Rich/Communist?

[STN]

Is it possible for someone who is rich to be a communist?
How would guys like Rage Against the Machine and Anti-Flag be communist? Because I dont think they take ALL the money they make, but they got to have a lot.....
Thankyou

[England Expects]

Watch out ... the attack dogs of the "communist league" will savage this post.

[Abood]

How would guys like Rage Against the Machine and Anti-Flag be communist? Anti-Flag aren't communist. They're anarchists.

To answer your question: Yes, of course he/she can. I'm rich and communist and see nothing wrong with that. As long as you know that what the rich people do and support the workers and the poor, it's fine.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Being rich doesn't necessarily disqualify you from communism; especially since many wealthy people are born that way. However, the rich hardly ever know what it is like to need something; whereas the poor struggle day and night to get what they need to survive.

As for Rage Against the Machine and Anti-Flag, I think they're fine. Yes, they probably have much more money than I would. But that could very well be just how Capitalism dealt the cards. They make a lot of money, not because they asked to be richer than others, but because they sell many albums. Could they have been less Capitalist in their ways, yes; they could've remained underground punk/rock bands.


Watch out ... the attack dogs of the "communist league" will savage this post.
:P True.

[Abood]

Could they have been less Capitalist in their ways, yes; they could've remained underground punk/rock bands.Some political bands go mainstream so that more people get their message.


Watch out ... the attack dogs of the "communist league" will savage this post.I kind of understand what the Communist League is saying. Basically, if you're a communist, you shouldn't work in a job that exploits people.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:03 PM
Some political bands go mainstream so that more people get their message.

At the end of it many are left with nothing more than a belief and a message, and whilst this only serves to satisfy excessive material needs/wants then I don't think they are communist. Some could be, and I don't think that those on the fringes are communist as such, although they are sympathisers who can benifit the cause by raising awareness. Not necessarily bad, perhaps even necessary, but far from revolutionary.


I kind of understand what the Communist League is saying. Basically, if you're a communist, you shouldn't work in a job that exploits people.
Of course this is subjective, but we can use our reason to determine this to at least some degree of agreement.

If you meant (I don't think you did) whether or not some one could be rich in communism, then not as such, but it isn't that straightfoward.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:11 PM

How would guys like Rage Against the Machine and Anti-Flag be communist? Anti-Flag aren't communist. They're anarchists.

To answer your question: Yes, of course he/she can. I'm rich and communist and see nothing wrong with that. As long as you know that what the rich people do and support the workers and the poor, it's fine.
Most anarchists are also communist.

On the issue of rich capitalists, I say it depends. Having a wealthy lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean you employee a bunch of wage slaves. Communism doesn't imply that everyone with wealth will become equally poor. Only the extremely wealthy will be negatively affected, in terms of lifestyle, when communism occurs.

There is nothing wrong with being rich and communist (to an extent). I mean, I doubt all communists stop doing everything even slightly capitalist.

[Abood]

At the end of it many are left with nothing more than a belief and a message, and whilst this only serves to satisfy excessive material needs/wants then I don't think they are communist. Some could be, and I don't think that those on the fringes are communist as such, although they are sympathisers who can benifit the cause by raising awareness. Not necessarily bad, perhaps even necessary, but far from revolutionary.Sending a message is one of the things a revolutionary has to do. Otherwise, there won't be enough revolutionaries for a revolution to occur. Personally, I wouldn't want to sell-out to a major record company, but to be a self-employed rocker who makes albums through his own record company - like Bad Religion. However, Anti-Flag music has taught me some things, and I can't deny that.


Of course this is subjective, but we can use our reason to determine this to at least some degree of agreement.I agree. There are many ways of viewing it.


If you meant (I don't think you did) whether or not some one could be rich in communismI most certainly didn't mean that.


Most anarchists are also communist.Anarchists believe that no 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is necessary, whereas communists believe it is essential.


Communism doesn't imply that everyone with wealth will become equally poor.In communism, there will be no money, therefore everyone will be equally equal. ;)


There is nothing wrong with being rich and communist (to an extent). I mean, I doubt all communists stop doing everything even slightly capitalist. There's a big difference between being rich and doing something capitalist. In a capitalist society everyone would need to do capitalist things to live - such as buying necessities.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:54 PM
Sending a message is one of the things a revolutionary has to do. Otherwise, there won't be enough revolutionaries for a revolution to occur. Personally, I wouldn't want to sell-out to a major record company, but to be a self-employed rocker who makes albums through his own record company - like Bad Religion. However, Anti-Flag music has taught me some things, and I can't deny that.

