Wealthy Socialists

[Viva Fidel]

Isn't this an oxy moron?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as far from capitalism as anyone else but I don't like the idea of all these socialists leaders past and present having so much money to themselves

I've heard Ortega (Sandinistas), Fidel, Chavez, etc. all of them had/have so much money. I still support them wether or not this is true but if it is why don't they use/used it for their countries?

[bolshevik butcher]

No. It's principle that drives them. They hate capitalist opression. So it isnt relaly an oximoron, but i see where your coming from.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

There is a branch of Socialism (not officially) effectionately (or not) called "Champagne Socialism". Basically some believe you can still have socialist values and be wealthy if you have attained the correct financial rewards from the state for your work. I don't see a problem with wealth so long as it is earnt properly.

Plus, how do you dictate how much money people can save if they have earned it and they don't want to spend it?

[ComradeBrad]

Although it is and always has been a major problem, one must realise that absolute power does not necessarily corrupt absolutely. For example, after the cuban revlution, Guevara did not accept an increase in pay and kept his current revolutionary's pay.
Plus, how do you dictate how much money people can save if they have earned it and they don't want to spend it? that's an excellent comment Socialismo o Muerte, I have never thought of that before. If one does earn money and save/invest properly, then one could become rich, but that kinda ties into capitalism again, interesting thought though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If someone comes from a wealthy background but is commited to working class movements and struggle, I could care less. Pleanty of working-class people take on ruling class attitudes or act in ways that is benificial for the ruling class and detrimental to the working class (cops, strikebreakers, and so on). So-called class-traitorism goes both ways and people from upper classes arn't inherently blind to seeing how messed up the prioreties of this society are.

I do expect rich socialists to give me rides to the protests though.

[Amusing Scrotum]

There is a branch of Socialism (not officially) effectionately (or not) called "Champagne Socialism".

In my neck of the woods they're called "Parlour Pinks".

Also you can't blame an individual because the market values their labour more than someone else's.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Parlous Pinks? Interesting.


Also you can't blame an individual because the market values their labour more than someone else's.

Exactly. But if the market valued people's job correctly in relation to their value to the state and the people, I see no problem in people being wealthier than others.

[RedStarOverChina]

To name a few wealthy socialists:
Karl Marx
Friedrich Engels
Michael Bakunin
V. Lenin
Mao Zedong
Chou Enlai
Che Guevara

[Hefer]

As long as our intellectuals; Doctors, Teachers, Sciences etc. should get better pay instead of some movie-star or sports-star. Who will contribute more to society and the nation; don't get me wrong it's entertainment. But thats all it is.........

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

This is exactly my point. If money hadn't the power to corrupt man, then it would be no problem. Which is why I get confused with communists saying how money is so evil. It is those who hands it is in that need altering.

[h&s]

There is nothing immediately wrong in some people being wealthier than others - so long as money exists it is always going to happen, and is completely natural. However as socialists it is completely hypocritical to take a very high wage. For socialists it is hypoctitical to say to fight for the workers to get certain wages, but then take a much higher wage. Its just saying that their lifestyle is not good enough for you.

[Colombia]

But if it costs the workers no expense, what harm is there to take a higher wage because your labor is more sought out?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:07 PM
If someone comes from a wealthy background but is commited to working class movements and struggle, I could care less. Pleanty of working-class people take on ruling class attitudes or act in ways that is benificial for the ruling class and detrimental to the working class (cops, strikebreakers, and so on). So-called class-traitorism goes both ways and people from upper classes arn't inherently blind to seeing how messed up the prioreties of this society are.

I do expect rich socialists to give me rides to the protests though.
Quoted for truth :ph34r:

[Marat]

Look at Matt Damon, the actor. He recently bought a $10 million mansion in Miami Beach and he claims to be a leftist. He's buddy buddy with Howard Zinn and he even mentions Zinn and Noam Chomsky in his movie Good Will Hunting. Who will clean his mansion? How much will these socialist's servants be paid?


