wealthy leftist in the world..

[R_P_A_S]

who are some leftist with lots of money? for example.. Noam Chomsky.. he probably is paid aint he? Chavez? even Castro? that lady Cindy Sheehan or whatever. you guys think she has money?

Im just curious as to who has some money and its on our side...?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

John Lennon was a red, if not a very good one. He was rich.

-Alex

[Phalanx]

I wouldn't call Cindy Sheehan a leftist. Chavez would definately be up there because he's in control of all of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. What he decides to do with his wealth is a different matter.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

It must be possible to be a leftist and a socialist even if you are wealthy. I mean look at how many historical leftists and socialists were wealthy, if not at least "well off".

[Rawthentic]

Of course that its possible to be a socialist if you're a rich person or even bourgeois. The thing is, these "radicals" do it out of abstract knowledge and belief instead of any concrete oppression that they experience.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Yes so that's why I personally disagree with all these left parties that demand that onlly workers are allowed: if that would be true than virtually no famous thinker of radical socialist ideas would be allowed, including Marx and Engels.

It would be quite humurous though to witness the sight of a so called Marxist party telling Marx and Engels that they are not allowed in because they are not workers!!

It brings to mind this old quote:

Marx: "I am not a Marxist!"

[Rawthentic]

I am part of the Communist League, and we have a strict proletarian-only policy. By the way, you need to read a biography on Marx to see that as soon as he solidified his theories on revolution and class struggle, he left all remnants of his upper-class behind to become quite poor actually. He survived off writing for a newspaper and I believe that several of his children died during this period.

No actual communist organization can ever have any serious potential at creating socialism if there are elements of the petty-bourgeoisie. They are such an insignificant minority, I wonder why people like you and LeftyHenry advocate for their acceptance into revolutionary organizations. The workers must develop a mind of their own, free from any other classes that abuse and exploit the workers. If these petty-bourgeois members decide that they want to aid the workers in their struggle, then they can become workers themselves and shed off their prejudices that they had.

And by the way, Marx stated that quote not against worker-only organizations, but against some other organization that claimed to act in his name and theories.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+February 24, 2007 05:53 pm--> (hastalavictoria @ February 24, 2007 05:53 pm) By the way, you need to read a biography on Marx to see that as soon as he solidified his theories on revolution and class struggle, he left all remnants of his upper-class behind to become quite poor actually. He survived off writing for a newspaper and I believe that several of his children died during this period. [/b]
It's true that Marx became quite poor but not by choice; he wanted to be a professor at a university but had to leave the country for political reasons. He was a writer and constantly asked for money for his work and from his family and friends, most notably Engels, who did live like a bourgeois, received money from his father's corporation and could be called petit bourgeois. Leaving Marx aside for the moment, you would not allow Engels into your organization?

To further prove my point that Marx was poor not out of any "principle" but because of financial hardship you should know that when Marx was financially able at the end of his life he moved his family to a nice middle class house.


The Marxes endured almost twenty years of poverty before Engles, who had received an increased income from his family's Manchester mills, gave them an annual income on which they could live in comfort.

So they were poor not out of any reasons of principle; but by force. When they had the money, they moved to a richer area.

When he was sick he travelled all over Europe going to spas and resorts to relax and seek a cure:


Marxists.org
With his health deteriorating, Marx goes to Algeria, the south of France and Switzerland for a rest and cure, and visits his daughter Jenny in Argenteuil

South of France? Switzerland? Algeria? Somehow I doubt the average European workers did all this.


Also, Marx encouraged his daughters to find "well to do" husbands, not workers, you should really read his letters he sent to possible candidates for his daughters hand in marriage,they sound VERY bourgeois! His daughters (some of whom were socialists) married middle class persons and this Marx approved of enthusiastically.

I don't know what LeftyHenry's reasons are, but mine are simple: if you demand workers only you also take away most if not all of the great theoretiacians of anarchist and Marxist thought.

It does seem to be a bit silly to have a workers only organization reading books from people who never were workers.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:53 pm
I am part of the Communist League, and we have a strict proletarian-only policy. By the way, you need to read a biography on Marx to see that as soon as he solidified his theories on revolution and class struggle, he left all remnants of his upper-class behind to become quite poor actually. He survived off writing for a newspaper and I believe that several of his children died during this period.

No actual communist organization can ever have any serious potential at creating socialism if there are elements of the petty-bourgeoisie. They are such an insignificant minority, I wonder why people like you and LeftyHenry advocate for their acceptance into revolutionary organizations. The workers must develop a mind of their own, free from any other classes that abuse and exploit the workers. If these petty-bourgeois members decide that they want to aid the workers in their struggle, then they can become workers themselves and shed off their prejudices that they had.

