Problems With An Exclusive Worker's Revolt

[FinnMacCool]

I am not a member of the working class. I am from a middle class family, raised from middle class values, and I go to a middle class-lower class school. My revolutionary ideas stem simply from the most obvious disgusting elements of our society. Poverty, indifference, and the State. I am very well read in revolutianry theory, though admittedly I haven't read Bakunin yet (I will though!).

From what I can see, most of the revolutions from communists an anarchists came from working class groups, which makes because they are the most oppressed under the statist/capitalist system. However, there are some inherent problems with the worker's revolution.

1) A revolution should not be for the good of the workers but for the good of all.
This is whY I've always disliked anarchist and socialist organizations that had the word 'worker' in it. The oppressed worker would be the main supporter of the revolution but the revolution always fails because of the middle class which brings me to my next point.

2) Howard Zinn calls the Middle Class the 'guards' of the system. Why? It's because thats what they are. The middle class doesn't share working class interests because they have kids and families and they live reasonably well under capitalism. The middle class will, almost indefinatly, side with the ruling class on all occasions because of this.

You have to understand that, despite all revolutionary notions, middle classmen are individuals to. Collectivly, things can be achieved for the common good but individually, everyone has individual dignity and we should respect that. What most people don't realize is that the middle class and the workers have common interest if they themselves could recognize it.

I think that the middle class would make a great ally to the anarchist/communist movement, if the working class abandons hatred for the middle class and if the middle class recognizes its interest with the worker's and rebels against the ruling class.

Another thing you should keep in mind is that the middle class intellectuals played a great role in helping the workers revolt against the Russian Revolution. Lenin himself was, I believe, an educated intellectual. Therefore saying that the middle class doesn't deserve to be treated fairly like the rest or treated like human beings like dignities is not only wrong but borderline fascist.

[ComradeRed]

The problem is that the "middle class" (the petit bourgeoisie) is a class in constant decay. True, in times of revolution it tends to fracture and the majority sways towards fascism (what was the USSR but a fascist society, honestly?); that means the "emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

Yet the middle and upper classes don't get a "fair share"! :o Would you give slave holders a "fair share" as well? Why stop there, why not include despots? Or fascists? :o

Or the clergy for that matter? There's simply no logical explanation to do so.

[MysticArcher]

well, part of this has to do with what various people mean by "worker"

Marx used the term proletariat and defined it as people who sell thier labor to capitalists (who own the means of production) for less than the value of their labor (that's how capitalists make profits)

So middle class people are usually proletarians, they don't own the means of production or hire workers

The middle class very much has an interest in revolution, in that even if they don't know it they're a precariously balanced class, striving to move up but also in danger of falling into the working class. These days what seperates them from being working class is a mountain of credit card and other debt.

And with the economy today it's very mcuh harder to stay middle class, usually both partners in a couple are working as opposed to earlier when it was only necessary for 1 person to work to support a family

I think that's what will ultimately push the middle class toward the revolutionary option, facing the fact that their position is gradually becoming harder to keep.

I infer from the tone of your post you think everyone here is anti-middle class, but people here generally are middle class or not opposed to middle class participation

[More Fire for the People]

I love petty-bourgeois anarchists.
PBA: Why focus on the workers, what about me?
Communist: Because historical materialism leads to the sole conclusion that the proletariat is the revolutionary class.
PBA: Stupid Leninist.

[LSD]

1) A revolution should not be for the good of the workers but for the good of all.

Those two are not mutually exclusive and seeing as how the workers compose the majority of the population, any revolution that bennefits the "people", must first and foremost bennefit the workers.


Collectivly, things can be achieved for the common good but individually, everyone has individual dignity and we should respect that.

And who has proposed anything else?

The fact that revolution will be proletarian in nature does not mean that it will not respect common human rights.

The reason that the workers will instigate and led the revolution is not because they are "better" than other classes, but because they are the sole class materially capable of doing so.

The middle-class is simply not revolutionary. It is too dependent on the workings of capitalism and has such a tenuous relationship with production that its insurrectionary capacity is limited if not non-existant.

That does not mean that middle-class people cannot be assests in the revolution, however.

Being may determine consciousness, but it does not do so immutably.


I think that the middle class would make a great ally to the anarchist/communist movement

Unlikely.

