Self Emancipation

[Question everything]

I know people are going to hate me for this but... Most communist leaders had priviled upbringings:

Marx- Father was a lawyer

Engels- Owned a factory

Castro- Father owned a factory

Lenin- Father was given the priveleges of russian noblity (Wikipedia)
Ulyanov was promoted to the rank of Actual Civil Councellor, which gave him a privilege of hereditary dvoryanstvo and accompanied with the award of the Order of St.Vladimir, 3rd Class.

Che- (Wikipedia)
Growing up in this leftist-leaning déclassé family of aristocratic lineage, (although not as rich as the others this one is a strech)

Mao- (Wikipedia)
The eldest child of a relatively prosperous peasant family

[Lenin II]

I think that’s not a bad thing. The fact that people with money would decide to abolish it for the greater good lends credit to our cause. If the concept were invented by a bunch of poor people, the rich could say, “Well, they just want our money.” In this case, they decide to stick up for the workers in saying that they should have equal shares.

[Dominicana_1965]

Privilege far exceeds just a economic position.
Being a Male is a privilege.
Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.
Being a "White" person is a privilege.
Living in the U.S. and UK is a privilege.

In today's culture of course.

I feel the faster people accept this as true of themselves, we can then truly start to abolish privileges.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:59 pm
I think that’s not a bad thing. The fact that people with money would decide to abolish it for the greater good lends credit to our cause. If the concept were invented by a bunch of poor people, the rich could say, “Well, they just want our money.” In this case, they decide to stick up for the workers in saying that they should have equal shares.

Still the Manifestio calls for self emancipation, yet it looks like the revolutions are almost always led by the rich... I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't be allowed to fight, I'm in a middle class family, probably uppermiddle class at that... it's just I don't think the rich should be leading revolution



Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.

So in the post revolutionary world we're either gay or reactionary? :P being heterosexual isn't really a privilege...

[which doctor]

Those of privileged class backgrounds who voluntarily break with their bourgeois backgrounds to become proletarianized in one way or another are referred to as class homecomers. According to some it is them who will come with the most vicious attack on capital. We can see evidence of this coming from revolutionaries such as Che, and even Marx to some degree. These formerly bourgeois can use their privileges to help aid the proletarian cause.


Originally posted by Alfredo Bonanno - From Riot to Insurrection
Let us not forget that in this world of privilege there will be people who in the past have had a wide revolutionary-ideological experience, and they may not enjoy their situation of privilege tomorrow, feeling themselves asphyxiated inside the Teutonic castle. These will be the first thorn in the side of the capitalist project. The class homecomers, that is, those who abandon their class. Who were the homecomers of the class of yesterday? I, myself, once belonged to the class of the privileged. I abandoned it to become “a comrade among comrades”, from privileged of yesterday to revolutionary of today. But what have I brought with me? I have brought my Humanist culture, my ideological culture. I can only give you words. But the homecomer of tomorrow, the revolutionary who abandons tomorrow’s privileged class, will bring technology with him, because one of the characteristics of tomorrow’s capitalist project and one of the essential conditions for it to remain standing, will be a distribution of knowledge that is no longer pyramidal but horizontal. Capital will need to distribute knowledge in a more reasonable and equal way—but always with in the class of the included. Therefore the deserters of tomorrow will bring with them a considerable number of usable elements from a revolutionary point of view.

[Question everything]

I'm simply pointing out that the WORKER'S revolution should be led by the workers, not the rich, the rich should be able to help, they should be allowed to lead if they deserve it, but the fact that ALL of the communist leaders are born into rich families, defeats the point of SELF- Emancipation.

[Dominicana_1965]

Originally posted by Question everything+April 04, 2007 12:26 am--> (Question everything @ April 04, 2007 12:26 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 10:59 pm
I think that’s not a bad thing. The fact that people with money would decide to abolish it for the greater good lends credit to our cause. If the concept were invented by a bunch of poor people, the rich could say, “Well, they just want our money.” In this case, they decide to stick up for the workers in saying that they should have equal shares.

