The un-mentionable is a rabid revisionist, not only because he seems to enjoy creating schisms among the class, thus, in the real world, contributing to the old USA sectarianism which he seems so very much a part of, but because he has contempt for the very revolutionary class which Marxism rises to the challenge. To the "new class" theorist, a worker is revolutionary only in so far as he is replaced by the new means of production i.e robots. In the state that the working class is now, that is, as the anti- thesis of the capitalist class, or otherwise, that aspect in constant contradiction with the bourgeoisie throughout the economic mode of production know as capitalism, it finds itself in a mere symbiotic relationship with the bourgeoisie and remains so until it becomes "external" to capitalism , like the "new class" theorist utter, meaning: not employed. This new class must be sustained not according to work, but according to need, thus satisfying a warped interpretation of communist society here amidst capitalism. Even the marginal or part time workers are considered revolutionary only in so far as they approach the "external to capitalism" stage of decay as gauged by the destitute proletariat.
This is not Marxism but revisionism and quite reactionary, from the working class' point of view; and the working class condemns such insolent display of contempt. It is not the first time that this type thesis arises. It is a variation of the old Lumpen as vanguard of the revolution line of the 60's and 70's here in the USA. History and current events witnesses the leading role of the working class as that class capable of sealing the capitalist coffin, although we've witnessed that in the era of Imperialism, the bourgeoisie can reposes power; and hence the need for an effective dictatorship of the proletariat. Applying a bold revolutionary method to Marxism Leninism, based on the revolutionary working class in all its contingents, is the difference between why proletarian revolutions of later days succeeded and the petty pinko attempts of nowadays don't..... a thesis, of mine. Other classes beside the proletariat will contribute to the revolution, and it shall be so noted by the fair and just wisdom of the creators of value whom do not exploit. Any class can initiate a revolution or uprising, but only the working class can culminate it. Not because I say so, but because that's what it is, and as Marx understood and predicted. What the revisionists, in this case, choose not to accept, is that the working class and capitalism become that LAST economic relations where one class exploits the other, and hence, for the first time in history, a class to negate all classes comes into being. A Messiah, so to speak...... perhaps Christianity did get a gist of the concept. yours, f580 --- On Thu, 1/20/11, waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> Subject: Re: [MLL] The Communist society thesis: Goodbye Stalin To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 9:49 AM In a message dated 1/20/2011 12:38:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _georgeg@micronetix.net_ (mailto:geor...@micronetix.net) writes: Dear Comrade Mark, I do not know why you think that the other 197+ people on the list accept revisionism. It may be that we just as well that they think that you are doing a good job at opposing this revisionism. Please note that my comment many weeks ago asking that the three of you not engage in personal invective was not a note from a moderator, bus simply a request by one of the members of the list. Comment If one person show in plain language where I have revised Marx on communist society I will leave the list. Not two . . .one person. One. Stalin's "he who does not work" shall not eat is unacceptable in modern America. Further, under communist society labor contribution is not work or a job. A job and work is just so much bourgeois ideology. I challenge anyone to defend this proposition. I challenge any Marxist to oppose the proposition that under communist society there is NO demand for a prior contribution of labor to be the means to access to socially necessary means of life. Reread Marx . . . for real. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
