I have a few questions on famous personalities

[Subversive Pessimist]

If the answer is no, what were they?

Was Albert Einstein a Communist:

Was Pablo Picasso a Communist:

Was Jean-Paul Sartre a Communist:

Was Albert Camus a Communist:

Was WEB DuBois a Communist:

Was Frida Kahlo a Communist:

Was Diego Rivera a Communist:

Was Mahatma Gandhi a Communist:

Was Simon Bolivar a Communist:

Was Jose Marti a Communist:

Was Sergi Eisenstein a Communist:

Was Helen Keller a Communist:

Is Michael Moore a Communist:

Is Noam Chomsky a Communist:

Is Jean-Luc Godard a Communist:

[Fidelbrand]

Einstein is a socialist in mind.
Gandhi is a liberator with egalitarian and anti-imperialism ideals, communist? the answer i afraid is negative.
Micheal Moore is merely a joke-making creator on some jokers.
Noam Chomsky does care for the grassroots and working class, and condemns capitalism, but as for him being a communist, i don't see that too apparent.

(personal opinions)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Pablo was Communistic as far as I know. He was even member of a Communistic Party.

[Hate Is Art]

Weren't Bolivar and Marti socialists? Definalty left-wing though!

[Pawn Power]

Is Michael Moore a Communist

fuck no

[Guest1]

Chomsky is an Anarchist, whether he's an an Anarcho-Communist. I don't know. No wait, just found it, I love wikipedia:

In For Reasons of State Chomsky advocates that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no "state" or "government" institutions.
I guess that means he is and Anarcho-Communist. It also says he takes bakunin's view on the Soviet Union.

As for Frida, she banged trotsky I believe, and yes. Oh wait, I was right :)

Her paintings attracted the attention of the artist Diego Rivera, whom she later married, divorced, and re-married. An active Communist supporter, she also had an affair with Leon Trotsky, who was assassinated by agents of Stalin in Mexico City in 1940.
That's all I can answer for now.

[vogel the great]

W.E.B Dubois toward the end of his life became fed up with the counties slow moving on african american civil rights didjoin the communist party

[Essential Insignificance]

The definition of a communist is very variable; thus it’s quite difficult to say for sure or not wither particular individuals are or the contrast not communists. Even if they say so or not.

But heres a go, just of the individuals that I am familiar with.

Keep in mind this is put very simply, and I assume may stimuli debate; and also I do not agree with same of the answers I have put, to a degree.

Was Albert Einstein a Communist: No…socialist .

Was Jean-Paul Sartre a Communist: Yes.

Was Albert Camus a Communist: No…no idea.

Was Diego Rivera a Communist: Yes.

Was Mahatma Gandhi a Communist: No…hard to say exactly.

Was Simon Bolivar a Communist: No…feminist/socialist.

Was Jose Marti a Communist: No…revolutionary.

Is Michael Moore a Communist: No…Liberal.

Is Noam Chomsky a Communist: No…Anarchist.

[Guest1]

But Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho-Communist, if you read the post I have earlier on.

He believes in not just the elimination of the state, but also the elimination of bosses and wage-slavery.

I would say he's definitely a Communist, even if that has "Anarcho" before it.

[Essential Insignificance]

But Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho-Communist, if you read the post I just put up.

Like I said definitions are very "gloomy waters"; nonetheless, I was aware of your post (and informative it was) and that particular author’s take on Chomsky; but I believe Chomsky’s "self-declaration", is that of an Anarchist…It’s hard to say, many conflicting ideas by people themselves and interpreters of individuals and their works.

I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Essential Insignifica[email protected] 27 2004, 10:35 PM
Like I said definitions are very "gloomy waters"; nonetheless, I was aware of your post (and informative it was) and that particular author’s take on Chomsky; but I believe Chomsky’s "self-declaration", is that of an Anarchist…It’s hard to say, many conflicting ideas by people themselves and interpreters of individuals and their works.

I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible.
I agree with you, but I'm getting the drift that you don't like the idea of considering an Anarchist, a Communist. They are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, the quote in question was not just interpretation, it is about a book Chomsky wrote where he speaks out against wage slavery and paid labour and advocates a society where work is "both rewarding in and of itself, and socially useful".