Still the Manifestio calls for self emancipation, yet it looks like the revolutions are almost always led by the rich... I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't be allowed to fight, I'm in a middle class family, probably uppermiddle class at that... it's just I don't think the rich should be leading revolution



Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.

So in the post revolutionary world we're either gay or reactionary? :P being heterosexual isn't really a privilege... [/b]
Neither, people learn how to act "gay" and "straight", it is culturally constructed, therefore it must be by us, deconstructed. So people can just like whoever they like, not set by the way they identify themselves, because to me sexuality is far more complex then just simply saying "Im a heterosexual".


Not recognizing how being hetero is a privilege is reactionary in itself, does Capital not discriminate against those that are "gay", society treats Heteros a lot better then they do Homosexuals, im pretty sure you'll agree with me on that, or else we wouldn't have the Hetero vs. Homo wars we currently are seeing and trying to find a solution to.


What you think?

[Question everything]

Of course I agree with you're point I would have tryed to explain my point further except I didn't have time and it is rather complex, I understand where you are coming from, it's just kinda hard for me to think of being sraight as a privilage... you have a very good point though. I'm simply pointing out that being Male, "White", Sraight and American or British (In my case Canadian) are not priveges, but our society does reward it.

[manic expression]

It's a common mistake to connect a person's background to their actual life. By the same logic, Carnegie would be a worker through and through because he wasn't born into a bourgeois family.

Castro did come from a land-owning family that was well off, but one must remember that he gave up everything for the revolution for many years, and his family's farm was the first to be collectivized (I heard there's a pretty good picture of his mom driving away from the farm looking real pissed). The same goes for Che (he was well-to-do, but he gave it all up and then some).

You are not defined by the family you are born into, you are defined by how you live. Revolutionaries who came from non-working class families are not tied to those positions, and they dropped them quickly. If a person does not gain profit through exploitation or hiring of employees, why would one ever define them as something they are not? Again, the way they lived their lives matter, while the family they were born into is merely their background and nothing more.

By the way, "relatively prosperous peasant family" can mean a LOT of things.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:08 pm
Being a Male is a privilege.
Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.
Being a "White" person is a privilege.
Living in the U.S. and UK is a privilege.
No.

People who are male, straight, white, or live in "first world" countries either inherit historical privileges or receive privilege from ongoing prejudices; but being male, straight, or white are not privileges in themselves.

Luís Henrique

[Dominicana_1965]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+April 04, 2007 03:15 am--> (Luís Henrique @ April 04, 2007 03:15 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 11:08 pm
Being a Male is a privilege.
Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.
Being a "White" person is a privilege.
Living in the U.S. and UK is a privilege.
No.

People who are male, straight, white, or live in "first world" countries either inherit historical privileges or receive privilege from ongoing prejudices; but being male, straight, or white are not privileges in themselves.

Luís Henrique [/b]
I understand that, which is why i said "in today's culture of course".

[Janus]

Most revolutionaries do come from well-off backgrounds simply because the time that they devote to theorizing and the revolution require a great deal of time and an educational background, both of which were privileges back then and something that the lower classes couldn't afford. There's a good reason why communism mainly only influenced students and the middle/upper classes originally.

[Question everything]

I'm simply pointed this fact out, perhaps thats why previous revolutions failed, perhaps it is a depressing fact. it is simply something I wanted to aknowlage and see what reactions I got.

[Rawthentic]

And today, regarding the higher level of education in the world than back then, the workers should and are taking up the leadership of the communist movement and organizing themselves.

[Janus]

perhaps thats why previous revolutions failed
Revolutions don't fail because of the class of their ideological theorists but because of the composition, policies, and organization/structure of the revolutionary movement itself.

[Floyce White]

I discussed this topic in my Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) series.

[rebelworker]

I think the class background of a revolutionary has a big effect on their poltics.

I think there were many huge mistakes made in the past because petty burgeoise leaders of communist parties did not truly understand what is required for the working class to free themselves. Just because you think you are siding with the workng class dose not mean you have abandoned your old ways of viewing the world.