I never denied this, but it isn't the only thing. This alone does not make someone revolutionary. They may be a sympathiser, and arguably have more indirect effect than many real revolutionaries, and they may well be necessary, but they most certainly are not revolutionary. This isn't an insult, it is just a statement of fact.


I most certainly didn't mean that.
I didn't think you did. It wasn't addressed to you ;)

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Apr 24 2006, 11:02 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Apr 24 2006, 11:02 PM)
[email protected] 24 2006, 10:54 PM
Sending a message is one of the things a revolutionary has to do. Otherwise, there won't be enough revolutionaries for a revolution to occur. Personally, I wouldn't want to sell-out to a major record company, but to be a self-employed rocker who makes albums through his own record company - like Bad Religion. However, Anti-Flag music has taught me some things, and I can't deny that.

I never denied this, but it isn't the only thing. This alone does not make someone revolutionary. They may be a sympathiser, and arguably have more indirect effect than many real revolutionaries, and they may well be necessary, but they most certainly are not revolutionary. This isn't an insult, it is just a statement of fact.


I most certainly didn't mean that.
I didn't think you did. It wasn't addressed to you ;) [/b]
Who gets to decide who is and isn't revolutionary?

[Abood]

Who gets to decide who is and isn't revolutionary?
The all might dictionary!

Definition of 'revolutionary':
1 : one engaged in a revolution
2 : an advocate or adherent of revolutionary doctrines

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/)

[Fistful of Steel]

That R.A.T.M. are popular I can stand. In their defence their guitarist stated:
When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart.

I think if someone was Communist and rich, they better be fucking donating to the cause, and feel guilty for making so much money off the backs of the working class.

[FinnMacCool]

I'm a middle class anarchist.

Of course its possible for a rich people to be a communists. The working class are more likely to support communism because it lies within their interests but that doesn't mean rich people cannot feel for the oppressed prole.


Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart.


Noam Chomsky is a very popular writer who has influenced and converted many people to anarchism and socialism.

Why is this?

Because books like this are sold at places like barnes and noble.

The thing is if you want to create any change, your going to have to use the best means at your disposal.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with getting people to consider different ideas.

[Orange Juche]

I have a great desire to have tons of money.

The thing with that, however, is that I would use a gigantic portion of that to support workers movements, human rights, and the environment. I want the money, so I can use it to benefit the environment, and all the oppressed peoples of the world.

I would only keep what I needed to comfortably survive (and for me, comfortable does not require a Porche, a big screen TV, ect. I mean more that I don't live in poverty.)

I think having that mentality, being "rich" would not make me a hypocrite (as a communist.) The hypocrites are the "communists" or "anarchists" whom live lavishly.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:20 PM
Definition of 'revolutionary':
1 : one engaged in a revolution
2 : an advocate or adherent of revolutionary doctrines

Dictionaries aleter. I have no problem with the first definition, or the latter part of the second...although I would suggest that the "or" be changed to an "and."

I advocate things that I would not include myself necessarily a part of, it is when there is a definite involvement that you cease to become a supporter, and start to become an active element.

I support a sports team, or follow a sport, and whilst this is an important aspect that the team should recognise, iot does not make one part of the team itself.

If someone shouting "yay revolution" makes them revolutionary in your oppinion then that is fair enough, but I reserve it as a more spoecific term referring to those that are actually doing something, and not talking about something.

Again, I fully support some of these people, their rolee is invaluable, and it is not an insult that they aren't revolutionary....even if they are pro-revolutionary. I suppose that if you wanted to be a revolutionary to be "cool" this would be a little unsettling, but aside from this why are people bothered about applying a label that implies something beyond the actions of one trying to adopt it?

[Comrade Marcel]

So, if a communist buys a winning lottery ticket all of the sudden she or he is not communist anymore? :lol:

Certainly you wouldn't be proletarian anymore, if you were. You would be petty-bourgeois at the very least.

