Why aren't there any rich Marxists?

[RadioRaheem84]

Seriously, with all that Marxists know why aren't any of them in finance? Or making movies with leftist themes? or engaged in fiction writing? Or computer tech billionaires?

How can all super wealthy people you find in the mags think the same? How can they all just be liberals or libertarian types? It doesn't make sense? All that money and time, not one bothered to read Marx?

When you reach that wealth do you just develop the tastes of the upper class or do you have these tastes before you become wealthy?

We sure as hell could use a leftist George Soros or a new Engels.

[Ostrinski]

Most famous Marxist thinkers have come from bourgeois, petite-bourgeois, or wealthy peasant backgrounds. As far as today, well, there aren't that many Marxists in general.

[Art Vandelay]

I was going to say there is always Engels. But in all honesty I think you have to take a look at how they made there money. Many of them would of made it through the reinvesting of capital, in which case they wouldn't be proletarians and it wouldn't necessarily be in their interests to adopt a Marxist outlook.

[RadioRaheem84]

Most famous Marxist thinkers have come from bourgeois, petite-bourgeois, or wealthy peasant backgrounds. As far as today, well, there aren't that many Marxists in general.

I meant today. I know there aren't many Marxists but not once has a famous celeb, banker or tycoon ever pick up Marx yet?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Probably because Marxism wouldn't benefit somebody that rich; quite the opposite, in fact.

[Lobotomy]

probably because the logical conclusion of Marxist thought is doom for the bourgeoisie and that goes against their self-interest. I'm sure most educated upper-class people have read some marx at one point or another but they would probably regard it as something that was largely of the past and no longer has great influence. It is not common for people to promote a way of thinking that goes so severely against their class interests.

Although, I suspect that fear of proletarian uprising is actually quite common among the upper class, even if it isn't "Marxist" per se.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's obvious that Marxism wouldn't benefit someone ultra wealthy but one would think that having so much free time to actually investigate the world one would come to see that it's obviously the most sound outlook.

George Soros isn't exactly going all in for his own interests and neither are a lot of rich people when they go liberal. They could all just be right wing like in most countries but instead they choose to go a little against their own interest by being liberal.

Are you telling me some of the most progressive celebs out there have never read Marx?Could they really all just see Marxism as some relic of the past that died out with the USSR?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Does a Marxist past meet your query? I magine outside of the United States it wouldn't be hard to find well-off people that had at least a Marxist past at least. In the States the pickings are fewer. Amusingly the person that immediately comes to my mind is CNBC's Jim Cramer, who was a Spart in college.

[RadioRaheem84]

What about the Linux guy? I am wondering if being Marxist just hinders one abilities to actually pursuing wealth because they learn the exploitative nature of the system that promotes wealth? Or when one becomes wealthy how can they not become Marxist? Is it just out of self interest that they steer clear from it? I figured a pursuit of knowledge would just eventually lead to leftist radical thought.

I mean how can one entire class nearly all think in unison on a lot of major issues, tastes, and beliefs. I mean I know they vary but a lot of upper class, from celebs to moguls, seem to all share similar class tastes to the point of being caricature.

The reason why I am bringing this strange question up is I was looking up the bio of a favorite actress of mine and learned that she was a vegan and other similar tastes and beliefs as the rest of her cohorts. I just thought does one change their tastes and beliefs with the more income they earn and adapt new tastes or were they always there?

How does one go from liking "simple" things to really enjoying organic non-gluten vegan pumpkin bread or something akin to that, driving a Prius, and just turn so yuppie.

It just doesn't seem like one merely ascends into a new income bracket, one enters a new class . With it comes social norms, tastes, beliefs and a loyalty I think rarely anyone breaks.

[Questionable]

Since the recent economic crisis began there's been plenty of bourgeois economists saying that Marx was correct, but they always disavow the part about the proletariat needing to revolt.

[RadioRaheem84]

Since the recent economic crisis began there's been plenty of bourgeois economists saying that Marx was correct, but they always disavow the part about the proletariat needing to revolt.

LOL. Yeah, how convenient. Well those academics are being slapped in the face with reality, but they're at the helm of researching this. How do moguls or socialites or celebs who have causes they champion and claim to look all intellectual in front of the cameras not ever even acknowledge Marx or other radical thought?

I mean we have no time or money like they do yet we've managed to engage in a lot of debate about political economy and trash the political and economic philosophy of the ruling class.

