Rich Communists [Archive]

Parkbench

24th April 2005, 06:21

As an anarchist I can tell you that I would oppose the concept of being 'rich.' Even before I was an anarchist I opposed it. It is unequal distribution and charity and small donations do nothing--that suburban house, that mansion and your selfish happiness of 8 tvs does not justify letting others rot. 50% or more of your money should be given away or shared, no questions asked, at least while under this incredibly flawed system.

peter singer has some good points on this.

im very intersted in what communists have to say about this. I don't know how they'd justify it. It kind of defeats the purpose of what communism shoots for.

Also, their roots don't matter--Lenin grew up in a non-communist society so being a lawyer at first doesn't affect the concept of a rich communist. I'm not some big Lenin fan, i'm just saying he couldve been a chippendale dancer and it wouldnt matter, it was pre-communism. the question is under a communist system is it possible and morally ethical for one to be rich, as far as i understand it.

MKS

24th April 2005, 06:36

In todays current capitalist society can a person be rich and still be communist?

No one is communist in todays capitalistic society. you can hold the ideals and principles of communism, but you're not a communist. Why would a rich man hold the ideals of communism, if he did and took it seriously he wouldnt be rich he would give most of his wealth to the cause, and the advancement of the revolution. Lenin, Engles, werent communists either, Lenin was a socialist who tried for communism, Engles, was just a man who wrote about Communism, and probably was a party memeber at some time. Im not bashing these men, im simply saying in order for someone to be truly communist, a communist system must exist.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

24th April 2005, 06:46

It's not how much you've got, it's what you do with it. (And that pretty much covers everything ;) )

OleMarxco

24th April 2005, 13:07

Real rich communists would not be rich for too long. If they truly were it, they would "spread out" their wealth to the poor in a "Robin Hood"-kind of way, only not stealing but giving away in charity. A real rich communist would be better soon of as a poor one, but a true. And working ;)

Brennus

24th April 2005, 14:03

50% or more of your money should be given away or shared, no questions asked, at least while under this incredibly flawed system.

With 40% of ones money being taxed away by the government, "giving away" 50% would doom everyone to poverty in the capitalist system.

Parkbench

24th April 2005, 14:52

im talking on very basic terms here--that soudns like it make sense, but it doesnt work like you always have one static amount of money and once you take away that whole 90% you only have 10% left.

40% overall is taxed. I pulled outa random number, but I believe it is true now that I think about it--I'm talking plain old money--without the red tape. Yes, it comes in later on, but I mean on the whole.

redstar2000

24th April 2005, 15:34

I would imagine that a "rich" communist would be very rare -- depending on what you mean by "rich" of course.

My annual pension, for example, is $12,000/year...and I get by (sort of).

Most service workers in the U.S. make about $15,000 to $25,000/year (before taxes). A skilled worker can make anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000/year and sometimes even more (with lots of overtime).

When you speak of "rich people", the concept of "net worth" is actually more important than income. Mine is very small -- about $2,000. That means I am never more than two months away from homelessness and begging on the streets.

I expect that most single service workers are in a position very similar to mine...or even worse. A skilled worker can qualify for a mortgage and "own" a house. Depending on how long s/he's "owned" it, s/he will have "equity" in the house -- and her/his net worth may then amount to a considerable sum...say $50,000 or $100,000 and possibly more.

One's annual income and, even more importantly, one's net worth obviously have a tremendous impact on one's social attitudes. To put it crudely, the more you have to lose, the less likely you are to be amenable to radical social change.

And you also have to take into account the consequences of being raised from childhood in a wealthy environment. You are taught in a thousand subtle and not-so-subtle ways that you are "naturally superior" to those without wealth...and that you must always be "on guard" against "the mob" who want to take your wealth away from you.

So the Marxist answer to your question -- can someone be "rich" and "still be a communist" -- is that finding one would be extremely improbable.

History is full of "oddities" -- wildly improbable events that sometimes happen "against all the odds". I think Engels is such an oddity...something that happened once and will probably never happen again.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Clarksist

24th April 2005, 18:57

Most communists have good work ethics, and while that doesn't mean a damn in real world capitalism, I don't think being rich is the antithesis to being a communist. It comes down to if you give to charity, help out your fellow man, and don't exploit those below you.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th April 2005, 19:11

I know petty-bourgeoisie people who are closer to the left than many poor workers.

But I agree with Redstar: "the more you have to lose, the less likely you are to be amenable to radical social change."

It's a rule of thumb, I think.

But eventually I think most of it comes down to the mentality of the individual person.

Ell Carino

24th April 2005, 20:22

If there is ever to be a revolution we need financial backing, alot of money... whether it's diplomatic (i doubt it), or by violent means...

But individual communists have the right to have success in this world, afterall we all gotta eat, and everything costs something in this world... obviously, alot of the money you make should be given to those needing it, for the good of the cause.

pandora

24th April 2005, 21:43

Redstar, sweetie, if you ever hit the streets my door is always open. Although being poor I bounce around a lot too.

