Bourgeois or Aristocratic Communists and Anarchists

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Do people think that being a member of the bourgeoisie or aristocracy prevents someone from being a genuine communist?

Most active communists historically have been working class (and sometimes peasant or petit bourgeois) activists of course, but many of the leading intellectuals on the Left (Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin to name a few) came from the upper class, and provided much of the theoretical basis for leftwing politics. Engels as a factory owner and wealthy man who enjoyed good wine and fox hunts seems to be a particularly good example. Without his intervention, it seems hard to see how Marx would have supported himself and his family while managing to produce his theoretical writing. In addition, I'm sure everyone here is well aware of his substantial theoretical contributions to Communist thought, regardless of his class origins.

Some additional questions:

(1) What motivated these people to adopt a communist position? The best thing which seems to me is a kind of moral, emotional connection to the struggle of the working class, and their diminished moral conditions. This differs from members of the working class who are motivated by their actual class interests as much as any moral sense of solidarity with others.

(2) What does this say to working class organizations who want to exclude members of the bourgeoisie who see themselves as ideological sympathizers with the working class? Is it really helpful to exclude these kinds of Leftists when historically they have been major contributors to theory and political organization?

(3) Is there the sense that people can (at least to a point) move beyond the limitations of class interest in their politics? Not to say that many bourgeois leftists aren't annoying liberals who just want to "perfect" capitalism, but is it fair to say that this characterizes any member of the bourgeoisie who sympathizes with the left?

[Remus Bleys]

Institutions that exclude people because they aren't workers are workerists. I have not understood, never will understand, and continue to be confused at leftists who think that bosses can't be members of the proletarian movement. Even karl fucking marx noted that other classes will join institutions against their class interest.
I suppose this piece is relevant. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm

[tuwix]

Do people think that being a member of the bourgeoisie or aristocracy prevents someone from being a genuine communist?


It doesn't prevent but it limits very much. Familiar connections make it very difficult. Certainly, it's pretty easy too be very great in theory. And all major leftist ideology was written by people from classes upper compering to proletariat.

But putting it into practice was and is very difficult for them due to connections of family and education that they got from their parents too. All so-called 'socialist revolutions' have re-created elite model of ruling despite their advocates were for equality. But to be honest, all those revolutions were directed by men who weren't proletarians.

Some additional questions:



(1) What motivated these people to adopt a communist position?


There were different motives but there predominates a feeling of harm that its is done by capitalist order.



(2) What does this say to working class organizations who want to exclude members of the bourgeoisie who see themselves as ideological sympathizers with the working class? Is it really helpful to exclude these kinds of Leftists when historically they have been major contributors to theory and political organization?


I think it isn't. But it's necessary to maintain a direct democracy in political organization. If there is direct democracy, their bourgeois habits will be minimized. If they're an elite, their habit will predominant.



(3) Is there the sense that people can (at least to a point) move beyond the limitations of class interest in their politics? Not to say that many bourgeois leftists aren't annoying liberals who just want to "perfect" capitalism, but is it fair to say that this characterizes any member of the bourgeoisie who sympathizes with the left?

I think you confuse liberals with so-called "libertarians" who are believers in very nice for them theoretical model that will never exist due to false assumptions for example a perfect competition.
But yes, people can move beyond their class interest. Nonetheless, I would never give them a power.

[Remus Bleys]

Why would majority opinion destroy bourgeois ideology tuwix? Let's take a majority opinion of all workers right now, itll be reactionary and bourgeois dominated

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'd have to say there's a difference between wanting to exclude members of the ruling class from membership in an exclusive "vanguard party" and dismissing their contributions to a leaderless, spontaneous movement in terms of resources or token condemnations of capitalism.

This isn't meant to argue my personal position with regard to vanguard parties. It just stands to reason that those who see a successful socialist revolution as necessarily being led by an "advanced minority of the proletariat" will with good reason be more hostile to the involvement of "capitalist roaders", because they will have more authority in their person and be more capable of leading the revolution astray than a lone person in a spontaneous movement who has no real personal authority to speak of.

