G
Guest
Guest
I posted this on the thread announcing REDWAVE's death, but I would like to make it into its own thread.
His roommate called me. REDWAVE really is dead. I was away when it happened, celebrating and dancing at the "Indian Capital" of America, and didn't find out until just this morning. I feel horrendously guilty knowing that I was dancing and singing on the very day of his death, but I know he wouldn't have wanted me to feel that way. When I returned I found some of his emails waiting for me, his last words to me before he died, just sitting there as if he was still with us. It is a very strange feeling when the words of the deceased arrive, fresh and previously unread, as if the person had never left.
In his honor I would like to post some key points he had written to me. These were not his last words to me (which were, "I can't imagine why anyone would want to go to Oklahoma"), but rather some of his earlier emails in which he began to outline and adress some key concepts. He never got a chance to complete them, but I think they stand on their own pretty well.
I realize many people disagree with his viewpoint, and that is just fine. I post the following for those who wish to remember him through his dedication to the cause. For anyone who disagrees with his points, good luck trying to argue with a dead man. You can feel free to try, but please don't do it on this thread.
If anyone has anything they wish to post in his honor, feel free to post it here. I am sure his roommate/best friend would deeply appreciate it.
Basic Idea #1
In this email I will elaborate a little on the first
basic idea: "The capitalist system is based upon the
exploitation and oppression of the working class by
the ruling class."
I imagine you won't disagree with this concept: you
see the exploitation and oppression all around you,
especially in your work with migrant farm workers.
However, my statement of it is a bit of an
oversimplimplification for the sake of brevity.
According to classical Marxist theory, there are four
main class in society: the big bourgeoisie, petit
bourgeoisie, proletariat, and peasants. (And none of
these classes are monolithic; there are many different
gradations within each of them.) The latter three are
all exploited and oppressed by the big bourgeoisie,
but the proletariat is the only truly revolutionary
class. Lenin said the peasants have one face turned
toward the proletariat and one toward the bourgeoisie,
because many of them are small landowners and even
employ migrant workers at peak times (like harvest),
making them exploiters too in a small way. Also,
their traditional lifestyle of living off the land has
a conservatizing influence. Another important
difference between the proletariat and peasantry is
that the proletariat tend to be concentrated in large
urban areas, while peasants are spread out thinly over
a huge area.
The proletariat in the strictest sense of the word is
the industrial proletariat, those who work in
factories. However, in a broader sense it also refers
to workers in other key areas, such as transportation.
With the U.S. having been largely de-industrialized in
recent years by moving factories overseas, even
workers in the "service sector," such as fast food
places, may be considered proletarian. The
distinguishing feature of the proletariat as a whole
is that typically they have no substantial property,
and are able to earn a living only by selling their
labor power to a capitalist. (Marx used "labor power"
to denote not labor itself exactly, but the capacity
to labor, an abstraction.) However, the upper end of
the proletariat, the "labor aristocracy," skilled,
well-paid unionized workers, are often quite
conservative and identify more with the ruling class
than with their fellow proletarians.
The petit bourgeoisie is the most variegated class.
At its lower end, it includes retail workers, who
usually don't make much money, but do lighter work,
work involving certain mental skills (brain work),
rather than the heavy manual labor performed by
proletarians. Indeed, retail clerks and the like
often look down on manual laborers who actually make
more money than they do, because they do "indoor work
with no heavy lifting" (to use Bob Dole's phrase), and
don't get dirty when they work, as proletarians often
do. You and I are both petit bourgeoisie in our class
status: brain workers and professionals. At its
uppper end, the petit bourgeoisie is virtually
indistinguishable from the big bourgeoisie in its
manner of living: i.e., junior executives, highly-paid
professionals and technical people, etc. What
distinguishes the two is the petit bourgeoisie's total
dependence upon the big bourgeoisie: i.e., they hold
positions in which they "serve at the pleasure of" one
or more members of the big bourgeoisie, and can be
kicked out, and lose all the perks and privileges, any
time they fall out of favor with their boss(es). The
petit bourgeoisie is typically conservative, aznd
frustrated de-classed members of the petit bourgeoisie
can and have become the rank and file of fascist
movements. Trotsky said the petit bourgeoisie is
"human dust," as they have no connection with the
essential work of the world (manufacturing, farming,
and transportation), as the proletariat and peasantry
do.
