Marxism

[T_SP]

I hope Redstar2000 comes in here, I want to know what Marx got wrong and why? What has RS2k got against Marx? Clearly he is NOT a Marxist as he rejects too much of Marxs teachings.
Finally what have you(all) personally learnt from Marxs teachings?
I don't know if a Marx debate has occured before but I feel a valid debate for and against him would be beneficial.
Thanx all.
T_SP :)

[redstar2000]

I hope Redstar2000 comes in here; I want to know what Marx got wrong and why? What has RS2k got against Marx? Clearly he is NOT a Marxist as he rejects too much of Marx's teachings.

Well, first of all, I don't think that whether or not one is a Marxist can be "measured" by how much of the "faith" one is willing to "defend".

It seems to me that one can legitimately claim to be a Marxist provided (1) one actually uses the tools of Marxist analysis and (2) one uses them for the purpose of advancing the cause of proletarian revolution and the achievement of communism.

In other words, it's not a matter of "doctrine" -- Marx said "blah, blah, blah" in 1847 or whenever and if you think that's not true or no longer true "then" you're "not" a Marxist.

Further, even if some of Marx's tools have been discredited ("dialectics") or if some of his concepts have developed serious weaknesses (the labor theory of value) or become obsolete (the "transitional workers' state"), I don't think that setting such things aside means that you are "no longer a Marxist".

If I had to make a "quick & dirty" summary of Marxism, it would be that Marx offers us an analysis of human societies that is both critical (in the scientific sense) and revolutionary.

It's not a "package" that one accepts or rejects (like a religion); it's a paradigm -- a framework within which one can scientifically criticize existing class society and conduct a conscious struggle to overthrow it.

I think it strongly resembles, in many respects, the Darwinian paradigm. No sensible person questions the fact of evolution by natural selection...but the details make for heated controversy and continuing research.

In fact, we're now pretty sure that Darwin's theory did not tell the whole story and evolution is actually more complicated than Darwin thought. But no one working on this "cutting edge" of modern evolutionary research would be labeled "no longer a Darwinist".

But there's also, as noted earlier, the conscious revolutionary purpose of Marxism. Any "Marxist" analysis that suggested that we all just forget about proletarian revolution and communism "because it ain't going to happen" would be equivalent to a "Darwinist" version of creationism.

As you know, such perversions of "Marxism" have enjoyed wide-spread popularity in the "west" at different times. Most, if not almost all, of our hundreds of "Marxist"-Leninist parties have been fundamentally reformist...though costumed in impeccable "Marxist" terminology, complete with a generous measure of "dialectics".

It is as if creationism had been able to successfully appropriate Darwinian terminology and pass itself off as "real Darwinism".

Had Darwin been a Hegelian, that might have happened! You can "prove" anything with "dialectics".

So, in summary...

1. "Dialectics" is crap.

2. The labor theory of value requires fresh empirical evidence of its validity.

3. The "transitional workers' state" is obsolete.

4. Historical materialism is real.

5. Classes exist and struggle for supremacy.

6. We don't really know yet whether communism is possible...but it's worth a try.

Anything else? :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[YKTMX]

We don't really know yet whether communism is possible

I'm a little concerned by this.

How can a social system "not be possible"? Communism isn't an idealistic contruct just plucked out the air because it's sounds "nice".

It marks the inevitable next stage of human development.

Now, notice I use the word "development". Staying still and going backwards are both plausible, though unlikely.

[__ca va?]

Wow, Redstar2000, you're the man I need! :D
I was trying to find info on "reformist marxism" but it turned out that I had to read many books to find it out. But my English is not too good, so could you please sum it up what is it and how is it different of "simple" marxism?

[redstar2000]

How can a social system "not be possible"? Communism isn't an idealistic construct just plucked out the air because it sounds "nice".

It marks the inevitable next stage of human development.

From a scientific standpoint, you can't use the word "inevitable" without empirical justification.

If A is always followed by B, then and only then can you reasonably use the word "inevitable".

Marx's hypothesis is that capitalism will be replaced with communism...but we don't yet have even one successful example of that.

All we have are "fragments" of evidence; brief periods where the working class actually "ran the show"...and even those are marked with ambiguities.

So, even if it "seems" like it "ought" to be "inevitable", it has yet to be proven so.

I think that proof will come...but it hasn't yet.

