What exactly makes a wealthy communist?

[which doctor]

Lately, we have had a few discussions about if a member of the bourgeois or petty-bourgeois is allowed to be a communist. Many of us have come to the conclusion that yes, there can be a wealthy communist.

Many of the posters on this board are students with petty-bourgeois familes. Our being a communist could just be a youthful, idealistic phase.

My question is what exactly makes a wealthy communist? They are not acting in their class interests.

I can see how communists are formed from the working class, they are victims of class antagonism.

To be honest with you I believe that Marx's Class Theory was wrong. People don't act in their class interests, they act in their own personal interests. These personal interests are often the same as their class interests, I can see how Marx got confused.

Anyways, what are your opinions on Marx's Class Theory and what makes a wealthy communist.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 5 2006, 02:52 AM
To be honest with you I believe that Marx's Class Theory was wrong. People don't act in their class interests, they act in their own personal interests. These personal interests are often the same as their class interests, I can see how Marx got confused.
Marx wasn't "confused" at all. He was mostly disinterested in the ideologies and theoretical fascinations of a handful of petty-bourgeoise college brats and more concerned with the big picture consisting of the economic realities faced by the working masses(ie. the industrial proletariat). His theories of class conflict are almost entirely correct.

[anomaly]

I think class interest equals self interest for our purposes. That is, when it is in the class interest of the proletariat to revolt, it should also be in an individual proletarian's self interest to do so.

As far as a wealthy communist goes, I think these people simply feel very strongly about the cause. However, this feeling is just a charitable one, so I think such 'wealthy communists' need to be watched closely. When a revolutionary situation presents itself, we'll see what happens.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:13 AM
As far as a wealthy communist goes, I think these people simply feel very strongly about the cause. However, this feeling is just a charitable one, so I think such 'wealthy communists' need to be watched closely. When a revolutionary situation presents itself, we'll see what happens.
I agree with this sentiment. Sure, you might get a few students or wealthy folks making a lot of noise in support of communism and working class power, but I wonder how many of them would panic if the situation ever were to arise where their trust fund/retirement/tuition/economic "safety-net" could be rendered worthless by a working class revolution.

[KickMcCann]

It presents an interesting dilemma. Let's say you're a communist, and you've reached that conclusion not out of infatuation with "revolution" or che posters, but out of a solid appraisal of political, social, and economic theories and realities. Communism for this person is not a wet dream, but rather a science. As it is understood as a science, we can assume this communist has a solid understanding of economics, both capitalist and non-capitalist, both in theory and in practice.
Now with that in-depth understanding of economics, this person could theoretically successfully engage in bourgoise economics (stocks, trusts, securities) and get rich. On the other side of the coin, the communist could stay loyal to his proletarian identity, take a low paying job and live in poverty, living a morally superior, altruistic, prinicipled (if there is such a thing) life.

Of course in the case of your guilt-tripping, class-conscious, children of the bourgoise, it is most likely a phase, once they realize the privilege of holidays in cancun or the canary islands, driving a nice car, shopping at overly expensive "organic" shops and the like they will tone down their ideology and vote labour or democrat for the rest of their days.

I think there is unconscious social connotation within the left that sees poverty as the ideal, altruistic condition. What's wrong with a communist society where everyone is somewhat well off?

With class and self-interest, it all goes back to class consciousness. The ruling upper classes are most definitely class-conscious, they completely understand that their self-interest relies in their class interest, but this is because they are all educated and raised that way. Most people in the lower classes have a hard time grasping the concept of class interest, especially as it associates with self-interest, they are (I should say we are) more likely to identify with national or religious identities. but this is due in-part to their lack of education in this area, do you think public schools created by the ruling class with teach the underclasses about class consciousness?????? Highly unlikely.

[anomaly]

Well, to be fair, students aren't neccesarily wealthy. So they could certainly agree with the cause along class lines.

[redstar2000]

The actual numbers of "wealthy people" who are attracted to communism are so small that this is really a trivial question.

I doubt that they amount to even 1 in 100,000.

And maybe not even 1 in 1,000,000.

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

[KC]

To be honest with you I believe that Marx's Class Theory was wrong. People don't act in their class interests, they act in their own personal interests. These personal interests are often the same as their class interests, I can see how Marx got confused.

As wet blanket has said, Marx was talking more about the big picture. Marx realized that his theories weren't absolute or concrete, but rather a guide - an observation of trends, perhaps. Saying that Marx thought everyone thinks in their class interests all the time is simply wrong.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:13 AM
The actual numbers of "wealthy people" who are attracted to communism are so small that this is really a trivial question.