Capitalists exploit workers by extracting surplus
value from the labor power of workers. In developing
this concept, Marx begins with a simple distinction
between "use value" and "exchange value." The use
value of a commodity is the use it can be put to:
i.e., food can be eaten, a car provides
transportation, etc. The exchange value is the value
it has is relation to other commodities, the price at
whcih it can be bought and sold. A key part of
"Capital" is part 2 of chapter seven, "The Production
of Surplus Value," in which Marz analyzes how surplus
value is produced. The use value of labor power is
the amount of goods and services which it produces.
However, the exchange value of value power is the
amount needed for the subsistence of the worker, and
for his/her children. (It is necessary for the
workers to reproduce, so there will be a new
generation of workers for the capitalists to exploit.)
As Marx says, "The seller of labor power, like the
seller of any commodity, realizes its exchange value,
and parts with its use value." But the special
quality of labor power is that it is "a source not
only of value, but of more value than it has itself."
(Marx puts that last statement in italics, emphasizing
its importance. Both quotes are from p. 93 of the
"Great Books" edition.) That is the secret to how
surplus value is created: through the difference
between the use value and exchange value of labor
power.
As for oppression, exploitation itself can be
considered a form of oppression, but that is not all
there is to it. The capitalist ruling class also
controls the bourgeois state, and uses it as an organ
of class domination and oppression. Although
elections are held, and people are told they rule
themselves, in fact elections are manipulated by the
rich, through campaign contributions (a legalized form
of bribery) and through their control of the media
(the media torpedoing of Howard Dean's campaign is an
excellent recent example of this). Also, the state
pretends to be "neutral" between labor and management,
but in fact almost always comes down on the side of
management. The frequent use of troops to break
strikes, and Reagan's busting of the PATCO union
(ironically, the only major union to support him in
1980-- boy, did they reap the reward of their folly!)
are prime examples here.
As Lenin said in his masterpiece "State and
Revolution": "The state is the product and the
manifestation of the irreconciliability of class
antagonisms."
Well, hopefully this wasn't too dry and long-winded.
Next time I will address your questions regarding #1--
I haven't forgotten about them.
Until then, I am the very pinnacle of pomposity and
pedantry, pontificating profusely,
Yours truly,
Steve
******************************
Response to questions regarding basic idea #1:
You asked:
1) How does a capitalistic system first develop? How
do people first set it up and put it into action?
2) And do you think there is always a sizeable amount
of resistance when capitalism is introduced or first
created in X place?
3) And do you think when such a system is first
developed (or imposed, depending upon the situation)
that it is done so primarily by people who are certain
they will benefit from it? Or is it possible that
such a system is put into place by those who think it
will somehow benefit everyone?
Answers:
(1)The modern capitalist system began in Great Britain
in the late eighteenth century. The enclosure of the
commons drove many peasants off the land. Without the
use of the commons, they were no longer able to eke
out a living from the small patches of land they
owned. They had to go to the rapidly growing cities,
where they could find employment in the factories of
the capitalists. Marx discusses the subject of
"primitive accumulation" (theft, basicly) in part
eight of "Capital."
It is important to realize that capitalism was
originally progressive, as it entailed a great advance
from the previous sytem of feudalism and small-scale
production. The introduction of assembly line
techniques and the division of labor brought about an
enormous increase in the productive capacity of
humanity. However, capitalism quickly became
reactionary, as the gigantic new means of production
created by capitalism soon outstripped the limits of
private ownership of them.
From England, capitalism rapidly spread to the
continent of Europe, and to North America. It was
also introduced in Japan after that nation was "opened
up" by U.S. gunboat diplomacy (Commodore Perry in
1853.)
(2) Yes. In Europe and North America, there was
massive resistence to capitalism almost from the
start. In Germany, the world's first mass socialist
party, the SPD (Social Democratic Party) came into
being in the 1870's. In the U.S., the first major
strike wave was in 1877. Soon, there was mass
socialist parties throughout Europe, and the Socialist
Party and the "Wobblies" (Industrial Workers of the
World) in the U.S. Today in East Asia, the same kind
of labor struggles which took place in Europe and
North America in the nineteenth century are taking
place.