In a way, the struggle for communism is an effort to demonstrate the correctness of a hypothesis by real world experience.

We are "putting Marx to the test".


I was trying to find info on "reformist marxism" but it turned out that I had to read many books to find it out. But my English is not too good, so could you please sum it up what is it and how is it different of "simple" marxism?

"Classic" reformist variants date back to the beginning of the last century. The "test" is a simple one: does the "Marxist analysis" claim to "prove" that proletarian revolution is "unnecessary" or even "impossible"? If so, then what you have is a "Marxism" without revolution...a fake "Marxism".

The Leninist reformists are a little more difficult to penetrate...they will talk a lot about revolution in words -- but their practice will be reformist.

One good test is to examine a Leninist party's attitudes towards bourgeois parliamentary elections. If they take that crap seriously (either by running their own candidates or even by supporting bourgeois candidates), then they are really reformists...no matter how much they babble about "revolution".

The role of real Marxists is to encourage resistance to the tyranny of capital. We ought never to "play by the rules" that capitalism has established.

We break the rules as much as we can. We encourage the entire working class to do likewise.

To be a communist revolutionary, one must first rebel. To make a proletarian revolution, one must first have a rebellious working class.

This is so simple and obvious that it takes great heaping piles of "dialectics" to cover it up...which is yet another reason to be deeply suspicious of the so-called "magic key to understanding history".

Do people really use "dialectics" to turn Marxism into its "opposite"?

People do.

And in the last century, they got away with it.

But not now and not here.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

RS2000

I've noticed your rejection of dialectics on numerous occassions but I've never really seen you give a full criticism of it. Just wondering on what grounds do you reject it and what you see as an 'alternative' though I understand it may not be a single theory. If you've already made a thread on this, I'd appreciate if you could link me. Thanks.

[__ca va?]

Redstar2000

So what you say is mainly that if there is no revolution than we're not talking about marxism.
I think that it was easy to say that the proletariat revolution was inevitable whan around 60% of the population was a member of the proletariat. But in fact I think revolution, today, in the western world, is impossible. Either because the proletariat is not conscious enough because it is too influenced by burgeoise media for example (and I think this is not the answer), or because simply the proletariat is not big and strong enough to revolt. Even here, in Eastern-Central Europe the proletariat is only around 30% of the total population. In fact Marxism was invented around 150 years ago. Wanting to accomplish it now is just nonsense IMO.
I think the present state is a dictature of the majority, that the poor are kept in poverty by the ruling classes. And this must be changed. Ok, I'm not a real communist: I don't even want capitalism to be banned, I only want the state to keep the working class and the lower classes safe from its negative effect. I can make consessions is they are good for both sides :)

[Faceless]

Man, Redstar2000, the total rejection of yours of dialectics is tiresome. :D

Your whole idea is based upon dogmatic leninists or stalinists using this Dia-Mat or that piece of cloth to cover up their oppressive ideologies.

Indeed <_<

I would like to remind you that Peter Kropotkin, a respected anarchist, submitted that dialectics is true in natural phenomenon.

Yet you feel qualified to dismiss it off the cuff because some non-anarchists also respect it.

[NovelGentry]

One good test is to examine a Leninist party&#39;s attitudes towards bourgeois parliamentary elections. If they take that crap seriously (either by running their own candidates or even by supporting bourgeois candidates), then they are really reformists...no matter how much they babble about "revolution".

I take issue with this, because it is my belief that in many modern societies BOTH parts must occur. This is particularly obvious in the States where there has to be a solid platform on which to build revolutionary ideas.

There&#39;s been so much of the capitalist mindset that is ingrown into the working class that many of them, despite feeling the cold shaft of it every day, still believe in it. For this I think you need education and some form of democratic realization to bring about the idea that something different is possible. Without democratic reform and people in power who are supportive of social change the people are misguided and lack any real faith in pure revolutionary means.

However, I do note that reform is not the complete answer, it cannot be because of the limited action available to those in power. I don&#39;t think it would ever be possible for socialist candidates to have a majority in congress under a socialist president, and thus at some stage revolution is needed to complete the change.

I think a number of other people who you mistake for simply reformist share this idea. Furthermore I think it&#39;s a very mature idea because it acknowledges that no revolution could ever create the proper circumstances to succeed. In order to reach that point you&#39;d either have to wait till revolution was ripe and ready, or you&#39;d have to accelerate the change through democratic means.