If I ever do get a house of my own, I'll give you your own little hut in the back where you can smoke your cigarettes undisturbed :lol: But part of being a communist is that I would not want a home without community. I would have people who were poor live with me as family and everyone would trade off for jobs using a rotation wheel including me, unless they were at term pregnancy, too old or too young to perform tasks. I have always lived in such houses, with children so it is like home to me. I am very lonely without lots of people from all over the world living with me. This competition for money is ridiculous. We do need to get a hold of the tax system, as most of ours goes to arms not education.

The amount of money a person makes in many first world countries in service or state jobs means nothing, as it usually does not keep pace with the housing market and cost of utilities, and the cost of food is astronomical leaving one in the same state as in poorer nations, only without community support because everyone is too proud to admit they are poor and pull together as a team.

The idea of a singular person being wealthy and not sharing that wealth with their community is anti-Communist, and anti-socialist. Intel for instance just saved millions on their taxes essentially telling their community to go fuck themselves, as they do not feel they should have to pay for the infrastructure or schools to supply their business. Which is actually robbery, they are using the infrastructure and not paying for it, while others do.

Most religious traditions had a balance of a certain percentage of one's income which had to be given to the community. But rich people these days try to say that is taxes. But looking at Jesus's quotes of "Give Ceaser what is Ceaser's" while still speaking of giving a portion of one's income show that to be a bunch of hooey. It's on top of taxes.

So not only are the rich not Marxists, they are not religious in any sense either, they are just selfish greedy pigs, who are destroying the earth without thought to their own children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Not only are they not Marxists, they do not belong to the human family as they do not think of others other than themselves, as the Croatian proverb goes:
"He who is not moved with compassion for the needs of others, is not worthy of the name of man."

If they were Marxists they would create worker owned cooperatives, or create worker owned stock that actually was of use to the worker, and share the proceeds and profits with the workers, while having beneficial community sharing programs with profits, and hiring disabled people from the community.

Karl Marx's Camel

24th April 2005, 22:28

Paradox

24th April 2005, 22:44

Not only are they not Marxists, they do not belong to the human family

Now you are getting religious.

They are just as human as you are. They're flesh and blood. If you don't like them, that is your opinion. It does not change them biologically.

They are not aliens.

I'll grant you that. But overall, I think Pandora pretty much got it right on the mark.

I also agree with what redstar said. Strange things do happen, so a "rich" Communist just may exist. Highly unlikely, but still not impossible. I think it would more likely be the child of a rich person, who on his or her own discovers Communism and realizes the importance of mankind's well being as a whole, rather than one's own personal material wealth. I highly doubt that some rich CEO is going to become a Communist. Anyway, I agree with Pandora and redstar.

OleMarxco

24th April 2005, 23:56

I only accept "rich communists" as if...only if they are people who are self-employed i.e. owns the buisness AND does the work themselves. Then perhaps. But certainly NOT any of those so-called "bosses" or "superiors"! Truly, if they really WERE so, they would surely withouth second thought abandon their burgeouis posts and give up their wealth to the workers to help fund an revolution or something!

Karl Marx's Camel

25th April 2005, 01:58

Just to play the devil's advocate.

So you don't accept them.. But why do you accept those who do actually work for the capitalists? Without them, the capitalist class wouldn't exist in the first place!

Truly, if they really WERE so, they would surely withouth second thought abandon their burgeouis posts and give up their wealth to the workers to help fund an revolution or something!

What's the point of funding a revolution, when even marxists refuse to fight?

bed_of_nails

1st May 2005, 02:54

Most wealthy in America CANNOT fund a revolution. To do so would be warranting a nice vacation to Guantanamo Bay forever.

If I am ever rich though, you guys are all welcome to move in with me (except Ian) and I will be happy to fund this site.

Shevek

1st May 2005, 18:24

Rich and communist. Nope, its a contradiction, and anyone who is rich, and keeps all his wealth to himself and communist is a walking oxymoron. Living Newspeak. Thus, deep down, thier totalitarian and are either Stalinists or some kind of capitalist. Not a real communist.

EnragÃ©

1st May 2005, 20:47

"Living Newspeak"

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
COMMUNISM IS EXPLOITATION

:P

DoomedOne

1st May 2005, 23:28

well certain jobs simply pay more than others, so it is possible to be a rich communist. Many rich people own for a living, which is very uncommunist, such as Donald Trump, Kroc, etcetera. Then there are people like Walt Disney and Bill Gates that started off working for a living and truly earned their beginnings of wealth, but are covered in so much capitalistic garbage and unethical mischief it doesn't count for them.

OleMarxco

1st May 2005, 23:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:54 AM
.......you guys are all welcome to move in with me (except Ian).....
.....Because Ian is too poor for your likes, right - "NOT MY CLASS" :blink: That probably has something to do with all his back-shootin' and burst fires, allright <_<

bezdomni

6th May 2005, 03:14

It's a subjective question.

What does it mean to "be" a communist?

Colombia

6th May 2005, 15:43

If they give money to the poor, do not opress people in any way, and work towards communism, why should we not support them?

Anarchist Freedom

6th May 2005, 15:54

I find that being bourgeis myself that for you to be a communist you recognize the battle between the proletariet and bourgeis. Rich or Poor if you recognize the need for liberation of the proletariet. Your a class traitor and your money is nothing more then a number used to help the revolution.