(3) I think capitalism was put into place by people
who expected to benefit from it personally.
Sorry it took me so long to get to your questions.
I've been kind of distracted lately. Next time I'll
discuss basic idea #2 in some detail.
Until then, I am
Your doting professor,
Steve
******************************
Basic Idea #2:
"Only the mobilization of the social power of the
working class at the point of production, combined
with the building of a multi-racial, internationalist
alliance of all the oppressed, under the leadership of
a revolutionary vanguard party, can liberate humanity
from capitalism."
As I mentioned before, there's a lot packed into that
sentence, so I'll start with the first phrase. The
social power of the working class is its ability to
collectively withhold its labor, and bring the
capitalist system grinding to a halt, shutting off the
flow of profits to the bosses. (Granted, it is also
somewhat of a double-edged weapon, as it also cuts off
the flow of income to the workers, at least
temporarily.) Most strikes are economic strikes--
strikes for better wages, benefits, working
conditions, etc.-- but there are certain special types
of strikes which are of most interest to
revolutionaries. Political strikes are strikes in
which the workers put forth political demands. For
example, a strike demanding the end to the war in Iraq
would be a political strikes. (Of course, the usual
economic demands can be combined with political ones.)
A general strike is a strike of all the workers in a
given locality, or at least the great majority, and
including key industries, so as to effectively shut
down all economic activity in that area. A sit-down
strike, or plant occupation, is one in which the
workers actually take over the factory (or other place
of business) in which they are working, and lock out
management. Tactically, this has two advanatages over
normal strikes. First, it makes it impossible for the
company to operate with scab labor. Secondly, it
makes the bosses more reluctant to use violence
against the strikers. They don't mind killing
strikers, and have on many occasions, but when it
comes to destroying all that valuable plant and
equipment, they think twice. For revolutionaries,
sit-down strikes have the value that they directly
challenge the property "rights" of the ruling class,
and concretely pose the question: Who shall rule?
The bosses or the workers? Finally, wildcat strikes
are strikes taken by the union rank and file
themselves, without the authorization of the union
bureaucrats. Since the union bureaucrats today are
all in bed with management, and colluding with them to
keep the workers down, this is very important.
It is of course possible for a strike to fall under
two or more of these categories. A general political
sit-down wildcat strike, for instance, would in effect
be a revolution, or at least the opening phase of one.
Marxist revolutionary tactics focus upon the
independent mobilization of the working class to
overthrow the rule of the bosses. This is in stark
contrast to the tactics of the reformists
(non-revolutionaries), who advocate piecemeal reform
of the system. They promote things like consumer
boycotts, pressuring elected officials, and trying to
get "progressive" candidates elected. The problem
with these type of tactics (besides the fact that
they're usually ineffectual), is they burn out
activists, by causing them to waste their energy to
achieve at most a few paltry refomrs (which are
inevitably rolled back later), and they leave people
atomized and isolated, instead of bringing them
together in massive crowds. Individually, the average
person is weak and powerless. It is only when they
come together in huge numbers that they have power.
That leads me on naturally to the second phrase, about
the multi-racial, internationalist alliance of ALL the
oppressed. As I've said before, in order to
effectively fight oppression and injustice, you have
to be opposed to all forms of it, not just those which
affect you personally. Otherwise, the ruling class
can easily pit one group against another (divide and
conquer). Working class solidarity is essential: an
injury to one is an injury to all! It is especially
important to fight for immigrants' rights, as
immigrant bashing is perhaps the main way they attempt
to pit one sector of the working class against
another, and deflect anger which should be directed
against the bosses toward immigrants. Nationalism or
patriotism is also used to divide workers of different
nationalities, and pit them against each other. As
Marx and Engels said, the working man (person) has no
country. The nation we live in is just the place in
which the bosses are exploiting and oppressing us,
that's all. A true revolutionary is a citizen of the
world. His (or her) race is the human race. One
World-- One People.
Next time I'll talk about the concept of the
revolutionary vanguard party.