The only problem with this is settling the discontent of the people. This is why the jump from social reform to social revolution must be a quick one. We cannot see ages of social reform in which people are now satisfied that socially aware democratic capitalism is a better solution than pure socialism/communism.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:52 PM
Man, Redstar2000, the total rejection of yours of dialectics is tiresome. :D

Your whole idea is based upon dogmatic leninists or stalinists using this Dia-Mat or that piece of cloth to cover up their oppressive ideologies.

Indeed <_<

I would like to remind you that Peter Kropotkin, a respected anarchist, submitted that dialectics is true in natural phenomenon.

Yet you feel qualified to dismiss it off the cuff because some non-anarchists also respect it.
Redstar2000 doesn&#39;t consider himself an Anarchist and I can&#39;t remember him ever calling him self one. So, I don&#39;t think what you&#39;re saying here is going to be relevent to him.

[Faceless]

Redstar2000 doesn&#39;t consider himself an Anarchist and I can&#39;t remember him ever calling him self one. So, I don&#39;t think what you&#39;re saying here is going to be relevent to him.
hehe, its a matter of deduction, mate. ;)


3. The "transitional workers&#39; state" is obsolete.

It&#39;s very relevant

I dont call myself a marxist/communist or anything but others choose to.


My point is that the entirety of his arguement is that dialectical materialism is used to push dogma on people for the interest of that party. What was the point in Kropotkin giving way to dialectics when rejecting it serves his purposes better (as it is worth pointing out, it does for RS2000)?

A clever refutation would have rejected that it is applicable to human society, as Kropotkin did. [edit: although this is not my position]

RedStar2000 has dug himself a silly hole that rejects dialectics piecemeal on the basis of leninist dogma concerning it.

[YKTMX]

From a scientific standpoint, you can&#39;t use the word "inevitable" without empirical justification.

If A is always followed by B, then and only then can you reasonably use the word "inevitable".



Well, that is slightly pedantic. We could suggest that the next societies will worship cheese but it&#39;s not likely.

What we know from history is that when the old societies have exhausted themselves and revolution occurs then the new societies are organised with the class interests of the revolutionary class i.e bourgeios revolutions creating free market democracies.

Therefore we can almost certainly assume that "communism" will be the result of the proletarians revolutions.

[PRC-UTE]

hmm. . . well I always thought dialectics meant the interaction of forces, as in the "base" of society, or economy interacting with the "superstructure" of cultural thought. I always thought that there isn&#39;t really progress unless there is an interaction of forces and thus change.

but the rest of what redstar says, I agree with.

I hear a lot of these arguments, that there shouldn&#39;t be resistance, or it should be confined to middle class acceptable ways of protesting. fuck that&#33; Let&#39;s tear this whole system down&#33;

Form workers militias and blow up some capitalist property&#33; Anyone who says otherwise is an effing coward or a middle class enemy&#33;

[redstar2000]

I&#39;ve noticed your rejection of dialectics on numerous occasions but I&#39;ve never really seen you give a full criticism of it.

The remaining defenders of "dialectics" seem to be Trotskyists and Maoists, and I have had lengthy discussions with both.

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Disputing Dialectics (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087002057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


So what you say is mainly that if there is no revolution then we&#39;re not talking about marxism.

Yes.

Certainly there are Marxist academics (historians, sociologists, etc.) who use the tools of Marxism to investigate the past...and that&#39;s perfectly legitimate and indeed valuable work.

But watch closely: if they conclude from their investigations that proletarian revolution is "unnecessary" or "impossible", then they are using Marxism to destroy Marxism.


But in fact I think revolution, today, in the western world, is impossible...Ok, I&#39;m not a real communist: I don&#39;t even want capitalism to be banned, I only want the state to keep the working class and the lower classes safe from its negative effect.

Honesty in politics is always appreciated. You are indeed "not a real communist" but one who wishes to reform capitalism into more humane social behavior.

Fine...we can argue about whether or not that&#39;s possible or even desirable.

The problem is that there are still too many people who actually agree with you but who nevertheless attempt to pass themselves off as "Marxists" and "revolutionaries".

That&#39;s wrong...and I would like to "do my bit" to put a stop to it.


I would like to remind you that Peter Kropotkin, a respected anarchist, submitted that dialectics is true in natural phenomenon.

Yet you feel qualified to dismiss it off the cuff because some non-anarchists also respect it.

