the poverty of "kill the rich"

[which doctor]

Often times, usually by various anarchist outfits, I see organizations using the slogan of "Kill the rich" or "Toast the rich", etc. It seems to manifest itself in various ways.

I find such a command to be very misleading and perhaps even harmful to the proletarian movement.

If we kill the rich, then what? The rich don't make people poor. Capitalism makes people poor. Capitalism also makes people rich. If we simply kill the rich, a whole new class will arise of former proletarians who become rich. "Kill capitalism" would be a far better slogan than something such as "Kill the rich" which oversimplifies the problem of capitalism. Let's just say a world without the rich wouldn't be one for long (meaning a nouveau rich would arise), that is if there is not a proletariat willing to take charge.

Now, I'm not saying that our enemy is not the bourgeoisie. But I think many people think they are our enemies for all the wrong reasons. They simply lie on the other side of capital. The conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie which has been going on since these classes arouse is one over the control of capital and the means of production, not over who has fancier cars or who has more money.

That being said I think that people who associate themselves with the revolutionary left should refrain from using "Kill the rich" or it's many variants. The rich aren't our enemy, capitalism is.

That's my angry incoherent rant for the day. I'm sure it has some holes in it, but then again so does my head.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You make a good point. Fundamentally, we must never forget that the problems of the world are not created by "bad people" and the solution does not consist of putting "good people" in charge.

The problems of the world are created by social and economic structures - by capitalism - and the bourgeoisie are our enemies because capitalism put them in a position where it is in their self-interest (and within their power) to exploit other human beings. Not because they are "bad people" (though many of them certainly are evil assholes).

Insistence on the idea of "bad people" creates the false impression that we could solve economic problems by putting "better people" in charge of capitalism.

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:03 am
The rich aren't our enemy, capitalism is.
The majority of them are.

I don't advocate killing them straight away, but you need to take into consideration how these people will react in a revolutionary situation and their property is seized by the masses.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It seems more preferable to simply expropriate them while allocating their excess capital into the democratic hands of the whole mass of workers themselves. Joseph Ettor, an organizer for the Industrial Workers of the World, once said that "if the workers want to win, all they have to do is recognize their own solidarity. They have to do but fold their arms and the world will stop. The workers are more powerful with their hands in their pockets then all the property of the capitalists." Certainly, it sounds unrealistic, but it is an immensely powerful idea.

It is confrontational, but it is not necessarily an armed insurrection that will claim human lives. It is not necessary to "kill the rich", but it is necessary to engage in armed self-defense, and to launch a preemptive strike at certain moments when it is deemed necessary, which will obviously have it's casualties.

But I don't see we further our position with such a provocative slogan -- it is disconnected with the current social and material situation; we are not in a civil war between the contending proletarian and capitalist class, and the high stake of which class will control the political power is not a question as of right now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On a related note... (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66272)


From my heydays as a Stalinist, I got acquainted with the idea of the "aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism." I don't know: maybe the wrong words were used, or was this whole theory developed by Stalin wrong (given the Maoist spin of the bourgeoisie within socialism)?

The reason I ask is that there really needs to be set clear amongst all of us that there are TWO transitional periods, and not just one: DOTP and socialism. Surprisingly, Marx discussed more about the second transitional period than about the first, as if the DOTP would transition into socialism very quickly.

[From my reading of Lenin, I think there was an implication - if not explicit material - that the DOTP was a more protracted transition period than socialism per se.]

Back to the original question: how can there be a development of socialism when the DOTP hasn't even developed fully yet (emerging out of revolutionary stamocap, for example)?

[At least that's less removed from reality than the idea of revolution in ANY country directly going into the DOTP, even when emerging from post-feudal relations.]

Is it more appropriate to say that there is an aggravation of the class struggle under the DOTP instead (the Russian Civil War being a prime example of this)?

And (same thread):



Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:58 am
Yes, class struggles continue under the DoP, which can and usually does take different forms as it conforms to the needs of the proletariat and its conditions of liberation.

One of the things that I have learned on Humanism is that proletarian consciousness and action never stop fighting for freedom.

Indeed, but do they merely continue under the DOTP, or intensify? I don't think any major Marxist ever talked much about class struggle in the DOTP, focusing instead on revolution.

...