Maybe I give Marxism and radical left analysis too much credit? I am too bias perhaps, but the arguments are pretty strong. I didn't search out Marxism trying to be a Marxist. I didn't seek out to be a radical. I just found radical left analysis as being the most sound answer for all the questions I had about the world.

Would being rich have dissuaded me from being on the same path?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

What about the Linux guy? [snip]
Linus Torvalds. Seems like I remember reading that his dad was a communist, which probably influenced him, and I don't have any source on that, but I don't think he's really made any public statements that could be construed as a political views. I mean, granted, open source is closer to the libertarian anti-IP stance than "communism", but in practice most of the free/open source movement functions as a gift economy. I do think the open-source movement can be used as a rough example of a prototype of post-capitalist economic relations for propaganda purposes.

[RadioRaheem84]

But what about the rest of my question? If it's not coherent plz let me know. I am really just throwing out some random thoughts.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

But what about the rest of my question? If it's not coherent plz let me know. I am really just throwing out some random thoughts.
I'll let others chime in there because I'm not very articulate

[Popular Front of Judea]

A celebrity that to my knowledge has never renounced Marxism is Vanessa Redgrave. (British forum members help me out here.) Individuals that weren't old enough to be radicalized by 1968 are going to be much harder to find alas.

We talking about two different groups here: The wealthy and celebrities. If you are merely wealthy -- saw the spawn of one of our oligarchs -- the two asset that you bring to the struggle is of course money and intelligence. Neither of these work so well if you are out about your convictions.

[Questionable]

If we're talking about Marxist celebrities, I can't believe nobody has posted this article written by Sean Penn on Venezuala.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-penn/venezuela-sanctions_b_871248.html


The United States, and indeed, all capitalist nations, engage in largely unrestricted trade with numerous nations, both secular and theocratic, traditionally associated with social and political oppression, and indeed contributors (suspected or acknowledged) to nuclear proliferation. While it is noted that Iran is such a nation, and that it is due to Venezuela's oil trade with Iran (actual or alleged) that they have been listed, it should also be noted that an entity in the state of Israel has also been named among the seven sanctioned.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's obvious that Marxism wouldn't benefit someone ultra wealthy but one would think that having so much free time to actually investigate the world one would come to see that it's obviously the most sound outlook.

George Soros isn't exactly going all in for his own interests and neither are a lot of rich people when they go liberal. They could all just be right wing like in most countries but instead they choose to go a little against their own interest by being liberal.

Are you telling me some of the most progressive celebs out there have never read Marx?Could they really all just see Marxism as some relic of the past that died out with the USSR?
Why would you say liberalism isn't in the riches interests?

[RadioRaheem84]

Why would you say liberalism isn't in the riches interests?

I guess not as much as pure right wing conservatism. I've noticed the rich in other nations besides the US tend to just be straight right wing.

[Manic Impressive]

I meant today. I know there aren't many Marxists but not once has a famous celeb, banker or tycoon ever pick up Marx yet?
what like this?
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/article_large/public/2012/05/10/272718-johnny-depp-reading-il-manifesto.jpg
Or perhaps Charlie chaplin
Or Maralyin Monroe (maybe)
Or Lucille Ball
Or Oscar Wilde
That's just off the top of my head actually Oscar Wilde is the perfect example and he even explains why socialism is desirable from his upper class perspective. Yes it's highly utopian but it's worth a read to see how people in highly privileged positions might see socialism as being in their interests.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm

[Manic Impressive]

How do moguls or socialites or celebs who have causes they champion and claim to look all intellectual in front of the cameras not ever even acknowledge Marx or other radical thought?

McCarthyism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist)

For a celebrity their image is their selling point. They earn their money from being able to sell the media concocted brand which their actions and agents have helped to shape. Why would they want to jeopardize their own incomes by loudly declaring themselves communists? Communism does not sell, they would be out of money. The celebrities place of work, their means of production is in the sphere of public opinion or rather at the mercy of the bourgeois press. You may as well ask why doesn't every communist loudly declare their political views every day at work? Because they would most likely suffer for it as a consequence. Not that it particularly makes a huge difference anyway. Have you ever read the comments on a Rage against the Machine video on Youtube? Count how many times someone has said "ZOMG STFU ABOUT POLITICS IT'S ABOUT THE MUSIC MAAAAAN"

[Luís Henrique]

I meant today. I know there aren't many Marxists but not once has a famous celeb,

Vanessa Redgrave.


banker or tycoon

Gyorgy Lukacs.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

George Soros isn't exactly going all in for his own interests and neither are a lot of rich people when they go liberal. They could all just be right wing like in most countries but instead they choose to go a little against their own interest by being liberal.