Xanthor

6th May 2005, 23:13

First of all I have to admit I didnt read all the posts, so if mine is redundent excuse me.

I believe exactly what Colombia said. If a person is rich and powerful and still communist it's alright. As long as they arent oppresive or hypocritical in saying they are communist who really gives a shit. I've just heard some people say that communism was founded by hypocritical cappies (which pissed me off because it wasn't and they weren't) and was just wondering what your opinions were. Thank you for your opinions.

bezdomni

7th May 2005, 01:19

You also don't have to be poor to be a proletariat. Proletarian are defined as those who do not own the means of production. You also don't have to be rich to be bourgeoise, there are plenty of failed entepreneurs and capitalists!

MKS

7th May 2005, 01:39

A true rich socialist/communist would give up his money to the cause.

I personally dont like the rich or the burgoise, . No one should be rich while others are poor. Being rich is exactly what a communist should be against.

Destroy the Aristocracy!
re-distribute the wealth!
Arm the homeless!

Xanthor

7th May 2005, 07:37

I disagree. Communists shouldn't go after the rich and only the rich. They need to go after the oppressor. And to the whole giveing up al the money thing. When the time comes they will (At least I hope so).

Elect Marx

7th May 2005, 08:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:56 PM
I only accept "rich communists" as if...only if they are people who are self-employed i.e. owns the buisness AND does the work themselves. Then perhaps. But certainly NOT any of those so-called "bosses" or "superiors"! Truly, if they really WERE so, they would surely withouth second thought abandon their burgeouis posts and give up their wealth to the workers to help fund an revolution or something!
I agree and I will use myself as an example: If I had the funding, I would start a company (rather like a union/commune) and so I would share the work/wealth.

I would then use the proceeds to fund our movement.

I may live "comfortably" this way but I would certainly help other people and likely never be "rich" or at least not into hoarding wealth; if anything I would like to set up funds with/for all workers, as a sort of communal insurance for our group; share the wealth!

The whole idea is that everyone works/prospers together and is equal in doing so. As being reflects mentality and vice versa; we must do our best to bring about revolutionary conditions and solidarity among the workers, this means leveling with them and not creating groups inaccessibly above them.
I am against "individual needs," (that capitalism uses as “motivation”) as social beings we all have needs and are able to look after one another (so being taken care of); working in solidarity while telling capitalist predation to fuck off :hammer:

Kez

7th May 2005, 13:06

The point is that you could be a rich communist, but how long could it last for?

Your economic situation determines your outlook, if you have things which make your life comfortable, you are gonna have less radical ideas or solutions, and less energy against capitalism, if it is serving you well.

For example, when i was living at home, i would borrow my parents car to go from one place to another. However, now im at uni, i have to take a shitty bus, or walk for a few miles, this puts me in the same league as the working class, and the daily struggle we have to go through.

If i had a car everyday, i wouldnt fully understand the daily pain and struggle the rest of the working class go through. I have to travel on train once a week to go home, and u can really see how the working class has its day.

The same applies to money problems, i recently experienced how it was to be truly financially fuckeed with debts to cover, and as a result some of my revolutionary work was neglected, as a result i can see why some of the working class cannot simply put down their tools and regularly work for a revolution, and how as activists we must be sensitive and understanding of the situation of the working class, who is under immense financial pressure.

So this is just my input into why its harder for rich people to be communists, because as a communist you have to be active in the struggle, and having a comfortable life goes against "we have nothing to lose but our chains"

what you think?

MKS

7th May 2005, 23:00

So this is just my input into why its harder for rich people to be communists, because as a communist you have to be active in the struggle, and having a comfortable life goes against "we have nothing to lose but our chains"

I agree, not only will rich people not understand the oppression of the worker, if they did they would not care. That is why they're rich.

Rich/burgoise people are the worst type of people. Surrounded in materialism and self intrest. Why is someones labour or work worth more than others. Bill Gates does not work harder than coal miners, musicans and actors make more than teachers, is that right? Of course not. I am for a radical destrcution of the rich aristocracy that pollutes democracy, and allows for tyranny and oppression.

encephalon

8th May 2005, 06:28

You're confusing rich with bourgeois.

What if a comrade suddenly won the lottery? Would he no longer be a communist? bah. The amount of money a person makes is not a suitable measure between communist and non-communist.

As for self-interest: we all have it. On a large scale, however, we recognize that our self-interest coincides with the best interests of all.

And as for the "not rich for long" argument: that would do very little to help the movement. Money, as most of us should recognize, is a tangible form of power in capitalism. So lets say redstar suddenly became a millionaire. Would it truly be in the best interest of the communist movement for him to distribute his money among countless people until he's back to a 12,000 a year living standard? No, it wouldn't, in my opinion. While certainly I would expect him to share such wealth, I'd also expect him to use it to further the movement--distibuting it is not its only use. That's a very simplistic approach to money, and the nature of power in general.

Most of the prominent revolutionary theorists have been bourgeois because the wealth they possess allows them to focus their energy whereas someone on the verge of being homeless (and otherwise) must necessarily be concerned primarily with surviving now as opposed to the future.