As for motive, I think it certainly can be emotional or moralistic (highly religious yet not really poor people come to mind here), but a member of the ruling class who develops an understanding of Marxist economics might also recognize the illogical nature of capitalism and how they themselves are compelled by the market to act on motives they don't really hold, psychologically. That is, a capitalist might come to be a capitalist-in-him/herself but not for him/herself. The rich, of course, tend to be thoroughly indoctrinated into the hegemonic ideology, so this would be the exception that proves the rule, but the rich are also dehumanized in their own way by the trappings of the profit motive (not that we should pity them for this, and I for one don't, honestly). You don't have to be poor, though, to come to realize the problems with a single-minded pursuit of profit.

[Queen Mab]

It doesn't prevent but it limits very much. Familiar connections make it very difficult. Certainly, it's pretty easy too be very great in theory. And all major leftist ideology was written by people from classes upper compering to proletariat.

But putting it into practice was and is very difficult for them due to connections of family and education that they got from their parents too. All so-called 'socialist revolutions' have re-created elite model of ruling despite their advocates were for equality. But to be honest, all those revolutions were directed by men who weren't proletarians.

Yeah, I'd go along with the distinction between theory and practice. Kropotkin's support for Russia in WW1 was a huge tactical error informed by a bourgeois worldview. Perhaps the same with Engels' support for the SPD's parliamentarianism.

[Creative Destruction]

Engels was bourgeois, so.. there ya go, I guess.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

people don't choose their class position so its useless questioning who is and isn't a communist based on that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Do people think that being a member of the bourgeoisie or aristocracy prevents someone from being a genuine communist?

No.



(1) What motivated these people to adopt a communist position? The best thing which seems to me is a kind of moral, emotional connection to the struggle of the working class, and their diminished moral conditions. This differs from members of the working class who are motivated by their actual class interests as much as any moral sense of solidarity with others.

Who knows? While theory dictates members of a class will generally fall in with their class interests....it also states that some members of class will not.

Also...we are not dealing with theories but with people. Motivations are as varied as can be.



(2) What does this say to working class organizations who want to exclude members of the bourgeoisie who see themselves as ideological sympathizers with the working class? Is it really helpful to exclude these kinds of Leftists when historically they have been major contributors to theory and political organization?

I am not entirely sure which political parties specifically exclude them. I do however know several unions and parties which refuse to allow employers. For good and obvious reason since it would introduce the standard class divisions within the working class organisations.





(3) Is there the sense that people can (at least to a point) move beyond the limitations of class interest in their politics? Not to say that many bourgeois leftists aren't annoying liberals who just want to "perfect" capitalism, but is it fair to say that this characterizes any member of the bourgeoisie who sympathizes with the left?

That's two questions. Yes people can move past and beyond class interest. But in reality it is limited to the very rare exceptions.

And no it isn't entirely fair...but then again it is the norm.

[Eleutheromaniac]

(1) What motivated these people to adopt a communist position? The best thing which seems to me is a kind of moral, emotional connection to the struggle of the working class, and their diminished moral conditions. This differs from members of the working class who are motivated by their actual class interests as much as any moral sense of solidarity with others.

Probably a deep-seeded empathy, like you mentioned, but also through a critical interpretation of text. Bourgeois people who attend university may be exposed to leftist ideas that they would not have considered before.


(2) What does this say to working class organizations who want to exclude members of the bourgeoisie who see themselves as ideological sympathizers with the working class? Is it really helpful to exclude these kinds of Leftists when historically they have been major contributors to theory and political organization?

No, and they shouldn't let their ideology blind them from looking for progress. The left is sporadic as it is. Anybody can accept class antagonisms, and try to change the way the class system works (with the ultimate goal of abolishing it).


(3) Is there the sense that people can (at least to a point) move beyond the limitations of class interest in their politics? Not to say that many bourgeois leftists aren't annoying liberals who just want to "perfect" capitalism, but is it fair to say that this characterizes any member of the bourgeoisie who sympathizes with the left?

Of course. The result of their interpretation of their material conditions brought them to the conclusion that the world around them is so fraught with clashing interests, and this is not a necessary end result of the human condition.

Regarding the second part, I'm assuming you mean that a mixture of understanding class in a Marxian sense combines with notions of bourgeois sympathy brought about by a liberal education? Or are you talking about Libertarians? Either way, that's a vague question. Yes, I'm sure this happens to the majority under said conditions. However, I tend to understand, again, that each individual will come to her/his own conclusions about the material conditions of the world, and will find things amongst different ideologies to fit their own view (if they are truly rational and concerned with the world and not just 'finding' an ideology).