I recently saved some interesting works by Lenin on the subject. I'd like some input on this, from Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm):


Under capitalism the proletariat was an oppressed class, a class which had been deprived of the means of production, the only class which stood directly and completely opposed to the bourgeoisie, and therefore the only one capable of being revolutionary to the very end. Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialised; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters. All these are specific tasks of the class struggle, tasks which the proletariat formerly did not and could not have set itself.

And (different thread) (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67410&view=findpost&p=1292329892):



To be fair, dispossession alone wouldn't make proletarians out of the bourgeoisie. What it would do is create a large number of de-classed and disaffected people. These people would either become refugees, take up arms against the proletariat, or assimilate into proletarian society. The third option is impractical without re-education, the second would not be very worrisome, as the proletariat had defeated the bourgeoisie before, when they had the State behind them.

Actually, history has proven the second to be the most realistic case. While the class struggle wouldn't be aggravated within proletarian society, you ignore one other reactionary class at the disposal of the bourgeoisie: the lumpenproletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat) (including beggars and drug dealers).

Even the petit-bourgeoisie (perhaps myself included, depending on certain POVs on this board) would have a much easier time fitting in than even these folks.

[Black Dagger]

I don't necessarily disagree with your argument Fobby, but i think you're arguing against a strawman here.

When someone says 'kill the rich' they dont just mean kill people for the sake of killing people, as if that killing rich people was the end in itself (a viewpoint you critiqued well), rather it's an allusion to class war.

Like the slogan 'smash the state', the implication is not that all that is desired is the destruction of the state, but that this is nevertheless a (significant) part of the social revolution.

These are merely segments of a broader framework of ideas, a framework that has been simplified into slogans for propaganda purposes.

So it's fallacious to then take these slogans and critique them as if they were representative of a persons singular demands when they are merely political shorthand for the social revolution.

[People's Councillor]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 11, 2007 04:18 am
Insistence on the idea of "bad people" creates the false impression that we could solve economic problems by putting "better people" in charge of capitalism.
And there's my daily intake of anti-Platonism.

[which doctor]

The majority of them are.

I don't advocate killing them straight away, but you need to take into consideration how these people will react in a revolutionary situation and their property is seized by the masses.

Well, once they have had their means of production appropriated from them, they will no longer be bourgeoisie. Considering they made the mistake of having a proletarian security force (soldiers, police, etc.), they won't have anybody to fight for them. They really won't be able to react violently. However, in the rare case they do, I have no problem offing them in self-defense.

[Janus]

That being said I think that people who associate themselves with the revolutionary left should refrain from using "Kill the rich" or it's many variants. The rich aren't our enemy, capitalism is.
As are capitalists who are benefitting from the current system. As for the slogan, I think you're analyzing it a bit too much like bgm said. It's meant for its rhetorical and propaganda value rather than its theoretical validity though I agree that it should be used very lightly considering how it's apt to be misinterpreted.

[Leo]

Often times, usually by various anarchist outfits, I see organizations using the slogan of "Kill the rich" or "Toast the rich", etc. It seems to manifest itself in various ways. I find such a command to be very misleading and perhaps even harmful to the proletarian movement.

If we kill the rich, then what? The rich don't make people poor. Capitalism makes people poor.

I think this has to do with the lack of theoretical clarity in the left, I don't think it is something limited to anarchists. Because they are not able to explain why capitalism is "bad", the only argument they can develop to show that capitalism is bad is saying that bosses are nasty people.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 11, 2007 06:04 am
I don't necessarily disagree with your argument Fobby, but i think you're arguing against a strawman here.

When someone says 'kill the rich' they dont just mean kill people for the sake of killing people, as if that killing rich people was the end in itself (a viewpoint you critiqued well), rather it's an allusion to class war.

Like the slogan 'smash the state', the implication is not that all that is desired is the destruction of the state, but that this is nevertheless a (significant) part of the social revolution.

These are merely segments of a broader framework of ideas, a framework that has been simplified into slogans for propaganda purposes.

So it's fallacious to then take these slogans and critique them as if they were representative of a persons singular demands when they are merely political shorthand for the social revolution.
Agreed.

I personally find "kill the rich" to be a kind of boring slogan. It's very hackneyed.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Janus
As for the slogan, I think you're analyzing it a bit too much like bgm said. It's meant for its rhetorical and propaganda value rather than its theoretical validity...

