Millionaire Communists - Page 2 - 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.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
I am a Bolshewik Multi-Billionair with a bit Money in UBS (swizz) and a huge fortune in Nippon (Diamonds) robbed honestly from Boko Haram during UN Security Council Special Commandos Operation (UNSSC).

I will use the Money to rebuild the City of Sciences which existed during the holy Sowjet Union it was a 2nd Atlantis, the Third atlantis will be a 2 km Pyramid of scientists hackers and intellectuals, built according Japanese plans.

Marussija, Volga, Dodge Pick up, better designed LADA and a several Quads from Youtube Russkis for everybody and Prosseco (because Champagne can not produce enough MOET or Brut Imperial)

I have also to look to Bosnia so People can be again rich like under Titoism, who allowed small bourgoise
User avatar
By Bosnjak
@Political Interest The aim of communism is: everybody should be a millionaire.

Sowjetrussia and Bello-Russia will built Nova Moskwa on the Moon, and Novi Minsk on the Mars, and the Newest Novi Sibirsk on the Venus
By Decky
We have cleverly manipulated the time sheets to steal some surplus value back from the capitalists this week. 8) I am a true revolutionary, when to I get to be on a tshirt?
Political Interest wrote: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.

I would say as long as you're a self made man, and you never exploited the workers to make you a millionaire, sure. You can be rich and a socialist( the idea of being both is hypocritical is just as retarded as saying socialists who buy capitalist products are hypocritical)
By Decky
No such thing as a self made man. No one became a millionaire by their own hard work. Hard work gets you a bad back and minimum wage not millions.
You're not really selling "hard work" very well here, Decky. It's almost as if the idle rich have the right idea. :lol:
By Decky
The only good thing about hard work is the fact it makes the pints taste better at the end of the day or even better at lunchtime.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
in Jelzin Era all started with same ammount of Money all got Shares of companies they worked, maffia-Robbings (to use the envy slang of people who sold their Shares for a vodka or Videorecorder from Japan), were smart people who brewed Vodka at home and exchanged it against Shares, some of the Turbokapitalists/Oligarchs spent their money in St. Moritz and Dubai some reinvested and reinvested so they got Multibilllionaires.

My Dream is a Bolshewik state on the Terraformed Venus to built an Ideal Communist state but first I want before Miller and Hawking send a Lightsailor (a nippon development)
Last edited by Bosnjak on 16 Feb 2017 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Bosnjak
I talked once with the Russian Honorar-Konsul about small mining to create a middle class, he answered: Too much get stolen (they do not pay taxes), and shoot each other because they steal from each other. We already tried this and it failed. We Need supercompanies to get Taxes and profit
User avatar
By Wellsy
Within what Marx would call a bourgeois standpoint, that is to say, even while continuing to support the bourgeoisie as the class most suited to lead humanity economically, politically, and otherwise, it is possible for certain members of this class to develop a keen understanding of the social contradictions produced by class society and in some cases, even a real commitment to human development or to the eradication of such ills as global poverty or unfolding ecological destruction. Marx recognizes this phenomenon. For instance, in Capital, Marx notes that the capitalist “Robert Owen, soon after 1810, not only maintained the necessity of a limitation of the working-day in theory, but actually introduced the 10 hours’ day into his factory at New Lanark,” even though “this was laughed at as a communistic Utopia” (Capital, MECW 35:304 Note 222).

Marx even goes on to credit Owen with developing an approach to education that could serve as an early model for education in a communist society:

From the Factory system budded, as Robert Owen has shown us in detail, the germ of the education of the future, an education that will, in the case of every child over a given age, combine productive labour with instruction and gymnastics, not only as one of the methods of adding to the efficiency of production, but as the only method of producing fully developed human beings. (Capital, MECW 35:486)

According to Marx, the progressive aspects of Owen's thought were, in the end, limited by his failure to recognize the proletariat as the class best suited to lead humanity out of the contradictions produced by class society. However, while a bourgeois class position and standpoint tend to limit the range of actions and opinions we are likely to see even from a reformer such as Owen, it would be wrong to ignore that within that position and perspective there remains a wide array of open choices for individual actors and they may formulate insights and opinions that, inasmuch as they strive to faithfully reflect reality and even to progressively transform it, point beyond that bourgeois perspective.