I think they are going less against their class interests when they are liberal than when they are conservative.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

I think they are going less against their class interests when they are liberal than when they are conservative.

Luís Henrique

You think so? As in wanting to stabilize the system so they won't get their back turned to the wall?

[l'Enfermé]

Our capitalist overlords have good class instincts.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Marxism is the expression of the worker's movement. To attract and keep "famous" people it needs a mass movement.The late 19th/early 20th century movement had its Engels and Parvus, but that was when the ostensibly Marxist German SPD literally was the entire German working class.Today "socialism" is groups of quarreling intellectuals and sectish groups, although I feel this will change very soon. Socialism can be helped by wealthy sympathizers, but there has to be a movement to support.

JK Rowling apparently was a billionaire but lost this status because she gave money to charity. I don't know her politics-she comes from a working class background and appears to be somewhere on the left.If there had been a credible left in Britain instead of the trainwreck of the SWP (for example)she probably would have been a major backer.

For most of the super wealthy, who either became wealthy though inheritance or who are "self made" and gamed the system like Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc socialism would directly counter their internalized ethos of self acquisition and "individual achievement"

I do have a Marxist friend who works in what might be termed the finance sector, mainly as a learning experience. He says that to become wealthy today or even successful in business one has to be cut throat and viscous.

[l'Enfermé]

Vanessa Redgrave.



Gyorgy Lukacs.

Luís Henrique
And Redgrave's brother too. They were Trotskyists weren't they? In the WRP? Vanessa is probably much more moderate today.

[RadioRaheem84]

He says that to become wealthy today or even successful in business one has to be cut throat and viscous.


But the point I am still trying to figure out is if one learns new tastes, beliefs and norms when one ascends to certain level of wealth or does one always have those tastes in them? It would seem impossible since no worker starting out has a taste for finely made italian suits and caviar.

Not all rich people like this sort of stuff but it seems more than none that a lot of wealthy people share more characteristics and norms and connections with each other than we do as proles who are more fragmented.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There's a much greater sense of class consciousness among the bourgeoisie today than among any other group. If one is from a wealthy family the awareness of this fact is saturated into one's being.This is a very difficult mindset to break from.

Small numbers of people (who receive enormous publicity)are able to work their way into this class, usually though the communications/high tech sector.They bring their own techno-hipster libertarianism which is opposed to socialist ideas.

There is a certain acculturation when one enters the "upper class". Of course elite universities partially operate in this sense.Much of this is actually more geared to controlling culture rather than actually supporting it. Lavishly donating to museums,PBS, supporting symphonies in a way is creating and sponsoring an "official" highbrow culture as a means of keeping it from the people.

As far as Silicon Valley, I think the Armani suits and caviar are out in favor of jeans and Dorito chips.The Google this seems to be a vague sort of New Age "empowerment", at least for those with the right technical skills, combined with lifestyle libertarianism.

In either case the acculturation process is largely organic and is probably fairly rapid. Conditions produce consciousness.

[Manic Impressive]

And Redgrave's brother too. They were Trotskyists weren't they? In the WRP? Vanessa is probably much more moderate today.
Yeah I believe she gave significant financial assistance to the WRP

[RadioRaheem84]

There's a much greater sense of class consciousness among the bourgeoisie today than among any other group. If one is from a wealthy family the awareness of this fact is saturated into one's being.This is a very difficult mindset to break from.

Small numbers of people (who receive enormous publicity)are able to work their way into this class, usually though the communications/high tech sector.They bring their own techno-hipster libertarianism which is opposed to socialist ideas.

There is a certain acculturation when one enters the "upper class". Of course elite universities partially operate in this sense.Much of this is actually more geared to controlling culture rather than actually supporting it. Lavishly donating to museums,PBS, supporting symphonies in a way is creating and sponsoring an "official" highbrow culture as a means of keeping it from the people.

As far as Silicon Valley, I think the Armani suits and caviar are out in favor of jeans and Dorito chips.The Google this seems to be a vague sort of New Age "empowerment", at least for those with the right technical skills, combined with lifestyle libertarianism.

In either case the acculturation process is largely organic and is probably fairly rapid. Conditions produce consciousness.