I doubt that they amount to even 1 in 100,000.

And maybe not even 1 in 1,000,000.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The true figure is 1 in 899,743. Get your facts right!

[Mujer Libre]

I also think that lots of people think that they're wealthy or "middle class" when they're actually not, they work for a wage and have little autonomy over their work.

That said, lots of ruling class people think they&#39;re "middle class," as I was shocked to find out in a lecture a few weeks ago. The lecturer asked for a show of hands of "who considered themselves middle-class" and nearly everyone raised their hands. It turns out, that from his demographic data, something like 50% of that class are ruling-class. I was horrified, but I guess lots of them are taking it as part of their "public policy-making" courses. Born to rule or something.. <.<

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:13 PM
The actual numbers of "wealthy people" who are attracted to communism are so small that this is really a trivial question.

I doubt that they amount to even 1 in 100,000.

And maybe not even 1 in 1,000,000.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Still, why would a wealthy person be attracted to communism?

Is it out of guilt? or charity? Can they be considered an authentic communist?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+May 6 2006, 02:21 AM--> (Fist of Blood &#064; May 6 2006, 02:21 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 11:13 PM
The actual numbers of "wealthy people" who are attracted to communism are so small that this is really a trivial question.

I doubt that they amount to even 1 in 100,000.

And maybe not even 1 in 1,000,000.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Still, why would a wealthy person be attracted to communism?

Is it out of guilt? or charity? Can they be considered an authentic communist? [/b]
A wealthy person could be attracted to communism because they could have logically thought about the subject, and with certain tendencies in their own human nature considered it the best possible course of action for society. There&#39;s no prerequisite on advocating communism that you must immediately become an ascetic to appreciate the hardships of the proletariat. If however they want to retain wealth and power after communism is in practice... Well they&#39;re generally sell-outs.

[black magick hustla]

this is an interesting topic.

when concentrating in the big picture, it is true that marx&#39;s conception of class conflict is pretty correct. obviously only a small minority of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie will be truly interested in communism. After all, their social status in the hierarchy of the spectacle (molded by their accumulation of capital), and the abundance of commodities they hold would be smashed by a true communist revolution.


however those who speak about "charity" as only the possible motivation for a communist bourgeois/petty bourgeois man are being pretty narrow-minded. the encroaching mechanism of capitalism is something that can be loathed by not only the impoverished sectors of society. aside from the useless gadgetery a petty bourgeois man could own, his life is pretty poor. his life orbits around their work, for work is what gives them status in society. this disgusting behavior can be proved by how generally a petty bourgeois professional feels very proud of his studies, diplomas and job, and thus of his status in the spectacle. A sector of the bourgeosie/petty-bourgeoisie can get conscious about such poverty in their lives and thus crave for true freedom.


many communists center their conception of communism around economy and production. it is true that we will be able to seize the means of production and manage them democratically, generating more free-time and products for most people.

however, what will be the effect of such freedom?

people would be able to indulge themselves in their hobbies and the things they love, thus making the world more colorful and beautiful. everyone would be able to participate in writing, journalism, music, movies.... and thus create truly original pieces of work without any economical motivation whatsoever. We would be able to listen to opinions from everyone, and not be forced to digest the shit we get fed by the few bourgeois specialists that control education and mass media.


Imagine the possibilities of a truly constraint-less society&#33;

"You are not truly free until everybody is free."

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 5 2006, 02:52 AM

To be honest with you I believe that Marx&#39;s Class Theory was wrong. People don&#39;t act in their class interests, they act in their own personal interests. These personal interests are often the same as their class interests, I can see how Marx got confused.




Well, I think you can think of Marx&#39;s theory more of a "tendancy" when it came to interests, sort of a canvas over all of society.

Whoops, I just repeated what everyone already said...

[LoneRed]

A wealthy person who is actually a communist, would be one going against his own class interests. yet if one looks deep into things i doubt many would be actual communists, as they would hold the biases of their classes and be more detrimental to the working class

[Red Axis]

I think we ought to have a classless society personally. The effects of class are not purely monetary, but sociological as well. The wealthy segregate themselves from the rest of us, living in their ivory towers of excess.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think this is a good question. I think communists in general are attracted to the ideal because it is different form the mundane, a way of getting back at your frustrations for some. For others it&#39;s because they&#39;ve been hit hard by the fact that they are living nicely while others are starving and/or living on the streets. I come from a petty-beorgeouis family. My mom is a realtor and my day is a bartender. I realized how lucky I was and that some aren&#39;t.