That's Communism.

[Essential Insignificance]

I agree with you, but I'm getting the drift that you don't like the idea of considering an Anarchist, a Communist. They are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the quote in question was not just interpretation, it is about a book Chomsky wrote where he speaks out against wage slavery and paid labour.

That's Communism.


True, that is communism, kind of; but an anarchist can just as easily, as they do, speak out against the definite particularities of the capitalist mode of production and how "disfiguring" and "deranging" it is on the proletarian…but by doing so, it does not draw a distinction between the communist and himself.

Finding distinctions between "contrasting" ideologies, such as communism and anarchism can be very laborious and unproductive, as it can "drag" on for along time…however there is an imperative incongruent analysis of the anarchist and the communist; and that is on the question: "what should happen instantaneously subsequent to revolution".

There are of course, other inconsequential "wiles" amongst the two, but that is properly the chief one.

[Guest1]

I propose we take this debate to where it has already been started, I would like to continue it further if you don't mind:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25277

This is a post I have in that thread, please reply in there:



Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:14 AM
Yes, That's what he meant, Comrade James,--- that power (and socialist process) will be in the hands of The People, within the 24 hours, so to speak, rather than turned over to a hierarchy. Right, EP?
Again, that's not what happens. Hierarchy doesn't just "disappear overnight", but we believe we should be fighting it from the beginning. It'll take years, while the revolution is ongoing.

It's a revolution of gains, guerrilla down to the society it is building. Every gain we make, we work towards a non-hierarchical society with. Every factory that is taken begins to collectivize and work towards building the revolution.

That does not mean "change overnight" <_< It means ongoing victories and a war with clear, realistic goals and objectives to be accomplished, that can show results and make people believe in the future.

An approach to conflict the US still hasn&#39;t learned, after Vietnam, that we would do well to live by.

[Individual]

Was Jean-Paul Sartre a Communist: Yes.

EI.

Please defend your argument that Sartre was in fact a true Communist, and did not merely sympathize with some Marxist ideals. ;)

[Essential Insignificance]

EI.

Please defend your argument that Sartre was in fact a true Communist, and did not merely sympathize with some Marxist ideals.

Well like I said particular definitions allocated to individuals can be difficult, to say the least…however Sartre is of exemption.

But what is interesting is that you use the word "true", with reference to a communist, what is a "true" communist I ask&#33; For am I one, I ask; I do not "belong" to any political party and am politically inactive, as yet; but does that make me not a "true" communist…Its up to you, as the answer is only one of subjectivity.

But if you were say that a "true" communist is one, whom is a member of an active Marxist party, then subsequent to thus; Sartre was, indeed, a communist.

[Louis Pio]

On the question of Ghandi, my oppinion is he was a petty bourgious prick.
He aided Britain in breaking up India, which lead to a mass slaughter.
Let&#39;s look at some quotes from this "great liberator".

Gandhi on private ownership:
" I will never be a participant in snatching away of the properties from their owners and you should know that I will use all my influence and authority against class war. If somebody wants to deprive you from your property you will find me standing shoulder to shoulder with you"
taken from Partition can it be undone? by Lal Khan page 52.

Also this "great" pacifist was actually a big hypocrite on the question of the army. When a group of soldiers refused to fire on an anti-imperialist demonstration Gandhi condemned it and said:
"When a soldier refuses to fire then he is guilty of betraying his oath (&#33;). I can never advise soldiers to defy the orders of officers because, if tomorrow I form a government, I will have to use the same soldiers and officers. If today I advise them for any defiance then tomorrow they can also refuse to obey my orders"
Ibid page 52.

As Trotsky put it in 1934:
"We must expose the treacheries and deceptions of Ghandism in front of the colonial peoples. The main aim of Ghandism is to water down the burning revolutionary fires amongst the people and to continue their exploitation for the petty interests of the national bourgeoisie"
Ibid page 50 and 51.

If any of you are interested in reading about how the Indian bourgeoisie let their interests lead to massmurder on people and the partition of India into India and Pakistan you should read: Partition can it be undone? By Lal Khan. It is availible from the wellread bookshop, just go to http://wellred.marxist.com/index.as...ition&x=39&y=13