Undboutably many middle-class people will ally with the revolution, but as a class the middle-class has no objective interest in revolution.

The middle-class and petty bourgeoisie are simply too invested in capitalism to fight for its downfall en masse. Rather they will fight for their particular class interest, most of which can be achieved through reformism and statist market-harmpering.

The middle-class has an interesting role in terms of economic identity. It is not, as the bourgeoisie is, bennefitted by laissez faire capitalism, but it is certainly reliant on a function market of some kind.

That is why so much of the middle-class has been historically "on the fence", supporting social democratic and liberal causes as opposed to one extreme or the other. In times of real crisis, however, many middle-classes have leapt to the defense of capitalism, even if it meant finally "taking sides".

When it came right down to it, the German petty-bourgeoise was more afraid of losing capitalism than it was of losing democracy and so it sided with the Nazis against the communists.

It's quite likely that when the time comes to chose again, much of the middle-class will make the same choice.

It's also possible, however, that most of the "middle-class" as we understand it today will not even exist. Remember, actual middle-class living standards have been dropping in the first wold since the 1970s.

A good deal of the so-called "middle-class" of the last thirt years were actually just proletarians with better incomes. The "good times" of social-democratic reform has lead a lot of them to identify with the petty-bourgeosie and ignore their class relationship, but mounting debt and increasing poverty will soon remind them just which site of the class divide they live on.

When the revolution comes, undboutably many children of "middle-class" workers will be a part of it. But it will be a proletarian fight!

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:03 AM
The problem is that the "middle class" (the petit bourgeoisie) is a class in constant decay. True, in times of revolution it tends to fracture and the majority sways towards fascism (what was the USSR but a fascist society, honestly?); that means the "emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

Yet the middle and upper classes don't get a "fair share"! :o Would you give slave holders a "fair share" as well? Why stop there, why not include despots? Or fascists? :o

Or the clergy for that matter? There's simply no logical explanation to do so.
I think you have to understand that there is a difference between fascists and capitalists. Capitalists cannot help what they are. They were raised in a bad system and only the few who are educated in alternative methods can be swayed towards anarchism and communism.

On the other those that hold power, know what they are doing and purposefully use violence and injustice to hold on to their personal needs. The worst crime of the Middle class is their inability to recongnize the State's immoral actions and stand up for them.

However, this is not to say that middle class people do not have empathy towards working class people. In fact, I think a lot of them do honestly care about their conditions. Thats why liberals are in existance. They are, perhaps, misinformed but they do have their hearts in the right place so I think you can respect them for that. Most liberals tend to support socialist reforms such as welfare (which they don't call socialist but really it is).

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:06 AM
well, part of this has to do with what various people mean by "worker"

Marx used the term proletariat and defined it as people who sell thier labor to capitalists (who own the means of production) for less than the value of their labor (that's how capitalists make profits)

So middle class people are usually proletarians, they don't own the means of production or hire workers

The middle class very much has an interest in revolution, in that even if they don't know it they're a precariously balanced class, striving to move up but also in danger of falling into the working class. These days what seperates them from being working class is a mountain of credit card and other debt.

And with the economy today it's very mcuh harder to stay middle class, usually both partners in a couple are working as opposed to earlier when it was only necessary for 1 person to work to support a family

I think that's what will ultimately push the middle class toward the revolutionary option, facing the fact that their position is gradually becoming harder to keep.

I infer from the tone of your post you think everyone here is anti-middle class, but people here generally are middle class or not opposed to middle class participation
I agree with you completely here.

I just wanted to respond and say that I didn't assume this board was anti middleclass. I just figured I would state my posistion clearly and openly admit to being a member of the middle class so that people better understand where I am coming from.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 25 2006, 12:17 AM
I love petty-bourgeois anarchists.
PBA: Why focus on the workers, what about me?
Communist: Because historical materialism leads to the sole conclusion that the proletariat is the revolutionary class.
PBA: Stupid Leninist.
I'm sorry to tell you this but the middle class has played a great role in revolutionary movements, including the Russian Revolution. Many of them died expressing their revolutionary beliefs.

Not everything always has to be about common interests. Some people are willing to give up their interests for the sake of human empathy. If the proles rebel not for the sake of their interests as opposed to it simply being the most just way of living, how does that make them better then those capitalists who fight for their interests?