Lenin was not rich. He lived in austerity. His father had a good job but he could hardly be called wealthy. Marx lived in poverty nearly all his life while Engels' family was wealthy though. Che Guevara's family started off well but they could hardly be called wealthy. They were probably what you call upper-middle class at their peak. Castro's family was rich, they had land. But Castro seized his family's land during the agrarian reform. His mother never forgave him for seizing his father's land and dividing it up.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Look at Matt Damon, the actor. He recently bought a $10 million mansion in Miami Beach and he claims to be a leftist. He's buddy buddy with Howard Zinn and he even mentions Zinn and Noam Chomsky in his movie Good Will Hunting. Who will clean his mansion? How much will these socialist's servants be paid?


That by default puts Damon in the position of exploiter, unless of course the cleaners works as a co-operative.

This therefore presents a dilemma, can Damon be an authentic leftist? Probably not. Don't expect him to be there picking up a gun and fighting in the revolution. This though shouldn't stop the left from using Damon to help the cause, so to speak. If Matt Damon fans become interested in leftist politics because of Damon, do we really have a right to look down on this contribution.

Plus if Damon was to use his own personal fortune to enhance the causes of the left, the left should happily accept this donation so long as Damon expects nothing in return.

[Free Palestine]

Condemning leftists for their wealth is about as absurd a thought as criticizing Noam Chomsky because his books are sold in corporate book stores. Such is the dichotomy of being a socialist in a capitalist world. I think the left must abandon this anti-money making attitude. May I remind you that we live in a fucking capitalist society? Making money is a good political strategy. I'd rather have concentrated wealth in the hands of a supposed leftist than a Zionist, capitalist Neo-Con. We need some allies in the corridors of power. The left already has thousands of Zinns and Chomsky's but no Rupert Murdochs. We need some Diebolds, Cheneys, and Bushs. Some Fox News'. I don't mean reactionary pricks, but people with strong convictions who actually have the means to put their ideas into practical action and who are willing to fight dirty. Serving tofu in an abandoned squat to lifestyle Anarchists isn't pragmatic nor constructive. Take your elitist DIY bullshit and shove it.

[JC1]

To name a few wealthy socialists:
Karl Marx
Friedrich Engels
Michael Bakunin
V. Lenin
Mao Zedong
Chou Enlai
Che Guevara

After Marx left university, he was pretty poor. His children starved for god's sakes ! Engel's father owned a factory, but Engel's himself never was an industrialist and he ended up in poverty after sellin' his father's furniture factory.
Lenin was too lived in the ghetto's after his law practice ended. All those guy's emerged from the petit-bourgoise, but when they hit the street's there counsince changed accordingly.

[JC1]

Condemning leftists for their wealth is about as absurd a thought as criticizing Noam Chomsky because his books are sold in corporate book stores. Such is the dichotomy of being a socialist in a capitalist world. I think the left must abandon this anti-money making attitude. May I remind you that we live in a fucking capitalist society? Making money is a good political strategy. I'd rather have concentrated wealth in the hands of a supposed leftist than a Zionist, capitalist Neo-Con. We need some allies in the corridors of power. The left already has thousands of Zinns and Chomsky's but no Rupert Murdochs. We need some Diebolds, Cheneys, and Bushs. Some Fox News'. I don't mean reactionary pricks, but people with strong convictions who actually have the means to put their ideas into practical action and who are willing to fight dirty. Serving tofu in an abandoned squat to lifestyle Anarchists isn't pragmatic nor constructive. Take your elitist DIY bullshit and shove it.

Qouted for idiocy.

Most of the "Champagne Socialist's" are not genuine socialist's. We will never have "Murdoch's, Cheney's or Bush's" becuase being determines counsince.

[Free Palestine]

Idiocy? That's nice. But usually when you make such a claim you accompany it with a structured rebuttal of why it's idiotic. Of course, this is something only intelligent people do. In that case, I'll have to acquit you.