I have argued for years that Vanguardist socialism is a petty burgeoise ideology because it dose not take self activity of the working class as the central principal of a succesful transition to communism. Substitutionism for party over the trial and error of the massof theworking class through directly democratic base institutions is anti working class in my opinion andcomes from petty burgeoise or managerial class mindset and thinking.

[Question everything]

Stalin? Ho Chi Minh? Khrushchev? Mengistu? Tito? Gheorghiu-Dej? Ceauşescu?

I was refering to revolutionary leaders but I'll look them up too. and wasn't Ho Chi Minh the one who brought capitalism back to China?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

and wasn't Ho Chi Minh the one who brought capitalism back to China?

Ho' was Vietnamese. In any case, a social system that can be brought down by a few, not to mention a single man, is not socialism.

[kurohata]

Originally posted by Trinitario+April 04, 2007 01:51 pm--> (Trinitario @ April 04, 2007 01:51 pm)
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+April 04, 2007 03:15 am--> (Luís Henrique @ April 04, 2007 03:15 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 11:08 pm
Being a Male is a privilege.
Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.
Being a "White" person is a privilege.
Living in the U.S. and UK is a privilege.
No.

People who are male, straight, white, or live in "first world" countries either inherit historical privileges or receive privilege from ongoing prejudices; but being male, straight, or white are not privileges in themselves.

Luís Henrique [/b]
I understand that, which is why i said "in today's culture of course". [/b]
yeah i think what would have been more correct to say would be

"being a male gives you (a false) privilege"

otherwise what you were saying is that you are privileged to be a white hetero male.


Floyce White
I discussed this topic in my Antiproperty series.

is all you do post links to thinks you've written in the past? you'd be much more constructive if you could actually talk about the relevant bits in a post.

[The Grey Blur]

Well first off you've made a few mistakes, for examples Engels never owned a factory.

Secondly, those from the priveliged classes did not have the occupation of constant toil as the workers do and thus were able to ruminate on the philosophical, moral, political and economical questions of their age.

Thirdly, it is not where we come from but what we do that determines our worth.

Fourthly, it is emancipation of the working-class, not self-emancipation.

[Rawthentic]

Fourthly, it is emancipation of the working-class, not self-emancipation.

It's actually about both. We workers are long tired about being led by petty-bourgeois intellectuals and we want to take control over our own movement and take control into our own hands. We are not as stupid as some people think, so much that we have to be led by revolutionary intellectuals who happen to know whats good for us.

[Janus]

and wasn't Ho Chi Minh the one who brought capitalism back to China?
No, that would be Deng Xiaoping. Ho, however, was quite privileged or at least more privileged than most Vietnamese at that time since his father was a Confucian scholar/civil servant at the Imperial Court.



Well first off you've made a few mistakes, for examples Engels never owned a factory.
No, not by himself, but he was a joint proprietor of his father's business which was quite a significant one.

[Question everything]

Even though this statement is way to simplistic... the person you're thinking of is Deng Xiaoping.

:blush: my bad


What do you mean by "revolutionary leaders"? All of those people played some part in the overthrow of capitalist rule in their countries, and were leaders of those countries afterwards.

I was refering not so much to the fact that they were leaders, but the fact they were revolutionaries, as opposed to up holding a regime.

[Janus]

But he resigned when Ho was young; and Ho went abroad to work.
Right, but Ho was able to attend school and even became a teacher for a while something that most other Vietnamese couldn't afford at the time. Though his father may have resigned, being a member of the scholar gentry was still a very prestigious position during and after service.

[rebelworker]

you cant just snap your fingers and become fully proletarianised.

Anything he was brought up with would stay with him. He would become exposed to a proletarian life over time, but he would also have a different mindset due to his upbringing. Knowing what is possible in a petty burgoise social strata and having thoes contacts would probably be with him for life.

Anyway, its no coincidence that most leaders of most communist parties and mst "comunist" govts have come from privalledge. The systems are set up in a way to favor the intellectuals and socially conected, just like the old system. To really liberate itself the working class must dismantly all forms of centralised leadership and state and replace them with bodies more suited to our way of life.