[FinnMacCool]

Those two are not mutually exclusive and seeing as how the workers compose the majority of the population, any revolution that bennefits the "people", must first and foremost bennefit the workers.
True, but I don't just mean economically. I mean socially as well. Strangely, many communists and anarchists ignore the possible social benefits that a classless society would give them. Perhaps its easy for me, considering the fact that I have never really had to struggle to make a living, but I just don't think economics always has to be the forefront.

I think agree with most of your post but I have greater faith in the ability of the middle class to ally themselves with the workers. I think that the ruling class is screwing over the middle class heavily now as well so they will soon be in the same sort of posistion as the workers.

[anomaly]

I don't think the middle class should be excluded from any revolution. Indeed, Marx and Engels were themselves 'middle class'.

Myself, I'm proletarian, but it's quite apparent to me that there are some middle class comrades (like yourself, Finn). So long as you support the idea of communism and the abolishment of private property, there is no reason you will be 'excluded' from any revolutionary activity (unless that activity is, like the Communist League, specifically a proletariat activity). The idea is that it will be mostly in the self-interest of the proletariat to revolt, but some middle class may support it also.

That being said, I'm sure you're aware, Finn, that the middle class is disappearing, so by the time any revolution happens, there probably won't be any real 'middle class' to speak of. But if there is, and if one happens to be middle class and still support revolution, I say go ahead and join in!

The thing I'm really skeptical of is whether any bourgeoisie can truly be communists. If you own capital, why would you ever support giving it up? So, I don't think any bourgeoisie can really be communist. But, who knows, that might even be inaccurate. But, in any case, revolution is mainly a proletarian thing.

[ComradeRed]

I think you have to understand that there is a difference between fascists and capitalists. Capitalists cannot help what they are. They were raised in a bad system and only the few who are educated in alternative methods can be swayed towards anarchism and communism. As though wishing to be otherwise would change things? Material conditions are the reasons why capitalists are reactionary: they want to hold on to what they have! Wishing otherwise is not in a capitalist's class interest.


On the other those that hold power, know what they are doing and purposefully use violence and injustice to hold on to their personal needs. The worst crime of the Middle class is their inability to recongnize the State's immoral actions and stand up for them. Morality is irrelevant to class dynamics!

Wishing don't make it so! Material conditions are the causes for change in class society, that's how things work.

Think of a single war whose cause was not money. Morality is irrelevant to this fact.


However, this is not to say that middle class people do not have empathy towards working class people. In fact, I think a lot of them do honestly care about their conditions. Thats why liberals are in existance. They are, perhaps, misinformed but they do have their hearts in the right place so I think you can respect them for that. Most liberals tend to support socialist reforms such as welfare (which they don't call socialist but really it is).Liberals are in existence because they are trying to stop revolution. That's why reformism exists at all.

Dress it up as you like, but liberalism is reformism. Thus it's reactionary.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:41 AM
I don't think the middle class should be excluded from any revolution. Indeed, Marx and Engels were themselves 'middle class'.

Myself, I'm proletarian, but it's quite apparent to me that there are some middle class comrades (like yourself, Finn). So long as you support the idea of communism and the abolishment of private property, there is no reason you will be 'excluded' from any revolutionary activity (unless that activity is, like the Communist League, specifically a proletariat activity). The idea is that it will be mostly in the self-interest of the proletariat to revolt, but some middle class may support it also.

That being said, I'm sure you're aware, Finn, that the middle class is disappearing, so by the time any revolution happens, there probably won't be any real 'middle class' to speak of. But if there is, and if one happens to be middle class and still support revolution, I say go ahead and join in!

The thing I'm really skeptical of is whether any bourgeoisie can truly be communists. If you own capital, why would you ever support giving it up? So, I don't think any bourgeoisie can really be communist. But, who knows, that might even be inaccurate. But, in any case, revolution is mainly a proletarian thing.
I'm actually an anarchist so we would be politically opposed but we still stand for the same ideals.

I think it would take a remarkable individual to be a borgeoise socialist. I think it all comes down to human empathy. It is (or at least should be) an integral part of any kind of socialist/communist/anarchist revolution. Obviously, the selfish borgeoise won't support you but there are always certain rare individuals who would.

