Millionaire Communists - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
Is it possible for a millionaire with a big house, several cars and a high salary to be a communist?

We have examples of ostensibly middle class people who were communists. Lenin was apparently one of them, although he had very recent peasant roots and was only middle class in a very recent and economic sense.

But what about those who are the stereotypical middle class? Can they be reds? Private school, lots of savings, big house etc.
My family is mostly communists or socialists for example and they're all rich.
its more about the culture and the principles you follow than about how much money you have.
Also same case for us being new rich. For almost all of our ancestry we were soldiers and servants until this past few decades we got into trade.
Same case for many others in central Asia.
possibly, but not really. The number one premise in Marxism is that it is wrong to exploit another human being's labor for your own profit.

sooo... Maybe a movie star could be a communist and a millionaire, because the actor does not exploit another human being.

...However, if you are working in most businesses, and you have people working under you, dedicating approximate proportion of their LIFE to your business, but you aren't paying them fairly well.. then you're probably exploiting them.

...Or maybe you are skimming off the top in something like, say, the stock market. No harm in buying and selling and creating profit without labor. right? WRONG. in this case, even if you aren't directly exploiting a labourer, you are still basically robbing from society in general.

...of course the Bolsheviks had a 'just kill fucking everybody' attitude... You should probably just work on refining your common sense...
David.findly wrote:The number one premise in Marxism is that it is wrong to exploit another human being's labor for your own profit.

There is no such abstract moralism in Marxism. There are no Ten Commandments, it is a world view in which we examine material reality and come to conclusions from which to act:

Trotsky wrote:A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.

“We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?” sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. It irreconcilably counteracts not only religious dogma but every kind of idealistic fetish, these philosophic gendarmes of the ruling class. It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws.

“Just the same,” the moralist continues to insist, “does it mean that in the class struggle against capitalists all means are permissible: lying, frame-up, betrayal, murder, and so on?” Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle. Precisely from this it flows that not all means are permissible. When we say that the end justifies the means, then for us the conclusion follows that the great revolutionary end spurns those base means and ways which set one part of the working class against other parts, or attempt to make the masses happy without their participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organization, replacing it by worship for the “leaders”. Primarily and irreconcilably, revolutionary morality rejects servility in relation to the bourgeoisie and haughtiness in relation to the toilers, that is, those characteristics in which petty bourgeois pedants and moralists are thoroughly steeped.

These criteria do not, of course, give a ready answer to the question as to what is permissible and what is not permissible in each separate case. There can be no such automatic answers. Problems of revolutionary morality are fused with the problems of revolutionary strategy and tactics. The living experience of the movement under the clarification of theory provides the correct answer to these problems.

Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end. The immediate end becomes the means for a further end.

...Is individual terror, for example, permissible or impermissible from the point of view of “pure morals”? In this abstract form the question does not exist at all for us. Conservative Swiss bourgeois even now render official praise to the terrorist William Tell. Our sympathies are fully on the side of Irish, Russian, Polish or Hindu terrorists in their struggle against national and political oppression. The assassinated Kirov, a rude satrap, does not call forth any sympathy. Our relation to the assassin remains neutral only because we know not what motives guided him. If it became known that Nikolayev acted as a conscious avenger for workers’ rights trampled upon by Kirov, our sympathies would be fully on the side of the assassin. However, not the question of subjective motives but that of objective expediency has for us the decisive significance. Are the given means really capable of leading to the goal? In relation to individual terror, both theory and experience bear witness that such is not the case. To the terrorist we say: it is impossible to replace the masses; only in the mass movement can you find expedient expression for your heroism. However, under conditions of civil war, the assassination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror. If, we shall say, a revolutionist bombed General Franco and his staff into the air, it would hardly evoke moral indignation even from the democratic eunuchs Under the conditions of civil war a similar act would be politically completely expedient. Thus, even in the sharpest question – murder of man by man – moral absolutes prove futile. Moral evaluations, together with those political, flow from the inner needs of struggle.

In reply to this, we have uncovered the seeming riddle posed in the OP, "Is it possible for a millionaire with a big house, several cars and a high salary to be a communist?"

Most certainly. One could be an exploiter of men and come to the realization (not unlike Engels) that the liberation of the proletariat was part of the movement of history and something should be done.

One could also, as has been suggested, be an artist that suddenlly made it big (though this is, despite what we are told to believe, exceedingly rare).

To extend out further, Leninism would argue that you need to have a certain amount of these educated and priviliged people in order to help maintain a vanguard with which to defend and advance the proletariat. Che was a doctor, Fidel and Lenin were lawyers, Marx was an academic, Engels a factory owner, Mao was a teacher.