[Issaiah1332]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 04, 2007 01:02 am
I'm simply pointing out that the WORKER'S revolution should be led by the workers, not the rich, the rich should be able to help, they should be allowed to lead if they deserve it, but the fact that ALL of the communist leaders are born into rich families, defeats the point of SELF- Emancipation.
It is a revolution. It is free to anyone who wants to revolutionize the current state of society, we need all the people we can get. It is not only a workers revolution, it is a people's revolution.

[gilhyle]

It seems to me the answer to your concern lies not in some self-denying ordinance on 'leaders' from outside the working class, but lies more in the definition of/understanding of 'leadership'.

Professional revolutionaries are bound to come predominantly from outside the working class. The extention of universal education in the imperialist world to the working class certainly opens up other possibilities, but it is the anger of the petit bourgeois at their unstable social status and the moral indignation of the priviledged which usually provides the motivation for the kind of commitment that creates the professional revolutionary.

But the emancipation of the working class becomes the work of the working class themselves to the extent that leaders are able to see their role as one of 'scaffolding', i.e. building an institutional and cultural framework within which decision making becomes a collective process - at which time the scaffolding can be taken down. THe marxist psychologist Vygotsky has written about this with regard to the educational process, but it applies also to the political process.

If the petit bourgeois is a true Marxist, this kind of working class autonomy will be part of his/her goal. I suggest you worry less about the class origins of the revolutionary leader and more about the class character of his/her concept of political decision making (though it is true that it is hard for driven individualist leader-types as come typically from the ruling class to let go.)

[ern]

It is the political positions and activity of a revolutionary organisation that matters, not the social content of its membership. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky etc etc never saw themselves as individual leaders or exceptional individuals, but rather as militants of revolutionary organisations. For all of these militants the central concern was the revolutionary organisation of the working class. It has been Stalinism that has tried to turn them into gods etc.
The central challenge facing revolutionary organisations is how to maintain and develop the permanent struggle against the ever present weight of bourgeois ideology. Communist organisations and activity is totally alien to capitalism and demands a constant struggle against the insidious penetration of bourgeois ideologies which seek to suck communist organisation into accommodating themselves to capitalist society. To see this struggle as one that is mainly about the social origins of militants is to miss the point which is that any militant can be drawn -much of the time unconsciously- towards such ideologies.
This does not mean that there is not a question of the social back ground of militants, or more precisely the ability of militants from these background to clearly and consciously break with the ideological baggage of their petty-bourgeois backgrounds. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky all warned about the danger of the presence within the revolutionary movement of elements from a petty-bourgeois background -especially intellectuals- who had not been able to break from the influence of this social milieu. But the central question was their lack of ability to break from this influence not the fact of their social background.
Hastalavictoria is also correct to point to the historical development of capitalism and its impact on the role of theoreticians and leaders. In the 19th and early 20th century individuals such as Marx etc played an important role because of their ability to develop revolutionary theory and practice, but we must not forget that they played this role within organisations that regrouped thousands, if not tens of thousands of workers. Hastalavictory is correct to point out that with the development of education the need for such theoreticians has declined. Since the late 1920's the role of well known theoreticians has declined, the last of were probably Bordiga and Pannekeok. Today, the main organisations of the Communist Left do not have such well known individuals, though clearly there are comrades with greater theoretical abilities than others, rather the activity of organisations is seen as being much more of a collective, centralised and anonymous revolutionary praxis.
There is a lot more that could be said about this question, but the main point is that we cannot reduce it to a question of social background in itself.

[Question everything]

I am simply pointing out that most revolutionary were rich (although it seems that for one reason or another many of them lost their privilege). I'm not saying that the rich should not be allow to fight. I'm not saying that the fact that they were brought up rich makes them any less leftist, I'm simply noting a trend that most revolutionary leaders were brought up in a privileged family, which is some what ironic, that with all this talk of class war that these movements would be lead by the rich themselves is not only ironic but somewhat discouraging.

[Floyce White]

We cry for the wounded pride of the petty rich.

I remind you that this topic was already well discussed in the thread Workers state - never spoken of.