I think part of the reason why past revolutions have failed is because of the proles lack of human empathy. They were indeed in "class warefare" and in its most literal sense. Cause they both had differing interests. The only difference was that the working class were the under dogs and the ruling class were pretty well off. It can't be purely about economic interests because that would, inherently, make a prole no better then a capitalist.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:50 AM


I think you have to understand that there is a difference between fascists and capitalists. Capitalists cannot help what they are. They were raised in a bad system and only the few who are educated in alternative methods can be swayed towards anarchism and communism. As though wishing to be otherwise would change things? Material conditions are the reasons why capitalists are reactionary: they want to hold on to what they have! Wishing otherwise is not in a capitalist's class interest.


On the other those that hold power, know what they are doing and purposefully use violence and injustice to hold on to their personal needs. The worst crime of the Middle class is their inability to recongnize the State's immoral actions and stand up for them. Morality is irrelevant to class dynamics!

Wishing don't make it so! Material conditions are the causes for change in class society, that's how things work.

Think of a single war whose cause was not money. Morality is irrelevant to this fact.


However, this is not to say that middle class people do not have empathy towards working class people. In fact, I think a lot of them do honestly care about their conditions. Thats why liberals are in existance. They are, perhaps, misinformed but they do have their hearts in the right place so I think you can respect them for that. Most liberals tend to support socialist reforms such as welfare (which they don't call socialist but really it is).Liberals are in existence because they are trying to stop revolution. That's why reformism exists at all.

Dress it up as you like, but liberalism is reformism. Thus it's reactionary.
I think you confuse liberal politicians with just plain run of the mill liberals. Liberals don't want violence, nor would they expect it even if they did. The thing is libs have empathy for working people, but they put too much faith in the system.

The politicians do not hold the same interests of both the middle and the working class. Thus, liberalism ulitmately fails, because the politicans have the power to keep it reformed enough so that the workers don't revolt and satisfy the liberals while, at the same time, keeping the poor, poor.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by FinnMacCool
I'm actually an anarchist so we would be politically opposed but we still stand for the same ideals.
Nah. I'm also an anarchist. Just ask the Leninists on this board! :lol:

I just use the word communism because it is most commonly recognized as the society we wish to create. Communism and anarchism are the same, just some communists are also socialist and want to use a transitional state.

I don't.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by anomaly+Mar 25 2006, 01:06 AM--> (anomaly @ Mar 25 2006, 01:06 AM)
FinnMacCool
I'm actually an anarchist so we would be politically opposed but we still stand for the same ideals.
Nah. I'm also an anarchist. Just ask the Leninists on this board! :lol:

I just use the word communism because it is most commonly recognized as the society we wish to create. Communism and anarchism are the same, just some communists are also socialist and want to use a transitional state.

I don't. [/b]
There are similarities between communism and anarchism but I still prefer to call myself an anarchist because I consider myself more staunchly opposed to government then capitalism. I oppose both but my motto is "First the state, then capitalism"

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:10 AM
There are similarities between communism and anarchism but I still prefer to call myself an anarchist because I consider myself more staunchly opposed to government then capitalism. I oppose both but my motto is "First the state, then capitalism"
Alright, alright, makes some sense. But my motto is to crush both at the same time. :D

[apathy maybe]

The workers are not the only way to a non-hierarchical society.

I also dislike the widespread use of the word worker, though I think it is partly semantics. I don't consider doctors or teachers to be "workers" in the traditional sense. Though it seems that many Marxists (or people who use a lot of Marxist terminology even if they aren't) would class them as proletariat.

More next time I am around (hopefully anyway).

[anomaly]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
I don't consider doctors or teachers to be "workers" in the traditional sense
Well, usually teachers own no capital. Doctors might, they might not.

But I think this concern is elminated by your preceding statement, which I agree with:

The workers are not the only way to a non-hierarchical society.
Indeed. But the workers are an important part of it. Anyone who sides with the revolution is my comrade. And the only people who I'm almost sure won't side with the revolution are the bourgeoisie. But, this is just speculation again.

[KC]

I don't think the middle class should be excluded from any revolution. Indeed, Marx and Engels were themselves 'middle class'.

They weren't middle class at all.

[KC]

A union of socialist republics.

A Union of Soviet Socialist Republics! :P

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)They weren't middle class at all.[/b]
Does 'petty-bourgeois' suit your particular semantics better?


