A rich person will never understand?

[GoRiLLaZ]

Does rich people or a person which comes frm a rich family background will never ever understand the true meaning of communism?

For being rich, does all rich comes from capitalism?

[( R )evolution]

No not necerserally. Look at Engles he was a rich captialist but he still contrbuted greatly to the communist theory and messege.

[Conghaileach]

There's an argument that the bourgeoisie understand the class war better than the proletariat do.

I think many socialists have recognised that rich people can understand the meaning of communism, but you find a split between the utopian Owenites who believed that the rich could simply be convinced of the necessity of communism (and thus the loss of all of their privilege) whereas scientific socialists believe that the bourgeoisie will always stand by their class interests. William Thompson argued that a few of the bourgeoisie would betray their own class interests for the sake of humanity, although it would undoubtedly be a small minority.

[TG0]

Does rich people or a person which comes frm a rich family background will never ever understand the true meaning of communism?

For being rich, does all rich comes from capitalism?

what the hell are you trying to say?

[cumbia]

Learn how to type before you attempt to begin the understand communist thought.

[bolshevik butcher]

Give the guy a break (s)he's intersted in socialism and his/her first language might not be English.

In answer to your question, there are exceptions, some people from a bourgeoirse background have helped the communist movement but generally the bourgoirse have a better undestanding of class war than most workers, and fight for their side.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 05:14 pm
Learn how to type before you attempt to begin the understand communist thought.


Does rich people or a person which comes frm a rich family background will never ever understand the true meaning of communism?

For being rich, does all rich comes from capitalism?

what the hell are you trying to say?
STFU both of you. English is not everyones first language.

[TG0]

STFU both of you. English is not everyones first language.

that's some revelation there! i was under the impression that it was! thanks for clearing that up for me. i feel as though my eyes have been opened for the first time.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:14 pm

STFU both of you. English is not everyones first language.

that's some revelation there! i was under the impression that it was! thanks for clearing that up for me. i feel as though my eyes have been opened for the first time.
No need to be a sarcastic asshole. If you understand that not everyone has a great grasp of English then why did you ask your idiotic question in the first place?

Anyways, being rich is not like some uncurable disease. There have been various cases throughout history where well-off people have given up their comfortable life and riches in order to further the socialist cause.

However, I don't think it's possible for a rich person to understand the conditions of the working-person until he or she becomes a working-person. It's all very well and good to sympathise with the working-class, but unless you have actually experienced the hardships most ordinary people suffer, I don't think you truly understand the struggle for socialism.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think a rich person can understand communist theory better than the proletariat because communism's theoretical basis is complex and more accessible to the educated. Keep in mind that Marx himself though communism would happen due to material conditions - not because everyone picked up the manifesto and revolt. They revolt against capitalist society and communism happens as a natural opposite to that.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 12:14 pm
Learn how to type before you attempt to begin the understand communist thought.
The person's from Singapore, English is obviously not his first language. The revolution will take place everywhere, not just in America, Canada, Australia, England, and Ireland. The person obviously knows how to type seeing as there are few spelling errors, there are just grammatical errors which shows that they most likely are not fluent in English.

People have already answered your first question so I'll answer the second. The majority of rich people gained their wealth through capitalist means, but some did not. An example would be most people who've managed to become wealthy through the arts, such people would include sculptures, painters, and musicians. Most of them did not become wealthy through exploitation of others.

P.S. Don't listen to those assholes. I'm unsure of what you're native language is, but there is the international language forum on revleft. Check it out and see if your native tongue is on there (if it isn't English that is).

[Enragé]

I think a rich person can understand communist theory better than the proletariat because communism's theoretical basis is complex and more accessible to the educated

They might be capable of understanding it, but many simply refuse. In my experience its a million times easier making a working class guy understand communism, and want it, or at least think thats a good idea, than a rich guy
why?
because they have different material backgrounds, consciousness is determined overwhelmingly by class

[SmashCapitalism]

Che Guevara came from a wealthy family... I think the rich become fiery communists more easy, since they have seen the luxuries of the wealthy life, if they are then exposed to big poverty. Think of el Che... when he saw poverty after having lived a rich life, he became one of the greatest leftists of all time.

Many wealthy people are greedy though, and don't want communism for obvious reasons... or they are "neutral". Screw these morons.

But to answer your question, yes, the wealthy can understand.

[RedKnight]

To summarise, one does not have to be a slave in order to be an abolitionist.

[cenv]

I'd say that the class that has the hardest time grasping class struggle is actually the petty-bourgeoisie. Members of the petty-bourgeoisie seem to be most detached from class struggle, as they aren't the primary exploiters and are certainly not exploited. Obviously, though, there are exceptions.

[SmashCapitalism]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:26 pm
To summarise, one does not have to be a slave in order to be an abolitionist.
Well said :)

[working class revolutionary]

I would say of course the rich understand the class struggle more aptly than the working class. They can very easily see how the exploitation of the workers benefits them greatly, and most plan to continue to do so until the time comes when the workers decide to revolt.

I think it's actually much harder now for the working class of the first world to be aware of class consciousness than the rich. The worker may not like their position in regards to their labor, but many now days see themselves as "middle class," not "working class." They make enough money to survive, and provide for their families, and there are enough distractions for them to numb the pain of servility.

[UndergroundConnexion]

I would say that back in dem days ninetheenth century, the working man (working in the mines), often went a short time to school, if going to school at all, and was working de biggest part of his day, while the other big part he slept... This left very little time to theorise.... That's why the richer people, or at least the once not working as hard, were the ones developing theories..

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:26 pm
To summarise, one does not have to be a slave in order to be an abolitionist.
Exactly. Communist society is better for everyone, including the rich who realize that true freedom, planetary sustainability, and human brotherhood are much more valuable than worthless trinkets from Hallmark. Communism is not only a worker idealogy, it is a human idealogy.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:26 pm
To summarise, one does not have to be a slave in order to be an abolitionist.
This is only applicable to the bourgeoisie if the abolitionist is also a slaveowner.