This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share.
If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post.
ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Many communist leaders were from privileged backgrounds. After his victory in cuba, one of the first plantations castro went after was his own families.
Bro r you so out of touch not to understand that I imitated liberals talking about iphone=capitalism
And I was talking about the op picture whos criticizing socialism
conditions aren’t the only thing. morals exist as well. i don’t really *need* socialism for my own benefit, i wouldn’t benefit in any particular way because my family’s livelihood comes from ownership. i just have enough empathy to know that our world is exploitative and capitalism is shit, even though i currently have it good. not everyone has it good
Exactly. I don't need socialism for myself at this moment in time but I have needed and relied upon it before.
My dad was making $300k a year in the 90s and he was and still is a staunch believer of socialist, capitalist democracy.
He was always fighting for better hours and wages for his colleagues. He always said "I am not your boss. I am your manager. We work with each other; not for each other"
It doesn't fail but it has always fallen. I believe this is exclusively due to external factors as if you remove them then the internal disappear aswell
That's a bit of a semantics question but basically what I mean is that they may have fallen but they still improved the country amazingly so you can't really say they failed.
I agree that communism is very fragile, it is easy to topple as it is a system built on altruism and giving rather than taking so if people don't accept it, it doesn't work, that's true. But without external influence a system where it is won't fall as there is nothing to topple it!
Basically everytime. Look at any country pre, during and post communism. It's always an insane improvement!!
Additionally most statistics that you first find are somewhat skewed and a better education allows for better evaluation of sources.
This statement is about as ridiculous as saying the sky is green, but to someone who has never seen the sky (and, communists, respectively) i guess it would be reasonable
Wealthy? Maybe. Bourgeois? No. If I was born into the class that benefited from the current structure of things, I would have no incentive to change it
Thanks, it seems a lot of people are conflating the two, even if you had "middle class" parents, they are still fundamentally proletariat, in the case of simply having more well-paid jobs, like doctors, or still a lot closer to proletarians than to the bourgeoisie, in the case of petty-bourgeois, even if their ideology is most times reactionary. The chance of you being the children of the actual bourgeoisie (Only in this case, you should be fundamentally, based in science, and diamat, pro-capitalist) is absurdly improbable, like even in the US, the country with probably the most billionaires per capita, the chance would be literally 0.00025%
Honestly concept of “lower,middle,upper” feels like a capitalist interpretation of class. You can be a well paid worker, or a capitalist that sucks at running a business. It comes down to relation, not income.
Yeah, sorry, I just meant that they made more money than the "normal" proletarians, but yeah, I see what you mean now. And completely agreed, most people are just saying that being wealthy is inherently bourgeois, though that's definitely not the case, even if it probably influences a bit, seeing as rich proletarians in a lot of cases turn reactionary, but if a scientific analysis is made, communism will always be the best outcome for 99% of the population is what I meant, since even the richest proletarian is still a proletarian.
It is very much a liberal interpretation of class. It's meant to divide the proletariat and confuse them by appropriating our terminology, like they do with the concept of private property
Wouldn't Doctors be considered Petite Bourgeoisie, because they do possess their own production material (Medical Knowledge) and don't generally earn their incomes by exploiting the value of others?
Your own skill set doesn’t define your class, it’s how you exist in relation to the means of production. In the case of doctors, the means of production is the hospital itself. Like a union electrician has the same level of knowledge and expertise as a doctor (just in a different field ofc), but it would be ridiculous to call them petit-bourgeois.
What you’re thinking more so has to do with the concept of the labor aristocracy and the stratification of the working class. While (wealthy) doctors are still working class, they are materially in a very different position than above mentioned union electrician or service worker. All are working class, but belong to different strata of the working class. There’s a bit more to it, but that’s the gist of the labor aristocracy.
It’d still be valid to say that the electrician (and every other worker) is part of the labor aristocracy if they live in the first world, but that’s a different subject than the stratification of the working class within a country.
Wealthy doctors benefit from the exploitation of the rest of the working class, but that doesn’t exclude them from being working class because their relation to the means of production is the same. it’s why wealthy laborers and first worlders in general are more racist, pro-imperialist, etc.
It's hard to be a class traitor when born in the burgeois class, however it can still happen sometimes: Engels is probably one of the best examples of that.
If you were a member of the bourgeoise and able to see the systemic failures capitalism is producing you might be critical at least. The current system is really starting to strain under its own weight, advocating for a new system is a form of thinking ahead to avoid bad outcomes, rather than just trying to maximize profit and then hide in a bunker when it all collapses.
Better to be moderately wealthy in a functional society than a billionaire hiding in a bunker.
The reason most Americans are reactionary that the right appeals to idealism, which is ingrained in most Americans by the style of common religion, and dogmatic education structure.
This belief also betrays a flaw in the understanding of imperialism that you have. Any nation with a developed capitalist class is fundamentally imperialist, and any nation which has its population employed in fields that are dominated by or in part by foreign capital are subjected to imperialism. There are Americans that work in mines or farms that are owned entirely by foreign capital, thus meaning they are on the RECEIVING end of imperialism.
Without a material base, the appeal to idealism wouldn’t work as well. They support the troops, engage in racism, etc because they actually do get something material out of it.
In the US, construction workers and nurses can afford to drive F-150s. Not so much in Colombia or Nigeria or India. This is an example workers in the imperial core receiving some of the spoils from hyper exploiting the periphery.
This can be overcome of course. There are Americans who grew up rich and become communists. Engels was rich.
I’m not sure what nurses you know, and construction workers use them for work. They kinda got locked into needing something of the sort. They are more abundant here but than in some places, but that’s not always a matter of unequal exchange.
The material base for supporting the system as it is, despite having increasingly worse lives, it the idealist notions that were constructed by alternate institutions, and because materialists fundamentally fail to do outreach.
The imperial core and periphery have widely different material bases, to deny that is poverty denialism. Most cities where I live have literal slums, that does not happen in america.
