Oh.. Yes, that's what I meant. Bourgeois intelligentisa, in the context that I was using, aren't necessarily Bourgeois, but culturally can be. My mistake.
In that case, you've got the wrong class background. "Non-worker intellectuals" would be more accurately, since Marx, Kautsky, Lenin weren't bourgeois. Only Lassalle and Engels might qualify. Today's "non-worker intellectuals" can be of the coordinator or petit-bourgeois varieties.
Well yes, of course only the proletariat can introduce class struggle, ideologies like communism, etc. My point was that in regards to the several sciences that may be necessary, the Bourgeois intelligentisa may be very necessary (Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, etc.). After all, was it not Kautsky who aimed for the merger of Marxism and the Worker's movement, which had previously been divorced? Did this not account for, when the proletariat received a massive blow in the 1990's, the fact that Marxism also took a blow in the universities, etc.?
The answer to your RSDLP point lies in the contrast between the mainly non-worker exiles and the overwhelming working-class domestic underground. The latter brought socialism into the class struggle of the Russian proletariat. As for Marx and Engels: http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVU...page&q&f=false
This is what I was reffering to (partially) http://www.marxists.org/archive/kaut...x/int-work.htm
Also Marx, Engels, etc. ? Were these fellows all not members of the Bourgeois intelligentisa? (Note: Despite how confusing this sounds, the Bourgeois intelligentsia doesn't necessarily have to adhere to Bourgeois thought, and isn't usually a component of the Bourgeois class).
But what of the likes of Lenin, or even Kautsky himself? (none of which are proletarians). And in regards to my stance on inevitable proletarian revolution: It doesn't mean that we sit back and watch. It means that our own engagement in itself, signifies people like us are inevitable. Saying this definitely has no impacy on revolutionary strategy, it's more of doing away with the saying that all communists must be such for ethical reasons.
"So yes, a proletarian revolution is inevitable, in times of crises." No, they are not, comrade! You're staking too much betting money on crisis theory. Other alternatives are accumulation by dispossession and more barbaric alternatives.
Um, you're misinterpreting Kautsky. The working class needs volunteers from its own ranks, not bourgeois intellectuals. Here's the Kautsky quote again: The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia; modern socialism arises among individual members of this stratum and then is communicated by them to proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development, and these then bring it into the class struggle of the proletariat where conditions allow. In other words, the key role here is played by educated workers.
You know, DNZ, I've been thinking. Remember when we had that disagreement over whether the proletariat needs volunteers to organize? The more I've been reading on the subject, (Via Kautsky, And Lenin) I've been inclined to come to the conclusion that you were right. Kautsky recognized that the Proletariat requires members of the Bourgeois intelligentsia to reach it's fullest stage of class consciousnesses. Not because they are "Dumb", but because the Bourgeois Intelligentsia is the heart of the sciences in capitalism, and naturally, many would be inclined to be Marxists for scientific reasons. It's this scientific understanding that the proletariat requires, as most are not connected with the Intelligentsia and the sciences.