[JC1]

Theres not much to critisize.



I'd rather have concentrated wealth in the hands of a supposed leftist than a Zionist, capitalist Neo-Con.

Ya ? Well guess what, the reason some one becomes a neo-con ! Cuz they want to protect there class interest's ! Don't expect people to go against there class interest's.

[Red Leader]

I think that being a 'socialist' was more or less a 'fashionable' thing to do for the wealthy back in the day.

( Has anyone seen the movie The Aviator? There is a scene where the guy is having dinner with his rich girlfriends parents, who claimed to be 'socialists'. I thought it was pretty interesting).

It gave the illusion of being "good and charitable" while they still wern't actually following the ways of socialism.

My best friend and I were talking with his mom, who pointed out that her brother is extremely wealthy, but is also communist to the bone, but all the while none of the poor see any of that money.

I agree with h&s's statement that as long as ther is money, there will be rich, and i think that if you have money to begin with , even though you think you are a socialist, it is very hard to give up that money, which society holds as such great value.

[Free Palestine]

Theres not much to critisize.


I'd rather have concentrated wealth in the hands of a supposed leftist than a Zionist, capitalist Neo-Con.

Ya ? Well guess what, the reason some one becomes a neo-con ! Cuz they want to protect there class interest's ! Don't expect people to go against there class interest's.


There's not much to criticize? Then you are saying you agree with me now? You don't seem make much sense. Not just when you tell me "there isn't much to criticize" (i.e. you agree with me) after earlier calling it idiotic. You also quoted a part of my post and then followed it with a statement that doesn't contradict anything I've said.

[TC]

Yeah but there are also people who genuinely had upper class backgrounds who rejected their natural class interests for their concious and theres nothing wrong with that you know. There is also nothing wrong with acknowleging the reality of the current economic situation where you live and living accordingly.

But at the same time i think socialists who have more access to expendible income, mobility, time off from work, access to places where actual working class people couldn't get, ect. have a certain obligation to use those advantages for the benefit of the class they've chosen to side with. For instance in the 1960s leftist movements, the white affluent marxists decided to be more aggressive because they figured (accurately) that their black comrades would be killed for doing the same whereas they could get away with it. Jane Fonda could afford to go to Hanoi, the Weather Underground could afford to maintain themselves underground and then afford the lawyers needed to beat the state in the courts, Jean Luc Godard and Jean Seberg could tell the media how great they thought the RAF and Black Panthers were without getting thrown in jail, John Kerry (scum as he is) had the connections needed to testify to congress, Jean Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell had the credibility and authority to condemn the Americans without being ignored, ect. Obviously if these people were working at mcdonalds in their black ghetto, they wouldn't have been able to do any of those things.

[JC1]

"there isn't much to criticize" (i.e. you agree with me)

Theres not much to critisize as in, youre statement dosent hold much water. Do you understand ?

[Gianandrea]

Those who are claiming that differences in wealth are acceptable are missing the point of marxism and communism completely. It is quite obvious that you cannot truly believe in differences in wealth and still believe in full equality, because as soon as there is a difference in wealth for one, there is a different in situation for many. Finally nothing is truly gained fairly, whether its the owners fault or not, the truth still lies that all property was initially gained through force and exploitation. To understand this fully please read Rousseau's 'a discourse on equality'

[JKP]

On a similar note, my friend's father owns a small business, and he's pretty left leaning. He even spoke against Bush's tax cuts. Marx mentioned this several times, that while elements of the bourgeoisie may support the workers struggle, they should never be considered part of the working class itself.