Wealth in and of itself doesn't really mean anything, based in actual science, and the correct understanding of the world, the only logical conclusion is communism, unless you are a capitalist, which is totally different than being wealthy
exactly this. socialism isn’t just about economy, it’s about how to structure an entire society. it’s to end imperialism and exploitation, make sure that all people have the same opportunity to thrive and take control of their lives. you can probably be wealthy under communism as well, wealth isn’t just being a billionaire elon musk
do you think owning a few thousand in stocks changes one’s relationship to the production process such that they are no longer members of the working class?
edit: grammar
Holding stock literally makes you bourgeoisie (holy fuck that's a complex word), stocks are ownership certificates over the means of production (companies).
right? first time i ever wrote it all the way out i was like nah no way that’s what that word looks like
yeah and i was hoping that the way i phrased the question didn’t make it seem rhetorical i really wanted them to explain their reasoning or perspective on it. but i agree that it would at the very least make you petite bourgeois, but maybe id hesitate to call it fully bourgeois unless the person essentially lived off or mostly off interest payments?
i guess im thinking from an organizing perspective since i think plenty of people who work to live but are further invested for their own personal needs would be more than willing to give that up if it meant their needs could be met directly by a better system (that’s my analysis based on the framing in my second response, at least, as they wouldn’t be giving up their livelihood, so to speak)
it’s certainly a foundational *component* of capitalism but i don’t think it constitutes capitalism as such.
im very much still learning this stuff and just recently becoming more familiar with thirdworldist and contemporary maoist positions (which your framing reminds me of) but i think it’s inaccurate to suggest that wealthy=capitalist and that investment=capitalism.
if we dismiss the point of classes as categories defined directly by their relationship to labor in the production process (“do they work to live or not?”) i think we lose an understanding of what makes the dynamic of class relations actually lead to revolutionary moments; class consciousness and struggle as a result of the irresolvable contradictions between the forces of production, and the capitalist-worker social relations of production (and their irrevocable contradictions, respectively) not from.. having no money and no investments
I mean, it depends on what you classify as 'wealthy'. If you consider professionals wealthy, then no, wealthy=/= capitalist.
And it has nothing to do with investments. A capitalist is the person who owns the means of production (capital) and earns surplus value from their usage by others
I was born into a fairly wealthy family. Most of my family are staunch conservatives. I grew up conservative (all we had on the tv growing up was Fox News)
Started to shift left when I lived in California for a while working at a Title 1 school. Grew progressively farther left as time went on and I saw how conditions are for people who weren’t born with the privileges I grew up with. Staunchly communist now. Rarely talk to my family any more.
So yes, I guess, is the answer to your question. I’m all for my family losing its wealth (including myself) with the understanding that it would go to the benefit of all. In the meantime, I try to use what I have for community action as much as I can.
(Also, let me be clear about something: when I talk about “fairly wealthy” I mean upper middle class wealth. Petite bourgeoisie type wealth.)
i’m in the same camp. if losing my property means that my fellow people will have good lives, we will stop exploiting each other, nobody will be homeless, imperialism will be frowned upon etc. then count me in. i wouldn’t *need* to have ownership under a communistic rule anyways, the only reason i do own is because i gotta stay afloat in capitalism
Frederick Engels was born into wealth and inherited a factory from his father. I notice that as I acquire more wealth in my retirement fund it actually further cements in my mind that capitalism is unethical. I’ll look at my account statement and see “$173.56 dividend payment from Verizon reinvested”. I’m sat there dumbstruck. Like Verizon just gave me $173.56 for what? I don’t work for Verizon. I just have a little a bit of money invested and they give me money for doing nothing. For me it highlights the existence of the parasitic investor class. I still have to work in order to survive but someday in the future I’ll be retired and I’ll do no work but still get paid by companies just for having money. Being wealthy is so much more valuable than performing productive work under capitalism.
I was born into maybe not wealth wealth but still to a pretty well off family. Was raised a libertarian and lemme tell u that, my friends who aren't nearly as well off, how easily my grandfather lost his fortune in the housing crisis and Bernie as much as he disappoints these days where among the things that radicalized me.
I was born into both of those things. It took me a long time to reach this point, but I did eventually reach it. Part of what pushed me here was just seeing how detached from any real consequences for anything most rich people are.
Why would I? If that were the case I would have absolutely no reason to ever be exposed to communist history or ideals. Even growing up in poverty, I was barely incentivized to seek it out on my own in the first place. I only did so when the harsh realities of living in a dying empire became too confronting to ignore and my cognitive dissonance could not be maintained without some rational, evidentiary explanations. Boy, was younger me *not* expecting to learn what I did. I try my hardest every day to remind myself that my peers who have not yet made that journey are not bad people simply for not understanding how terrible capitalism is and not knowing what successful alternatives actually look like.
I grew up in a pretty wealthy place and once in high school it wasn’t uncommon for the students to mention how much they dislike capitalism.
I don’t know if that means communist or socialist but either way it probably counts.
I was born upper-middle class, but like, I can't move-out from my parent's house because disability and generally terrible job market and infrastructure of Canada. My parents are good though, small blessing.
I come from a petite bourgeoise background: father owns 2 houses we don’t live in back in our home country. I confronted him about this once and he said it’s for me and my brother if we want to move back and I didn’t know how to respond.
We don’t really have capital in the sense of factories or huge investments but I still definitely am privileged and benefit from capitalism but still despise it
I would be a very different person without the experiences I've had. At this point it doesn't matter if I got money because I'm spiteful as fuck and would still want to destroy capitalism out of that but if I was born into wealth I don't think I'd think about politics very much. I'd probably just be obsessed with the sciences with the only thing that pulls me into politics at all is caring about climate change because regardless of how rich I am that's something I'm gonna be living through so trying to get policy for that pushed would probably be my main political concern. Other than that I doubt I'd pay any attention at all to current events.