I don&#39;t care who endorses "dialectics" -- I am always "qualified" to dismiss self-evident nonsense.

So is everybody&#33;

(And, by the way, why should I "flop on my belly" before the bold-faced Kropotkin? He supported his own ruling class in World War I. I don&#39;t know about you, but that doesn&#39;t inspire much confidence in his judgment on my part.)


There&#39;s been so much of the capitalist mindset that is ingrown into the working class that many of them, despite feeling the cold shaft of it every day, still believe in it. For this I think you need education and some form of democratic realization to bring about the idea that something different is possible. Without democratic reform and people in power who are supportive of social change the people are misguided and lack any real faith in pure revolutionary means.

That is a good summary of the Leninist version of reformism (even if you don&#39;t personally consider yourself a Leninist). It seems to be based on the proposition that people must be led -- "small step by small step" -- to the realization that capitalism must be overthrown.

The Marxist hypothesis is different: it proposes that revolutionary consciousness is "suddenly" generated by crises of capitalism...economic depressions and imperialist wars, for example.

The people who appeared to be "brainwashed" over the decades of normal class struggle and ordinary reformism suddenly "shrug it all off" and adopt an entirely fresh outlook -- which contains important elements of both Marxism and anarchism.

The role that serious communists and serious anarchists play in this is one of preparation -- what we want is the widest possible circulation of revolutionary ideas...so that they will be there when needed.

We are not "nannies" trying to convince people that communism, like broccoli, is "good for them". It&#39;s more like planting "seeds" of revolutionary consciousness...that will grow when objective material conditions are favorable.


RedStar2000 has dug himself a silly hole that rejects dialectics piecemeal on the basis of Leninist dogma concerning it.

I reject "dialectics" because it&#39;s a completely nonsensical 19th century notion that is utterly useless in describing the real world.


Well, that is slightly pedantic.

As you wish. But if we are to speak of Marxism "as a science", then we&#39;re not allowed to say things are "true" unless the evidence for that truth is very clear and compelling.

Otherwise, we would find ourselves in the position of asserting that "communism is inevitable because we say it is."

Not good.


Therefore we can almost certainly assume that "communism" will be the result of the proletarian revolutions.

I do "assume it".

But we must always remember the possibility that we (and Marx) could turn out to be wrong.

Unpleasant as the thought may be, a rational and scientific outlook requires admitting the possibility of error.


Form workers militias and blow up some capitalist property&#33; Anyone who says otherwise is an effing coward or a middle class enemy&#33;

Perhaps...depending on the objective circumstances.

But I think the most important thing at this point in history is simply to tell people the truth.

The only way the workers have ever gained anything from the capitalists is by raising hell...by some form of active resistance, large or small, non-violent or violent, whatever&#33;

The capitalists are our class enemies who ceaselessly wage class warfare against us.

Until we resist, we will get nowhere.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:28 AM
(And, by the way, why should I "flop on my belly" before the bold-faced Kropotkin? He supported his own ruling class in World War I. I don&#39;t know about you, but that doesn&#39;t inspire much confidence in his judgment on my part.)
What constitutes support? To my knowledge, he never made a speech, publically or privatly recorded, wrote or did anything to advocate or support the first world war. Of course I could be wrong, and would be keen to see the evidence.

Many thinkers, including Marx have made questionable judgements. Marx&#39;s apparent racism and Bakunin&#39;s apparent anti-semitism we&#39;re products of the time, and if Peter Kropotkin did support the first world war, I do not think it is a reflection of his work in general.

[Monty Cantsin]

TAT, where did you get the idea of Marx rasism from? never read anything of his that would make me think his a rasists.

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont have any evidence, I am simply going on hearsay, which amounts to the same thing when refering to Kropotkins "support" of world war one

[Monty Cantsin]

fair enough.

[Djehuti]

Marx&#39;s hypothesis is that capitalism will be replaced with communism...but we don&#39;t yet have even one successful example of that.

Not really, i would rather say that Marx&#39; hypothesis is that:
1: There is a major tendency towards communism in the capitalist society (true)
2: Capitalism wont last for ever (true)
3: The most likely development is that communism will replace capitalism (true)


And the LTV is in my opinion much more likely then any other value theory that I have yet seen. But I agree that there is a few flaws, and it could be developed further. And Iam happy to see that there is some sort of a rebirth of the LTV in the great universities, it could be intresting to see how that develops.