[chimx]

Originally posted by CDL
What about Stalin? Ho Chi Minh? Khrushchev? Mengistu? Tito? Gheorghiu-Dej? Ceau?escu? There have been plenty of leaders that have come from prole and peasant backgrounds.

Stalin grew up originally in a relatively poor peasant home, but his family later came to be heavily supported by some rich bloke from the neighborhood. I forget the man's profession.

But regardless, I find what you are saying interesting. The difference between Marx, Engels, Lenin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Trotsky, and the individuals that you mentioned, is that you describe yours as "leaders", the list above is that of communist theoreticians. Ever since the birth of Jacobinism, communist ideology has been a radical, albeit marginal piece of bourgeois intellectual culture. You can speak of the purity of the proletariat, or the communist movement as some abstraction, but if you deny communism's theoretical roots within the capitalist intelligentsia, you deny truth.

[Floyce White]

Chimx, the source of all knowledge is in the practice of the doers. The struggle of lower-class people--their actions and discussions--is the source of the theory on lower-class struggle. Marx, Engels, and other upper-class activists interpreted communist theory according to their property interests.

There is no such thing as a "capitalist communist." But of course, some rich people will package their nationalizations movement as "lower order of 'communism'"--same as other rich people package their hyper-privatization movement as "anarcho-'communism.'" You do. Don't you? Yes.

By the way, there is no such thing as "absolute truth." What is true to the rich is very often false to the poor.

[chimx]

certainly I would prefer to view communism as the developing proletarian movement or experience of class conflict, abstracted from any bourgeois theoretical roots, but that is a tad on the idealistic side. communist practice is what is important to the history of class conflict and worker liberation, yes, but this practice was rooted in an intellectual theory that is the direct byproduct of the bourgeois intelligentsia. You seem to be trying to undermine the historical importance of figures such as Marx, Engels, or Lenin.


same as other rich people package their hyper-privatization movement as "anarcho-'communism.'" You do. Don't you? Yes.

I'm not rich. I do roof construction and am constantly at risk of death being as my profession is one of the most fatal jobs in the US. Before you start slandering me, why don't you tell us what you do??


By the way, there is no such thing as "absolute truth." What is true to the rich is very often false to the poor.

So if the rich think that 1+1=2, what do the poor think it is?

[Vargha Poralli]

Well all I can say is when we talk about persons what matters most is not what they were/are but what they did.

There were million writers/theoriticians have done miilons of works in different fields.

The siginificane of the people in this list is that their works mainly have impacted/imapcting millions today.

Chimx better ignore Folyce white. He is a total nut.

[Floyce White]

Chimx, the fightback of millions of workers were not "rooted in an intellectual theory." Quite the contrary. They were based in real-life situations of deprivation and despair. Bourgeois such as Marx read about struggles in the newspaper, and then invented theories based on their upper-class prejudices.

What kind of clown equates the suffering of the poor with the rich reading the newspaper over breakfast?

Why don't I tell you what I do? OK, anonymous Internet nobody. I said before on this message board that I am an office worker, sitting in front of a computer. I said before (in response to an interrogative by provocateur Lazar/Zampano) that I hurt my back twice working in factories and warehouses, and cannot do manual labor anymore. Your work is no more dangerous than construction labor or surveying or house painting that I did in my youth.

And you can also get off your "oh you're slandering me" trip. You do and did promote "anarcho-communism." It doesn't become working-class theory just because a worker mouths it. Some workers mouth religion. Is religion the theory of working-class struggle? No. Neither is "anarcho-communism."

chimx: "So if the rich think that 1+1=2, what do the poor think it is?"

My father told me many times that one apple plus one orange doesn't equal two apples. Save your "pure mathematics" for G Ram, who thinks that name-calling is comradely or even valid discussion.

[chimx]

Chimx, the fightback of millions of workers were not "rooted in an intellectual theory." Quite the contrary. They were based in real-life situations of deprivation and despair.