Whereas Redstar makes do right now with 12,000 a year, if he were to have 60,000 a year he could concern himself even more with revolution (if that's possible :D); furthermore, he'd have access to greater resources to use for that purpose.. a printing press, for example. Although I would imagine that with a certain amount of wealth accumulated one should be concerned with making it a collective/democratic effort, it's foolish to automatically presume that the wealth should be disippated as soon as it appears if it's a "real" communist.

Another example: would the movement be better served by Malte giving us each equal amounts of the money he spends to keep revleft running, or is it better served with him using the money to keep revleft up?

It's not a simple matter, as many here seem to think.

MKS

8th May 2005, 06:37

a person cannot be rich and be communist, its a contradiction.
Burgoise, the oppression and at the least complacency of the oppressor.
If you have wealth share it, no one should be rich ever.

no one should have more than another.

Arm the homeless
Destory the aristocracy
re-distribute the wealth

encephalon

8th May 2005, 06:43

a person cannot be rich and be communist, its a contradiction.
Burgoise, the oppression and at the least complacency of the oppressor.
If you have wealth share it, no one should be rich ever.

You've access to the internet and a computer; by world standards, that makes you a king. You are not a communist?

MKS

8th May 2005, 06:52

You've access to the internet and a computer; by world standards, that makes you a king. You are not a communist?

i never claimed to be. I do claim a belief in the idealogies of Socialism, but I am not by any means wealthy. Through back breaking labour and 50+ hrs of work I am able to hold such technology. Am I wealthy? Not at all. I despise the wealthy and when im not working for surivial I work for the poor and unnderdeveloped nations of this world.

encephalon

8th May 2005, 06:59

but you are wealthy. If you can afford to buy a computer, in comparison to the majority of the world--income averaging of $3.00 a day--you are well beyond being called "moderately well off."

By working for survival, do you mean buying the computer you're using now? Because the hundreds of dollars you spent on it is 6 months worth of wages for someone else. Tell them you aren't rich. They'll either laugh or stab you.

So unless you go sell your computer and distribute the money tomorrow, don't talk about not being rich. If you claim that everyone should distribute their wealth regardless of what it would accomplish right this instant, then practice it.

MKS

8th May 2005, 07:04

I didnt buy my computer, I live on my fathers couch (soon to be homeless) and use his computer. I just got laid off, and the little money I do have goes to food and half rent I have to pay my father to live.

All of my disposable income goes to the New Haven homless advocacy and other foundations.

I guess I am allowed a luxury most do not have, but I am by no means well off. I work to live. If I stopped working I would be homeless.

I re-distribute my "wealth", I am not a hypocrite.

encephalon

8th May 2005, 07:12

I didnt buy my computer, I live on my fathers couch (soon to be homeless) and use his computer. I just got laid off, and the little money I do have goes to food and half rent I have to pay my father to live.

I guess I am allowed a luxury most do not have, but I am by no means well off. I work to live. If I stopped working I would be homeless.

If any of us stopped working, we'd be homeless. That's part of what is wrong with capitalism. That does not change the fact that the revleft forum does more for people in the long-run than distributing the money invested in it would do, even in the short-run. It's not that simple. Just with a personal example alone, before I ran into this forum I was almost afraid that I might be the last communist left in the US. That might not mean much at first, but consider what effect that has to the communist movement overall. Isolation is our greatest enemy. I'm confident that others have felt the same way before.

Do you seriously think that the money used to keep revleft up would be better used to buy food for a few days when distributed?

MKS

9th May 2005, 00:12

Do you seriously think that the money used to keep revleft up would be better used to buy food for a few days when distributed?

Depends how much it is. Im not aware of the financial status of revleft, however if you are asking if feeding people is more important than disscussion of theory and idealogy, I would say it is defintely more important. RevLeft is important, but at some point the words must become actions.

I was commenting on rich individuals, who by definition cannot be communists, unless they hold it only as some "fashion" or style.

Rich people are exactly what communists should be fighting against. The aristocracy, and materialism that plaques mankind.

If any of us stopped working, we'd be homeless.

Living in Connecticut, USA (one of the richest states in US) I know plenty of people who could stop "working" and live very comfortable lives.

Elect Marx

9th May 2005, 02:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:12 PM
however if you are asking if feeding people is more important than disscussion of theory and idealogy, I would say it is defintely more important. RevLeft is important, but at some point the words must become actions.
Materially yes but are you familiar with this Chinese proverb?

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

This is my take on the issues; certainly feeding people is important but we must balance it with promoting political awareness. If we only ever feed people and no one opposes the social structure of capitalism, people will always starve, you will die and then no maintainable progress will be made. Teaching people to struggle against tyranny is overall MORE important in terms of keeping people alive and obviously we should take the best chances to aid people's need but that does not directly solve the systemic problems, though it really can help.

jagjkdfblfjasl;gj

9th May 2005, 02:51

The rich "communists" are those assholes who decide to hang around on these boards and fantasize about the utopia they wanna live in, but when they grow up decide to get a job and move on with their lives, conquering the people they claimed to support and stabbing them in the backs.

MKS

9th May 2005, 03:02

This is my take on the issues; certainly feeding people is important but we must balance it with promoting political awareness.

