Engels........rich?

[DiggerII]

I read somewhere that Engels was really rich?

Is that true?

[which doctor]

He wasn't "really rich", but he also wasn't struggling financially. I'd say he was "well-off"

[DiggerII]

do you know how he came to his "wealth" so to speak?

[Fawkes]

Apparently he worked in the textile industry. That's just what I found on the wiki page.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

His daddy was rich, at least.

[DiggerII]

ya so his dad owned a mill, then when his dad died he sold it eh?
nifty

and i started that thread on RCP, got pretty heated it seems lol

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:43 am
ya so his dad owned a mill, then when his dad died he sold it eh?
nifty

and i started that thread on RCP, got pretty heated it seems lol
Yeah this is an anarchist and left-communist forum so naturally that's the reaction.

[Demogorgon]

He was quite well off yes. He was able to use the money to help support Marx (who never had much money owing to his only regular source of income being part time journalism). So it was pretty fortunate he was really.

[Vargha Poralli]

We should look at the work of Engels not how wealthy he was. Actions matters more than birth.

[chimx]

Most communists like to downplay the wealth of Engels. In reality his father's cotton firm, "Ermen and Engels," was a multi-national company, with massive investments in both Germany and England. His father also owned a textile factory elsewhere, but Engels was never in charge of that.

Of course, Bakunin was an aristocrat, Kropotkin a prince, and Lenin the son of a rich bureaucrat.

Communist ideology is the byproduct of a radicalized bourgeois intelligentsia.

[Faceless]

It is not surprising that the first people to give expression to the ideas of scientific socialism were well off middle class people. Before you can think you have to be able to feed yourself and your family. Fact is that middle class people had more time to think.

[UndergroundConnexion]

and went to school, had more education... While back in these days, if i remember well, kids were already working, or werent not always going to school

[KC]

Most communists like to downplay the wealth of Engels. In reality his father's cotton firm, "Ermen and Engels," was a multi-national company, with massive investments in both Germany and England. His father also owned a textile factory elsewhere, but Engels was never in charge of that.

Of course, Bakunin was an aristocrat, Kropotkin a prince, and Lenin the son of a rich bureaucrat.

Communist ideology is the byproduct of a radicalized bourgeois intelligentsia.

Which is exactly what Lenin claimed in What Is To Be Done? Of course, this idea is rather outdated, as Hekmat has shown in this article (http://www.hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0420en.html):


If at the beginning of the Twentieth century, Trade Unionism was still a mainly spontaneous, not yet theorized and still a largely crude, current, and communism and scientific socialism had just began to be introduced to the workers' movemovement proper, "from outside" this movement, today, nearly a century of the living class practice of the proletariat, has given new characteristics to these currents. The Trade Unionist movement has increasingly come out of a spontaneous state, and Communism has found a consistent and established influence in the depth of the workers' movement. Our Economists have fallen at least one century behind times. Communism is no longer a new and newly-emerged phenomenon for the class movement, but, has already become today an integral part of it and a practical tendency in its ranks. The Communist Manifesto, the First International, the October Revolution, the Third International and the innumerable communist revolutionaries, in the course of these decades, mobilized millions of workers under the banner of communism, and planted and reared amongst the workers, the idea of communism, the idea of the abolition of bourgeois private property, the idea of the organisation of the proletariat in an independent political party and the idea of the seizure of political power. Yes, communism has a history, and this history has repeatedly vindicated the existence of communism as a current belonging to the proletariat. Today, the slogan of "Equality, Fraternity, a Workers' Government" possesses as much a "spontaneous" character amongst the workers, as the slogan "Union is Our Strength". Belief in the communist movement, as a living current in the class movement of the proletariat is the first step in the living and principled definition of the communist party in the conditions of today.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:59 pm
Yeah this is an anarchist and left-communist forum so naturally that's the reaction.
Are you even serious? That is fucking absolutely ridiculous, <_< .

Hell forbid not everyone will agree with you, :( .

[RGacky3]

Who cares? Seriously, what was more important was his ideas, and even if he was rich, whats wrong with that? Many people are rich that arn&#39;t exploiters (I don&#39;t know about his case), Che Guevara came from a rich family, he was a doctor, and I&#39;m sure if the revolutoin thing did&#39;nt work out he would have made a good living as a doctor and still have his ideals. Being rich does&#39;nt automalically mean incompatible with being a Socialist.

[Coggeh]

Most great socialists were well off , the working class often have no time for getting active in a movement . Thats why Marx stressed that if you could escape the working class you should.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by coggy+--> (coggy)the working class often have no time for getting active in a movement .[/b]

Then how on earth can a mass working class movement be built?

(Besides, if this was actually true, there wouldnt have been any mass working class movements in history; and theres been heaps&#33;)


coggy
Thats why Marx stressed that if you could escape the working class you should.

Escape? Where to? The petit-bourgeoise? The bourgeoisie?

[Janus]

the working class often have no time for getting active in a movement
In a political party, yes, lower classes simply don&#39;t have the time to devote themselves to it.

[Fawkes]

the working class often have no time for getting active in a movement .


Then how on earth can a mass working class movement be built?

(Besides, if this was actually true, there wouldnt have been any mass working class movements in history; and theres been heaps&#33;)
I think what (s)he probably meant was that the working class didn&#39;t have time to theorize or philosophise (if that&#39;s a word). Similar to how religion didn&#39;t come into existence until humans settled down and began to farm and had free time so they began to think about things more.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+February 14, 2007 06:02 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ February 14, 2007 06:02 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 10:59 pm
Yeah this is an anarchist and left-communist forum so naturally that&#39;s the reaction.
Are you even serious? That is fucking absolutely ridiculous, <_< .

