Results 1 to 20 of 57
Class Interest & Rich Communists
I've heard people here put across the idea that communists are communists because it works in their class interest to be.
How do you explain those with which communism goes against their class interest?
Are they not real communists in some way? (This would seem weird.) Are they communists then out of idealism? Can they be communists then? Are they communists because they see it being in their interest in the long term?
Just some thoughts.
You could say they've transcended their class by conscious support of revolutionary ideologies.
"It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
- Karl Marx
They see which way the tide of history is going and decide they don't want to be against the wall later on
'So we must fly a rebel flag, As others did before us, And we must sing a rebel song, And join in rebel chorus.
We'll make the tyrants feel the sting, O' those that they would throttle;, They needn't say the fault is ours, If blood should stain the wattle!"
- Henry Lawson
In that case it would be in everyone's class interest to be a communist. That's not the case.They see which way the tide of history is going and decide they don't want to be against the wall later on
Transcended their class how? Would a proletariat supporting capitalism also be an example of one transcending their class?
A proletarian supporting capitalism would be a class traitor. We have to keep in mind though, they're bombarded with capitalist propaganda, and we should seek to educate.
"It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
- Karl Marx
Well, one could simply understand that capitalism is unsustainable. On such a premise it would make sense to be a communist, no?
Rich communists are a very vague word. Workers who work in the industries with higher productivity can be paid well but still they remain workers and part of working class. The way a single human being's class is defined is how he/she is connected to production/service. His/her income may be higher even on being a worker if the productivity of the sector is high enough.
IMO, the word "rich" can only be applicable to those who exploits other peoples surplus labor.
Why is one a class traitor while the other is transcending class?
It's the same. You're transcending class by supporting another class, and hence a class traitor. Bourgeois class traitors who can provide funding, etc, to the revolution, are a good thing, though.
"It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
- Karl Marx
Again, would this not make it in everyone's class interest to be a communist?
I guess I would say it depends. If capitalism is going to crash in 150 years for example, and I'm 20 and very rich, I don't think it would make sense to be a communist. In this sense it would be like living as a criminal all your life, with the distant possibility of jail in the future. It makes sense for most to reap the rewards, and take the risk. And the risk of jail is far greater than communism most likely.
Ok so why would they transcend the class then is essentially what I'm asking..
You answered your own question. The bourgeoisie's class interests in preserving capitalism are only short term.
Because, as I said, the bourgeoisie's class interests are only short term.
"It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
- Karl Marx
Well, even if a bourgeois understands the fact, they're in no position where adopting a communist stance would in any abstract way address their direct interests. I don't think we're going to see communism soon, and I'm sure the bourgeoisie don't either.
Lol but short term is relative. Short term in human history is the time for a capitalist to grow up, have kids, have grand kids, while reaping the benefits of capitalism, with communism as a mere possibility in the future.
I mean, would you really say to a rich capitalist now that it is in his or her class interest to be a communist?
Agreed, which contradicts your first point. So again, why do rich people become communists?
You're looking at it in an individualist perspective. Individuals alone cannot change the course of history, and as such that's not really all that relevant.
"It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends."
- Karl Marx
I don't think it contradicts it, I think there's a difference between being in a position to acquire massive amounts of capital and simply being well off (like a professor etc).
And I dunno. They feel like I guess. Trotsky, Che, Sartre, Engels, Kropotkin, and Dzerzhinsky were all born wealthy.
Ok so you're saying rich people are communists because they know their wealth is unstable due to the flaws within the capitalist system? What about the really rich though, who likely won't ever be poor within capitalism?
And I know of the wealthy communists lol. Does just feeling like it make them idealists?
I don't think s/he is looking at it from an individualist perspective, s/he's addressing a class issue. And I disagree about your "short term interests" point. The bourgeoisie certainly do have an interest in preserving the life of capitalism.