Actions speak louder than words, helping those who need help, showing them the true liberty of socialism, is how revolutions are made. Theory, disscussion and education are great, but we must not forget those who suffer, we must not become dogmatic idealogues. we must strive to maintain justice and hope to those who suffer. Feeding the starving, housing the homeless, and speaking out for the oppressed are actions that must be taken.

Poor people care little of politics and are more apt to be concered with the basics of surival.

redstar2000

9th May 2005, 04:03

Originally posted by MKS
Actions speak louder than words, helping those who need help, showing them the true liberty of socialism, is how revolutions are made.

Actions do indeed "speak louder than words".

The actions you describe, however, are not revolutionary...they are charitable.

Big difference.

Feeding the starving, housing the homeless, and speaking out for the oppressed are actions that must be taken.

Except for the third item on your list...that's charity, not revolutionary politics.

Poor people care little of politics and are more apt to be concerned with the basics of survival.

A valid observation...but that is an obstacle to their liberation that they must overcome. As long as they "don't care" about politics, they will stay in the shit.

Our job as revolutionaries is to help them overcome that obstacle.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

MKS

9th May 2005, 04:32

The actions you describe, however, are not revolutionary...they are charitable

Than let it be charity that acts as a bridge to revolution. When we act for the common good isnt that revolutionary, putting aside our own intrests to aide our fellow man. Arent mutual aid and community key pillars in communist ideology (sp)

If the charity is not a shallow endevour (sp) used to quell the pangs of burgoise guilt, than why is it bad, if it is done with a true concern for the weel being of others.

A valid observation...but that is an obstacle to their liberation that they must overcome. As long as they "don't care" about politics, they will stay in the shit.

If I have a family to feed, house and clothe what is left of my time would not be used to study socio-economic theory. If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances.

Through our acts of charity, let the oppressed see true liberation, and realization in the good of man, and the inalieable bonds that we all share.

encephalon

9th May 2005, 05:42

we need charity. we also need organized resistance, cooperation, infrastructure, and yes, we need theory. Without all of those, there is no movement. We cannot throw all of our efforts/funds into charity at the expense of all else and expect something to happen without our concentrated effort; if we do that, oppression will always exist, and people will always starve. Your argument is severely myopic.

MKS

9th May 2005, 05:55

encephalon

9th May 2005, 07:40

I disagree, my argument seems balanced, I simply do not want people to suffer for the pursuits of what seems to be dogmatisim (sp), there needs to be a balance, however actions, which some may call charity, are nessecary to illustrate the principles of socialism/communism. How is a communist society supposed to survive without the baisc knowledge of community and sacrafice, one could recite Marx until he is blue in the face, but what reflects better, is the writings of Marx and others to be put into practice and to enstill in humanity a trust in mankind, a trust that has all but erroded to the corrosive (sp) poison of capitalism.

By labeling something charity, you imply division and class, but by simply calling it sharing you imply one of the basic tenants of communism.

Nobody (to my knowledge) is stating that sharing is bad. I would expect that all of us rather agree that it is a good concept.

Nor is anyone quoting marx; in fact, it seems to me that you are being quite dogmatic, stating that anyone with more money than anyone else that doesn't distribute it evenly amongs the masses is not a communist. You seem unbending in your assertion, and you claim that absolutely everything else but what you call "sharing" is unimprtant. This is false.

Without theory, there is no communism.

Without theory, there is no socialism.

Without theory, there is no science.

Without theory, there is no science. No knowledge. In fact, without theory, humanity as a whole would not have been able to change its environment to feed the number of people that aren't starving. Nor without theory are those people that are starving now ever going to be released from their shackles.

Without theory, revolution does not occur. It is not a random manfestation. Revolution is fed by reason and will. Reason and will, furthermore, are based solely in theory. Without hobbes' theoretical work, for instance, much of what capitalist theory is based upon (property) would not exist, and (unless someone else theorized) thus no capitalist revoilution would have occured.

In the same line, without Marx's theoretical work, the very principles of communism (and a bulk of scientific socialism, period) would not exist. So then the question arises: was it better for Engels to give money to Marx to work on his theories as he did, or should he have instead used that money and distributed it among the poor?

Had Engels chosen the second option, he may have in fact improved the lot of a few poor families in England for a year or two. However, funding Marx's theoretical work started the movement that insists on complete liberation and care of all people. You cannot deny that we would be far less ahead than we are now if it weren't for Marx's work. Or perhaps you can, but I would sincerely disagree.

The truth is, you can split up $10,000 among 100 poor families and they'd each have food for a mere month.. and then the money is gone. Alternatively, you can use that money to work towards the final goal: all people liberated, all people fed, all people cared for. You could use it to to distribute flyers, fund revolutionary activity, or provide a place where communists (and leftists in general) aren't so isolated that they give up, leading to a greater and more effective movement permanently.

I'm all for sharing. I do not think, however, that it's good practice to forsake all other matters for it. You don't foment revolution by feeding people for a month, especially when you have to trade something for it that aids the movement as a whole.

The most important task is the final goal: communism. Without theory, literature, education, resources and labor that simply will not happen.