**********************************
Response to questions regarding basic idea #2
Granted, it's not easy, but neither is it
impossible. Pointing out that low wages in other
countries make it easy for the bosses to drive down
wages here might help. How many times have we been
told we have to accept cutbacks in order to be
"competitive" with workers in other countries?
Ultimately, however, as the offensive on the working
class deepens and intensifies, and capitalism decays
into fascism, workers will be forced into class
consciousness and rebellion simply as a matter of
their own survival. After all, workers who compete
against each other, rather than cooperating with each
other, are cutting their own throats.
Steve
***************************
He never got a chance to finish. But I think this is a fine example of his scholarship and a good representation of what he stands for.
His roommate called me. REDWAVE really is dead. I was away when it happened, celebrating and dancing at the "Indian Capital" of America, and didn't find out until just this morning. I feel horrendously guilty knowing that I was dancing and singing on the very day of his death, but I know he wouldn't have wanted me to feel that way. When I returned I found some of his emails waiting for me, his last words to me before he died, just sitting there as if he was still with us. It is a very strange feeling when the words of the deceased arrive, fresh and previously unread, as if the person had never left.
In his honor I would like to post some key points he had written to me. These were not his last words to me (which were, "I can't imagine why anyone would want to go to Oklahoma"), but rather some of his earlier emails in which he began to outline and adress some key concepts. He never got a chance to complete them, but I think they stand on their own pretty well.
I realize many people disagree with his viewpoint, and that is just fine. I post the following for those who wish to remember him through his dedication to the cause. For anyone who disagrees with his points, good luck trying to argue with a dead man. You can feel free to try, but please don't do it on this thread.
If anyone has anything they wish to post in his honor, feel free to post it here. I am sure his roommate/best friend would deeply appreciate it.
Basic Idea #1
In this email I will elaborate a little on the first
basic idea: "The capitalist system is based upon the
exploitation and oppression of the working class by
the ruling class."
I imagine you won't disagree with this concept: you
see the exploitation and oppression all around you,
especially in your work with migrant farm workers.
However, my statement of it is a bit of an
oversimplimplification for the sake of brevity.
According to classical Marxist theory, there are four
main class in society: the big bourgeoisie, petit
bourgeoisie, proletariat, and peasants. (And none of
these classes are monolithic; there are many different
gradations within each of them.) The latter three are
all exploited and oppressed by the big bourgeoisie,
but the proletariat is the only truly revolutionary
class. Lenin said the peasants have one face turned
toward the proletariat and one toward the bourgeoisie,
because many of them are small landowners and even
employ migrant workers at peak times (like harvest),
making them exploiters too in a small way. Also,
their traditional lifestyle of living off the land has
a conservatizing influence. Another important
difference between the proletariat and peasantry is
that the proletariat tend to be concentrated in large
urban areas, while peasants are spread out thinly over
a huge area.
The proletariat in the strictest sense of the word is
the industrial proletariat, those who work in
factories. However, in a broader sense it also refers
to workers in other key areas, such as transportation.
With the U.S. having been largely de-industrialized in
recent years by moving factories overseas, even
workers in the "service sector," such as fast food
places, may be considered proletarian. The
distinguishing feature of the proletariat as a whole
is that typically they have no substantial property,
and are able to earn a living only by selling their
labor power to a capitalist. (Marx used "labor power"
to denote not labor itself exactly, but the capacity
to labor, an abstraction.) However, the upper end of
the proletariat, the "labor aristocracy," skilled,
well-paid unionized workers, are often quite
conservative and identify more with the ruling class
than with their fellow proletarians.
The petit bourgeoisie is the most variegated class.
At its lower end, it includes retail workers, who
usually don't make much money, but do lighter work,
work involving certain mental skills (brain work),
rather than the heavy manual labor performed by
proletarians. Indeed, retail clerks and the like
often look down on manual laborers who actually make
more money than they do, because they do "indoor work
with no heavy lifting" (to use Bob Dole's phrase), and
don't get dirty when they work, as proletarians often
do. You and I are both petit bourgeoisie in our class
status: brain workers and professionals. At its
uppper end, the petit bourgeoisie is virtually
indistinguishable from the big bourgeoisie in its
manner of living: i.e., junior executives, highly-paid
professionals and technical people, etc. What
distinguishes the two is the petit bourgeoisie's total
dependence upon the big bourgeoisie: i.e., they hold
positions in which they "serve at the pleasure of" one
or more members of the big bourgeoisie, and can be
kicked out, and lose all the perks and privileges, any
time they fall out of favor with their boss(es). The
petit bourgeoisie is typically conservative, aznd
frustrated de-classed members of the petit bourgeoisie
can and have become the rank and file of fascist
movements. Trotsky said the petit bourgeoisie is
"human dust," as they have no connection with the
essential work of the world (manufacturing, farming,
and transportation), as the proletariat and peasantry
do.