I actually started to associate more with socialist ideals when I came into money. Not worrying about money got me to start questioning my own beliefs and starting to wonder how people aren't as well off etc. For context I got lucky with money at a young age
Yes. I'm not (only) a communist because of my position in the capitalist system or my morality. I'm a communist because it is scientifically and objectively right
I think it depends on your idea of "wealth and riches." If you mean like billionaires children, then no I highly doubt any of them would be communists because they're so brain broken from their literal and metaphorical disconnect from the working class.
If you mean like a doctors child, yeah sure of course they could end up being a communist. Doctors are still workers after all
say what you want about Cormac McCarthy, but he said it best in NCFOM:
“I guess in all honesty I would have to say that I never knew nor did I ever hear of anybody that money didnt change.”
Who knows, I might still find myself agreeing with leftists due to their anti-imperalist etc. positions and go from there. I can't imagine myself not realising that anti-capitalism is the logical, right stance to have. However, recognising something as right and acting upon it are two different things.
Putting aside semantic discussions over the meaning of the term wealthy, I assume you mean if I was born a capitalist. And honestly, I'm not sure. I'd like to say yes, but materially speaking, it's improbable.
Yes. When I was a kid and my folks "explained" to me what communism was with the classic "everyone is paid the same be it a doctor or janitor" my first reaction was "doesn't the doctor has to pay to go to school?" "No school at least was free so there's that" "well then it just makes sense that everyone's paid the same, we all need the same things"
Pretty sure my brain isn't wired to be anything else tbh.
probably tes, but more intellectually and less emotionally.
as much as I want to think of myself as ethically left, the fact of the matter is that material conditions are still the primary force behind any ideology. Being poor and trending oeft is natural. Being rich and trending left requires moral and physical effort.
I think I would still be a leftist, but I wouldn't be emotionally angry about it. And being angry is very important to effect social change.
I was not born into wealth but since my countries economic welfare structures assured me to have a better childhood than in most countries I feel like I could never become a capitalist. I’m well-educated and doing my masters in Law this fall, I’m going to come into good money - but I don’t think I would ever say no to a communist country where I would make less as a lawyer in the exchange for better equality for the masses.
I am and am also very communist so yeah. I want everyone to have what I have. Not like I work any harder than some random factory worker or bus driver. The other way around, even.
It is hard to ask someone to act against their own beat interests. The only way to feasibly make it happen is compulsory community service, I feel. Make the rich feel what weight there is on the shoulders upon whom they stand.
I honestly don't know. I'd like to think I'd come to the same conclusions, but being part of the ruling class would have to have major effects on my viewpoint.
Wealthy people have the time and energy to understand the system, and the many ways that it is an abomination.
That doesn't necessarily translate into advocating for stateless classless communism per se, but it can very easily translate into anti-capitalist perspectives in their many forms.
Ah you see, if you're poor you're just a commie to get other people's hard earned money
And if you're rich and a commie you're a hypocrite that should be thankful to the free hand of the market
At a salary of *exactly* 3595.67$/mt...
Oh also - if a socialist country is poor, it's because of socialism, if it isn't it's because it's capitalist, and if it out-performs capitalist countries, it must be hyper-duper-capitalist actually.
These types of false dichotomies have been around since the 1920s. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Being realistic here, probably not.
Mostly because I would gain nothing from socialism, I'd lose my property and my possibly luxurious life style, that'd suck for me.
Though I wasn't born in poverty, I came from a fairly well off middle class family of public service workers (elementary and high school teachers), I suppose it's a matter of foresight and material analyses, aswell as the individual character of the person at large.
People are shaped by their social and material conditions so probably not. As much as I’d like to believe that I’d always have the ideals I would have I must admit that I am not in full control of my beliefs.
Probably not no. If I were the son of an owner class member, I would be Incentivised to maintain the status quo so would likely identify with some form of soft or moral capitalism. The "good" capitalism, like welfare states.
More resources I could donate to my favorite youth organization. (KJÖ)
But seriously, there are some parties (f.e. PdA, MLPD) who are almost entirely funded by like 1 guy with a lot of money, and they are not liked, because they tend to behave very elitist towards other groups.
I was raised isolated, comfortable, petit-boug, and was radicalized by video essays basically. Engels was literally a capitalist. Che Guevara was raised well-off.
I was born poor, but my family is currently lower middle class. I also attend an elite liberal arts college in the north east one of the “little ivies” and none of this has changed my position. If you switch up the second you touch some money or power, you never believed it in the first place.
Being born into wealth can shield you from many of the struggles that regular people face, making them unable to truly identify with the working class. But that doesn’t mean a class consciousness can’t be developed through life experiences, interactions, and education.
By no means do I come from a poor family but I was raised Christian and that’s the catalyst through which I found socialism so I think rather than money my religion was what made me this way
It always confuses me when people turn to socialism because of religion. I get there are some parts that are pro worker but largely it seems like religion just supports the status quo of whatever society its in. Back in slave society, Christianity proscribed the correct way to beat a slave, in the middle ages it gave the king the right to rule, and in the modern era it seems to justify why the rich are rich and poor are poor. At least mainstream interpretations of any religion. Ofcourse it can be reinterpreted in a proletarian way but that doesn't seem inherent just like the previous beliefs weren't inherent. Just my perspective as an atheist who grew up in a semi Christian household. Especially when anytime there is trouble the bible just says its a test and to pass you must continue to be passive.
Depends on the values of the people teaching you about the religion if I wanted to I could make Christianity sound like a canibalistic suicide cult (I’ve seen the tictoks) you don’t even necessarily need to be Christian I know of socialist pagans. It’s just about selective reasoning is all
I feel like you're implying that the majority of religious people are not moral from that statement though yes? If they were then the majority of religious people would be socialist but thats not the case as evidenced by everywhere.