I really don't care if someone is rich, it's what they do with the money. And I don't mean that you can't have a nice big screen TV, or an 1989 or later Lada cossack 4x4 pimped by Xzibit with hammer and sickles painted on the side, etc etc. ;)

Just keep in mind that these things - which we can admit most of us would have fun with - are what we desire as commodity fetishism, and will only further alienate from the working class, the struggle etc.

Now, if you take that money and use it to become a landlord, or to open up a temp. labour centre, or a sweatshop, etc. then obviously that's not a very communist thing to to! If you are hurting the working people then it's really not communist (of course, one could argue about what things do and don't hurt the workers, for example the question of drug dealing).

Is there some capitalist things that you could do with the money that would keep you on a conscious level and isn't harmful to the working class? I would say so. For example, you could open corperative businesses where everyone shares equally in the surplus. Or non-profit or coop subsidized rent units, communal farm (this is a utopian idea though), maybe a theatre that shows socialist and socially conscious films, a leftist radio station, etc. etc. (and again, I'm sure these things could be argued against).

Then, there is other things you could do, like buy arms for the struggle, buy equipment, pay for press printing, uniforms, etc. etc.

JMO though.

[Body Count]

Being rich right now hardly means anything....

Giving up all your money isn't going to bring about communism anymore then building a new factory and exploiting workers would. Your individual lifestyle is rather moot when you look at it as a movement.

All that needs to be asked of us is if we are willing to GIVE UP our riches when the time comes.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2006, 04:57 PM
maybe a theatre that shows socialist and socially conscious films, a leftist radio station, etc. etc. (and again, I'm sure these things could be argued against).
Those are great ideas! I wish I had something like that around here.

[LoneRed]

you all know my and the CLs position on class, i have views on wealth that isnt attained non-exploitative ways, but have yet to come to a logical conclusion

also, Abood, your banned but you can still post?

[RedAnarchist]

Abood posted in this thread yesterday.

[STN]

ok....
anti flag are not anarchists, they are actually socialists and the bassist i believe is a communist. i personally talked to them and they told me.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:12 PM
ok....
anti flag are not anarchists, they are actually socialists and the bassist i believe is a communist. i personally talked to them and they told me.
If this were true, why would they have a song titled Want an Anarchy? I've always believed them to all be anarchists (anarcho-commies if you want to be picky).
That's cool that you've talked to them, where was that?


Anarchists believe that no 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is necessary, whereas communists believe it is essential.
No, most anarchists are communists. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a Marxist idea, I believe and communism and Marxism are not the same.

[STN]

i talked to them twice, each at both of there shows. not all of there songs are serious. they are sociaists, but agree with communism and democracy.

[which doctor]

They are sellouts. They produce whatever the public will buy.

[LoneRed]

what other communism is there then? utopian socialism? it seems like anarchists, in trying to appeal to communists, just want to use the word so they dont look like crazy anarchists. Marxism is the only valid form of communism

that song captain anarchy, was mocking anarchists, the teenage, just for show anarchists.

[DecemberOfMe]

Ofcourse you can be rich and a communist :P

[OneBrickOneVoice]

In my opinion anyone who embraces communism and advocates the end of capitalism can be a communist. After all, the more help we get, the better.

[which doctor]

As long as this wealthy person realizes that their like will be turned upside down after the revolution.

[Comrada J]

If they are rich and spend all of it on them selves and making more profits then they aren’t communists, it doesn't matter what their self-proclaimed title is.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

I don't really see a tie between the raw amount of money you make your economic class. For example, there are many people who sell their labor, and have tons of surplus value extracted from that labor, who are filthy fucking rich, actors come to mind, sports stars too. A lot of these people eventually buy ownership of companies and what not and become capitalists, but many don't. On the other hand there are a lot of capitalists who own small-to-medium workplaces and are not necessarily what we would call "rich". Overall economic class DOES play a big part in class conflict. If society reaches revolutionary periods, class lines will automatically divide people, because of their experiences and of what is in their raw economic/social interest. With that being said there does exist a small percentage of bourgeois individuals who for whatever reason in life have come to indentify with the working class and will support it, but I suspect it is such a small percentage it does not make much of a difference. Also, people who are born into the proletariat but somehow "climb the ladder" often keep their allegiance to their original class due to their experiences.