But they were all surrounded with working people, academics, and others that became a vanguard. Most of the working class is going to be worried about making more sheet metal or whatever, for Lenin, there needed to be built into the most active parts of the working class people that saw the scope of politics to work with them. I must underline, before I wall-of-text, that working with and for the working masses is the point. Students joining such a movement of the workers can give knowledge, but not control the movement. And while it's true that a demagogue can exploit the masses, there is a certain need of the proletariat to understand the world in general:

Lenin wrote:The moral to be drawn from this is simple. If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organisation of revolutionaries, we can ensure the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims both of Social-Democracy and of trade unions proper. If, however, we begin with a broad workers’ organisation, which is supposedly most “accessible” to the masses (but which is actually most accessible to the gendarmes and makes revolutionaries most accessible to the police), we shall achieve neither the one aim nor the other; we shall not eliminate our rule-of-thumb methods, and, because we remain scattered and our forces are constantly broken up by the police, we shall only make trade unions of the Zubatov and Ozerov type the more accessible to the masses.

...Take the Germans. It will not be denied, I hope, that theirs is a mass organisation, that in Germany everything proceeds from the masses, that the working-class movement there has learned to walk. Yet observe how these millions value their “dozen” tried political leaders, how firmly they cling to them. Members of the hostile parties in parliament have often taunted the socialists by exclaiming: “Fine democrats you are indeed! Yours is a working-class movement only in name; in actual fact the same clique of leaders is always in evidence, the same Bebel and the same Liebknecht, year in and year out, and that goes on for decades. Your supposedly elected workers’ deputies are more permanent than the officials appointed by the Emperor!” But the Germans only smile with contempt at these demagogic attempts to set the “masses” against the “leaders”, to arouse bad and ambitious instincts in the former, and to rob the movement of its solidity and stability by undermining the confidence of the masses in their “dozen wise men”. Political thinking is sufficiently developed among the Germans, and they have accumulated sufficient political experience to understand that without the “dozen” tried and talented leaders (and talented men are not born by the hundreds), professionally trained, schooled by long experience, and working in perfect harmony, no class in modern society can wage a determined struggle. The Germans too have had demagogues in their ranks who have flattered the “hundred fools”, exalted them above the “dozen wise men”, extolled the “horny hand” of the masses, and (like Most and Hasselmann) have spurred them on to reckless “revolutionary” action and sown distrust towards the firm and steadfast leaders. It was only by stubbornly and relentlessly combating all demagogic elements within the socialist movement that German socialism has managed to grow and become as strong as it is. Our wiseacres, however, at a time when Russian Social-Democracy is passing through a crisis entirely due to the lack of sufficiently trained, developed, and experienced leaders to guide the spontaneously awakening masses, cry out ,with the profundity of fools: “It is a bad business when the movement does not proceed from the rank and file.”

“A committee of students is of no use; it is not stable.” Quite true. But the conclusion to be drawn from this is that we must have a committee of professional revolutionaries, and it is immaterial whether a student or a worker is capable of becoming a professional revolutionary. The conclusion you draw, how. ever, is that the working-class movement must not be pushed on from outside! In your political innocence you fail to notice that you are playing into the hands of our Economists and fostering our amateurism. Wherein, may I ask, did our students “push on” our workers? In the sense that the student brought to the worker the fragments of political knowledge he himself possesses, the crumbs of socialist ideas he has managed to acquire (for the principal intellectual diet of the present-day student, legal Marxism, could furnish only the rudiments, only scraps of knowledge). There has never been too much of such “pushing on from outside”; on the contrary, there has so far been all too little of it in our movement, for we have been stewing too assiduously in our own juice; we have bowed far too slavishly to the elementary “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government”. We professional revolutionaries must and will make it our business to engage in this kind of “pushing on” a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto. But the very fact that you select so hideous a phrase as “pushing on from outside” — a phrase which cannot but rouse in the workers (at least in the workers who are as unenlightened as you yourselves) a sense of distrust towards all who bring them political knowledge and revolutionary experience from outside, which cannot but rouse in them an instinctive desire to resist all such people — proves you to be demagogues, and demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class.

And, please — don’t hasten howling about my “uncomradely methods” of debating. I have not the least desire to doubt the purity of your intentions. As I have said, one may become a demagogue out of sheer political innocence. But I have shown that you have descended to demagogy, and I will never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. The worst enemies, because they arouse base instincts in the masses, because the unenlightened worker is unable to recognise his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely so, as his friends. The worst enemies, because in the period of disunity and vacillation, when our movement is just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to mislead the masses, who can realise their error only later by bitter experience. That is why the slogan of the day for the Russian Social-Democrat must be — resolute struggle against Svoboda and Rabocheye Dyelo, both of which have sunk to the level of demagogy. We shall deal with this further in greater detail

Finally, then, is it possible to be affluent and be a communist?