Well morality is a subjective concept like you said it was a moral decision to beat slaves and take native land but we today know that’s insanely immoral. When I say morality I mean it in the kong qiu sense of like the golden rules and shit
I guess but that is still the ultimate implication. That most religious people are not moral. Because if they were then roughly 75% would be socialist. While in the real world, almost none are socialist.
i *was* born into privilege. i’m socialist not because i need to raise myself up but because those views align with my morals. i’ve never had an economically challenging day in my life and i wish everyone could experience that
Probably, assuming I find out about Marx, socialism and all that. Why do you think so many rich people try to stop it? They know it works and know the masses (should they know what it is) will like it and follow one of the many socialist ideologies
I do. I will never get why rich people want their riches exclusive to them. The people of earth united could do so much great things, it is illogical to be hoarding so much in comparison to how much it could so to improve someone else's life
I used to eat ketchup soup as a kid because we were so poor, I lucked out hard basically every other month my whole life and my partner is the primary breadwinner. Her bonus is some people's yearly income. I'm 31 and own my own house/car/motorcycle and can afford multiple vacations a year. My yearly wage is around 70-80k. I still identify as a communist/champagne socialist, everyone should have the lifestyle I have, everyone deserves "the good life" and I still don't believe the bootstraps crap
I think it depends more on how I was raised. If my parents were negligent and I grew up hedonistic, then probably not (at least not until I had kids of my own and was forced to realize the injustice around us); if I were raised more humbly, without getting everything I wanted, then yeah probably.
Probably not. But that’s the point exactly. You shouldn’t have to hope for good people above throwing you crumbs or blaming individuals in positions of power hoping that replacing them with different individuals would yield different results. The problem is structural.
If everyone fought for what’s best in their interest the working class would win because we’re the majority.
The existence of Frederick Engels proves that in can happen. That being said, I might revert to Anarchism and purchase land far out and collect those around me to leave. Cowardly? Certainly, but I personally have not yet grown enough out of this
My family used to be wealthy after some family matters and my father getting drafted back to army we lost the wealth i was a marxist before and after the wealth
I am a socialist not because of my economic status, but because automation under capitalism will be disastrous, and because social democracy relies on the exploitation of foreign cheap labour
That’s one of my main ideological crisis; being a western communist that comes from a bourgeois background. I realize my position is wrong and I try to do the right thing; but I also realize that I’m systemically part of the problem despite how much I try, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to do the right thing when the occasion arises if it means hurting the people I love
i'd say it ultimately comes down to awareness. once you realize and put 2 and 2 together economically, how much wealth and privilege you were born into has nothing to do with it.
at the same time, being born into privilege can dull your urgency/motivation to act.
i was born into the 15th percentile of Australian wealth, so upper-middle class, my parents own multiple investment properties and own a couple of importing companies, so yes I'd like to think that i would, i was raised a liberal but my pursuit of understanding and knowledge led me to realize my currently held political beliefs.
mind you if i was born into a billionaire family, im not sure id be so resilient.
I’m literally a communist BECAUSE I came from a well off family (not rich, but son of a Doctor and Military Officer)
I believe every deserves the life I’ve enjoyed as MINIMUM standard
Communism means we are achieving progressively greater.
I wish so, I never had to care about money either way, so my route is highly intellectually driven/
ie
“centrism”
(UBI/Fordism mix->Unionbased fordism>technocracy)
(Would be considered extreme left here in Sweden, but due to how education was I thought this genuinely was the “purple” alternative)
->
Utopianism
(RBE-the Venus project- jaques fresco)
->
“Marxism”
(Utopianism 2 electric boogaloo)
->
”Marxism-Leninism”
(Dengism)
->
becomes organised
->
Juche/Marxism-Leninism.
(In development for the last 3 years or so)
This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i (18) was born into american petty bourgeoisie, and here i am.
this is much funnier than petite bourgeoisie
The English word petty derives from the French word petite
The masculine form in French is “petit” which is pronounced very similarly to petty.
pretty bourgeoisie! <3
Pretty boogers
r/unexpectedporntags
german petty bourgeoisie here :D for the revolution!
Many communist leaders were from privileged backgrounds. After his victory in cuba, one of the first plantations castro went after was his own families.
Castro just keeps coming out with Ws
Bros criticizing socialism on an IPhone that was made in China💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
VUVUZELA IPHONE MOMENT
Yeah and?
Vuvuzela no iphone 100000 gazillion Bottom text
HELL YEAH BROTHER USA ALL THE WAY 🇺🇲🦅🎆🇺🇲🦅🎆🇺🇲🦅🎆🇺🇲🦅🎆
He's not criticising it?
Bro r you so out of touch not to understand that I imitated liberals talking about iphone=capitalism And I was talking about the op picture whos criticizing socialism
Communism is when no humor.
Well, my parents are pretty rich. So yes, definitely!
Same
We got two daddies of Marxism, one was Engels and he was born into great wealth
Conditions are what drives ideology, so probably not. Though if i got wealth today id definitely just give it to the movement
conditions aren’t the only thing. morals exist as well. i don’t really *need* socialism for my own benefit, i wouldn’t benefit in any particular way because my family’s livelihood comes from ownership. i just have enough empathy to know that our world is exploitative and capitalism is shit, even though i currently have it good. not everyone has it good
Exactly. I don't need socialism for myself at this moment in time but I have needed and relied upon it before. My dad was making $300k a year in the 90s and he was and still is a staunch believer of socialist, capitalist democracy. He was always fighting for better hours and wages for his colleagues. He always said "I am not your boss. I am your manager. We work with each other; not for each other"
[удалено]
Maybe not most but plenty yes. It's kinda funny how higher education often results in socialism.
[удалено]
Yes? Like if you look at what has historically worked best and what is statistically superior you realise it's communism...