Money, as much as we all hate it, is a limited resource to us; we live under capitalism, and we are subject to it. Without money, we cannot safely spread material or found institutions, both of which are absolutely necessary to spread revolution and ensure the continuance of the movement without a long period of absence from the world. We simply cannot offord to forsake those things any social or political movement requires to survive in order to feed people for a few months.

We should indeed do what we can to help those poorer than ourselves, but we have to keep the goal in mind, and how to achieve it. Trust me, if it were as easy as simply feeding people, we'd have had socialism a very long time ago.

That is why I call your argument myopic: you are not focusing on the goal, but rather the here=and-now; you focus on simply sustaining people now without considering what it takes to guarantee sustenance for all in the future.

Elect Marx

9th May 2005, 10:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:32 PM
If I have a family to feed, house and clothe what is left of my time would not be used to study socio-economic theory. If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances.
This is the problematic concept of "inevitable revolution" or "revolutionary destiny"
People will not "inevitably" see the "good of man" in a predatory capitalist society.

Certainly human society has a natural progressive tendency but don't forget the ruling class holds the means of production and indirectly much "loyalty" in the working class.
There is no assurance that "study and examination of political circumstances," will occur, in fact we have quite the opposite as evidence. When indoctrinated people in a predatory environment are able to survive with less struggle, they often hoard and they obsess on conserving their gains; as such money can change people.

So you may be causing an EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM if you do not focus on the need to resist systematic exploitation.

By doing this you would have done nothing but allow them to survive, only to exploit and be exploited; aiding them and thereby hurting others (no progress).
This is why we must attack the predatory mindset and develop political awareness in the workers or we have achieved NOTHING permanent.

Obviously we can relate on the need for "bread and land" but this wont solve the workers' problems; to solve them we must unite against the forces that oppress the workers.

Through our acts of charity, let the oppressed see true liberation, and realization in the good of man, and the inalieable bonds that we all share.

This is utopian socialism; the idea that the benevolence of those in a higher position or with better resources will aid the suffering. These bonds aren't made by magic but by understanding and that understanding is more important than material need.
You can give a sandwich to some poor guy on the street and he might think you are a "nice guy" but does he will "see true liberation?"

This is why we need political awareness and not just subsistence.
If you teach a man to fight tyranny, he might save many people and if you supply him with necessities, he might live another week, possibly hurting other people.
This is why both are best and knowledge is MOST important of the two.

MKS

9th May 2005, 16:09

If I have a family to feed, house and clothe what is left of my time would not be used to study socio-economic theory. If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances.

i think what many fail to see in my arguement is the stress for the need for balance, of both "charity" and theory. I am taking a practical look, how is a poor
worker supposed to make time to study theory? Why would they?

The truth is, you can split up $10,000 among 100 poor families and they'd each have food for a mere month.. and then the money is gone. Alternatively, you can use that money to work towards the final goal: all people liberated, all people fed, all people cared for. You could use it to to distribute flyers, fund revolutionary activity, or provide a place where communists (and leftists in general) aren't so isolated that they give up, leading to a greater and more effective movement permanently

Ill take Bill Gates, throw him in prison and re-distribute his billions, that would solve alot of problems for alot of people. True Gates does not claim to be a communist, but I am illustrating my point for the destrctution of the rich.

No moral man, communist or not, can hold wealth. To have so much while others have so little is a crime.

My argument against rich communists, is dervied from the understanding that rich people can never be truly invested in the cause, if the hold such wealth they are oppressors, directly or indirectly.

This is utopian socialism; the idea that the benevolence of those in a higher position or with better resources will aid the suffering. These bonds aren't made by magic but by understanding and that understanding is more important than material need.
You can give a sandwich to some poor guy on the street and he might think you are a "nice guy" but does he will "see true liberation

I never argued for spontaneous charity, a re-distibution of wealth is needed a continual sharing. For example if I make $100,000/year, and I can survive on $30,000+ the rest should go to the poor, for substantial improvements. The more you make, the more you give.

Are my ideas utopian? I guess you could argue that. But I would argue that the inability of man to hold such ideals and act on them is why socialism and communism have never been successful. Mans lack of compassion and true understanding of the word community.

Men must change before systems do.

Anarchist Freedom

9th May 2005, 16:20

So you would have to essentially disagree with communism if you hate the rich. Engels was rich if I remember correctly.

We shouldnt look at a persons money so much as there willingness to help the spread of marxism. What if I run a factory as a worker collective? we are all equal. Am I not a communist because I make more capital then my workers? yes I am still a communist. Its on the basis of wheather or not your agree with the ideology of marxism. I would think if I was rich I would use my money to do something for the cause. But im not going to redistribute every little penny of my rich's.

Anarchist Freedom

9th May 2005, 16:21

Also I would like to hear disgustipated thoughts on this. As he is a buisness owner.

MKS

9th May 2005, 17:50

What if I run a factory as a worker collective?

What if? Conjecture and hypothesis do nothing for the poor and oppressed. We must deal in reality, in the present day situation.

encephalon

9th May 2005, 18:51

What if? Conjecture and hypothesis do nothing for the poor and oppressed. We must deal in reality, in the present day situation.