Capitalists exploit workers by extracting surplus
value from the labor power of workers. In developing
this concept, Marx begins with a simple distinction
between "use value" and "exchange value." The use
value of a commodity is the use it can be put to:
i.e., food can be eaten, a car provides
transportation, etc. The exchange value is the value
it has is relation to other commodities, the price at
whcih it can be bought and sold. A key part of
"Capital" is part 2 of chapter seven, "The Production
of Surplus Value," in which Marz analyzes how surplus
value is produced. The use value of labor power is
the amount of goods and services which it produces.
However, the exchange value of value power is the
amount needed for the subsistence of the worker, and
for his/her children. (It is necessary for the
workers to reproduce, so there will be a new
generation of workers for the capitalists to exploit.)
As Marx says, "The seller of labor power, like the
seller of any commodity, realizes its exchange value,
and parts with its use value." But the special
quality of labor power is that it is "a source not
only of value, but of more value than it has itself."
(Marx puts that last statement in italics, emphasizing
its importance. Both quotes are from p. 93 of the
"Great Books" edition.) That is the secret to how
surplus value is created: through the difference
between the use value and exchange value of labor
power.
As for oppression, exploitation itself can be
considered a form of oppression, but that is not all
there is to it. The capitalist ruling class also
controls the bourgeois state, and uses it as an organ
of class domination and oppression. Although
elections are held, and people are told they rule
themselves, in fact elections are manipulated by the
rich, through campaign contributions (a legalized form
of bribery) and through their control of the media
(the media torpedoing of Howard Dean's campaign is an
excellent recent example of this). Also, the state
pretends to be "neutral" between labor and management,
but in fact almost always comes down on the side of
management. The frequent use of troops to break
strikes, and Reagan's busting of the PATCO union
(ironically, the only major union to support him in
1980-- boy, did they reap the reward of their folly!)
are prime examples here.
As Lenin said in his masterpiece "State and
Revolution": "The state is the product and the
manifestation of the irreconciliability of class
antagonisms."
Well, hopefully this wasn't too dry and long-winded.
Next time I will address your questions regarding #1--
I haven't forgotten about them.
Until then, I am the very pinnacle of pomposity and
pedantry, pontificating profusely,
Yours truly,
Steve
******************************
Response to questions regarding basic idea #1:
You asked:
1) How does a capitalistic system first develop? How
do people first set it up and put it into action?
2) And do you think there is always a sizeable amount
of resistance when capitalism is introduced or first
created in X place?
3) And do you think when such a system is first
developed (or imposed, depending upon the situation)
that it is done so primarily by people who are certain
they will benefit from it? Or is it possible that
such a system is put into place by those who think it
will somehow benefit everyone?
Answers:
(1)The modern capitalist system began in Great Britain
in the late eighteenth century. The enclosure of the
commons drove many peasants off the land. Without the
use of the commons, they were no longer able to eke
out a living from the small patches of land they
owned. They had to go to the rapidly growing cities,
where they could find employment in the factories of
the capitalists. Marx discusses the subject of
"primitive accumulation" (theft, basicly) in part
eight of "Capital."
It is important to realize that capitalism was
originally progressive, as it entailed a great advance
from the previous sytem of feudalism and small-scale
production. The introduction of assembly line
techniques and the division of labor brought about an
enormous increase in the productive capacity of
humanity. However, capitalism quickly became
reactionary, as the gigantic new means of production
created by capitalism soon outstripped the limits of
private ownership of them.
From England, capitalism rapidly spread to the
continent of Europe, and to North America. It was
also introduced in Japan after that nation was "opened
up" by U.S. gunboat diplomacy (Commodore Perry in
1853.)
