Why is it that most communist leaders throughout history were spoiled rich kids?

Four strokes

None of these (except mao) were intelligentzia tho

Daddy issues.

kys

Because communist countries start with great unequal wealth distribution so their intelligentsia is that much richer than in Europe

Mao was rich IIRC

Josip "Herman Goering" Broz Tito was a peasant until the day he died.

Didn't he go mad from syphilis?

>Nestor Makhno was rich
>Durruti was rich
>Sankara was rich

You might need to be specific about your communists, OP.

Danton looks like a golem in all his pictures.

Makhno wasn't a communist.

>"Haha bro u said u like comm'nism b.ut u g0t iphone hhaha"

He was really ugly

back in the day if you were a spoiled rich kid you would just invent a religion and tell everyone to become a buddhist, but only if they want to

now if you are a spoiled rich kid you become a commie and force everyone to become one by force

Funny how they picked one of the most handsome actors possible to play him in a biopic.

What are you implying?

At the risk of sounding like a very smart person, it seems the masses have always been seen and used as a tool to be wielded by competing elite factions.

Why should this be different with socialism?

Almost every political leader is rich or upper middle class.

You can't philosophize on an empty stomach. In America working class people are cucks who lack the time to run for office, write their thoughts and had to self censor themselves lest some bitch complain about them to their boss and get fired.

Americans use middle class as an euphemism, what they mean by middle class is just working class. The classical weberian definition of middle class is the lawyers, the doctors, the shopowners, i.e. those who don't have to depend on someone or a paycheck to earn their living, those who can be independent, who have money and can basically think and write and run for office. Weberian middle class is american upper middle class.

An upper middle class doctor can take a break and run for office, good luck trying to campaign without a year of paycheck.

I still don't get what you are implying after that rant, what's wrong about pointing out the retarded consumerism of someone who likes communism

He was born to a well of peasant but still a fucking peasant, like literal peasant.

I'm not the one who ranted, my point is you cant be a poor politician, no matter the ideology.

If you are implying hypocracy of karl marx, you will be throwing rocks from a glass house, see pic related.

Not that I agree with the picture, but one should attack the argument not the man, Milton Friedmans life or hypocracy does not give or take from its thoughts and ideologies. If you have a beef with marx or with friedman again, attack their arguments not the man themselves

Small Pox and a bull kicking you twice in the face as a child will do that to you.

to add
>poor politican*
or a philosopher, or a writer etc etc you get the idea

so whether from left or right those who think about the poor will always come from the top class, how come he talks about poor while he himself is not poor is oxymoronic, poor neither have the time nor the means to be political or to philosophize

Milton Friedman talked and wrote a lot about the factory workers in 3rd world country, should we discard his arguments because he is a pompeous 1st worlder who never did manual labor?

He was AnCom

So you be trying to tell me that ideologies are fucking bullshit and its creators phonies?

No. He's trying to tell you that the quality of an idea is irrespective of the nature of its originator.