And I think that dialectics is very usefull, even though basic dialectics is seen as pretty obvious stuff in many countries today. I was surpriced to see how many of my classmates that agreed with my dialectic reasoning in my psychology class at school today, and many used dialectics in their thinking as well, even if they probably did not even have a clue what the fuck dialectics was.

But the deeper meaning of dialectics, not the common stuff is far more complex...Hegel for example is really difficult to understand, and I know but a few authors who have managed to describe more advanced dialectics in an really easy way. Most high level science is hard to grab, but dialectics is harder then most imho, and thats sad, cause Iam very much aware how much a great understanding of dialectics can do for a scientist, providing a much deeper understanding then otherwise.



The "transitional workers&#39; state" is obsolete.

I dont really know if I agree. I dont think that Marx theory of the workers state (the dictatorship of the proletarians) is obsolete, but the Leninists as well as many other marxists have completly missunderstood the meaning of the term, and much marxist terminology in general. Didnt they even understand the difference in quality between a bourgeoise state and a proletarian state? The proletarian state cant barely even be compared to the bourgeoise state, they are completly different. The Sovet state was basicly the same as a bourgeoise state to the essence, if not completly to the form.


OT: Which words did Marx and other philosophers use? Form and...? I used essence, but I doubt that is the correct one...

[PRC-UTE]

Marx definitely held some racist beliefs, not that it really destroys his work - same with Kropotkin and the anti-semetic Bakunin.

Marx referred to the Scots as "the leftover shit of history" and made other comments that couled be at least understood as chauvinist. Doesn&#39;t really matter though boys.

[Invader Zim]

In principal Marxism is a fine ideology, in practice, it seams to have been corrupted by very unsavoury chracters. I would be interested to here some opinions from Marcists regarding this, so far, unfortunate trait.

[sanpal]

I&#39;m curious would Marx turn to another side in the grave if he could read what they write about the marxism on this forum :lol:

[wet blanket]

Marx, like any other writer, ought to be read critically. Dogmatic Marxists remind me of born-again christians.

[Subversive Rob]

Redstar, historical materialism is the dialectic applied to history. It&#39;s fine and dandy to reject dialectics as a theory of nature but you can&#39;t reject it if you are utilising historical materialism, the position you are taking seems to be similar to that of the Critical Thoerists and people like Korsch etc. Have you read Lukacs on the matter of dialectics?

[Hate Is Art]

Lot&#39;s of people need to take another look at everything and can never accept when they are wron. Once you can accept that you could be wrong then you can define whether your right.

After doing you can often determine you ideology.

And yes I agree with you Enigma.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 10 2004, 07:22 AM
Marx, like any other writer, ought to be read critically. Dogmatic Marxists remind me of born-again christians.
I don&#39;t think that Marx is only simple writer. I suppose that he is a scientist. So you must produce forcible arguments to disprove his theory. Where they are?

[redstar2000]

Redstar, historical materialism is the dialectic applied to history.

You can make it "seem that way" as long as you keep the discussion very hazy.

But as soon as you begin to "focus in" on the specifics of history, the "dialectic" becomes useless.

For example, you could say that the present era is characterized by a long-term struggle for hegemony between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This era will conclude with the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the absorption of the dispossessed bourgeoisie into the proletariat, and the abolition of class society.

That sounds very "dialectical".

But as soon as you get specific, difficulties and complexities multiply "like rabbits".

Even Marx had to introduce additional "forces" into the "dialectical equation" -- the petty bourgeoisie, the "lumpenproletariat", the "labor aristocracy", etc.

So if you want to make a good historical materialist analysis of any given class society, including our own, "dialectics" is not going to prove very useful.

You need the best empirical data that you can gather on classes and sub-classes, on intra-class conflict as well as inter-class conflict, on shifting alliances and on what material basis they exist, etc.


Have you read Lukacs on the matter of dialectics?

It seems almost certain that I must have; I was in some study groups in Berkeley for a while in the late 70s and we read a bunch of guys that I hadn&#39;t heard of before -- Lukas, Korsch, Caudwell, Gramsci, etc.

More to the point: in what way would Lukas, for example, oppose what I&#39;ve said against "dialectics" and on what grounds?