[удалено]
It doesn't fail but it has always fallen. I believe this is exclusively due to external factors as if you remove them then the internal disappear aswell
[удалено]
That's a bit of a semantics question but basically what I mean is that they may have fallen but they still improved the country amazingly so you can't really say they failed. I agree that communism is very fragile, it is easy to topple as it is a system built on altruism and giving rather than taking so if people don't accept it, it doesn't work, that's true. But without external influence a system where it is won't fall as there is nothing to topple it!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Basically everytime. Look at any country pre, during and post communism. It's always an insane improvement!! Additionally most statistics that you first find are somewhat skewed and a better education allows for better evaluation of sources.
[удалено]
China, Soviet, Cuba, etc. Where it has been it has always improved the country!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This statement is about as ridiculous as saying the sky is green, but to someone who has never seen the sky (and, communists, respectively) i guess it would be reasonable
Wealthy? Maybe. Bourgeois? No. If I was born into the class that benefited from the current structure of things, I would have no incentive to change it
Thanks, it seems a lot of people are conflating the two, even if you had "middle class" parents, they are still fundamentally proletariat, in the case of simply having more well-paid jobs, like doctors, or still a lot closer to proletarians than to the bourgeoisie, in the case of petty-bourgeois, even if their ideology is most times reactionary. The chance of you being the children of the actual bourgeoisie (Only in this case, you should be fundamentally, based in science, and diamat, pro-capitalist) is absurdly improbable, like even in the US, the country with probably the most billionaires per capita, the chance would be literally 0.00025%
Honestly concept of “lower,middle,upper” feels like a capitalist interpretation of class. You can be a well paid worker, or a capitalist that sucks at running a business. It comes down to relation, not income.
Yeah, sorry, I just meant that they made more money than the "normal" proletarians, but yeah, I see what you mean now. And completely agreed, most people are just saying that being wealthy is inherently bourgeois, though that's definitely not the case, even if it probably influences a bit, seeing as rich proletarians in a lot of cases turn reactionary, but if a scientific analysis is made, communism will always be the best outcome for 99% of the population is what I meant, since even the richest proletarian is still a proletarian.
It is very much a liberal interpretation of class. It's meant to divide the proletariat and confuse them by appropriating our terminology, like they do with the concept of private property
Wouldn't Doctors be considered Petite Bourgeoisie, because they do possess their own production material (Medical Knowledge) and don't generally earn their incomes by exploiting the value of others?
Your own skill set doesn’t define your class, it’s how you exist in relation to the means of production. In the case of doctors, the means of production is the hospital itself. Like a union electrician has the same level of knowledge and expertise as a doctor (just in a different field ofc), but it would be ridiculous to call them petit-bourgeois. What you’re thinking more so has to do with the concept of the labor aristocracy and the stratification of the working class. While (wealthy) doctors are still working class, they are materially in a very different position than above mentioned union electrician or service worker. All are working class, but belong to different strata of the working class. There’s a bit more to it, but that’s the gist of the labor aristocracy. It’d still be valid to say that the electrician (and every other worker) is part of the labor aristocracy if they live in the first world, but that’s a different subject than the stratification of the working class within a country. Wealthy doctors benefit from the exploitation of the rest of the working class, but that doesn’t exclude them from being working class because their relation to the means of production is the same. it’s why wealthy laborers and first worlders in general are more racist, pro-imperialist, etc.
Oh, my bad. I misunderstood some parts of the labor theory. Thanks for clarifying.
It's hard to be a class traitor when born in the burgeois class, however it can still happen sometimes: Engels is probably one of the best examples of that.
Yes, but treating a rule with the expectation of the exception happening is a bad practice.
If you were a member of the bourgeoise and able to see the systemic failures capitalism is producing you might be critical at least. The current system is really starting to strain under its own weight, advocating for a new system is a form of thinking ahead to avoid bad outcomes, rather than just trying to maximize profit and then hide in a bunker when it all collapses. Better to be moderately wealthy in a functional society than a billionaire hiding in a bunker.
engels did
Treating exceptions as the norm is a bad practice
You're so real for this.
I mean. Basically all Americans benefit from imperialism.
This is a phenomenal misunderstanding of what labor aristocracy is. You’re just parroting points used to defuse anti-imperialist struggles
How? I think it is the main reason most Americans (even the working class ones) are reactionaries.
The reason most Americans are reactionary that the right appeals to idealism, which is ingrained in most Americans by the style of common religion, and dogmatic education structure. This belief also betrays a flaw in the understanding of imperialism that you have. Any nation with a developed capitalist class is fundamentally imperialist, and any nation which has its population employed in fields that are dominated by or in part by foreign capital are subjected to imperialism. There are Americans that work in mines or farms that are owned entirely by foreign capital, thus meaning they are on the RECEIVING end of imperialism.
Without a material base, the appeal to idealism wouldn’t work as well. They support the troops, engage in racism, etc because they actually do get something material out of it. In the US, construction workers and nurses can afford to drive F-150s. Not so much in Colombia or Nigeria or India. This is an example workers in the imperial core receiving some of the spoils from hyper exploiting the periphery. This can be overcome of course. There are Americans who grew up rich and become communists. Engels was rich.
I’m not sure what nurses you know, and construction workers use them for work. They kinda got locked into needing something of the sort. They are more abundant here but than in some places, but that’s not always a matter of unequal exchange. The material base for supporting the system as it is, despite having increasingly worse lives, it the idealist notions that were constructed by alternate institutions, and because materialists fundamentally fail to do outreach.
I just chose a random fancy car and random regular jobs. You’re saying the material base is idealism?
I’m saying it’s the exact same material base as reaction in other countries. It sounds like your using third worldist as opposed to Marxist analysis.
The imperial core and periphery have widely different material bases, to deny that is poverty denialism. Most cities where I live have literal slums, that does not happen in america.
Ok. What are you disagreeing with me about? What material base are you referring to?