Hell forbid not everyone will agree with you, :( . [/b]
dude are you joking? There are like maybe 5 marxist-leninists and like 10 trots. The rest are the utopian breeds....

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 16, 2007 11:59 am--> (LeftyHenry @ February 16, 2007 11:59 am)
Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 14, 2007 06:02 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 10:59 pm
Yeah this is an anarchist and left-communist forum so naturally that&#39;s the reaction.
Are you even serious? That is fucking absolutely ridiculous, <_< .

Hell forbid not everyone will agree with you, :( .
dude are you joking? There are like maybe 5 marxist-leninists and like 10 trots. The rest are the utopian breeds.... [/b]
That would make sense in your paranoid little world wouldnt it?

In reality things are a little different:

What are you?

Marxist [ 19 ] [21.59%]
Leninist [ 7 ] [7.95%]
Stalinist [ 5 ] [5.68%]
Anarchist (specify what type) [ 27 ] [30.68%]
Trotskyist [ 12 ] [13.64%]
Luxembourgist [ 4 ] [4.55%]
Other (specify) [ 11 ] [12.50%]
Maoist [ 3 ]

That&#39;s a majority to marxism.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59116

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by black rose+February 15, 2007 06:05 pm--> (black rose @ February 15, 2007 06:05 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
the working class often have no time for getting active in a movement .

Then how on earth can a mass working class movement be built?

(Besides, if this was actually true, there wouldnt have been any mass working class movements in history; and theres been heaps&#33;)


coggy
Thats why Marx stressed that if you could escape the working class you should.

Escape? Where to? The petit-bourgeoise? The bourgeoisie? [/b]
Yes , Actually if you have ever been involved in a working class movement you&#39;d now .A full time job almost gives you no time what so ever get active in movements

Yes, I don&#39;t glamorize the working class,but they are the movement socialism is built on and therefore i fight for the working class , you see ?

[Black Dagger]

Coggy, the artful dodger; you didnt answer EITHER of my questions.


Originally posted by coggy+--> (coggy)Yes , Actually if you have ever been involved in a working class movement you&#39;d now .[/b]

Know what? That (according to you) working class people are too busy to get involved in the communist movement?


Originally posted by [email protected]

A full time job almost gives you no time what so ever get active in movements

Then why is history full of mass working class movements? And how do you expect a revolution is to occur if the working class is &#39;too busy&#39; to do anything?


coggy

Yes, I don&#39;t glamorize the working class,but they are the movement socialism is built on and therefore i fight for the working class , you see ?

I dont see the relevance of this to the discussion?

[Coggeh]

Then why is history full of mass working class movements? And how do you expect a revolution is to occur if the working class is &#39;too busy&#39; to do anything?

I&#39;m saying alot of working class people are too busy to get active , not participate in mass movements , alot of the great revolutionaries came from rich backrounds Engels,Lenin ,Che .








I dont see the relevance of this to the discussion?

You asked

to where they should escape , the petty bourgeois? the bourgeois
.... so theirs my answer........


Yes, I don&#39;t glamorize the working class,but they are the movement socialism is built on and therefore i fight for the working class , you see ?

[Coggeh]

Coggy, the artful dodger; you didnt answer EITHER of my questions.

:lol: Black Rose, The master of taking things out of context .

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by coggy+--> (coggy)
I&#39;m saying alot of working class people are too busy to get active , not participate in mass movements , alot of the great revolutionaries came from rich backrounds Engels,Lenin ,Che .[/b]

There&#39;s no difference between &#39;getting active&#39; and participating in mass movements, they are two sides of the same coin.


Originally posted by coggy+--> (coggy)You asked


Originally posted by br

to where they should escape , the petty bourgeois? the bourgeois

.... so theirs my answer........


[email protected]

Yes, I don&#39;t glamorize the working class,but they are the movement socialism is built on and therefore i fight for the working class , you see ?[/b]

So you DO think working class people should &#39;escape&#39;, and become members of the capitalist class? :wacko:

WHY?


coggy
Black Rose, The master of taking things out of context .

I havent taken anything you&#39;ve said out of context, im just engaged in a constant struggle to understand what the fuck you&#39;re saying, its like pulling teeth.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by black rose+February 18, 2007 03:39 pm--> (black rose @ February 18, 2007 03:39 pm)
Originally posted by coggy+--> (coggy)
I&#39;m saying alot of working class people are too busy to get active , not participate in mass movements , alot of the great revolutionaries came from rich backrounds Engels,Lenin ,Che .[/b]

There&#39;s no difference between &#39;getting active&#39; and participating in mass movements, they are two sides of the same coin.


Originally posted by coggy
You asked


Originally posted by br

to where they should escape , the petty bourgeois? the bourgeois

.... so theirs my answer........


[email protected]

Yes, I don&#39;t glamorize the working class,but they are the movement socialism is built on and therefore i fight for the working class , you see ?

So you DO think working class people should &#39;escape&#39;, and become members of the capitalist class? :wacko:

WHY?


coggy
Black Rose, The master of taking things out of context .

I havent taken anything you&#39;ve said out of context, im just engaged in a constant struggle to understand what the fuck you&#39;re saying, its like pulling teeth. [/b]
Yes their is , being active means being involved setting up the movement , like leafleting and stuff ... and being in the mass movement means when the time comes of the revolution or whatever you participate in it .

Well, yes to a degree , if the informed aware working class were to escape to the capitalist class they would know of the exploitation and help change it ,also they would have more resources to put into the movement.... now do you understand . I&#39;m not saying the capitalist class is a good thing , its not , but having socialists in high positions couldn&#39;t hurt the movement , as long as they don&#39;t become bureaucratic or anything .

Pulling teeth&#39;s not that hard.... :blush: