Rich Socialists?

[wasteman]

It seems that Socialism has become an almost entirely middle/upper class pursuit. This seems rather incompatable. Why don't some socialists give the majority of their earnings to charity and live a slightly more meagre life as they would under the socialist government we are advocating? Most evidence suggests that the more right wing conservative members of society are more likely to give and give more when they do. The perception seems to be that seeing as they are advocating a universal forced charity they are under no obligation to give. Does anyone know many/any socialists who practice what they preach? Or do some seem hypocritical?

[Revy]

What are you talking about? It seems you're promoting stereotypes.

There are some, undoubtedly, like the leadership of some of these parties that call themselves socialist. It's hypocritical.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

live a slightly more meagre life

Huh? Who here wants to live a "slightly more meagre life?" I really doubt if anyone here came across a few million dollars they would put 50%+ into charity. Call me skeptical, but when it's time to buy that dream home you've had your eyes on, it's a matter of material circumstances.


Most evidence suggests that the more right wing conservative members of society are more likely to give and give more when they do

The bulk of this discrepancy comes from the religious divide. Leftists - even religious leftists - are not going to spend a nickel on installing a huge television screen in a mega-church. Hundreds of right-wing pastors are millionaires.

You may as well count my purchase of Girl Scouts cookies charity if you're going to excuse all instances of church charity.


Does anyone know many/any socialists who practice what they preach? Or do some seem hypocritical?

What rich socialists are you talking about? I don't think it's hypocritical to be rich and socialist (depending on how you get that money - acting? Writing a book? Being part of a successful cooperative?), but I'm still struggling to think of one famous outed socialist? Alicia Keyes? :laugh:

[GPDP]

Well, there's Chomsky. He ain't exactly struggling, both financially and class-related. But he's pretty damn old now, so maybe it's too much to ask for him to stand on the streets alongside other leftists?

But then again, there was Mother Jones way back when, so maybe that's not an excuse.

[Djehuti]

It seems that Socialism has become an almost entirely middle/upper class pursuit.

I don't know how it is in the United States or in other countries, but where I live socialists are working class and to a much larger extent then liberals or conservatives for example (even though the majority of almost every political movement are working class, which is the by far largest class).

But I hear almost everyday that we are "middle class" or "upper class" even though that goes against all experience and actual evidence. Our political enemies regulary uses this propaganda against us and they always points at the few examples of upper- or middle class radicals while ignoring every example of the opposite. I believe that they have been very sucessful with discrediting the left with this faul method of theirs. It is sad that even the left is using this shit against eachother, varous lefists groups and tendencies call eachother "middle class" or whatever even though it's very seldom true. (Also "middle class" is a crappy term, what does it mean?)

I actually don't know any rich socialist, but many liberals and conservatives I know of are quite rich.

[bellyscratch]

I dont know of any upper class socialists at all, there are some middle class socialists (mostly university lecturers) but most are working class with out a doubt

[jake williams]

The fact that a number of important socialists, say intellectuals, are often not exactly from a struggling industrial proletariat. They're not always rich, and it's a bit different when Marx was around than it is now, but the phenomenon isn't totally new.

About hypocrisy and the general ethics of it... it's an issue, but I will say that in the real world it can be damn useful to have friends with financial resources when it comes to being politically active.

[Yehuda Stern]

Why would a socialist want to live a more meager life? Any socialist should be willing to do so if his cause requires it, but to do it on principle is just stupid.

[chegitz guevara]

The OP is making certain assumptions based on limited experience. Even in the U.S., the majority of support for socialism comes from working class people. In the U.S., however, much of the working class has a relatively decent standard of living, and thinks of itself as middle class. Just cuz you push papers instead of buttons on an assembly line doesn't mean you're any less a proletarian.

As others have pointed out, the right left discrepancy on charity largely comes from religion. In fact, my understanding is that if donations to churches are excluded, your discrepancy goes away. Tithes aren't charity, even if the government considers it a charitable contribution.

Lastly, I have known some truly rich comrades, people who were either trust fund babies or had "made" their wealth in other ways (for example, one of the founders of Apple--though he's not one of the comrades I know). These people, while living a good life, still contribute a shit load of money to the cause.

As for leftists themselves, many, if not most, contribute far more time and money to their causes than anyone else.

[Pogue]

Plenty of people on this forum use middle class as an insult. They're hypocrites, seeing as surely we only see the proletariat and the

[Vendetta]

It seems that Socialism has become an almost entirely middle/upper class pursuit.

Uh, what?