Or have I "unconsciously appropriated" his ideas and mistakenly presented them as my own? (It wouldn&#39;t be the first time that&#39;s happened. :P)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 08:23 PM
I don&#39;t think that Marx is only simple writer. I suppose that he is a scientist. So you must produce forcible arguments to disprove his theory. Where they are?
What you think doesn&#39;t matter.
He was a writer, &#39;scientist&#39; or not. My point was that one should read Marx both with a critical and open mind. I don&#39;t have to produce forcible arguments to disprove any theories(especially those of which that are, as RS2k put it, self-evident)... All I have to do is be critical of what I&#39;m reading when sit down with Capital(or any other literature of this nature), and not treat it like gospel like so many have done in the past.

Dogmatic MLMs are among the most ridiculous people I&#39;ve ever met, my advice is to not become one of them.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 22 2004, 06:13 PM
All I have to do is be critical of what I&#39;m reading ...
I should agree with this intention.

[Comfort]

why should we disprove marx&#39;s theories...they havent been proven. they are just educated guesses and ideas, open to belief and critique.

"blow up capitalist property"?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? does that solve anything, ever&#33;? get your head out of armed revolution. its gotta start at a grassroots level and not just for poor working classes. the middle class has got to be involved and same with the rich. science and theories and battle will not sustain integrity, only genuine love and compassion for all can help us achieve a truly great society-regardless of policy and theory.

this is a che quote that i always partially forget...
"Let me say, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, that the greatest motive of the true revolutionary is love." shit i hope thats right, something like it anyway.

[Comfort]

why should we disprove marx&#39;s theories...they havent been proven. they are just educated guesses and ideas, open to belief and critique.

"blow up capitalist property"?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? does that solve anything, ever&#33;? get your head out of armed revolution. its gotta start at a grassroots level and not just for poor working classes. the middle class has got to be involved and same with the rich. science and theories and battle will not sustain integrity, only genuine love and compassion for all can help us achieve a truly great society-regardless of policy and theory.

this is a che quote that i always partially forget...
"Let me say, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, that the greatest motive of the true revolutionary is love." shit i hope thats right, something like it anyway.

[Comfort]

why should we disprove marx&#39;s theories...they havent been proven. they are just educated guesses and ideas, open to belief and critique.

"blow up capitalist property"?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? does that solve anything, ever&#33;? get your head out of armed revolution. its gotta start at a grassroots level and not just for poor working classes. the middle class has got to be involved and same with the rich. science and theories and battle will not sustain integrity, only genuine love and compassion for all can help us achieve a truly great society-regardless of policy and theory.

this is a che quote that i always partially forget...
"Let me say, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, that the greatest motive of the true revolutionary is love." shit i hope thats right, something like it anyway.

[wet blanket]

and not just for poor working classes. the middle class has got to be involved and same with the rich.
;) Keep in mind, most of the &#39;rich&#39; are never going to want to create a classless society, not while they have it all in today&#39;s system. Wether you want to acknowledge it or not, there has been a class-war going on for years between the owners of capital and working people... What on earth makes you think that those owners, who make their money through exploiting working people, are going to like or support the ideas of workers democratically managing production and abolishing profits & wages?

That&#39;s not to say that all of the rich people ought to be excluded from building a new society... but one must always be suspicious of the businessman when it comes to politics

[wet blanket]

and not just for poor working classes. the middle class has got to be involved and same with the rich.
;) Keep in mind, most of the &#39;rich&#39; are never going to want to create a classless society, not while they have it all in today&#39;s system. Wether you want to acknowledge it or not, there has been a class-war going on for years between the owners of capital and working people... What on earth makes you think that those owners, who make their money through exploiting working people, are going to like or support the ideas of workers democratically managing production and abolishing profits & wages?

That&#39;s not to say that all of the rich people ought to be excluded from building a new society... but one must always be suspicious of the businessman when it comes to politics

[wet blanket]

and not just for poor working classes. the middle class has got to be involved and same with the rich.
;) Keep in mind, most of the &#39;rich&#39; are never going to want to create a classless society, not while they have it all in today&#39;s system. Wether you want to acknowledge it or not, there has been a class-war going on for years between the owners of capital and working people... What on earth makes you think that those owners, who make their money through exploiting working people, are going to like or support the ideas of workers democratically managing production and abolishing profits & wages?

That&#39;s not to say that all of the rich people ought to be excluded from building a new society... but one must always be suspicious of the businessman when it comes to politics