[tuwix]

Why would majority opinion destroy bourgeois ideology tuwix? Let's take a majority opinion of all workers right now, itll be reactionary and bourgeois dominated

Really? Let's suppose there is a referendum with question: Do you want to take from reach people and give to poor people? Do you think that the result of such referendum would be "reactionary and bourgeois"?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Really? Let's suppose there is a referendum with question: Do you want to take from reach people and give to poor people? Do you think that the result of such referendum would be "reactionary and bourgeois"?

That very question is entirely within a bourgeois framework (not to mention the absurdity of such a referendum even occurring) from the get-go, so yeah.

[PhoenixAsh]

Really? Let's suppose there is a referendum with question: Do you want to take from reach people and give to poor people? Do you think that the result of such referendum would be "reactionary and bourgeois"?

Actually...I think it would.

Current popular opinion is thoroughly vested in liberalism in which making money is not seen as negative but as something you earned through hard work and being smart. Taking money from the rich to give to the poor would be seen as wealth redistribution...which is something most people currently shun away from.

Hell...in the US...even support for merely taxing incomes over 250k have a general support of only 60%...and only because this would reduce the deficit and/or would avoid fiscal cliffs. This would seems to indicate people do favor letting the rich pay....but unfortunately...surveys done in the same year show and equal support for a flat tax if there would be no fiscal cliff looming. Which contradicts that finding.

[tuwix]

Current popular opinion is thoroughly vested in liberalism in which making money is not seen as negative but as something you earned through hard work and being smart. Taking money from the rich to give to the poor would be seen as wealth redistribution...which is something most people currently shun away from.


Maybe in Holland, there people would be against it although I don't believe in that. According to sociological discoveries of Marx, the majority will always be against rich minority and will want to get this wealth from them. And only state prevents form that which basic function is to maintain private property and inequalities related to it.

Then tell me that this "bourgeois and reactionary" too...

[Zukunftsmusik]

Maybe in Holland, there people would be against it although I don't believe in that. According to sociological discoveries of Marx, the majority will always be against rich minority and will want to get this wealth from them. And only state prevents form that which basic function is to maintain private property and inequalities related to it.

Those were hardly Marx's discoveries. He discovered that a minority would always exploit the labour of a majority - but it doesn't follow that this majority automatically takes to arms (or referendums...). Just look around you today. Do you think the majority of people are just eagerly waiting to kick their boss in the face and crush the state?

[Rafiq]

The bourgeoisie may pledge fealty to the revolution so long as they do so adopting the class interest of the revolutionary proletariat. They cannot retain their class interests, and at the same time join the Communists (In the same way the Petite-bourgeoisie did when rallying to the fascists).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Maybe in Holland, there people would be against it although I don't believe in that. According to sociological discoveries of Marx, the majority will always be against rich minority and will want to get this wealth from them. And only state prevents form that which basic function is to maintain private property and inequalities related to it.

Then tell me that this "bourgeois and reactionary" too...
marx also conceptualized the notion of false-consciousness which is that powerful force that keeps people producing, consuming and thinking that this system is the right way to go.

[tuwix]

Those were hardly Marx's discoveries. He discovered that a minority would always exploit the labour of a majority - but it doesn't follow that this majority automatically takes to arms (or referendums...).


We don't understand each other. I write about a feeling of hatred towards to 'havs' and what people would do, when people believed they can. For example in terms of referendum.

But you say about determination to do that. And I agree there isn't great determination to change a capitalist system .



Just look around you today. Do you think the majority of people are just eagerly waiting to kick their boss in the face and crush the state?

Looking around is very good. Look just below what happens when state stops to protect private property:

KKhaT-pXHHc

[The Jay]

Maybe in Holland, there people would be against it although I don't believe in that. According to sociological discoveries of Marx, the majority will always be against rich minority and will want to get this wealth from them. And only state prevents form that which basic function is to maintain private property and inequalities related to it.

Then tell me that this "bourgeois and reactionary" too...

Oh really? Where did he write down this discovery and how does it fit into his theoretical framework?