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Revy]

Why would a socialist want to live a more meager life? Any socialist should be willing to do so if his cause requires it, but to do it on principle is just stupid.

That's the SWP (US) line right there. Members have to work at low-paying jobs, by choice. While the leadership uses their dues to pay for their own wealthy lifestyles.

[Glenn Beck]

This coming from the same guy that posted his Billy Brit, racist youtube video.

First, the vast majority of communists, are from proletarian or peasant backgrounds. I am myself proletarian, but I am part of the labour aristocracy which makes up the first world, IE our wealth is syphoned from the third world. Further, giving our income to charity? And is that feeding a family or feeding a bureaucrat? Even if it wasn't! Socialists do not believe in charity, charity like putting a bandage on a severed limb.

If there is no work, its the responsibility of the government to provide jobs, and if the government isn't willing to do that, provide some substance for living, which is why Welfare is here. Not out of charity but out of an unwillingness to provide meaningful employment. And until that time that the government is willing to provide meaningful employment to its citizens, raising the rates will be our slogan. And the bourgeioisie will never do that, which is why working people must organize and fight for it.

It is the Government's responsibility to Those communists who have the income to do it should put money into their parties to organize the people, the unemployed, the striking workers and anti-imperialist movements, into newspapers and into causes to build a better society. Not for rich white-guilt charities.

And as socialists wanting to live meagrely? No we are not opposed to trying to better yourself. Moving out of the ghetto is not counter-revolutionary. Poverty is not apart of our culture.

We socialists do not preach donate to charity, we preach organize and fightback.

THIS.

Fuck, I would say that charity is reactionary as hell. What was it that Paul Lafargue said about philanthropy again? Stealing wholesale and giving away retail. Ridiculous sums of money have been donated by the likes of Bill Gates and its treated like some kind of sacred cow. How much of their charity goes to donating medicines to placate African nations from challenging the international intellectual property regime that his entire business depends on? It's much like when the Cuban government was lambasted for rejecting a few million dollars in US aid requesting instead that the embargo be lifted so that they may buy what they need (which they can afford).

Even assuming entirely noble intentions charity will never fix any social problem, it only serves to ameliorate them, but solutions require fundamental changes in society that are anathema to the very advocates of charity who do so much hand-wringing about these problems. Opening soup kitchens and the occassional shelter (that has to contend with the loud protests of all the noble and charitable businessmen on the street) is not going to end homelessness.

I don't think the wealthiest members of society deserve a pat on the back for doing the bare minimum to assuage their consciences or paper over the most glaring injustices of society. And the wealthiest members of society are most definitely not socialists. There are definitely some relatively wealthy socialists, and perhaps the children of the uber-rich can become genuine socialists, but neither group is going to subvert the system by relinquishing their wealth and spending their lives slumming. Socialism isn't some quasi-religious levelling project, it's a project for human liberation from exploitation and oppression.

If Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, charity steals from the poor to give (less) to the poor.

[wigsa]

I think rich socialists should be chased after and welcomed into our organisations with open arms.I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it,the idea is to convert the majority of the population to socialist ideals isn't it?

As for the lack of donations,or lack of sufficient donations,well I put that down to habit to be honest.It's more than likely not something they do,and let's face it,if any of us had the money they did,we more than likely would not donate the majority of our earnings to the left wing movement and 'live a more meagre life'.Get real.

I think the important thing is that they agree with the basic principles of socialism,and that they reckon it's the best way forward for everyone.It's up to us to recruit them into playing a more active role and doing their best to make a difference by becoming activists.A lack of activists is what is keeping left wing politics from moving forward,in Ireland anyway.If there are activists from all walks of life,people will start to listen.If it's the same working class handful who go around putting up signs every week,people aren't going to pay much attention.I know from experience.Young blood and rich blood,those combined will make a huge difference.

[Dimentio]

It seems that Socialism has become an almost entirely middle/upper class pursuit. This seems rather incompatable. Why don't some socialists give the majority of their earnings to charity and live a slightly more meagre life as they would under the socialist government we are advocating? Most evidence suggests that the more right wing conservative members of society are more likely to give and give more when they do. The perception seems to be that seeing as they are advocating a universal forced charity they are under no obligation to give. Does anyone know many/any socialists who practice what they preach? Or do some seem hypocritical?

There is a positive correlation between tax levels and charity donations. In Sweden, most of the population have donated money to charitable institutions. I myself donate money both to Doctors without borders and Greenpeace.

[wasteman]

sorry guys i am still learning :laugh:

[Black Dagger]

sorry guys i am still learning :laugh:

How does that relate to your topic post? Do you still agree with it?