Right, millions of workers never called themselves Marxists or Bakunists? Never admired the 1st international? Never discussed the communist manifesto with coworkers? Communist praxis, that is, proletarian praxis, developed in no small part due to the influence of bourgeois intellectual culture on the proletariat.


You do and did promote "anarcho-communism." . . . . Your work is no more dangerous than construction labor or surveying or house painting that I did in my youth.

You called me rich. And my job is significantly more dangerous than painting or surveying. It is #6 in the US for most yearly deaths. In fact, 2 roofers in the town I work in just died last summer. So please don't call me rich. link (http://www.rsimag.com/rsi/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=87274).

[ern]

Floyce white:


Bourgeois such as Marx read about struggles in the newspaper, and then invented theories based on their upper-class prejudices.

Marx was involved with revolutionary political activity from the mid 1840's, being exiled from Belgium for his activity. He was a militant of the Communist League. He was also such an isolated bourgeois that the founders of the First International asked him to be part of the central body of that organisation. The reason why he was asked was because he was known for his past involvement in the workers' movement. It may surprise you Floyce but the militant workers who formed the Ist International did not hate those members of other classes who thrown in their lot with the working class but welcomed them and the education they could bring with them.

A good example of this was the involvement of Elenor Marx -Marx's daughter- in the workers movement she was on the central body of one of the unions -I cannot remember which-, participated in many conferences and congress -both nationally and internationally- as a delegate and as a translator, she also militated in the socialist League. She was greatly respected by many workers for her comment to the cause of the proletariat.

[Floyce White]

Everybody knows Karl Marx wasn't a worker. It is not "self-emancipation" when the bourgeois write the theory and the proletarians do the foot work of organizing.

We servants must write the theory and reject the viewpoints of the masters. That's why I wrote my Antiproperty essays. That's why I urge all poor people to write and distribute their own opinions.

[KC]

Chimx, the source of all knowledge is in the practice of the doers. The struggle of lower-class people--their actions and discussions--is the source of the theory on lower-class struggle. Marx, Engels, and other upper-class activists interpreted communist theory according to their property interests.

The fact that you believe that the politicization of the working class has nothing to do with Marxist theory is hilarious. I have no idea how anyone can take you seriously after saying something so stupid.


Chimx, the fightback of millions of workers were not "rooted in an intellectual theory." Quite the contrary. They were based in real-life situations of deprivation and despair.

The politicization of the working class has been historically heavily influenced by Marxism which is an "intellectual theory". Again, you're a fucking joke.


Bourgeois such as Marx read about struggles in the newspaper, and then invented theories based on their upper-class prejudices.

Please show us all how Marxist theory has "upper-class prejudices".


What kind of clown equates the suffering of the poor with the rich reading the newspaper over breakfast?

What kind of clown claims that Marxism has "upper-class prejudices"?


Why don't I tell you what I do? OK, anonymous Internet nobody. I said before on this message board that I am an office worker, sitting in front of a computer. I said before (in response to an interrogative by provocateur Lazar/Zampano) that I hurt my back twice working in factories and warehouses, and cannot do manual labor anymore. Your work is no more dangerous than construction labor or surveying or house painting that I did in my youth.

Floyce are you this conceited when you talk to other workers? You must not have many friends...how sad. :(


And you can also get off your "oh you're slandering me" trip. You do and did promote "anarcho-communism." It doesn't become working-class theory just because a worker mouths it. Some workers mouth religion. Is religion the theory of working-class struggle? No. Neither is "anarcho-communism."

Ah, so you and you alone are the one that decides what is "working class" and what isn't? What makes you so special? Just because you as a worker think something's right doesn't make it right, as you have said yourself.


My father told me many times that one apple plus one orange doesn't equal two apples. Save your "pure mathematics" for G Ram, who thinks that name-calling is comradely or even valid discussion.

Why should anyone here be comradely to you when you just call people names (calling me a "provacateur" for example, or calling chimx "rich")? If you're going to be a smartass then you shouldn't expect people to not be one to you.


Everybody knows Karl Marx wasn't a worker. It is not "self-emancipation" when the bourgeois write the theory and the proletarians do the foot work of organizing.