[tuwix]

Oh really? Where did he write down this discovery

Here, for example:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

[Rafiq]

It is clear that in Kapital Marx disregarded the notion of "oppressor and oppressed" as unscientific. Even then, while class struggle is the greatest component, nay, the source of historical change, it only occurs when the pretending class acts on behalf of it's own class interest. While false consciousness has always existed, never before has the state ideological apparatus been so highly specialized and mechanized to reproduce social relations to the point where it is a prime function of social relations itself. I fail to say how Marx, recognizing that in the grand scheme of things they "stood in opposition" signifies that the poor will always be against the wealthy few, readily eager to claim their heads if not for the power of the state. Furthermore, I claim that such a state of affairs would not last more than a week, modestly speaking. Without the ideological as well as forceful mechanisms which reproduce social relations, no mode of production can survive.

[PhoenixAsh]

Here, for example:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

That passage doesn't mean what you think it means.

What it does mean is a more literary translation of the concept of historical materialism and the fact that when a mode of production is no longer supported by changes in the productive forces a revolution must occur or society will in fact stagnate in development. The specific nature of the revolution is determined by the classes and class consciousness. It does not necessarily follow that the subjugated class is the one winning the revolution or in fact even waging it.

In fact....journey men had extremely little to do with the demise of the guild system. Slaves very little with the demise of slavery. Serfs extremely little with the demise of the feudal system.

That does not mean these classes had interests that aligned with the ruling/dominant class. Far from it. They had diametrically opposed interests. But it does mean their class consciousness and organization skills did not make them instrumental in the decline of the power structures they belonged to.

Which is why Marxism emphasizes class consciousness and organisation as a necessity for a proletarian revolution to break...as has been stated in other posts...the false class consciousness which (in this case: capitalist) society uses to hide the true class relations.

[tuwix]

That passage doesn't mean what you think it means.

I disagree and apparently we won't agree about it.

[Creative Destruction]

I disagree and apparently we won't agree about it.

it just kind of sucks that you've dug your heels into the ground about this, since your interpretation is wrong.

[Yuppie Grinder]

i just plain don't like rich people and don't want anything to do with them sorry

[tuwix]

i just plain don't like rich people and don't want anything to do with them sorry

And I exactly are writing about it and it's impossible to understand by many participators of this debate. :)

[Sharia Lawn]

Banking it all on "class interest" alone only produces a distorted, short-sighted understanding of one's own long-term material interests, as the conventional mainstream means and channels by which we all interpret our social existences are dominated by bourgeois ideology, and infuse our state of consciousness therewith.

So while the material conditions of the existing social relations of production invariably draw workers into fierce struggles and antagonisms with their capitalist exploiters (struggles that might I add always show the fighting spirit, courage, and tenacious capacity of the proletariat), this struggle alone will not arm the proletariat with the political necessities of undoing their wretched state of barbaric misery. They will be misled by the leaders of the workers' movement, the lieutenants of capital within the class struggle, i.e. trade union bureaucrats, reformist and Stalinist parties, and countless other intriguing demagogues.

This is why many workers historically have drawn politically backward and reactionary conclusions about their own interests, such as adopting racist/bigoted attitudes toward workers of color or other nationalities. On an immediate level, having to compete with them in the labor market augmented by generalized ideological reinforcement of racism and nationalism teaches them that they are enemies, whereas a revolutionary socialist understanding of class relations teaches them that only united can the masses hope to dethrone the bloodsucking capitalists.

Why have there historically been many great Marxist thinkers to come from the upper classes? Well, aside from the fact that being liberated from the burden of work gives oneself the time and energy for the exploration of sophisticated understandings of the world in all their depth, information wasn't always as accessible as it is today, preventing large parts of the population, mainly the toiling classes, from equipping themselves with the theoretical and political weapons for class combat.

Now, however, it is less so. There is more of a capacity for the class to build its own fighting organs within itself, and in proportion with the rise of that reality, it seems all the more weird that some guy with a yacht and three mansions would dedicate himself to the building of a revolutionary workers' party. That doesn't mean the possibility should be discounted in the fashion of workerism, just that perhaps some organic suspicion might arise among the militant sections of the class should columns of stock traders and investment bankers line themselves up with the flag of socialist revolution.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Here, for example:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

"Constant opposition" refers to class interest. Marx didn't believe the slaves were ready to throw away their chains at any point, or that the bourgeoisie were using all their time plotting their revolution. There's a reason the french, english etc. revolution occurred at specific points in history.