[deLarge]

Why all the hostility towards charity? Sure, it won't cure everything all at once, but how many things do? Do you expect the Marxists of old to ride in on a white horse, in a suit of armor, and fix everything? Which is better:

* A rich man spending all his money on cars
* A rich man spending some of his money on cars, and some on the homeless

Sure, both situations are bad, but as least in one situation it is slightly better. Having been the beneficiary of charity at one time or another, I suppose I am somewhat biased, but I can safely say that I do donate to charity, and I don't think it is 'reactionary' in any sense of the word.

[Sean]

Why all the hostility towards charity? Sure, it won't cure everything all at once, but how many things do? Do you expect the Marxists of old to ride in on a white horse, in a suit of armor, and fix everything? Which is better:

* A rich man spending all his money on cars
* A rich man spending some of his money on cars, and some on the homeless

Sure, both situations are bad, but as least in one situation it is slightly better. Having been the beneficiary of charity at one time or another, I suppose I am somewhat biased, but I can safely say that I do donate to charity, and I don't think it is 'reactionary' in any sense of the word.
Charity from the rich as I have always seen it, is simply buying peace of mind. I guess the most prominently revolting way it manifests itself is in charity fundraising events and auctions making your supposed good nature the centre of attention, but even in the most secretive anonymous donations from the rich are still just as selfdeluding and downright deceptive.

1. Take land and goods from people
2. Make money
3. Give tiny amount of money back to starving people created by 1) and tell as many people as you can about it.
4. Feel like you've somehow GIVEN something, despite taking far, far more.

That's not charity. If you have that kind of money, put it into organisations which can help to break the cycle of poverty that the rich benefit from, instead of skimming the supposed aid off from the profits of the actions which cause it in the first place.

[deLarge]

Still, that little bit that they *do* give will help someone in need moreso than if they just spent it all. Again, both situations are deplorable, but at least this way someone in need will benefit. You may argue that point all you want, but tell it to someone who is on the receiving end of food banks and holiday charity baskets and whatnot, and you will probably find yourself looking at an angry person.

[Led Zeppelin]

I am myself proletarian, but I am part of the labour aristocracy which makes up the first world, IE our wealth is syphoned from the third world.

A new phenomena: self-hating proletarians.

[jake williams]

A new phenomena: self-hating proletarians.
Labour aristocracy is not a new phenomenon.

[Yehuda Stern]

What's self-hating here? He is certainly wrong that the entire working class of the imperialist states is part of the labor aristocracy, but there's nothing "self-hating" about the concept itself. In fact, both Lenin and Trotsky used it many times.

[Josef Balin]

Charity from the rich as I have always seen it, is simply buying peace of mind. I guess the most prominently revolting way it manifests itself is in charity fundraising events and auctions making your supposed good nature the centre of attention, but even in the most secretive anonymous donations from the rich are still just as selfdeluding and downright deceptive.

1. Take land and goods from people
2. Make money
3. Give tiny amount of money back to starving people created by 1) and tell as many people as you can about it.
4. Feel like you've somehow GIVEN something, despite taking far, far more.

That's not charity. If you have that kind of money, put it into organisations which can help to break the cycle of poverty that the rich benefit from, instead of skimming the supposed aid off from the profits of the actions which cause it in the first place.
There is no other option. Donating money to communist organizations over the homeless/poor is ridiculously stupid. None of the western socialist organizations are going to accomplish anything anytime soon, and DEFINITELY not as a result of a monetary contribution. To say it's better for a commie club to have it's own book store and headquarters instead of homeless having a place to sleep or the poor getting presents on Christmas is, well, frankly sickening and shows your cynicism and immaturity.

[Drace]

Josef, poverty will continue to exist under capitalism. It all comes down to "can we
Eliminate poverty more efficiently if we fund communist organizations or by helping them directly."

As of me, I'm thinking a proportional amount to each.

[FreeFocus]

Some people here think that everything is determined by material circumstances, in which case there should be no "rich socialists" because it would go against their own self-interest. Narrow self-interest seems to be far too prominent on this board when it comes to arguments.

Furthermore, a socialist who actually takes steps to create bits and pieces of a new world in the world in which we live is denounced as a "lifestylist" on here. Sure, some lifestylism is questionable - e.g. when people simply isolate themselves and take no steps towards actual organizing (although it is their right and one has to understand their frustration and/or disgust).

A rich person who supports socialism does so because they may have an ounce of humanity. It's clearly not out of self-interest. No one on here should seriously challenge the importance of ethics as a major motivator for decent behavior and the creation of a decent world.