[Burrito]

This subject is a little silly, but....

"Marxism" would not exist without a very special bourgeios communist.... by the name of Freddy Engels. It was Freddy&#39;s factories which subsidized Marx while he wrote Kapital, and other classics of the canon of Marxism.

Trotsky was bourgeois, as was Lenin. Stalin was from the lower peasantry, Mao was borne of rich peasants.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This subject is a little silly, but....

"Marxism" would not exist without a very special bourgeios communist.... by the name of Freddy Engels. It was Freddy&#39;s factories which subsidized Marx while he wrote Kapital, and other classics of the canon of Marxism.

Trotsky was bourgeois, as was Lenin. Stalin was from the lower peasantry, Mao was borne of rich peasants.

Communism doesn&#39;t depend on class, although it draws stronger support from the working class, but rather a vision.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:16 AM
This subject is a little silly, but....

"Marxism" would not exist without a very special bourgeios communist.... by the name of Freddy Engels. It was Freddy&#39;s factories which subsidized Marx while he wrote Kapital, and other classics of the canon of Marxism.

Trotsky was bourgeois, as was Lenin. Stalin was from the lower peasantry, Mao was borne of rich peasants.
Kind of sad that had to be the case though, I would have preferred Engels had nothing to do with Marx and his theories.

As for Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao... These are a bunch of mighty fine reasons why the bourgeois and peasant "marxists" ought not to be trusted by the working class at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

well, look at this this way - If an independantly wealthy person has the smarts to be a communist, then surely they must also realise that they wouldn&#39;t need their wealth as a safety net in communist society, since they are more or less garuanteed a decent lifestyle, whereas in capitalism the more wealth one has the less chance one has of becoming destitute.

[Janus]

Well, wealthy is a relative term so it depends. Engels was quite wealthy and is considered a communist.A wealthy person can believe in the idea of communism and therefore be a communist. But they do have their wealth as a safety net and aren&#39;t really as ardent leftists as true communists would be. I don&#39;t think that they&#39;re as concerned as the worker who doesn&#39;t have much else to look to.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:05 AM
But they do have their wealth as a safety net and aren&#39;t really as ardent leftists as true communists would be.
How does that follow?


I don&#39;t think that they&#39;re as concerned as the worker who doesn&#39;t have much else to look to.

Even quite rich people can be made destitute by the vagaries of capitalism - what&#39;s wrong with wanting a system where such crap doesn&#39;t happen?

[Burrito]

This subject is a little silly, but....

"Marxism" would not exist without a very special bourgeios communist.... by the name of Freddy Engels. It was Freddy&#39;s factories which subsidized Marx while he wrote Kapital, and other classics of the canon of Marxism.

Trotsky was bourgeois, as was Lenin. Stalin was from the lower peasantry, Mao was borne of rich peasants.

Kind of sad that had to be the case though, I would have preferred Engels had nothing to do with Marx and his theories.

That&#39;s a new one. What is it about his personal character or writings that make you say that?



As for Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao... These are a bunch of mighty fine reasons why the bourgeois and peasant "marxists" ought not to be trusted by the working class at all.

As opposed to what or whom? Marxists from the Nobility? Prince Peter Kropotkin (his hereditary title)?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

As for Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao... These are a bunch of mighty fine reasons why the bourgeois and peasant "marxists" ought not to be trusted by the working class at all.

That&#39;s sort of a silly arguement. &#39;Because a few non-working class communists were evil, all are evil". How do you expect to get the overwhelming majority of the population to join the revolution when the working class here in America is only about 60%. The other 40% has trained special forces, SAM batteries, F-16&#39;s, and aircraft carriers.

[Jesus Christ!]

As far as wealthy commnunists. I don&#39;t see the problem people have with them. In the capitalist world the only thing they could provide is help and funding. I think if more rich people gave money to communists groups we would be a lot further along. I mean it could also be argued that they are just selling us the rope to hang them with.

[Body Count]

I will assume this is the definition of a "communist" : Anyone who understands the relationship between classes, and who sides with the oppressed class.

If that is what the topic creator meant by "communist", then I would question why it would be hard to imagine a wealthy communist. I mean, you might as well say "What exactly makes a female communist?", it really doesn&#39;t seem to matter......

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@Jun 4 2006, 07:47 AM
As far as wealthy commnunists. I don&#39;t see the problem people have with them. In the capitalist world the only thing they could provide is help and funding. I think if more rich people gave money to communists groups we would be a lot further along. I mean it could also be argued that they are just selling us the rope to hang them with.
Because that money would clearly come with no strings attached. <_<

[Comrade-Z]

Even quite rich people can be made destitute by the vagaries of capitalism - what&#39;s wrong with wanting a system where such crap doesn&#39;t happen?

