Care To Befriend A Class Enemy?

[Madame Ennui]

Hi there!
I've been looking at these sites for a while but I was kinda nervous to actually register because I might technically be what you guys don't like (i.e. "rich" girl) but after awhile, I just couldn't help it because I'm seriously considering Marxism, amongst other weird things.
Not sure how I fit in here though, or even if I belong here but I hope to contribute something.
And before you ask, I am sneaking on here. I don't think too many would like it if they knew I'm a wannabe marxist and I know several people who just HATE the poor (but won't tell outwardly or will hide it in clever words) that would lynch me if they found out I came here.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

Many of the best Marxists came from the opposite class camp ;)

[#FF0000]

There's hella rich kid Marxists (maybe not on here, though...) so don't feel weird about that.

Either way, welcome.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Welcome, share and enjoy

[hatzel]

We tend to befriend anybody who isn't a massive bellend...

Welcome!

[Point Blank]

Greetings!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hi there!
I've been looking at these sites for a while but I was kinda nervous to actually register because I might technically be what you guys don't like (i.e. "rich" girl) but after awhile, I just couldn't help it because I'm seriously considering Marxism, amongst other weird things.
Not sure how I fit in here though, or even if I belong here but I hope to contribute something.
And before you ask, I am sneaking on here. I don't think too many would like it if they knew I'm a wannabe marxist and I know several people who just HATE the poor (but won't tell outwardly or will hide it in clever words) that would lynch me if they found out I came here.

Being rich does not automatically make one bourgeois; in Marxist theory, classes are defined by the relation to the means of production and extraction of surplus, and are not identical to income brackets. Furthermore, I don't think many people here have any personal animus toward the rich, though we strive to act against the objective interest of the bourgeoisie.

Care to tell us a bit more about yourself, specifically your ideas, what other "weird things" you are considering, etc.?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hi there!
I've been looking at these sites for a while but I was kinda nervous to actually register because I might technically be what you guys don't like (i.e. "rich" girl) but after awhile, I just couldn't help it because I'm seriously considering Marxism, amongst other weird things.
Not sure how I fit in here though, or even if I belong here but I hope to contribute something.
And before you ask, I am sneaking on here. I don't think too many would like it if they knew I'm a wannabe marxist and I know several people who just HATE the poor (but won't tell outwardly or will hide it in clever words) that would lynch me if they found out I came here.

Pleanty of workers currently support capitalism... a majority in fact, though maybe not always happily. Anyone can belive anything, being a communist or anarchists isn't (or shouldn't be) identity poltics.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Marxists aren't against 'rich people', as the term 'rich people' can be arbitrary.

I.e. I'm a billionaire compared to a haitian sweatshop owner but that doesn't meant I'm not piss poor and getting ripped off every day I check in for work.

This is the crux - marxists want to end capitalism. Hence why they are against capitalists (who, due to their profit-based economic position in society will always be the richest people under capitalism)

[Jimmie Higgins]

^666 posts!

I doubt you're a billionaire compared to any sweatshop owner, but yeah "rich" is relative... my $9/hour would make me quite rich if this was 1936 and I could rent a flat for $12/month or buy a house for $30 a month. Or a better example might be that a union oil worker might make a lot more than an owner of a small shop who just scrapes by.

[Quail]

Hi, welcome to Revleft :)

[Fourth Internationalist]

Welcome to RevLeft! :D

[Comrade Dracula]

Welcome! I hope you'll find your stay here enjoyable! :)

[Madame Ennui]

Being rich does not automatically make one bourgeois; in Marxist theory, classes are defined by the relation to the means of production and extraction of surplus, and are not identical to income brackets. Furthermore, I don't think many people here have any personal animus toward the rich, though we strive to act against the objective interest of the bourgeoisie.

Care to tell us a bit more about yourself, specifically your ideas, what other "weird things" you are considering, etc.?

You mean like politics? Well I kept hearing about how this was supposed to work, with workers owning their own work and attempts to end class differences and after thinking (waaaaaaaay too much), I kinda figured that this would be a better way to do things because I realized how capitalism was a free-for-all in the beginning but it was a matter of time before someone made the bigger profits and wound up controlling the world. But that's sort of a basic education in that case I guess.
I'm also schizotypal so I talk about weird stuff some times. I don't have any friends (which is why I think waaaaaaay too much and why I came to the site) and I think I might be synaesthetic. With all that, I'm kinda interested in psychology because I want to know how all that works.

[G4b3n]

You mean like politics? Well I kept hearing about how this was supposed to work, with workers owning their own work and attempts to end class differences and after thinking (waaaaaaaay too much), I kinda figured that this would be a better way to do things because I realized how capitalism was a free-for-all in the beginning but it was a matter of time before someone made the bigger profits and wound up controlling the world. But that's sort of a basic education in that case I guess.
I'm also schizotypal so I talk about weird stuff some times. I don't have any friends (which is why I think waaaaaaay too much and why I came to the site) and I think I might be synaesthetic. With all that, I'm kinda interested in psychology because I want to know how all that works.