Good stuff! Is this Gramsci? Has anyone written about this acculturation process?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I believe Gramsci refereed to this in his critique of "common sense" and conventional wisdom. My point mostly came from personal observation-I used to work in "Ivy League" environments and I know a lot of people in the tech sector who often started off maybe not as leftists but at least liberal left but rapidly changed.

[The Jay]

I would say that it is due to the ideological hegemony that liberalism maintains. If we are talking about finance then I suppose that you could say that it doesn't make sense that there aren't many marxists in that field. The thing is that there are probably parts of marx's ideas in their theories of the market but they won't admit to it. Some even say that Keynes read and took a little from Marx, how true that is would be impossible to ascertain.

Marx is gaining some publicity in the bourgeois media though as shown in this:

mX65Yej7S0Y

[Questionable]

what like this?
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/article_large/public/2012/05/10/272718-johnny-depp-reading-il-manifesto.jpg
Or perhaps Charlie chaplin
Or Maralyin Monroe (maybe)
Or Lucille Ball
Or Oscar Wilde
That's just off the top of my head actually Oscar Wilde is the perfect example and he even explains why socialism is desirable from his upper class perspective. Yes it's highly utopian but it's worth a read to see how people in highly privileged positions might see socialism as being in their interests.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm

Wait, Johnny Depp is a Marxist?

Source for this? I can't find anything on Google about it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wait, Johnny Depp is a Marxist?

Source for this? I can't find anything on Google about it.

Well he is reading a communist newspaper in this pic but can Johnny even speak Italian? I am wondering if the photographer taking his pic just told him to hold this paper in the shot. LOL.

[Manic Impressive]

Who knows?
http://www.ibtimes.com/whats-johnny-depp-doing-communist-newspaper-697833
http://www.tmnews.it/web/images/602-408-20120218_083643_3703F94A.jpg

[piet11111]

I recall someone saying marilyn monroe being investigated by the FBI for being a maoist and that the mister president song was about enver hoxha or something.

then again its probably from this forum and complete nonsense.

[Luís Henrique]

You think so? As in wanting to stabilize the system so they won't get their back turned to the wall?

In providing a safer environment to business, in don't letting outdated ideological or moral issues stand on the way of the accumulation of capital, in not pandering (so much) to the interests of the landed oligarchy or rentist capitalists, etc. But perhaps what best fits the interests of the bourgeoisie is a "healthy" alternation of liberal and conservative governments, with the party in opposition remaining strong and alert against the "excesses" of the government.

Luís Henrique

[maskerade]

Russel Brand once said that marx got it right, though he also said that communism needed spirituality to work.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Luís Henrique
Traitorous bastard!


I would say that it is due to the ideological hegemony that liberalism maintains. If we are talking about finance then I suppose that you could say that it doesn't make sense that there aren't many marxists in that field. The thing is that there are probably parts of marx's ideas in their theories of the market but they won't admit to it. Some even say that Keynes read and took a little from Marx, how true that is would be impossible to ascertain.



Didn't Keynes repudiate Marx as a 'fraud' for most of his life? I recall reading about how he refused to even look at Capital because it had working-class sympathies or something.

[RadioRaheem84]

Keynes also said that he would never become a Marxist because it's a vulgar ideology. He said it was taking away everything the enlightened bourgeois worked for and giving it to the boorish proletariats. This is a paraphrase of an exact quote. The guy was a snob, a precursor to your modern day liberal.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Readers of this thread may want to look at David Horowitz 'Discover The Network' site. If there is anything remotely left of center about someone -- as they define 'left', of course -- they will ferret it out. Even Jay Leno merits an entry(!).

[The Jay]

Keynes also said that he would never become a Marxist because it's a vulgar ideology. He said it was taking away everything the enlightened bourgeois worked for and giving it to the boorish proletariats. This is a paraphrase of an exact quote. The guy was a snob, a precursor to your modern day liberal.

Just because he hates Marx doesn't mean that he didn't take from him.

[Ismail]

"How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement?" (Keynes, quoted in S.E. Harris, John Maynard Keynes: Economist and Policy Maker, p. 77.)

In the 1920's Keynes attributed the behaviors of Lenin and the Bolsheviks to "some beastliness in the Russian nature—or in the Russian and Jewish natures when, as now, they are allied together.. The tenseness of the atmosphere is more than one is used to support, and a longing comes for the frivolous ease of London." (Keynes, [I]Essays in Persuasion, p. 310.)

