http://www.revleft.com/vb/870-vs-rev...96#post2807596
Good posts in the "What exactly is a proletarian?" thread. It's good to destabilize those easy answers, and some of the rigid thinking people develop when they become aware that capitalism is defined by two classes. Anyway, good show.
I don't know - I came to terms with that a long time ago, when I first joined the board and, as an ostensible Trotskyist, found myself agreeing with Marxists-Leninists more often than with other Trotskyists and "Trotskyists". I know the SL/ICL consider most anarchists to be petit-bourgeois democrats, but honestly, coming from the Trotskyist milieu, that's beyond throwing bricks in glass houses. That's using thermobaric weapons in glass houses. Actually, if some things fall into place, I might end up writing for the same newspaper, er, thing, as some anarchists. I'm not particularly perturbed by that. Better them than our national Titoists.
We keep company in funny threads. Again, funny how little broad labels like "Marxist-Leninist" or "Anarchist" can mean once you start grappling with real concrete things, eh? Though, lolz, I'm sure it's more embarrassing for you than me.
Welcome back. I was impressed w/ much of the posting you did w/ your sock account.
To be fair, I can't really speak to the class character of the Indignados, and a basing my assumptions on experiences around Occupy (particularly in Montreal and Halifax). The occupations here were largely made up of precarious youth, the chronically homeless, and the underemployed. Certainly, there were a disproportionate number of big-mouth hippies (of wildly heterogeneous class backgrounds, including of course, rich pseudo-drop-outs) on the megaphone, but they hardly constituted the base. Were the Indignados significantly different?