It wasn't really a "free-for-all" so to speak. If the wreck of feudal society had left all people in equal socioeconomic standing, then perhaps. The capitalists as a class emerged for the rising mercantile classes and the diminishing aristocracy, as these were the only people wealthy enough to invest in the new means of production. The new bourgeois mode of production surpassed the old craftsman's hand tools in terms of economic efficiency.

Marx explains it way better than I do, but I am sure you get the general idea.

[Madame Ennui]

It wasn't really a "free-for-all" so to speak. If the wreck of feudal society had left all people in equal socioeconomic standing, then perhaps. The capitalists as a class emerged for the rising mercantile classes and the diminishing aristocracy, as these were the only people wealthy enough to invest in the new means of production. The new bourgeois mode of production surpassed the old craftsman's hand tools in terms of economic efficiency.

Marx explains it way better than I do, but I am sure you get the general idea.

No, I mean at 10,000 years ago or so, that's when it was a free for all because we were just farming and stuff, and then it became a matter to get more land to farm and more wealth and we needed to find ways to say that other people didn't need their land and wealth as much as we did and there came inferiority/superiority, and we needed other people to work on the land to get more stuff, and we would take what would be made and give people a smaller reward for helping out. At some point I guess people developed cultures around agriculture so they could streamline wealth accumulation and divide people between their roles in society, the ones who told others what to do and how to farm (I guess they were the ones skilled in farming before, and now gained wealth from informing others how to work?) those that made sure people didn't steal crops, and those that toiled for crops. At some point, we got here.

I know you probably don't get asked this a lot (or at all), but if there was a revolution and it succeeded, how screwed would I be?

[Sarcosuchus]

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were from rich backgrounds themselves. Just like the poor does not choose to be born poor, neither does the rich choose to be born rich. Only things that matter about a person are their thoughts and ideology.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You'd be fine unless you die fighting for the working class :)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You mean like politics? Well I kept hearing about how this was supposed to work, with workers owning their own work and attempts to end class differences and after thinking (waaaaaaaay too much), I kinda figured that this would be a better way to do things because I realized how capitalism was a free-for-all in the beginning but it was a matter of time before someone made the bigger profits and wound up controlling the world. But that's sort of a basic education in that case I guess.

Have you read about the existing varieties of communist thought, and do you find yourself in agreement with any of them? Just a pedantic quibble: capitalism is a mode of production associated with private ownership of the means of production, wage labour, etc.; what you describe is, in general, a class society, but there are several forms of class societies.


I'm also schizotypal so I talk about weird stuff some times. I don't have any friends (which is why I think waaaaaaay too much and why I came to the site) and I think I might be synaesthetic. With all that, I'm kinda interested in psychology because I want to know how all that works.

It's an interesting field, and, actually, there have been several Marxist psychologists, most prominently Vigotsky.


I know you probably don't get asked this a lot (or at all), but if there was a revolution and it succeeded, how screwed would I be?

We'd all be screwed, heh. Revolutions are messy affairs, and in the long run, the only thing worse than a revolution is the stagnation and decay that results from the absence of a revolution. But no one would kill you because you're wealthy.

[G4b3n]

No, I mean at 10,000 years ago or so, that's when it was a free for all because we were just farming and stuff, and then it became a matter to get more land to farm and more wealth and we needed to find ways to say that other people didn't need their land and wealth as much as we did and there came inferiority/superiority, and we needed other people to work on the land to get more stuff, and we would take what would be made and give people a smaller reward for helping out. At some point I guess people developed cultures around agriculture so they could streamline wealth accumulation and divide people between their roles in society, the ones who told others what to do and how to farm (I guess they were the ones skilled in farming before, and now gained wealth from informing others how to work?) those that made sure people didn't steal crops, and those that toiled for crops. At some point, we got here.

I know you probably don't get asked this a lot (or at all), but if there was a revolution and it succeeded, how screwed would I be?

That isn't a bad analysis I suppose. If an orthodox Marxist read it, they would tear it to peaces though. According to Marx, the earliest of human societies were communal, the means of production were held relativity in common. Then the second phase of history came about through "slave society", which included private ownership of the means of production which included people, examples would be ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. Marx used a process of understanding called dialectics in which one observes the contradictions within a unity. Essentially thesis-antithesis-synthesis. This processes is regarded as true within the observation of both natural and social phenomena.

As for your question regarding a successful revolution, that depends on a few different factors. Which leftist tendency takes power and how that use that power. As well as your personal relation to the means of production i.e, your class. Anarchists are generally more pacifist in nature when it comes to revolutionary theory. The Stalinists and other radical authoritarians are generally the ones advocating classicide or violent suppression of class enemies, this of course does not include individual bourgeois who are assisting the proletarian cause.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

its not your fault that you're rich as its not my fault that i'm poor.

welcome

[Madame Ennui]

its not your fault that you're rich as its not my fault that i'm poor.

welcome

Is it my fault you're poor and your fault I'm rich? :lol:

[Comrade Samuel]

Welcome to the forum!