Yes, we must deal with reality. The reality is: if we use every spare penny to assist those in need, sustenance-wise and solely in the present, forsaking the rest, we have no movement for actual liberation. We then have charity work, and that is all.

MKS

9th May 2005, 19:46

Yes, we must deal with reality. The reality is: if we use every spare penny to assist those in need, sustenance-wise and solely in the present, forsaking the rest, we have no movement for actual liberation. We then have charity work, and that is all.

I have never argued for all out charity, if you read my past arguments I have called for a balance of "charity" and education.

However if you used every spare penny for the betterment of people would that be a worthy cause, it no longer becomes charity but a genuine beginning to the construtction of a classless society. The generation that is helped today will help the next, and so on. Until the ideals of sharing and community and of communism are more than words on paper, but tangible realities.

My main concern, in regards to rich communists, is that they do not share in the reality of the oppressed, the only basis they have for intrest and study into social evolution or change is from pure idealism or sometimes boredom. These people should not be considered part of the struggle, thier wealth alone negates any idealism, if they are willing to live so well while others starve and are homeless.

I make the same comparisons to rich Christians and other religous types, who with one side of their mouth preach sacrafice and duty for the good of all mankind, while at the same time they robe themselves in silk, and stand upon golden altars.

At some point the pens must be put down and the work must begin, I see no harm in trying to create a better man, abetter community, through sharing and re-distrubution of individual wealth, it should be the bedrock of lasting revolution.

Elect Marx

9th May 2005, 21:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:46 PM

Yes, we must deal with reality. The reality is: if we use every spare penny to assist those in need, sustenance-wise and solely in the present, forsaking the rest, we have no movement for actual liberation. We then have charity work, and that is all.

I have never argued for all out charity, if you read my past arguments I have called for a balance of "charity" and education.
This is just not true; you are not calling for a balance at all, you are calling for good deeds to bring about revolutionary conditions and as I said in my previous post that you hardly addressed, good intentions DO NOT BRING ABOUT FUNDEMENTAL SOCIAL CHANGE, you are a utopian socialist "living with your head in the clouds."
We need a political movement not charity; the workers imply CANNOT feed themselves with the rulers taking all the distribution of wealth, it is simple math and your idea of charity comes to a conflict where the workers will not risk themselves to MAYBE save others. Your idea of charity or even mostly charity, IS ABSOLUTELY FUTILE without a movement.

Food stamps will not sustain the workers, redistribution will do NOTHING. The wealthy class CANNOT be touched by your CHARITY because they live behind high wall with guards. If you succeed in making the wealth level across the workers, you have only HELPED the rulers but doing their will, as they have a primed workforce, that is STILL DESPERATED and STILL WILL to DO THEIR BIDDING.

We must supply the workers if at all possible but our primary goal is to arm them with ideas for the progress of the workers, not for their temporary slight improvement in living conditions. This may be leftism but negating the radical change needed makes it UTOPIAN SOCIALISM and not communist or anarchist because aiding the workers materially will NEVER directly change the fundamental class structure and if we cannot do that, we have NO MAINTAINABLE PROGRESS.

However if you used every spare penny for the betterment of people would that be a worthy cause, it no longer becomes charity but a genuine beginning to the construtction of a classless society. The generation that is helped today will help the next, and so on. Until the ideals of sharing and community and of communism are more than words on paper, but tangible realities.

At some point the pens must be put down and the work must begin, I see no harm in trying to create a better man, abetter community, through sharing and re-distrubution of individual wealth, it should be the bedrock of lasting revolution.

My main concern, in regards to rich communists, is that they do not share in the reality of the oppressed, the only basis they have for intrest and study into social evolution or change is from pure idealism or sometimes boredom. These people should not be considered part of the struggle, thier wealth alone negates any idealism, if they are willing to live so well while others starve and are homeless.

I make the same comparisons to rich Christians and other religous types, who with one side of their mouth preach sacrafice and duty for the good of all mankind, while at the same time they robe themselves in silk, and stand upon golden altars.

Your "us and them" thought structure is disturbing and just the “black and white” thinking encouraged by ruling class propaganda. Wealthy "communists" or simply the disgruntled non-conservative ruling class members may very well also be utopian socialists that want a society with more social justice but cannot reconcile it with their status. These people are not necessarily allies of our movement but they do a GREAT AMOUNT OF SERVICE FOR US :o Yes, they do; they destabilize the ruling class and use their resources to push for change. The conflict generally lessens the power/authority of the ruling class and helps bring about conditions for social change.

These disgruntled rulers are our “in” and unlike others, I really do not see a problem with accepting donations or whatever; so long as they do not change your communist policy and so becoming “rich” doesn’t equal “bad.” This black and white world view could be the end of our entire movement.
I would not hoard wealth but bourgeois do this because they are afraid like capitalists in general (as they should be). If a “rich communist“ wants to pitch in, I don’t really care so long as it is still on our terms, we all (leftists) have equal claim to our movement and if ANYONE wants to help, that is great so long as they are not trying to subvert us.

I am not saying pander to the rich (because that is utopian), I am saying your lower class: good, high class: bad concept is an unjustifiable generalization. This is not about “good and bad,” it is about creating a classless society.