On a side note, how they got/maintain their wealth is important. There are self-made people who simply worked hard and don't exploit people (at least not directly). Then, there are others, like leech CEOs of big corporations.

[samsara15]

What is the goal, and how do we get there, is what matters to me. My personal goal is to have a more egalitarian society, and I'm not worried about charity or sharing, as long as someone is helping us to achieve a more egalitarian culture, so all can have better and more satisfying lives. Human beings are not saints, and never will be. If we exclude anyone who is not pefect, we will soon have none left who can meet our standards.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Oswy]

It seems that Socialism has become an almost entirely middle/upper class pursuit. This seems rather incompatable. Why don't some socialists give the majority of their earnings to charity and live a slightly more meagre life as they would under the socialist government we are advocating? Most evidence suggests that the more right wing conservative members of society are more likely to give and give more when they do. The perception seems to be that seeing as they are advocating a universal forced charity they are under no obligation to give. Does anyone know many/any socialists who practice what they preach? Or do some seem hypocritical?

Socialism seeks to change the way a society is organised, economically and socially, to make it fairer and to end the kinds of injusticies which many charities address palliatively. The difference is that charity does not generally seek to change the forces which produce those injustices and they tend to only 'treat symptoms'. Indeed it is possible to argue that in some instances charities perpetuate the forces which produce injustice because by softening the impact of such injustice they inhibit more radical action. Hence your suggestion that socialists should prioritise charity is to miss the big difference between these two activities. There's nothing wrong with a socialist having a charitable impulse and many charities do work very worthy of support, but it is socialism, not charity, which aims to fundamentally address injustice at the societal level. As for wealthy socialists, they should be given credit for supporting an organisation of society which might easily diminish their own personal material wealth; they're putting the interests of society above their own advantaged circumstances.

EDIT: for anyone who is interested it looks like the OP might be copying posts from a right-winger at another forum: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=735914

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, why is being 'middle class' incompatible with being proletarian?
Also, 'Charity' corporations are for-profit rackets. Even legitimate charity is totally insufficient to end poverty.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[wigsa]

This is the problem I have with a lot of left wing ideas.People on the far left seem to think that it's impossible for someone who got wealthy in a capitalist world to be a socialist.This is a load of bollocks.My dad's a relatively wealthy man(I think!),and an entrepeneur.He has 4 staff working for him,all who are treated as equals.He is not a socialist,but I am his son.Therefore,I would be your definition of a 'rich socialist'.Just because I am intelligent enough to see the massive flaws in the capitalist world of today and believe in a fairer society,but happen to come from a financially secure family,does not give you the grounds to disregard me as less of a socialist than you.That,in fact,is insulting.

[Led Zeppelin]

Labour aristocracy is not a new phenomenon.

What's self-hating here? He is certainly wrong that the entire working class of the imperialist states is part of the labor aristocracy, but there's nothing "self-hating" about the concept itself. In fact, both Lenin and Trotsky used it many times.

Thanks for that, Sherlocks, but I was referring to the fact that he considers every worker in a imperialist nation to be part of the labor aristocracy (including himself).

I wasn't referring to the concept of labor aristocracy itself.

[chegitz guevara]

I am part of the labour aristocracy which makes up the first world, IE our wealth is syphoned from the third world.

No, this is not true. The labor aristocracy is only a slice of the First World proletariat. You go look at Walmart employees and tell them they are living high on the hog off the backs of Third World workers.


How isn't the entire working class not labour aristocratic? Even if you make minimum wage you make 10 times your counter-part in the third world.

What does that have to do with anything? Workers in New York City make more money those those who work in Alabama. That doesn't mean those who work in NYC are exploiting Alabamans. Workers in the First world make more money because they are more productive. We are more productive because our economy is highly mechanized, whereas most Third world industries are largely labor based. While a greater rate of profit can be realized in labor intensive industry, the volume of production in mechanized industry make a world of difference. Of course, things are changing, as capital can more freely move around the globe than ever before. Wages in the Third World are rising while those in the Imperialist core are dropping.

Global class war is a thoroughly anti-proletarian concept, and isn't based on facts, only theory.

[Fidelbrand]

I'm with Oxfam's monthly donation program, i have a daughter from Burma.

[red-carnations]

sorry guys i am still learning :laugh:

It's OK.. Don't ever feel bad about asking questions or stating observations. That is what learning is all about. I just hope people will be patient with us newcomers and try not to chide us too badly.. I believe there are a few different parts/roles of the "revolution". My husband is part of the intellect, I am the lower class "heart" of the movement..Both equally as important.