Keynes also compared Das Kapital to the Quran and said that the former is "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world."

Oswald Mosley and other fascists actually found much to admire in Keynes in the 1920's and 30's.


Readers of this thread may want to look at David Horowitz 'Discover The Network' site. If there is anything remotely left of center about someone -- as they define 'left', of course -- they will ferret it out. Even Jay Leno merits an entry(!).What's funny is that Horowitz himself is a former student leftist.

[skitty]

Probably because Marxism wouldn't benefit somebody that rich; quite the opposite, in fact.

I'd like to think it would benefit them-just not financially:)!

[Popular Front of Judea]

And a red diaper baby.


What's funny is that Horowitz himself is a former student leftist.

[RedHal]

There were a lot of hollywood communist sympathizers in the US decades ago, but McCarthyism and black listing pretty much scared these privileged individuals into a more moderate view.

Besides Ken Loach, the only other famous celeb I can think of who is opnely Marxist is Bernardo Bertolucci.

[black magick hustla]

idk there's been plenty of "communist" celebrities, you just don't see them on finance or as classical corporate people. picasso was a millionaire and was member of the communist party, for example. there was a time when being a "communist" was edgy among the degenerate artisitic/bohemian millieu, no matter how much cash you made. i don't think it's because its against or for "their self interest" or some nonsense like that, it's because communism, outside of mass movements, usually attracts specific psychological profiles, i.e. the excentric, eternal rebel, etc. some techno geek or some boring square dude in finance are hardly the type that becomes a communist. however, artists, actors, writers, certainly do.

[Ismail]

i don't think it's because its against or for "their self interest" or some nonsense like that,You certainly can't discount it. Business owners who vote for Democrats and Republicans, for instance, have been linked to different types of businesses (with votes for either being based on the different situations each type of business faces in relation to others.)

[Raúl Duke]

Since the recent economic crisis began there's been plenty of bourgeois economists saying that Marx was correct, but they always disavow the part about the proletariat needing to revolt.


I find this intriguing and amusing. I feel ever since the end of the Cold War, people became amnesiac about Marx's economic ideas due to discredit (in ruling class academic circles) caused by the fall of the Soviet bloc. I feel the whole "Marx may be right, but no to revolution" mindset (the kind that RadioRaheem described is a prime example) occurred in the past and lead to Keynesianism economics (whether the social kind like the New Deal and so on or the military kind practiced by the fascists who plunged the world into war).

Now that if in contemporary times they are coming to the conclusion that Marx is right but still disavow revolution I would assume that they would revert to "Keynesian" kinds of ideas but, getting to the point, I find it intriguing that they in general continue to support 'austerity' instead. There's probably a variety of factors for this, both economically and also at the cultural-political level (I don't think the ruling class has gotten over the hubris they developed of the 90s when they declared, particularly Fukuyama, "the end of history" and claimed capitalism, under the name liberal "democracies," "won").

I think we live in interesting times, which is all I'll say about this period of time; while in its practical application the austerity and the structural changes of contemporary capitalism sucks for me (and many workers) I kinda want to know where it may lead to. Hopefully not to the entrenchment of the new economic order of precarious and/or shitty jobs, debt, etc that we have now in this "economic crisis" (or recession, as it's called in the US).

I have a pet theory that 'austerity' is unsustainable yet the "age of reformism" is dead (at least in the West, the developed economies) and this would lead to revolution. From a practical standpoint, as a working person, all I hope for is that the austerity ends whether that be revolution or reform. From a radical perspective, I hope my pet theory is right revolution comes out of this. I certainly don't wish for the worst case scenario that the worsening changes caused by austerity becomes the new status quo for the rest of my life.

---
I would also like to say it's possible, but unlikely, for a rich person to support radical ideas. Of course, we may be asking ourselves "hey why don't I know of any rich leftist?" but we have to consider that our scope is limited. Many of them are probably a bunch of unknowns. Of course, there are celebrity examples and perhaps there's an element of truth to what black magic hustla said.

[Luís Henrique]

You certainly can't discount it. Business owners who vote for Democrats and Republicans, for instance, have been linked to different types of businesses (with votes for either being based on the different situations each type of business faces in relation to others.)

Yup.

Oil interests and small business seem to feel better represented by the Republicans, communication corporations tend to go Democrat. Understanding why would be an important step to understand the duarchy, and how to bring it down.

Luís Henrique