MKS

9th May 2005, 23:25

Can't political change and "charity" go hand in hand. I am arguing that without acts of goodwill and community the words and ideals communism are hollow and will not last against the perversions of capitalists and imperialists. Lead by example. We cannot assume the workers or oppressed will simply live in a communal life without trying it ourselves.

A rich man cannot be a communist because they are unwilling to give to others, to live like everyone else. To bring themselves to a "lower" class. They maintain and perpetuate the class systems which hold men to the bonds of poverty.

If I have a family to feed, house and clothe what is left of my time would not be used to study socio-economic theory. If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances.

My above argument illisutrates the need for balance and the need for support of the working poor.

I understand your arguement for the nessecity to change the systems, but the systems can be changed from the bottom up as well as the top down.

Communism has never succeeded, due to a flaw, either of man or of the theory. It seems that time and study has been unable to answer this question while the poor and oppressed await liberation.

Elect Marx

10th May 2005, 01:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:25 PM
Can't political change and "charity" go hand in hand.
Not only can they but they should; though "charity" is a rather vague word.
If we are working for social change, people should aid the cause and so we should support each other in that cause by meeting general material needs.

I am arguing that without acts of goodwill and community the words and ideals communism are hollow and will not last against the perversions of capitalists and imperialists.

No, you have not been arguing that at all; otherwise I would just agree. You have said or at least consistently implied that charity will somehow lead to productive social change and while it will in the short term, that is ALL THAT WILL HAPPEN from it.

Lead by example. We cannot assume the workers or oppressed will simply live in a communal life without trying it ourselves.

I agree but promoting political awareness is the most fundamentally important cause.

A rich man cannot be a communist because they are unwilling to give to others, to live like everyone else.

A communist works for the liberation of the workers, for a classless society; that IS a communist. Communists have NEVER lived "like everyone else," and would only do so if everyone was communist.
"Rich" people give donations in different degrees, your point is invalid.

To bring themselves to a "lower" class.

That is assimilation, not communist action.

They maintain and perpetuate the class systems which hold men to the bonds of poverty.

Now you are just blurring the lines; "rich" people are not necessarily in the ruling class.

If I have a family to feed, house and clothe what is left of my time would not be used to study socio-economic theory. If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances.

My above argument illisutrates the need for balance and the need for support of the working poor.

NO IT DOES NOT; it only states the need to support them materially, nothing about political action.

I understand your arguement for the nessecity to change the systems, but the systems can be changed from the bottom up as well as the top down.

I am not so sure you do and I know it can but either way you would be using political means and not just supporting basic human need.

Communism has never succeeded, due to a flaw, either of man or of the theory.

Yes, generally a flaw to structure for the benefit of workers on a decentralized base and to compensate for counter-revolutionary action.

It seems that time and study has been unable to answer this question while the poor and oppressed await liberation.

They are not awaiting anything and feeding them will not change that, they need to understand the political environment and no amount of charity will directly help that.

MKS

10th May 2005, 01:53

We can motivate political change through acts of sharing and re-distribution of wealth. In fact I believe it would prove more affective if we did.

If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances

this quote clearly shows my argument for balance, and the affects of "charitable" acts. Maybe I should have been more clear "If we relieve the stresses put onto the impoverished and oppressed than more time is granted for study and examination of political circumstances" as well as political action, by the very people being oppressed.

No, you have not been arguing that at all; otherwise I would just agree. You have said or at least consistently implied that charity will somehow lead to productive social change and while it will in the short term, that is ALL THAT WILL HAPPEN from it.

I think you're mistaking charity with re-distribution and acts of sharing. Charity to me implies a temporary situation, where as re-distribution/acts of sharing, mutual aide etc are acts of productive social change as they are perpetual. By illustrating communism through acts of communism. (call it community) than you have educated many through tangible realities. Better than preaching the texts of Marx and Engles, Lenin, Trotsky etc.

Build a community that will think and act as such, and the revolution will be stronger.

If a rich man is not willing to give up his wealth now, why should we assume that he would when the revoltuion comes? Rich people by existence can hold the ideals of communism of community, but they do not act as people who are intrested in the common good of men.

Now you are just blurring the lines; "rich" people are not necessarily in the ruling class

What are they then? They are people who exploit the system and the workers for maximum gain, without any thought but self preservation and gain.

Sabocat

10th May 2005, 18:17

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 9 2005, 11:21 AM
Also I would like to hear disgustipated thoughts on this. As he is a buisness owner.
Technically, it was a partnership and I have since left it.

I fail to see how that is relevant to the conversation with regards to "rich communists".

To my thinking, there will be no rich communists. Even those in the collectivized factories etc. that act as a sort of executor should ever be paid more than a skilled laborer and should be able to be recalled from that position at any time by the workers.

I would think that after the revolution if there are "rich communists" we would have failed.

Again.

We shouldnt look at a persons money so much as there willingness to help the spread of marxism. What if I run a factory as a worker collective? we are all equal. [b]Am I not a communist because I make more capital then my workers? yes I am still a communist. Its on the basis of wheather or not your agree with the ideology of marxism. I would think if I was rich I would use my money to do something for the cause. But im not going to redistribute every little penny of my rich's.

Just a quick question.

Are you insane?