And by the way, Marx stated that quote not against worker-only organizations, but against some other organization that claimed to act in his name and theories.
Engels was very rich. It doesnt matter if he sold his factory when his father died, the thing is that because his company was huge and multinational he probably sold it for incredible amounts of money. A proletarian subsists from his wage, he didn't subsist from a wage at all.

I dont necessarily disagree with "workers only" policy. but parties need to be fucking consistent then.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 24, 2007 05:12 pm
I wouldn't call Cindy Sheehan a leftist. Chavez would definately be up there because he's in control of all of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. What he decides to do with his wealth is a different matter.
Chavez doesn't own the oil. Havin executive authority over the organisation that manages it does not make him rich.

Anyway I am always a bit sceptical of people who criticise those with money without thinking too deeply about it. Personally I am not what you would call wealthy. I'm not going hungry, but I hardly live a life of luxuary. However that is by western standards. I'm sure someone in Somalia would regard my life as very luxurious indeed, so I don't want to criticise someone just because they are better off than me.

The important thing to me is how someone comes by what they have. If it is through worker exploitation, I am not happy at all. But if someone has won the lottery or something, you can't really say that makes them a bad person, can you?

[R_P_A_S]

DAMN IT! can i post a simple question with out someone coming and HI-JACKING the DAMN Thread?????? THANKS A LOT ALWAYSANARCHY!!!

Guys.. stop getting into deep conversations about the rights and wrongs of having money or not having money..at least not on this thread. All I was asking was who had money who is ON OUR SIDE??? someone who would fund Socialist moves and such.

guys please pay no attention to Alwaysanarchy on this thread. he complete derail this subject now everyone is talking about what he posted if you go look.

ADMIN.. please move his post and those who replied to him to an other thread. thanks!

too many threads get highjacked around here. :angry:

[TC]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 24, 2007 05:12 pm
I wouldn't call Cindy Sheehan a leftist. Chavez would definately be up there because he's in control of all of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. What he decides to do with his wealth is a different matter.
err no. The venezuelan state controls venezuela's oil reserves and they are owned by the people, chavez does not. He can't use any state assets for himself that would be theft, and he's not in a position to steal anything anyways as he isn't in the state oil company.

Chavez comes from a poor background, however as Venezuela was a capitalist state when he took office he was probably well compensating in the range of the professional classes, but certaintly not the upper class (think low six digit, not seven digit).

Castro however recieves a basic income equal to an average cuban worker and unlike Chavez does not have access to an official residence, although obviously like any Cuban he has huge collective benefits (health care, housing, free food, etc) over small wages.

Neither castro nor chavez would be close.


As to richest leftist, I'd guess Miuccia Prada or Jane Fonda, and while she was alive probably Jean Seberg. Jean Paul Sartre and Jean Luc Godard are/were also probably wealthy although not as much so.

Possibly Anita Halpin, the chair of the Communist Party of Britain, is the richest full time Communist activist.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:31 pm
Castro however recieves a basic income equal to an average cuban worker and unlike Chavez does not have access to an official residence, although obviously like any Cuban he has huge collective benefits (health care, housing, free food, etc) over small wages.
Source?

[Fawkes]

The members of RATM, if they truly are leftists.

[R_P_A_S]

man.. some of u guys are pissin me off. please stop hijacking my threads... simple questions. wealthy leftist..who are they.. thanks..

[Red October]

would any of these "rich leftists" use their money to finance a revolution (guns, food, etc)? and are we classifying anyone who is paid very well as rich? some people who make lots of money donate all of it but what they need to live comfortably, so i wouldnt really call them "rich".

[RedKnight]

Pete Seeger

[RedAnarchist]

I bet Noam Chomsky is fairly well off.

[manic expression]

Really, the leftists who have the most wealth at their disposal are leaders. Hugo Chavez could back a large revolution with pocket change. The only problem is that they must deal with diplomacy, which means they will probably get in trouble for supporting activites that capitalists don't like.

In terms of private wealth (not resources available, such as a country), I'm at a loss. Noam Chomsky, RATM and other artists (Dead Prez might have some, but they've probably put a good portion of it into the Uhuru Movement already) are the only ones I can think of.

I hope that helps, R_P_A_S.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by TC
As to richest leftist, I'd guess Miuccia Prada
She is now also a member of the Chinese Communist Party right? They took her as role model for "Red Capitalists" :lol:

[Janus]

All I was asking was who had money who is ON OUR SIDE???
Not a whole lot, socialism is inherently exclusive towards the wealthy.


someone who would fund Socialist moves and such.
Higher paid/more professional or skilled workers, professors, and maybe musicians.