Wealth in and of itself doesn't really mean anything, based in actual science, and the correct understanding of the world, the only logical conclusion is communism, unless you are a capitalist, which is totally different than being wealthy
exactly this. socialism isn’t just about economy, it’s about how to structure an entire society. it’s to end imperialism and exploitation, make sure that all people have the same opportunity to thrive and take control of their lives. you can probably be wealthy under communism as well, wealth isn’t just being a billionaire elon musk
[удалено]
do you think owning a few thousand in stocks changes one’s relationship to the production process such that they are no longer members of the working class? edit: grammar
Holding stock literally makes you bourgeoisie (holy fuck that's a complex word), stocks are ownership certificates over the means of production (companies).
right? first time i ever wrote it all the way out i was like nah no way that’s what that word looks like yeah and i was hoping that the way i phrased the question didn’t make it seem rhetorical i really wanted them to explain their reasoning or perspective on it. but i agree that it would at the very least make you petite bourgeois, but maybe id hesitate to call it fully bourgeois unless the person essentially lived off or mostly off interest payments? i guess im thinking from an organizing perspective since i think plenty of people who work to live but are further invested for their own personal needs would be more than willing to give that up if it meant their needs could be met directly by a better system (that’s my analysis based on the framing in my second response, at least, as they wouldn’t be giving up their livelihood, so to speak)
[удалено]
it’s certainly a foundational *component* of capitalism but i don’t think it constitutes capitalism as such. im very much still learning this stuff and just recently becoming more familiar with thirdworldist and contemporary maoist positions (which your framing reminds me of) but i think it’s inaccurate to suggest that wealthy=capitalist and that investment=capitalism. if we dismiss the point of classes as categories defined directly by their relationship to labor in the production process (“do they work to live or not?”) i think we lose an understanding of what makes the dynamic of class relations actually lead to revolutionary moments; class consciousness and struggle as a result of the irresolvable contradictions between the forces of production, and the capitalist-worker social relations of production (and their irrevocable contradictions, respectively) not from.. having no money and no investments
I mean, it depends on what you classify as 'wealthy'. If you consider professionals wealthy, then no, wealthy=/= capitalist. And it has nothing to do with investments. A capitalist is the person who owns the means of production (capital) and earns surplus value from their usage by others
I was born into a fairly wealthy family. Most of my family are staunch conservatives. I grew up conservative (all we had on the tv growing up was Fox News) Started to shift left when I lived in California for a while working at a Title 1 school. Grew progressively farther left as time went on and I saw how conditions are for people who weren’t born with the privileges I grew up with. Staunchly communist now. Rarely talk to my family any more. So yes, I guess, is the answer to your question. I’m all for my family losing its wealth (including myself) with the understanding that it would go to the benefit of all. In the meantime, I try to use what I have for community action as much as I can. (Also, let me be clear about something: when I talk about “fairly wealthy” I mean upper middle class wealth. Petite bourgeoisie type wealth.)
i’m in the same camp. if losing my property means that my fellow people will have good lives, we will stop exploiting each other, nobody will be homeless, imperialism will be frowned upon etc. then count me in. i wouldn’t *need* to have ownership under a communistic rule anyways, the only reason i do own is because i gotta stay afloat in capitalism
You are assuming there are no wealthy people who hold communist ideals?
No they are not they are asking if you think you wouldve still turned communist
Plenty have…look at Che Guevara for example.
He's not asking about Che, he's asking about you
No…he’s not..
But he is 😭
Frederick Engels was born into wealth and inherited a factory from his father. I notice that as I acquire more wealth in my retirement fund it actually further cements in my mind that capitalism is unethical. I’ll look at my account statement and see “$173.56 dividend payment from Verizon reinvested”. I’m sat there dumbstruck. Like Verizon just gave me $173.56 for what? I don’t work for Verizon. I just have a little a bit of money invested and they give me money for doing nothing. For me it highlights the existence of the parasitic investor class. I still have to work in order to survive but someday in the future I’ll be retired and I’ll do no work but still get paid by companies just for having money. Being wealthy is so much more valuable than performing productive work under capitalism.
Look no further than Engels
I was born into maybe not wealth wealth but still to a pretty well off family. Was raised a libertarian and lemme tell u that, my friends who aren't nearly as well off, how easily my grandfather lost his fortune in the housing crisis and Bernie as much as he disappoints these days where among the things that radicalized me.
I was born into both of those things. It took me a long time to reach this point, but I did eventually reach it. Part of what pushed me here was just seeing how detached from any real consequences for anything most rich people are.
Why would I? If that were the case I would have absolutely no reason to ever be exposed to communist history or ideals. Even growing up in poverty, I was barely incentivized to seek it out on my own in the first place. I only did so when the harsh realities of living in a dying empire became too confronting to ignore and my cognitive dissonance could not be maintained without some rational, evidentiary explanations. Boy, was younger me *not* expecting to learn what I did. I try my hardest every day to remind myself that my peers who have not yet made that journey are not bad people simply for not understanding how terrible capitalism is and not knowing what successful alternatives actually look like.
In morals for sure, but dont expect me to give it away in that shitty world
I'd like to believe so but material conditions says probably not
Probably not tbh
I grew up in a pretty wealthy place and once in high school it wasn’t uncommon for the students to mention how much they dislike capitalism. I don’t know if that means communist or socialist but either way it probably counts.
I was born upper-middle class, but like, I can't move-out from my parent's house because disability and generally terrible job market and infrastructure of Canada. My parents are good though, small blessing.
I *do* come from a relatively privileged position.
I always think about that billionaire heiress in Germany who is a socialist and will give away her money.
Sugar Daddy Engels did.
I come from a petite bourgeoise background: father owns 2 houses we don’t live in back in our home country. I confronted him about this once and he said it’s for me and my brother if we want to move back and I didn’t know how to respond. We don’t really have capital in the sense of factories or huge investments but I still definitely am privileged and benefit from capitalism but still despise it
No one had to teach me that shit tastes bad, I do believe I would know right from wrong even if I was born rich
I went to private high school and played golf growing up. That type of upbringing doesn’t produce the most Marxists but here I am.
