"I think its redundant becuase left of capital implies that you are part of the bourgeois left. I'm a little confused myself since "Class Struggle Revisited" doesn't even have phrase "left of capital" in it." You're probably right. On the other hand, most people have the reductionist conception that the only form of capitalism that can exist is bourgeois capitalism. My work attempts to break this and depict capital as a process. By the way, did you get to read Chapter 5 already? I may have picked on Lenin, but his thoroughly early-Marx Social-Democratic conception of "socialism" was shared by Luxemburg and practically every other Marxist, except party elder Wilhelm Liebknecht.
I think its redundant becuase left of capital implies that you are part of the bourgeois left. I'm a little confused myself since "Class Struggle Revisited" doesn't even have phrase "left of capital" in it. While I have the utmost belief in the comprehensive capability of all workers. I also know that utilizing too many buzzwords raises the literary cost of entry. I think all theory should be written as plainly as possible. As Carlin said "Simple, honest, direct language."
"Indeed, but I like to avoid that word. Its hard to spell, and most working people don't know what it means and get annoyed. Plus I find it redundant. Capital is a long enough conversation on its own. Whenever you're talking politics in an organizing fashion I always try to follow Orwell's model. Keep it clear, simple, and low on syllables." Redundant? I was under the impression that you thought otherwise (at least if you've already read some of my work). Also, "working people" (at whom my work is primarily aimed, because I have confidence that they've got the requisite comprehension abilities) shouldn't be suckered into supporting an economic system that is "far-left of capital."
Its a pretty big thing for most trotsky types, why wouldn't I know of it?
I didn't know you knew Trotsky's concept of "transitional demands."
