humane and equitable can be expected to adopt communism as their own ideology in order to satisfy these emotional desires.

[Art Vandelay]

Oh yes, and this whole guilt thing is totally unwarranted. It's not like your actions and opinions are predefined by the fact you were born into such and such social conditions.

I never claimed that they were, just that the realization that one lives off of the exploitation of others, while others suffer, can be enough to feel some pretty serious guilt on a day to day basis.

[Capitalist Octopus]

communism is a political doctrine, it isn't the same as being part of a trade union or interest group.

Can you expand on what you mean?

[rolfwar]

they simply see what is better for the society.They simply see that exploiting ,let's say. 100 people for the interest of one person is wrong as a concept itself,which it makes them explore the worker's class' condition.

Well,you can look at them as Idealist,but i don't see any negative thing in being idealist,which i am.And i consider myself communist.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

We need more rich communists, those are the people who'll fund the movement.

[Capitalist Octopus]

We need more rich communists, those are the people who'll fund the movement.

Corporate sponsorship for the communist movement? :laugh:

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Corporate sponsorship for the communist movement? :laugh:

:laugh:

I mean, if someone makes a large personal fortune, then retires early. They could use extra money they had to fund projects and organizations.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Nope. A man gets rich by one of two ways. Inheritance or exploiting labor. Inheritance is not an ideal of Communism and would cease to exist. He must have invested in stocks of companies, administrative at a company, or owner of a company. All of the above rely on wage labor to make profits. For instance, NKE shares are high, and the reason it is profitable is because the individuals who make the shoes, thus, making stock owners not Communists because they capitalize on wage labor. If you are in an administrative position your job only exists because of laborers, and for you to receive compensation you must exploit them with wage labor. Which denies you the right to be a Communist.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

We need more rich communists, those are the people who'll fund the movement.

I agree. Time to rob some banks, kidnap some bourgeois, send fascists to for-profit prisons, expropriate what rightfully belongs to the working class.

[28350]

Just because someone enjoys their alienation under capitalism doesn't make them less alienated

[MotherCossack]

I agree. Time to rob some banks, kidnap some bourgeois, send fascists to for-profit prisons, expropriate what rightfully belongs to the working class.


:laugh:

I mean, if someone makes a large personal fortune, then retires early. They could use extra money they had to fund projects and organizations.


Nope. A man gets rich by one of two ways. Inheritance or exploiting labor. Inheritance is not an ideal of Communism and would cease to exist.you must exploit them with wage labor. Which denies you the right to be a Communist.


this is so cute..... hey lets have a...'.how to get lolly for the great cause ' party

so it seems that wealthy folk cant be class traitors because they cant be communists because communism does not allow the accumulation of wealth....and since most rich folk aquire wealth by either cheating, stealing or lying....they have no right to come to our party!!!!
unless they give it all to us i suppose.... that would work....

repent....donate.....associate

all i know is i am what i am....... at the bottom socially.... and it is not fair for me or my family.

i suspect that it is about things being fair.... or not ...and about priorities and having a bit of honour....

i tell you if i was that jk rowling.... of harry potter fame... and they opened an attraction to see the making of the films in watford somewhere....
there is no way that i would let them charge nearly £30 for each ticket.... ever.... i would never forget... however rich i got!

you money grabbing sellout over-rated author of harry potter

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

this is so cute..... hey lets have a...'.how to get lolly for the great cause ' party

so it seems that wealthy folk cant be class traitors because they cant be communists because communism does not allow the accumulation of wealth....and since most rich folk aquire wealth by either cheating, stealing or lying....they have no right to come to our party!!!!
unless they give it all to us i suppose.... that would work....

repent....donate.....associate

all i know is i am what i am....... at the bottom socially.... and it is not fair for me or my family.

i suspect that it is about things being fair.... or not ...and about priorities and having a bit of honour....

i tell you if i was that jk rowling.... of harry potter fame... and they opened an attraction to see the making of the films in watford somewhere....
there is no way that i would let them charge nearly £30 for each ticket.... ever.... i would never forget... however rich i got!

you money grabbing sellout over-rated author of harry potter

You can accumulate wealth by the fruits of your labor alone. Most people who've acquired opulence has done it in an un-pure way. Which doesn't make you a Communist, rather a Capitalist.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

You can accumulate wealth by the fruits of your labor alone. Most people who've acquired opulence has done it in an un-pure way. Which doesn't make you a Communist, rather a Capitalist.

Might I suggest the thought that communism is not a lifestyle.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Might I suggest the thought that communism is not a lifestyle.

Indeed, but if I exploit your labor and claim to be a Communist I'm either obtuse to the ideology or a phony.

[MotherCossack]

You can accumulate wealth by the fruits of your labor alone. Most people who've acquired opulence has done it in an un-pure way. Which doesn't make you a Communist, rather a Capitalist.

isnt that what i said?
it certainly is what i meant to say.

[roy]

Why can someone only be a communist if it's in their class interests? Does it really benefit workers to be communists? I see no problem with approaching communism from a moral perspective.

[MotherCossack]

Why can someone only be a communist if it's in their class interests? Does it really benefit workers to be communists? I see no problem with approaching communism from a moral perspective.

well. to be honest the blokes that came up with the idea, in the first place, were a tinsy bit middle class.... well as far as i can tell and anyhow...
the left is not exactly overflowing with the milk of political support.... we could probably do with all the help we can get...
if it is genuine, sincere and unqualified, that is.

[Art Vandelay]

Indeed, but if I exploit your labor and claim to be a Communist I'm either obtuse to the ideology or a phony.

Someone get Engels on the phone and tell him that he is either not a communist or does not understand what communism is. :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Octopus]

Might I suggest the thought that communism is not a lifestyle.

Might I suggest that a communist revolution is one which changes all social relations into communist relations, making the transformation of your own day to day life of the utmost importance?

[tachosomoza]

We need more rich communists, those are the people who'll fund the movement.

Who says we'll need legitimate funding? I wouldn't ask them for shit. ;)