[Yehuda Stern]

Thanks for that, Sherlocks, but I was referring to the fact that he considers every worker in a imperialist nation to be part of the labor aristocracy (including himself).

Then it's possible that, you know, you should actually say that, as people in forums have no way of reading your mind.

[Led Zeppelin]

Or maybe you should just not assume things so fast.

[Q]

How isn't the entire working class not labour aristocratic? Even if you make minimum wage you make 10 times your counter-part in the third world.

Besides the excellent reply from chegitz guevara, I wanted to add that poverty is relative. A bread in the third world is much cheaper then it is in the developed countries. So, someone in the US could be having an income a hundred times higher then someone from a third world country, yet barely survive on it.

[Dimentio]

If revleft had any millionaries I would be happy, because they would maybe donate to revleft, would'nt they?

[BobKKKindle$]

bread in the third world is much cheaper then it is in the developed countries

This is empirically incorrect, the cost of living in the developing world is actually fairly close to the developed world, even in terms of how much it costs to purchase basic goods which people need to survive, such as housing, food, and clothing. The annual Cost of Living Survey from Mercer (http://www.finfacts.com/costofliving.htm) uses New York as the base city with 100 points, and on that basis as of 2008, Sao Paulo in Brazil scores 97 (and so the cost of living in Sao Paulo is just 3% less than that in New York) Lagos in Nigeria scores 95.9, Rio de Janeiro scores 95.2, Douala in Cameroon scores 95.1, and Beijing is actually slightly more expensive than New York with a score of 101.9.

[Q]

This is empirically incorrect, the cost of living in the developing world is actually fairly close to the developed world, even in terms of how much it costs to purchase basic goods which people need to survive, such as housing, food, and clothing. The annual Cost of Living Survey from Mercer (http://www.finfacts.com/costofliving.htm) uses New York as the base city with 100 points, and on that basis as of 2008, Sao Paulo in Brazil scores 97 (and so the cost of living in Sao Paulo is just 3% less than that in New York) Lagos in Nigeria scores 95.9, Rio de Janeiro scores 95.2, Douala in Cameroon scores 95.1, and Beijing is actually slightly more expensive than New York with a score of 101.9.

Interesting. But you're only citing big cities which would have a general high cost of living. How does it compare for smaller urban areas and rural areas? Especially in large countries I would expect big differences.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[wasteman]

I thought the topic was interesting so I copied and pasted it:laugh:

[Oswy]

I thought the topic was interesting so I copied and pasted it:laugh:

That's fair enough, but it's usually good practice to make it plain what are and are not your own words.

[chegitz guevara]

Yes but not 10 times cheaper. Despite having 10 times less wage. I guess not everyone in the first world is labour aristocratic but everyone in the first world makes a hugely better wage and living standard that those in the third world. because In Peru someone working at McDonalds makes 60 cent - 1 dollar an hour you have to work 12 hours to have enough to buy food and bus tickets to go to work the next day. The bus would be cost 60 - 1 dollars there and back sometimes more depending on distance and on if you have to take more than 1 bus.

Yes and no. There are places in the United States that if you saw them, you would not believe you were in the same country. There are parts of Chicago, still to this day, that look as if they are remnants of a war, because of riots that took place four decades ago! I have seen places in Philadelphia that were the stuff of nightmares. I've seen rural shacks that resemble nothing so much as shanty town dwellings. Hell, the homes in Soweto were better than some of the "homes" I've seen in South Georgia. And the compañeros and compañeras of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers have told me about far, far worse conditions of habitation by migrant workers. Ten people living in a rusty, leaky mobile home for $1600 a month on $50 a day!?!

One thing that riding the bus through the back roads of the rural South has done is to get me to understand why poor rural whites have so much resentment of Black people. They are every bit as poor and oppressed as many of the poorest Black people, but no one fights for them, because they are part of the "ruling" race. That is, no one but the Klan and other white supremacist groups, although in actuality, the Klan exploits them every bit as much as a boss.

We also need to understand the Third World is not uniformly poor. In my local group, the Miami May Day Alliance, a Haitian comrade was explaining to us that to see Haiti through the lens of what we see on TV misses how diverse and stratified Haiti is. We only ever here about the barefoot street people, but there's are middle classes and even rich people. When I go to Cancún, I leave the tourist zone all the time, and much of Mexican Cancún looks like any North American city.

I'm not arguing equivalence. The colonial world is poorer than the Empire, and most poor people in America aren't that bad off comparatively. But the situation is rather more complex than one imagines at first glance.