CDL
A union of socialist republics.
Because we all know how much power workers had... <_<

[anomaly]

What are you referring to, CDL? ^^

That you think the USSR was a worker&#39;s state? Just looking for clarification here. It&#39;s obvious we disagree.

[anomaly]

Oh, so you &#39;know&#39; that worker&#39;s had power? :lol:

Don&#39;t you mean &#39;the Party&#39;?

Wait, wait, I already know the standard pro-Leninist response: anarchist lies&#33;

[bombeverything]

A revolution should not be for the good of the workers but for the good of all.

What do you mean here? Should this &#39;revolution&#39; be good for the capitalists as well?


Therefore saying that the middle class doesn&#39;t deserve to be treated fairly like the rest or treated like human beings like dignities is not only wrong but borderline fascist.

You said yourself that some middle-class people will side with the ruling class whilst others will align themselves with the working class. How should we treat members of the ruling class? My point is: how far can you take this morality argument before it becomes reaction?


Collectivly, things can be achieved for the common good but individually, everyone has individual dignity and we should respect that

How do we deny the importance of individuality?


However, this is not to say that middle class people do not have empathy towards working class people. In fact, I think a lot of them do honestly care about their conditions.

Yeah but sometimes that just isn&#39;t enough in my opinion.


Thats why liberals are in existance. They are, perhaps, misinformed but they do have their hearts in the right place so I think you can respect them for that. Most liberals tend to support socialist reforms such as welfare (which they don&#39;t call socialist but really it is)

Many members of the ruling class believe they are doing the "right thing" as well. Should we respect them for, say, giving money to charities in order to make themselves feel better?


Not everything always has to be about common interests. Some people are willing to give up their interests for the sake of human empathy. If the proles rebel not for the sake of their interests as opposed to it simply being the most just way of living, how does that make them better then those capitalists who fight for their interests?

None of us have ever suggested that middle class people cannot play a part in the revolution. However, I would argue that to do this they should reject their class. People who always complain about the "focus on the wellbeing of the working class" do not really appear to be doing this.


Perhaps its easy for me, considering the fact that I have never really had to struggle to make a living, but I just don&#39;t think economics always has to be the forefront.

But unfortunately it is.

[KC]

Does &#39;petty-bourgeois&#39; suit your particular semantics better?


Please, do tell me how they were "petty-bourgeois".

[enigma2517]

I&#39;m pretty middle class but at the same time I identify myself as a prole.

I don&#39;t own any means of production, which means I&#39;m just as alienated from my labor as anybody else. I guess the only difference is that I&#39;ll probably end up working in a slightly more comfortable office while some poorer people that go to my school will work in factories or something. I am the labor aristocracy :)

Admittingly, revolution for the middle-class at this point is not very appealling. Just wait, when American imperialism and globalization encounters some heavy resistance the living standards for the middle class will drop severly.

Most middle class people I know are in limbo. Some go up, some go down, and in the mean time you&#39;re just worried about paying off your mortgage. Honestly, the life of consumerism is stressful and largely unfulfilling, and as the price tags gets bigger people will (hopefully) start considering it less and less.

Basically, I&#39;m saying that everything will polarize and middle class will become more and more of a useless distinction.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:16 PM


Does &#39;petty-bourgeois&#39; suit your particular semantics better?


Please, do tell me how they were "petty-bourgeois".
Well, Engels owned textile mills in the UK and Germany, didn&#39;t he?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:16 PM
Please, do tell me how they were "petty-bourgeois".
As we are again functioning on the premise that Lazar is always right, why don&#39;t you, O socialist, tell me &#39;what they were&#39;. I would define them as petty-bourgeois because they obviously were not proletarian, and they had some pretty bourgeois backgrounds. I think petty-bourgeois is about as accurate a classification as we can make.

[Floyce White]

FinnMacCool: "I am not a member of the working class."

I appreciate very much that you started with that. You have set an important example for others on this board, and I congratulate you heartily.

Everyone please pay attention to the forthrightness of this comrade and try to emulate his example.

FinnMacCool, since you are are not a working-class person, you have absolutely nothing to say about what the working class should or could do. Any comments you make are of no use whatsoever, and can only be harmful. You have no way of knowing what good or bad can come from workers&#39; self-organization. Please limit yourself to practical activity without writing or public speaking.