Perhaps FoB is "analyzing it a bit too much". Indeed, personally, I'd probably say that he's over-analysing the basic meaning of the words -- taking them as a position, in and of itself.

But, likewise, I'd also say that you, bgm, and others, are also mistaken in dismissing any attempt at an analysis of political slogans. Because political slogans can, and often do, tell us about the political organisation that promotes them -- indeed, that any organisation would opt to use slogans in the first place, also tells us something about that organisation.

For example, the RCP's big slogan is the "World Can't Wait". And I think many people would agree that that slogan is a symptom of their overall political direction, theory, and praxis. In effect, the slogan not only encapsulates the RCP's anti-war campaign -- it also encapsulates, in a certain sense, the RCP's drift towards Democrat esque liberalism.

I realise I may not be making a great deal of sense here, so I'll point you all in the direction of piece that describes all this a lot better than I can.

In Death of a Paper Tiger -- Reflections on Class War (http://libcom.org/library/paper-tiger-class-war-aufheben-6), originally published by Aufheben, the anarchist organisation Class War -- not the one around now, its predecessor from the 90's -- is looked at. And the link between the organisations favourite slogan, and campaign, "Bash the Rich", is looked at as a symptom of the organisations overall approach.

It's a really good article, and well worth a read.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by AS+--> (AS)But, likewise, I'd also say that you, bgm, and others, are also mistaken in dismissing any attempt at an analysis of political slogans.[/b]

I'm not dismissing any attempt at an analysis of political slogans, indeed as i said before, i don't disagree with what Fobby has said; certainly if someone held the view he described in his post... then the critique Fobby presented would be apt one.

But as i also said, i dont think this is usually the case.

That is, when people use slogans like 'kill the rich' or even 'smash the state' these are usually short-hand for much more nuanced positions and are not meant to be taken literally nor are they necessarily representative of political naivety.


AS
Because political slogans can, and often do, tell us about the political organisation that promotes them -- indeed, that any organisation would opt to use slogans in the first place, also tells us something about that organisation.

Of course, but i'd also argue that anarchist groups/collectives/affinity groups and so forth (the primary target of Fobby's critique) are less likely to sloganise in the manner, for example, that you've attributed to the RCP; and that that is really down to ideology.

Anarchist groups just don't function, organise or promote themselves in the same way as mass-party style groups, which for recruiting purposes rely on things like slogans (like all mass-party style groups do; revolutionary or not).

That's not to say that anarchists groups never sloganise in this manner (indeed you've linked an article which analyses precisely that! Can't read it at the moment, ive got a headache :(), but that this is nevertheless less common (arguably un-common!).

[bolshevik butcher]

Slogans can be an important way of communicating socialist ideas on a mass and simple scale, and I agree with FOBs analysis here. The problem with kill the rich is that it does not make clear what is desired, calling for workers control of society or something along those lines would seem to make more sense if the aim is to communicate socialist ideas through these slogans.

[Janus]

But, likewise, I'd also say that you, bgm, and others, are also mistaken in dismissing any attempt at an analysis of political slogans.
Except that we haven't done so. None of us have denied that one cannot gain some basic understanding of a group based on their slogans. Rather what we have stated is that slogans are largely used for their propaganda and rhetorical value and thus cannot be analyzed as actual theoretical works in and of themselves.


Because political slogans can, and often do, tell us about the political organisation that promotes them -- indeed, that any organisation would opt to use slogans in the first place, also tells us something about that organisation.
Of course, no one is arguing otherwise here.


For example, the RCP's big slogan is the "World Can't Wait". And I think many people would agree that that slogan is a symptom of their overall political direction, theory, and praxis. In effect, the slogan not only encapsulates the RCP's anti-war campaign -- it also encapsulates, in a certain sense, the RCP's drift towards Democrat esque liberalism.
The "World Can't Wait" and "Drive out the Bush regime" slogans which are used by the RCP and it's front group "World Can't Wait" obviously provide some basic insight into the groups. I would certainly say that the slogan "Drive out the Bush regime" is really an attempt by the front group in order to try to attract less radical supporters to the cause as it is little difficult from the calls of certain Democrats to impeach Bush. Like I said, one can gain some basic insight into a group based on their slogans, but it's also quite easy to miscontrue them and attempt to analyze them as one would analyze a theoretical work by the group.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You make a good point. It's the not the people, it's the system. But I wouldn't say that I'm against "killing the rich". In all likelihood, class war will boil down to killing the rich. But I do like the point you seek to make with this thread a lot. Because some leftists, particularly alienated American leftists like redstar2000, advocate the wanton murder of right-wingers and reactionary elements in society. Like you said quite eloquently, this isn't at all revolutionary.