I'll abstract this into another historical epoch; was it possible to be a democrat or capitalist under feudalism if you weren't a peasant?
@The Immortal Goon
While acknowledging the correctness of Trotsky's analysis, I don't see a likely scenario in which any significant number of workers come to an understanding of 'politics in general', as you described it. The problem for me is that the unity of ends and means can cut any number of ways, all constrained by who is prepared to exercise power at any given moment. Of all the likely outcomes of such an exercise in power, very few will turn out to be even remotely attractive.

Trotsky's moralism may not be petty, but it's moralism just the same. He's choosing a particular vision of society, and only then does he unify his means with his end.

It seems to me that even a revolutionary must be prudential. He cannot legitimately choose an end for which he has no likely means.

For example, if there is (as I have concluded) no available path to a just end through revolutionary action, then I am obliged to reject that particular means as being wasteful and ineffective.
By Decky
Is it possible for a millionaire with a big house, several cars and a high salary to be a communist?

Leonid Brezhnev :excited:
User avatar
By Bosnjak
Communism is an Ideal which was never reached, just Lenin, Stalin, Chruchow, and Andropow tried to achieve this Ideal.

The workers should have better lifestyle not be industry slaves, all should be middleclass without Government.

Communism in eastern Terminology is, Party communism. The Bolshewiki/Leninist-Stalinist had an different Ideal then the Sowjetists, they cleared it in a honourfull Battle with the Potemkin which schot on icefrozen sea on the Bolshewiki Hordes, Stalin made out of the Bolshewiki Hordes a Russian National Army with high ranking millitaries Casino, and the shootings of old Trotzkists made place for new more educated and capable Generals & Co. this was Stalins biggest achievement according -Otto Skorzeny's "Meine Commando Unternehmen"-. Otto Skorzeny was the head of SS-Special Forces who got free at War Criminal process.

Bereshnew Era was waste of time. Gorbatschew was simply not ready to shoot on Demonstrators (which is a political Term for payed Activists)

Vladimi Ilitsh Lenin saw that orthodox-marxism did not work for the farming Sector, therefore he introduced New economical policy, stalin tried this two but marxism works well for Heavy Industry not for Farming, the Kolchos System did not work the Sowjet Union had to import Corn from the Enemy USA

Titoism (Where my Grandfather spent 13 Years in KZ of Tito just being Stalinist) had also interessting stuff like:

Workers can elect their own management
Farmers could bring their products on the market or Odkup where the corn, onions were the state buyed and made Industrial Microwave Food.
Also had YU banks who doubled the money -not all savings are used at the same time people need reserves- and invested in economy
User avatar
By Bosnjak
A truly student of Staljin was Saddam Hussein al Tikriti, there for same looking, he invented state free market socialism (allthough in Bloody war with Iran this system managed to provide everything for the normal people), Saddamsystem derived further in China to State-Capitalism
User avatar
By Bosnjak
Stalin tried to introduce Technocracy, he let no more Advocats and economists educate therefore Engineers and scientists, under Chruchow the Biggest step of mankind was done Sputnik2 and Yuri Gagarin, also the Ekranoplan which is Ideal for hyperfast transports over Oceans
User avatar
By fuser
Of course they can. Communism isn't a lifestyle like some hippie commune but let's not kid ourselves chances of a millionaire communist is going to be very slim.
I'm constantly baffled by the number of people who think being a Marxist requires one to become a Christian monk and take a vow of poverty. That seems like an immensely stupid way of trying to win power in a world where money talks, to put it mildly. :lol:
How about a new slogan? "Small shareholders of the world unite!"
User avatar
By fuser
Meh, at least industrial workers and peasants have some sort of weapons, what these people will do, throw their passbooks at strikebreakers.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
Bello-Russia the last communist state in Europe had mandatory workprograms who could not find job in the state- or privatecompanies due to this they have the lowest crimerate in , also is not a religous aka secular state it is a truly Atheist state. where New Year is X-Mass and 1st May a Holyday

In Russia just one Medicament Oligarch made his fortune without Mafia-Robbings of the own People.

Bolshewikis want a middle class Lifestyle, and to fuck bitches, Milfs, even some hot Gilfs :D not boring

The ideal of Communism is mass richness for all, not for the 1%
My Pa has 100 000 000 $ in Dubai and lives poorly as truly bolshewik, but the Saddam-System offered free Pickups and richnes for everybody

The issue in my opinion is that people want things[…]


Donald's life long M.O. which he took with him to[…]

Ngo is complicit with Patriot Prayer, and was pres[…]

Northern countries like Russia and Canada can act[…]