I think this is touching on an important factor. Communism, in many ways, provides more financial security for a wealthy person than even capitalism does, and sometimes peace of mind is more comforting than having your own private yacht. Some wealthy people see this and judge the peace of mind to be more worthwhile.

There are also risks involving class conflict (poor people mugging you on the street, etc.), and wealthy people might see it in their self-interest to spend some effort repressing this class conflict (fascism--although this is risky, expensive, and might not always work), or even getting rid of the class conflict totally and forever (communism).

Additionally, wealthy people may not like having to occasionally wallow in the "stench" of class society, such as on those odd occasions when you have to drive through The Projects in your limousine (although wealthy people are usually able to limit their exposure to this "underworld" to a minimum).

Additionally, some wealthy people might have a particular hatred of some social phenomenon, such as religion, sexism, racism, wasting lives and money on imperialism, etc. (for example, after all, no matter how much money you have, it&#39;s still infuriating to be repremanded or arrested for engaging in "immorality" that you heartily enjoy and don&#39;t want to see disappear. Furthermore, these wealthy people may see the ruling class and/or its political "opposition" as hopelessly inept at managing this reform (especially if they see their ruling class as being on a sinking ship), and so, out of desperation, they jump ship, cast their lot with communist revolution, and hope for the best.

[piet11111]

well i think someone who owns a shop for instance could be a communist as he/she could just as easily fall back into the proletariat as he/she got out of it.
their economical insecurity forces them to be tied to our class if they like it or not.

i myself have quite a lot of rich poeple in my family only my particular branch of the family tree is clear working class only.
but that does not change the possibility of my parents getting lucky in the death lottery when one of the rich family members take the eternal dirt nap.
i dont think it would affect me to the point of not being a communist anymore.

[Janus]

How does that follow?
They don&#39;t really need a revolution to improve their situation and aren&#39;t engaged in the struggles that most workers are.


Even quite rich people can be made destitute by the vagaries of capitalism - what&#39;s wrong with wanting a system where such crap doesn&#39;t happen?
Then they would no longer be wealthy. Losing their wealth is usually in the back of many people&#39;s minds, therefore, they like stability and try to hoard as much wealth as they can. A revolution would destroy all this wealth.

I&#39;m not saying that there are no "wealthy" communists but that people tend to work in their class interests and that if these "communists" have accumulated a certain amount of capital then they would be capitalists by then.

[SocialistGenius]

Of course there can be wealthy communists. The ideal situation is that after the revolution, the entire population will be wealthy. And this wealth we be spread amongst the people in an egalitarian fashion. Your question sounds like you have no faith in communism.. as if you are questioning whether or not a communist society can exist without extreme poverty. Of course it can&#33; That is the entire idea&#33;

And my definition of wealth, in this sense, is to have everything that you need to live a comfortable life with no necessity to sell your labour to someone who profits off of it, which is exploitation. My definition of wealth, in this sense, is not not the capitalist definition which requires utter greed, theft, exploitation and bribing government officials to pass laws which are harmful to the proletariat and the environment, in order to accumulate a substantial, completely unnecessary, fortune.

[Ali.Cat]

I&#39;m not saying that there are no "wealthy" communists but that people tend to work in their class interests and that if these "communists" have accumulated a certain amount of capital then they would be capitalists by then.

I like that you said "I&#39;m not saying that there are no wealthy communists" because I&#39;m not really sure I understand why there COULDN&#39;T be any wealthy communists. A judgement like that - saying there could never be any - seems ignorant to me, it could only be said by someone who believes all people are essentially ruled by their wealth and that simply is not the case.

Honestly, I don&#39;t have a huge problem with working to live, it is the norm to me. Would I like it if I wasn&#39;t FORCED to work to live? of course. But because it has become the norm to me so has the idea that I can achieve anything I really put my mind to, including working my way up the corporate ladder. That in turn means that one day I could possibly be one of those wealthy people but it doesn&#39;t take away the fact that I had to work my ass off to get there. Why wouldn&#39;t I continue to support the idea that people shouldn&#39;t have to go through all that work just to live?

Wealthy people can DEFINATELY be communists, because even though not all of them did so, many of them did have to WORK to get there.

[Zero]

A wealthy Communist is someone who has done so much good in the world that they can let themselves slip into nonexistance in peace.

Material wealth is fleeting and unimportant. Wealth in Human spirit, and wealth in knowlege is what matters.