[which doctor]

A note from me: I in no way condemn violence against members of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.

[An archist]

It's a punk thing. Don't take it too seriously, a slogan like 'eat the rich' shows that even more, it's just something to make yourself seem rebellious.

[Naxal]

I also think that, as an ideological statement (which is what they are, they are crude and infantile and help fuel the stereotype that members of the left, particularly anarchists who have some sort of connections with the punk movement (which is who, in my experience, you see sporting such slogans on their bags and clothing) are nothing more than naive and stupid children.

On a deeper level, I think it reflects a more general misunderstanding of class structure and more importantly, the capitalist structure. A) The rich are not the issue, the capitalist structure is the issue. B) We oppose Capitalists, not the wealthy.

A) What is the basic goal of Communists? What is the basic goal of Anarchists? I think that it is primarally economical, social issues reflect the reorganisation of the economic model. What is this economic model? Well, to brutally simplify thousands and thousands of pages of economic works- the transfer of ownership of the means of production (land, labour, capital and to entrepreneurship) from the Capitalist class (who, under a Capitalist model, own Capital- the primary source of wealth) to the working class (any person who does not own capital and sells their labour to those who do own capital).

Capitalists are not necessarily wealthy, nor will 'burning' them do anything. The basic structure of capitalism based around the exploitation of the working class (collection of surplus wealth, as well as the greater metropolis-satellite relationship) will continue to exist because the base structure has not been changed. The inequalities present in the Capitalist system are not the Capitalist system, they are manifestations of the Capitalist system (the Capitalist structures). 'Burning the rich' is like giving panadol to someone wil brain cancer. The headache isn't the problem, it is a manifestation of the cancer.

B) What is a wealthy person? Well, it's a person with a lot of money and this is judged relatively. For instance, I get paid $15NZ an hour (about $10US) doing a skilled, but low level typing job at a university. Compared to someone who works at a factory or cleans toliets, who is paid about $10.50NZ (about $7US) an hour I am wealthy. Compared to someone who works as a doctor, who is paid something like five to ten times what I'm paid an hour, I am poor. But the three of us all have two thing in common- None of us own the means of production, we sell our labour to people who do own the means of production (Capitalists) and thus, despite the massive differences in our wages/salaries we all are 'working class', it's just that some of us have greater job security and can live more comfortably than others due to a greater demand and value put on skilled labour (which is a manifestation of another basic economic concept- scarcity). So, one again the focus must take a step back and reexamine the situation.

Who exploits who? Is it the rich? Not necessarily, there are many poor Capitalists- small business owners, many land smaller land owners and even large land owners who, literally, have millions of dollars worth of debt (this is not particularly uncommon in New Zealand) and the bulk of their income is used to pay off the interest on their loan. But they are skill Capitalists and the second they employ someone they are in an exploitive relationship where they are the exploiters, regardless of how much money they have. So, who is it that we fight? Who is it that maintains the Capitalist system? Who is it that exploits the workers? Is it the rich? No, it is the Capitalists (though the majority of Capitalists can be considered 'rich'), the owners of the means of production.

And on a lighter and less important note- Engels was loaded.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:26 pm
A note from me: I in no way condemn violence against members of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.
While I would certainly understand fully such types of actions by proletarians, I do not advocate them. They are not acts of revolution and they should not be lauded as such. A revolution is an organized movement with clear objectives. It absolutely does not occur through the carrying out of random acts of violence against capitalists by isolated armed "revolutionaries". This an more accurately be defined as terrorism, not revolution.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Like others have already said I think you have looked into it too deeply. Kill the Rich not meant to be taken literally. I think it does two things:

Plays at class differences

Promotes abolition of a system that creates a class that is rich


I don't get the feeling that it is meant as a call to fire bomb a bmw. It is meant to make a certain statement in a short amount of space. That said I really don't like using that term because it can be confusing and it makes us look violent for the sake of violence.