FinnMacCool, if other petty capitalists on this board would only make the same admission, I would make the same comment to them too.

[LoneRed]

we dont mind if some other elements come into the working class revolution, but the revolution must primarily be made up of the working class. they have the most the win and the least to lose, as well as they, they alone sell their labour-power to the capitalist to survive. You can join as long as you dont carry with you petty-bourgeois sentiments that might infect the movement

[Everyday Anarchy]

I, too, am in the middle class. (knock yourself out, Floyce White)
I don&#39;t see how a middle classmen can be so harshly judged by their class. I think it mostly comes down to their ideals and political alignments. I did not choose to be middle class, I was born into it. And honestly, if I had "comfortable" (not exactly, but compared to some proles, yes) lifestyle, why would I deliberately lower myself to an extremely uncomfortable and harsh lifestyle just so I can say I&#39;m a proletarian?

I would/do side with the proles in a revolution and their struggle. What good is it attacking potential allies merely for their class (which usually isn&#39;t chosen anyways)?

[Donnie]

I am not a member of the working class. I am from a middle class family, raised from middle class values, and I go to a middle class-lower class school. My revolutionary ideas stem simply from the most obvious disgusting elements of our society. Poverty, indifference, and the State. I am very well read in revolutianry theory, though admittedly I haven&#39;t read Bakunin yet (I will though&#33;).

From what I can see, most of the revolutions from communists an anarchists came from working class groups, which makes because they are the most oppressed under the statist/capitalist system. However, there are some inherent problems with the worker&#39;s revolution.

1) A revolution should not be for the good of the workers but for the good of all.
This is whY I&#39;ve always disliked anarchist and socialist organizations that had the word &#39;worker&#39; in it. The oppressed worker would be the main supporter of the revolution but the revolution always fails because of the middle class which brings me to my next point.

2) Howard Zinn calls the Middle Class the &#39;guards&#39; of the system. Why? It&#39;s because thats what they are. The middle class doesn&#39;t share working class interests because they have kids and families and they live reasonably well under capitalism. The middle class will, almost indefinatly, side with the ruling class on all occasions because of this.

I think people have a tendency to have their heads in the clouds when it comes to what they think will happen in revolution.
Some people seem to think that the mass&#39;s will all rise up and smash the system, but this is far from the case.
Revolution will also be a time of civil war among class lines. I think it&#39;s naive to believe that all workers will rise against the upper class, I would love this to happen but it&#39;s not the case. Some workers in revolution will side with the boss&#39;s just like some of the middle class individuals will side with the workers in the revolution.

As a working class anarchist I&#39;m certainly not opposed to the idea of middle class individuals partaking in the class struggle against the capitalist system and the state, however, middle class people have the tendency to blurt out certain small amounts of liberal idea&#39;s and views and I think if you are a middle class individual and are in the class struggle movement you need to be aware of this.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 28 2006, 06:54 AM
FinnMacCool, since you are are not a working-class person, you have absolutely nothing to say about what the working class should or could do. Any comments you make are of no use whatsoever, and can only be harmful.
My God, what snobbery&#33;

How are left-wing ideas ever going to get anywhere if we reject those who support them as well as those who oppose them?

[KC]

My God, what snobbery&#33;

How are left-wing ideas ever going to get anywhere if we reject those who support them as well as those who oppose them?

Historically, the petty-bourgeois have had a large involvement in fucking up working class movements. Floyce&#39;s contempt of this class is completely justified.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:03 PM


My God, what snobbery&#33;

How are left-wing ideas ever going to get anywhere if we reject those who support them as well as those who oppose them?

Historically, the petty-bourgeois have had a large involvement in fucking up working class movements. Floyce&#39;s contempt of this class is completely justified.
Rubbish. Show me one example of a working-class movement that was &#39;fucked-up&#39; by the involvement of those you refer to as the &#39;petty-bourgeois&#39;. By the way, I find your reduction of a whole group of individuals to an abusive and deindividuating term offensive.

[anomaly]

I don&#39;t think there is any point in currently actively &#39;hating&#39; the petty-bourgeois. If Marx was right (and things are looking that way now), then by the time any revolution happens, the petty-bourgeois should be dissolved mostly into the proletariat.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:33 AM
the petty-bourgeois should be dissolved mostly into the proletariat.
Good.