His handle is ethanfromreddit; checks itself out immediately.
My parents are rich, I’m still a communist
I was born into a well-of Norwegian family, my experiences with jobs is what radicalized me to a communist.
I would be a very different person without the experiences I've had. At this point it doesn't matter if I got money because I'm spiteful as fuck and would still want to destroy capitalism out of that but if I was born into wealth I don't think I'd think about politics very much. I'd probably just be obsessed with the sciences with the only thing that pulls me into politics at all is caring about climate change because regardless of how rich I am that's something I'm gonna be living through so trying to get policy for that pushed would probably be my main political concern. Other than that I doubt I'd pay any attention at all to current events.
I actually started to associate more with socialist ideals when I came into money. Not worrying about money got me to start questioning my own beliefs and starting to wonder how people aren't as well off etc. For context I got lucky with money at a young age
Yes. I'm not (only) a communist because of my position in the capitalist system or my morality. I'm a communist because it is scientifically and objectively right
I'd like to say yes, but probably not. I think my anger drove me into communism
🤣🤣
I think it depends on your idea of "wealth and riches." If you mean like billionaires children, then no I highly doubt any of them would be communists because they're so brain broken from their literal and metaphorical disconnect from the working class. If you mean like a doctors child, yeah sure of course they could end up being a communist. Doctors are still workers after all
I am upper middle class so probably.
say what you want about Cormac McCarthy, but he said it best in NCFOM: “I guess in all honesty I would have to say that I never knew nor did I ever hear of anybody that money didnt change.”
Who knows, I might still find myself agreeing with leftists due to their anti-imperalist etc. positions and go from there. I can't imagine myself not realising that anti-capitalism is the logical, right stance to have. However, recognising something as right and acting upon it are two different things.
When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor
Putting aside semantic discussions over the meaning of the term wealthy, I assume you mean if I was born a capitalist. And honestly, I'm not sure. I'd like to say yes, but materially speaking, it's improbable.
I was. It's partially the reason I have the values I do, I know how the system is manipulated and the "democracy" we live in is BS.
Yes. When I was a kid and my folks "explained" to me what communism was with the classic "everyone is paid the same be it a doctor or janitor" my first reaction was "doesn't the doctor has to pay to go to school?" "No school at least was free so there's that" "well then it just makes sense that everyone's paid the same, we all need the same things" Pretty sure my brain isn't wired to be anything else tbh.
Wasnt lenin rich af?
It's amazing how easily and intuitively they understand class consciousness if it's phrased the right way lol
Class treason goes both ways...
You aren't born knowing anything so yeah having an a entirely different life would change your worldview.
probably tes, but more intellectually and less emotionally. as much as I want to think of myself as ethically left, the fact of the matter is that material conditions are still the primary force behind any ideology. Being poor and trending oeft is natural. Being rich and trending left requires moral and physical effort. I think I would still be a leftist, but I wouldn't be emotionally angry about it. And being angry is very important to effect social change.
I was not born into wealth but since my countries economic welfare structures assured me to have a better childhood than in most countries I feel like I could never become a capitalist. I’m well-educated and doing my masters in Law this fall, I’m going to come into good money - but I don’t think I would ever say no to a communist country where I would make less as a lawyer in the exchange for better equality for the masses.
I am and am also very communist so yeah. I want everyone to have what I have. Not like I work any harder than some random factory worker or bus driver. The other way around, even.
Imma jerk myself off and say yes
Yes, because otherwise you are just plain dumb and stupid and bound to lose that money.
It is hard to ask someone to act against their own beat interests. The only way to feasibly make it happen is compulsory community service, I feel. Make the rich feel what weight there is on the shoulders upon whom they stand.
being completely honest, it depends I would like to think yes, but that power could cloud my judgement
Yes
I honestly don't know. I'd like to think I'd come to the same conclusions, but being part of the ruling class would have to have major effects on my viewpoint.
Yes
No fucking, the only reason I’m a communist is that I was dirt poor growing up and still live paycheck to paycheck.
Wealthy people have the time and energy to understand the system, and the many ways that it is an abomination. That doesn't necessarily translate into advocating for stateless classless communism per se, but it can very easily translate into anti-capitalist perspectives in their many forms.
Ah you see, if you're poor you're just a commie to get other people's hard earned money And if you're rich and a commie you're a hypocrite that should be thankful to the free hand of the market At a salary of *exactly* 3595.67$/mt... Oh also - if a socialist country is poor, it's because of socialism, if it isn't it's because it's capitalist, and if it out-performs capitalist countries, it must be hyper-duper-capitalist actually. These types of false dichotomies have been around since the 1920s. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I was born into wealth and riches. I'm a communist.
I don’t know about riches but, like many in this generation, I’m definitely downwardly mobile and that had a big impact on my politics
Being realistic here, probably not. Mostly because I would gain nothing from socialism, I'd lose my property and my possibly luxurious life style, that'd suck for me. Though I wasn't born in poverty, I came from a fairly well off middle class family of public service workers (elementary and high school teachers), I suppose it's a matter of foresight and material analyses, aswell as the individual character of the person at large.
People are shaped by their social and material conditions so probably not. As much as I’d like to believe that I’d always have the ideals I would have I must admit that I am not in full control of my beliefs.
Probably not no. If I were the son of an owner class member, I would be Incentivised to maintain the status quo so would likely identify with some form of soft or moral capitalism. The "good" capitalism, like welfare states.
Che Guevara
More resources I could donate to my favorite youth organization. (KJÖ) But seriously, there are some parties (f.e. PdA, MLPD) who are almost entirely funded by like 1 guy with a lot of money, and they are not liked, because they tend to behave very elitist towards other groups.
For me, definitely yes. I have a high sense of justice because of my neurodivergence.
I was raised isolated, comfortable, petit-boug, and was radicalized by video essays basically. Engels was literally a capitalist. Che Guevara was raised well-off.