So people shouldn't become communists then? Is that what you're saying? You're a fucking idiot!


We servants must write the theory and reject the viewpoints of the masters. That's why I wrote my Antiproperty essays. That's why I urge all poor people to write and distribute their own opinions.

Ahh, so you're rejecting Marx's writings on the grounds that Marx "was a bourgeois" (as you claim), and not because they're incorrect. So in order for them to be acceptable to you, a proletarian has to write them. That's just stupid; you're basically saying that even if Marx was right about some things, a proletarian would have to put them in a paper for them to be acceptable. This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

[UndergroundConnexion]

this is because the richer had more access to education.

[grove street]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 04, 2007 01:02 am
I'm simply pointing out that the WORKER'S revolution should be led by the workers, not the rich, the rich should be able to help, they should be allowed to lead if they deserve it, but the fact that ALL of the communist leaders are born into rich families, defeats the point of SELF- Emancipation.
There is a simple explanation why most famous Communists tend to come from privileged families. It has to do with the fact, that in most of the socities where Marxist theory originated ( late 18th century) and where Marxist revolutions took place (Russia, China, Cuba ect) only the privilage had access to education or even the time to come up with ideas to better society. The working class were to busy working 14+ hours a day just survive.

How can you expect workers to free themselves and create a Communist society if they can't even read?

[Floyce White]

Of the millions of working-class activists who did read and did write over their years of activism, it's not possible to read and discuss their opinions if those words are not being distributed today. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie has made sure that the opinions of fellow bourgeois Marx and Lenin are in every library of any size.

Marx and Lenin were not communists. Communism is not a belief system any more than capitalism is a mere belief system. Marx and Lenin cannot be made over into "communists" just because someone declares them so.

The left wing of the bourgeoisie call them "communists." The say-so of petty-bourgeois leftists isn't the source of my opinions. Is it yours?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 17, 2007 06:37 am
Of the millions of working-class activists who did read and did write over their years of activism, it's not possible to read and discuss their opinions if those words are not being distributed today. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie has made sure that the opinions of fellow bourgeois Marx and Lenin are in every library of any size.

Marx and Lenin were not communists. Communism is not a belief system any more than capitalism is a mere belief system. Marx and Lenin cannot be made over into "communists" just because someone declares them so.

The left wing of the bourgeoisie call them "communists." The say-so of petty-bourgeois leftists isn't the source of my opinions. Is it yours?
Marx and Lenin were more of a communist than you will ever be, and they have done more for the working-class movement than you ever will.

Don't get your ego hurt because of it, it's just a historical fact.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:23 pm
you cant just snap your fingers and become fully proletarianised.
This should be permanently tattooed on the backs of the hands of so many people around here.

Miles

[KC]

Floyce it's great to see you yet again ignoring a quite valid response to you assertions and just go on ranting as if nothing was said.


Of the millions of working-class activists who did read and did write over their years of activism, it's not possible to read and discuss their opinions if those words are not being distributed today. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie has made sure that the opinions of fellow bourgeois Marx and Lenin are in every library of any size.

Yeah, the bourgeoisie loves Marx and Lenin. :rolleyes: Give me a fucking break.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:08 pm
Privilege far exceeds just a economic position.
Being a Male is a privilege.
Being a Heterosexual is a privilege.
Being a "White" person is a privilege.
Living in the U.S. and UK is a privilege.


I will try to remember to tell people this when I go to the factory at seven tomorrow morning.
There was a strike at my work today, but I will start by telling other workers;
1) You are privilaged because you are male (I am, but of course not everybody is).
2)You are priviliged because you aren't gay (I am not, one guy I know at work is, but I tend not to ask people too much about their sex lives. Maybe more are).
3) You are privilaged because you are white (well thank god we are not gypsies, but actually there are quite a few gypsies, and vietnemese that work there too).
4)Fortunatly we don't live in either the U.S., or the UK, so I guess we are not complete reactionaries.

Really, what sort of anti-working class pseudo-liberal bullshit is this person talking about?

The working class (in all of its diversity) will make socialism, or nobody will at all.