[Free Palestine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:39 AM

"there isn't much to criticize" (i.e. you agree with me)

Theres not much to critisize as in, youre statement dosent hold much water. Do you understand ?
No. That makes no sense whatsoever. There's not much to critique, yet my argument is flawed? If my argument "doesn't hold water," you should be able to write about why this is so. Seriously, are you an idiot? Provide a structured rebuff of why it doesn't hold any water or don't post.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:07 PM
On a similar note, my friend's father owns a small business, and he's pretty left leaning. He even spoke against Bush's tax cuts. Marx mentioned this several times, that while elements of the bourgeoisie may support the workers struggle, they should never be considered part of the working class itself.
Excellent point, the most important of this kind of discussion. Rich people, members of the ruling class or bourgeoisie are not the kind of 'leftists' or 'socialists' or 'communists' that are to be trusted. Being wealthy means they have a vested interest in maintaining capitalism, they own property or a share in it- they have or will inherit money from their parents/family- they can live comfortably and largely without toil their entire lives. If they're expressing leftist or communist beliefs they need to be considered carefully- it's very easy from a person with a wealthy background to 'drift' back into a neutral or pro-capitalist position, because they don't see, feel, or experience capitalist exploitation. It's very easy for a bourgeois communist to lose any kind of working class consciousness, precisely because they're not faced with any daily struggle- because they're capitalists.
Diametrically opposed to this is of course working class peoples, a class conscious worker who does not manage to scrape themselves up to the ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie- is a lot less likely to lose their 'consciousness' over time.

As far 'wealthy socialists', otherwise known as sparkling socialists (you can't say champagne any more!)- i think it's very possible for such people to exist and be legit- because 'socialism' in the modern sense, means state capitalism, or even a partially mixed economy, it's not an anti-capitalist philosophy in essence or in practice.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:45 PM
To name a few wealthy socialists:
Karl Marx
Friedrich Engels
Michael Bakunin
V. Lenin
Mao Zedong
Chou Enlai
Che Guevara
Karl Marx came from a wealthy family, however he spent much time of his life in exile and dedicated himself to study capitalism and to depelop a political theory for working class emancipation that later he find himself into poverty.

Engels was indeed the son of a wealthy industry owner, and thanks to him Marx was able to survive, to feed his family and to dedicate to write The Capital.

Guevara was born in a middle-class family in argentina, however that's not enough to say he was wealthy.

Chavez was born a poor peasant, and despite his studies at the military academy and years as president, he still keeps his popular style. The oligarchy in venezuela hates him also because of this, and of course, they make lies about Chavez supposed fortune (same ones that the anti-castrist raise about castro)to make him seem ilegitimate before the people who support him.

anyway, I think they question is not if u r wealthy, but rather if you own the means of production...

[I Watch The Watchers]

I would think that ideally there should be no major differences in wealth in a post-revolutionary economy.

Money represent power and influence in social circles. Even on a small scale the person who can by a friend a few drinks or can role a few joints for everyone is held in higher standing even among many lefties. I think money can be just as harmful in intra-class relations as in between classes. If nothing else it sucks to look at someone and say "I can't afford what they have."

What we'll need after the revolution is music, art, and theatre that every one will have equal access to both enjoying and creating. This will do away with the elitism of being able to see the best shows and the elitism of being rich and famous.

But that's all after a major political and economic shift. For the hear and now I think leftists can have wealth as long as they don't use it to create or contribute to exploitive situations. If they do they're not really leftists, at least not yet.

[metalero]

What we'll need after the revolution is music, art, and theatre that every one will have equal access to both enjoying and creating. This will do away with the elitism of being able to see the best shows and the elitism of being rich and famous.

But that's all after a major political and economic shift.

You just have described Cuba. ;)

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:06 AM
As long as our intellectuals; Doctors, Teachers, Sciences etc. should get better pay instead of some movie-star or sports-star. Who will contribute more to society and the nation; don't get me wrong it's entertainment. But thats all it is.........
So so right, you summed it up perfectly bro

Its alright if u live comfortably, but don't push it...
Have the ideals to fight for the well-being of the poor, and you will be rewarded in life

My entire fam is socialist/leftist and we've been poor all our lives, but we know that money can't buy happiness
So all we want is a lil comfort

My reward for liberating the ppl will be to see the doctors, lawyers, and teachers that will spring outta the lower class and indigenous population
That will be my reward