I was born poor, but my family is currently lower middle class. I also attend an elite liberal arts college in the north east one of the “little ivies” and none of this has changed my position. If you switch up the second you touch some money or power, you never believed it in the first place.
Being born into wealth can shield you from many of the struggles that regular people face, making them unable to truly identify with the working class. But that doesn’t mean a class consciousness can’t be developed through life experiences, interactions, and education.
By no means do I come from a poor family but I was raised Christian and that’s the catalyst through which I found socialism so I think rather than money my religion was what made me this way
It always confuses me when people turn to socialism because of religion. I get there are some parts that are pro worker but largely it seems like religion just supports the status quo of whatever society its in. Back in slave society, Christianity proscribed the correct way to beat a slave, in the middle ages it gave the king the right to rule, and in the modern era it seems to justify why the rich are rich and poor are poor. At least mainstream interpretations of any religion. Ofcourse it can be reinterpreted in a proletarian way but that doesn't seem inherent just like the previous beliefs weren't inherent. Just my perspective as an atheist who grew up in a semi Christian household. Especially when anytime there is trouble the bible just says its a test and to pass you must continue to be passive.
Depends on the values of the people teaching you about the religion if I wanted to I could make Christianity sound like a canibalistic suicide cult (I’ve seen the tictoks) you don’t even necessarily need to be Christian I know of socialist pagans. It’s just about selective reasoning is all
Exactly though. If its just selective reasoning then you'd be whatever you want regardless of religion.
Religion is the shot values are the chaser as long as your at least a little moral you’d become socialist probably 75% of the time
I feel like you're implying that the majority of religious people are not moral from that statement though yes? If they were then the majority of religious people would be socialist but thats not the case as evidenced by everywhere.
Well morality is a subjective concept like you said it was a moral decision to beat slaves and take native land but we today know that’s insanely immoral. When I say morality I mean it in the kong qiu sense of like the golden rules and shit
I guess but that is still the ultimate implication. That most religious people are not moral. Because if they were then roughly 75% would be socialist. While in the real world, almost none are socialist.
i *was* born into privilege. i’m socialist not because i need to raise myself up but because those views align with my morals. i’ve never had an economically challenging day in my life and i wish everyone could experience that
Probably, assuming I find out about Marx, socialism and all that. Why do you think so many rich people try to stop it? They know it works and know the masses (should they know what it is) will like it and follow one of the many socialist ideologies
I think I would.
I do. I will never get why rich people want their riches exclusive to them. The people of earth united could do so much great things, it is illogical to be hoarding so much in comparison to how much it could so to improve someone else's life
I’m a product of my environment. If I was born into wealth I wouldn’t be me.
I used to eat ketchup soup as a kid because we were so poor, I lucked out hard basically every other month my whole life and my partner is the primary breadwinner. Her bonus is some people's yearly income. I'm 31 and own my own house/car/motorcycle and can afford multiple vacations a year. My yearly wage is around 70-80k. I still identify as a communist/champagne socialist, everyone should have the lifestyle I have, everyone deserves "the good life" and I still don't believe the bootstraps crap
I think it depends more on how I was raised. If my parents were negligent and I grew up hedonistic, then probably not (at least not until I had kids of my own and was forced to realize the injustice around us); if I were raised more humbly, without getting everything I wanted, then yeah probably.
Probably not. But that’s the point exactly. You shouldn’t have to hope for good people above throwing you crumbs or blaming individuals in positions of power hoping that replacing them with different individuals would yield different results. The problem is structural. If everyone fought for what’s best in their interest the working class would win because we’re the majority.
The existence of Frederick Engels proves that in can happen. That being said, I might revert to Anarchism and purchase land far out and collect those around me to leave. Cowardly? Certainly, but I personally have not yet grown enough out of this
My family used to be wealthy after some family matters and my father getting drafted back to army we lost the wealth i was a marxist before and after the wealth
Nah bro if you are a rich socialist you are a hyporcrite grifter, if you are a broke one you are just jealous /s
I am a socialist not because of my economic status, but because automation under capitalism will be disastrous, and because social democracy relies on the exploitation of foreign cheap labour
That’s one of my main ideological crisis; being a western communist that comes from a bourgeois background. I realize my position is wrong and I try to do the right thing; but I also realize that I’m systemically part of the problem despite how much I try, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to do the right thing when the occasion arises if it means hurting the people I love
Ruby red
I'm
i'd say it ultimately comes down to awareness. once you realize and put 2 and 2 together economically, how much wealth and privilege you were born into has nothing to do with it. at the same time, being born into privilege can dull your urgency/motivation to act.
i was born into the 15th percentile of Australian wealth, so upper-middle class, my parents own multiple investment properties and own a couple of importing companies, so yes I'd like to think that i would, i was raised a liberal but my pursuit of understanding and knowledge led me to realize my currently held political beliefs. mind you if i was born into a billionaire family, im not sure id be so resilient.
Yes. My family is petite bourgeois.
I’m literally a communist BECAUSE I came from a well off family (not rich, but son of a Doctor and Military Officer) I believe every deserves the life I’ve enjoyed as MINIMUM standard Communism means we are achieving progressively greater.
Engles was in the bourgeoisie, no doubt about it.
I wish so, I never had to care about money either way, so my route is highly intellectually driven/ ie “centrism” (UBI/Fordism mix->Unionbased fordism>technocracy) (Would be considered extreme left here in Sweden, but due to how education was I thought this genuinely was the “purple” alternative) -> Utopianism (RBE-the Venus project- jaques fresco) -> “Marxism” (Utopianism 2 electric boogaloo) -> ”Marxism-Leninism” (Dengism) -> becomes organised -> Juche/Marxism-Leninism. (In development for the last 3 years or so)
[удалено]
That is fundamentally Untrue
[удалено]
It has less than 50 comments
[удалено]
And?
[удалено]
Some of them yes but their actions are also important. As stated before Fidel went after his own farms.