Out of curiosity, exactly how well read in Marxism are you at this point? I'm sure you'll take plenty from your experience here at revleft- it's good to see there is interest in our movement at all levels.

[The Idler]

the case for socialism isn't a case for bashing the rich. Prince Kropotkin was pretty privileged and he was a pretty good communist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That isn't a bad analysis I suppose. If an orthodox Marxist read it, they would tear it to peaces though. According to Marx, the earliest of human societies were communal, the means of production were held relativity in common. Then the second phase of history came about through "slave society", which included private ownership of the means of production which included people, examples would be ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. Marx used a process of understanding called dialectics in which one observes the contradictions within a unity. Essentially thesis-antithesis-synthesis. This processes is regarded as true within the observation of both natural and social phenomena.

"Thesis, antithesis and synthesis" is the triad found in the early Fichte (the late Fichte, in contrast, talked about "the fivefold synthesis") and read into Hegel (and by extension Marx) by certain popularisers. Lenin wrote a short summary (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/summary.htm) of the main elements of dialectics in his conspectus to Hegel's greater Logic - and it should be noted that in dialectical materialism, dialectical relations obtain between definite material tendencies, not ideas as in Hegel's idealist dialectics.


As for your question regarding a successful revolution, that depends on a few different factors. Which leftist tendency takes power and how that use that power. As well as your personal relation to the means of production i.e, your class. Anarchists are generally more pacifist in nature when it comes to revolutionary theory. The Stalinists and other radical authoritarians are generally the ones advocating classicide or violent suppression of class enemies, this of course does not include individual bourgeois who are assisting the proletarian cause.

You know what's funny? I can recall only one movement that advocated the killing of the bourgeoisie as a class - the racist Esers-Maximists. Now, the Esers were not anarchists, but most modern anarchists portray them as true revolutionary proletarian saints.

"Violent suppression of class enemies" refers to smashing the bourgeois resistance to the proletarian state, not killing random well-off individuals. This goes for all varieties of Leninism - perhaps you should have acquainted yourself with Marxist-Leninist theory before speaking.

[d3crypt]

Welcome to Revleft.:)

[Igor]

its not your wealth, its what you do about it ie actively fuck over people as little as you can

welcome anyways

[Madame Ennui]

Welcome to the forum!

Out of curiosity, exactly how well read in Marxism are you at this point? I'm sure you'll take plenty from your experience here at revleft- it's good to see there is interest in our movement at all levels.

Somewhat well, but mostly limited to old books and websites.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Is it my fault you're poor and your fault I'm rich? :lol:

no, we're both products of a system that we were born into. you can lend me a fiver if you want though given that you're rich lol ;)

[Petrol Bomb]

Welcome, Madame Ennui, to RevLeft! You seem like a pretty cool cat, I think I am gonna like you.

[G4b3n]

"Thesis, antithesis and synthesis" is the triad found in the early Fichte (the late Fichte, in contrast, talked about "the fivefold synthesis") and read into Hegel (and by extension Marx) by certain popularisers. Lenin wrote a short summary (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/summary.htm) of the main elements of dialectics in his conspectus to Hegel's greater Logic - and it should be noted that in dialectical materialism, dialectical relations obtain between definite material tendencies, not ideas as in Hegel's idealist dialectics.



You know what's funny? I can recall only one movement that advocated the killing of the bourgeoisie as a class - the racist Esers-Maximists. Now, the Esers were not anarchists, but most modern anarchists portray them as true revolutionary proletarian saints.

"Violent suppression of class enemies" refers to smashing the bourgeois resistance to the proletarian state, not killing random well-off individuals. This goes for all varieties of Leninism - perhaps you should have acquainted yourself with Marxist-Leninist theory before speaking.

That is not what I was referring to all, you are simply setting up a straw man of my analysis because I am advocating a more libertarian approach, which I need not mention is fallacious. What you described was simply suppression of the bourgeois class not necessarily through violent means, which I would be in agreement with, it ought to be made clear that there are multiple ways to suppress a class.

I may not be an expert on Marxism-Leninism but I would say I am well associated with the ideology.

[GBOG]

It's not wrong of you to be a socialist and I wouldn't worry about you being killed in a revolution anytime soon. A more realistic problem would be if you wanted to get organized somewhere. I believe in "digging where you stand" which naturally limits my activism to my daily life (my workplace, my neighbourhood, my football club (regular football, not the one where you use your hands and stuff), my gym and so on) and also limits my comrades to people I have a natural contact with. It would be weird if some rich kid (no offence) suddenly showed up.

[Q]

User was banned (http://www.revleft.com/vb/admin-actions-v-t173478/index.html?p=2635414#post2635414).

Thread closed.