Another example of this can be found in the work of Nineteenth Century French novelist and playwright, Honoré de Balzac. Balzac of course had not bourgeois, but actually royalist sympathies, and was opposed to the bourgeoisie at a time when it played a historically progressive role. Yet, he was one of Marx's favorite authors, an artist whom Marx describes in Capital as “generally remarkable for his profound grasp of reality” (Capital, MECW 37:44).

In an 1888 letter, Frederich Engels further elucidates the genius of Balzac's realism. Engels writes the letter in response to a request that he review a novel written by a socialist author; he concludes that the novel is not very good, criticizing it particularly for being unrealistic in its depiction of the working class as a passive mass. Engels goes on to illustrate his point with a discussion of the realism to be found in Balzac's work, a realism which is achieved in spite of his royalist sympathies:

Balzac was politically a Legitimist; his great work is a constant elegy on the inevitable decay of good society, his sympathies are all with the class doomed to extinction. But for all that his satire is never keener, his irony never bitterer, than when he sets in motion the very men and women with whom he sympathizes most deeply - the nobles. And the only men of whom he always speaks with undisguised admiration, are his bitterest political antagonists, the republican heroes of the Cloître Saint-Méry, the men, who at that time (1830-6) were indeed the representatives of the popular masses. That Balzac thus was compelled to go against his own class sympathies and political prejudices, that he saw the necessity of the downfall of his favourite nobles, and described them as people deserving no better fate; and that he saw the real men of the future where, for the time being, they alone were to be found - that I consider one of the greatest triumphs of Realism, and one of the grandest features in old Balzac. (Engels to Margaret Harkness in London; April, 1888, MECW 48:168)

Figures such as Robert Owen and, I might add, Carl Sagan or Emile Zola, demonstrate some of the most progressive viewpoints possible within a bourgeois perspective. In addition to them, there are of course persons such as John D. Rockefeller or John F. Kennedy who simply seek mostly to rationally advance the interests of their class (I am speaking of course of a narrowly instrumental “rationality” in these cases).

Additionally, there are individuals such as Charles or David Koch, Joseph McCarthy, or Father Charles Coughlin, who actively promote the most brazenly reactionary tendencies of their class. Marx would argue that across this range of bourgeois actors, their identifications with that class inhibit them, so long as they maintain those identifications, from fully recognizing the progressive role of the proletariat and its fitness to lead society, or from fully embracing the historical materialist perspective developed in Marx's thought. However, within that bourgeois perspective and bourgeois class identification, a wide range of thought and action is possible and the charge of crude economic determinism does not recognize this, as Marx does. Furthermore, not only is a wide range of action possible within a bourgeois class identification, but it is possible for individuals to choose to renounce that identification entirely. Already in The Communist Manifesto, Marx explains that confronted by the immense contradictions of capitalist society, increasingly many individual members of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie may switch their class allegiance entirely to the camp of the proletariat, coming to the view that it is only the victory of the working class, leading a movement towards communism, that can safeguard the continued existence and development of humanity. Of course, one need look no further than Marx's collaborator, Frederick Engels, for an example of a bourgeois who chooses this course. However, it would be deeply misguided to develop a theory of and a program for social and economic development that relied heavily on such occasional changes of camp, when in a society based on profit, it is the profit motive, by and large, that dominates in the decisionmaking of capitalists, just as it is the conscious or unconscious struggle against the inhuman aspects of labor under capitalism that dominates in the decision-making of workers.
By Ned Lud
We are not in Mediaeval times when only someone in a hair shirt can be holy - anyone can hold sensible opinions, and the more you understand class societies the more money you can make, if that's what takes your fancy. Only four of us were serious socialists in my sixth form: one was homosexual and had his own struggles, one was yours truly,and the other two have become billionaires. What I was taught back when I might qualify as a cadre was that a Marxist is engaged in struggle - anyone else just has opinions,
Capitalists destroyed Communism by disseminating the idea they could become millionaires. A millionaire Communist is a Capitalist who lies a lot.

Edit due to cost of living increases: A billionaire Communist is a Capitalist who lies a lot.
Decky wrote:I am a true revolutionary, when to I get to be on a tshirt?
Landing on a tshirt is an insult and you know it.
The Next UK PM everybody...

Although some PoFoers are absolutely not concerne[…]

Iranian Situation...

It's cute trying to create more fig-leafs to hide[…]

and THAT is the "warmers' answer," tha[…]

So your argument is basically that illegal immigr[…]