All of this talk of privilage is middle class nonsense. Should I tell the 75% privillaged workers (according to the above post) to go back to work then?

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

To the original poster; you should read up about Maxim Gorky and his life, he was certainly not rich. In fact, he was part of the lowest class in his youth.

The vast majority of communists were, the problem is that you are only looking at the most theoretical advanced ones, which happen to be the leaders. The leaders aren't the only communists around, they are in fact vastly outnumbered by us "regular" communists.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 03, 2007 11:11 pm
I know people are going to hate me for this but... Most communist leaders had priviled upbringings:

Back then (19th century and early 20th century), education was reserved for the wealthy. The proletariat could seldom even read or write, that makes it very hard to be a communist theorists. Emma Goldman and Paul Mattick however are examples of working class communist theorists.

Today, there are far more working class communist thinkers than wealthy ones.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 17, 2007 08:01 pm
But, for instance.. a white worker is less likely to be harrassed by police in the U.S. than a Black one. This cannot be denied. This doesn't mean they aren't both oppressed as workers, or that they musn't unite to overthrow capitalism. Actually, it shows why the national question must be answered before/as a part of the revolution.
It shows nothing of the kind about the national question. Also, I personally don't feel oppressed as a worker, exploited yes, but oppressed? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Devrim

[grove street]

Originally posted by devrimankara+April 17, 2007 09:49 pm--> (devrimankara @ April 17, 2007 09:49 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 17, 2007 08:01 pm
But, for instance.. a white worker is less likely to be harrassed by police in the U.S. than a Black one. This cannot be denied. This doesn't mean they aren't both oppressed as workers, or that they musn't unite to overthrow capitalism. Actually, it shows why the national question must be answered before/as a part of the revolution.
It shows nothing of the kind about the national question. Also, I personally don't feel oppressed as a worker, exploited yes, but oppressed? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Devrim [/b]
The undeground rapper/MC Immortal Technique said it best on his track ''The Poverty of Philosophy''.

''The average black person has far more in common with the average working class white person, then they do with some black movie star, athlete, rap star and house nigga''.

Heres a video to his track. He's not rapping, just talking from his own politcal view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Vl0peys90

[Floyce White]

Sartre: "Marx and Lenin were more of a communist than you will ever be, and they have done more for the working-class movement than you ever will."

You cannot prove that the political activism of capitalists is "working-class action," and that the political theory of capitalists is "working-class theory." You cannot prove that the ongoing intervention of capitalists into workers' struggles is "working-class movement." Your argument is sheer assertion. So why not push the envelope a little with an assertion that bourgeois activism is "more communist than communists?"

Sartre: "Don't get your ego hurt because of it..."

Appeal to emotion. Stating a difference of opinion is not "ego bruising;" a rebuttal is not "ego salving."

Sartre: "...it's just a historical fact."

Yet another fallacy to call your one's opinion a "fact"--and imply that all other opinions are "denial of fact." An opinion takes on factual status only after it has been proven. You haven't even begun trying to prove your claim.

There is no such thing as "proof by assertion." Petty capitalists forever assert that they "are communists" and that their authority figures "are communists." It's no more true than the line that "workers are really capitalists."

It's no more true than the liberal, fake "theory" that society consists not of classes, but of "strata" and "layers" of which some are relatively more "privileged" and some are relatively "underprivileged." It's no more true than the idea that "the privileged exploit the underprivileged," and therefore "some workers are exploiters too."

Sartre: "...the most theoretical advanced ones, which happen to be the leaders."

What a coincidence! The bourgeoisie are the "leaders" and declare themselves to be "most advanced," while the proletarians are the "followers" and are declared by the bourgeoisie to be "most backwards!"

CompañeroDeLibertad: "Actually, it shows why the national question must be answered before/as a part of the revolution."

The dispossessed lower class makes no claims to own the territories or facilities of nation-states; therefore, lower-class people have no nationality. The national question of bourgeoisie is addressed by the communists by smashing all nation-states.

While this is an important issue, Devrimankara is correct to point out that it is not germane.