(2) Yes. In Europe and North America, there was
massive resistence to capitalism almost from the
start. In Germany, the world's first mass socialist
party, the SPD (Social Democratic Party) came into
being in the 1870's. In the U.S., the first major
strike wave was in 1877. Soon, there was mass
socialist parties throughout Europe, and the Socialist
Party and the "Wobblies" (Industrial Workers of the
World) in the U.S. Today in East Asia, the same kind
of labor struggles which took place in Europe and
North America in the nineteenth century are taking
place.
(3) I think capitalism was put into place by people
who expected to benefit from it personally.
Sorry it took me so long to get to your questions.
I've been kind of distracted lately. Next time I'll
discuss basic idea #2 in some detail.
Until then, I am
Your doting professor,
Steve
******************************
Basic Idea #2:
"Only the mobilization of the social power of the
working class at the point of production, combined
with the building of a multi-racial, internationalist
alliance of all the oppressed, under the leadership of
a revolutionary vanguard party, can liberate humanity
from capitalism."
As I mentioned before, there's a lot packed into that
sentence, so I'll start with the first phrase. The
social power of the working class is its ability to
collectively withhold its labor, and bring the
capitalist system grinding to a halt, shutting off the
flow of profits to the bosses. (Granted, it is also
somewhat of a double-edged weapon, as it also cuts off
the flow of income to the workers, at least
temporarily.) Most strikes are economic strikes--
strikes for better wages, benefits, working
conditions, etc.-- but there are certain special types
of strikes which are of most interest to
revolutionaries. Political strikes are strikes in
which the workers put forth political demands. For
example, a strike demanding the end to the war in Iraq
would be a political strikes. (Of course, the usual
economic demands can be combined with political ones.)
A general strike is a strike of all the workers in a
given locality, or at least the great majority, and
including key industries, so as to effectively shut
down all economic activity in that area. A sit-down
strike, or plant occupation, is one in which the
workers actually take over the factory (or other place
of business) in which they are working, and lock out
management. Tactically, this has two advanatages over
normal strikes. First, it makes it impossible for the
company to operate with scab labor. Secondly, it
makes the bosses more reluctant to use violence
against the strikers. They don't mind killing
strikers, and have on many occasions, but when it
comes to destroying all that valuable plant and
equipment, they think twice. For revolutionaries,
sit-down strikes have the value that they directly
challenge the property "rights" of the ruling class,
and concretely pose the question: Who shall rule?
The bosses or the workers? Finally, wildcat strikes
are strikes taken by the union rank and file
themselves, without the authorization of the union
bureaucrats. Since the union bureaucrats today are
all in bed with management, and colluding with them to
keep the workers down, this is very important.
It is of course possible for a strike to fall under
two or more of these categories. A general political
sit-down wildcat strike, for instance, would in effect
be a revolution, or at least the opening phase of one.
Marxist revolutionary tactics focus upon the
independent mobilization of the working class to
overthrow the rule of the bosses. This is in stark
contrast to the tactics of the reformists
(non-revolutionaries), who advocate piecemeal reform
of the system. They promote things like consumer
boycotts, pressuring elected officials, and trying to
get "progressive" candidates elected. The problem
with these type of tactics (besides the fact that
they're usually ineffectual), is they burn out
activists, by causing them to waste their energy to
achieve at most a few paltry refomrs (which are
inevitably rolled back later), and they leave people
atomized and isolated, instead of bringing them
together in massive crowds. Individually, the average
person is weak and powerless. It is only when they
come together in huge numbers that they have power.
That leads me on naturally to the second phrase, about
the multi-racial, internationalist alliance of ALL the
oppressed. As I've said before, in order to
effectively fight oppression and injustice, you have
to be opposed to all forms of it, not just those which
affect you personally. Otherwise, the ruling class
can easily pit one group against another (divide and
conquer). Working class solidarity is essential: an
injury to one is an injury to all! It is especially
important to fight for immigrants' rights, as
immigrant bashing is perhaps the main way they attempt
to pit one sector of the working class against
another, and deflect anger which should be directed
against the bosses toward immigrants. Nationalism or
patriotism is also used to divide workers of different
nationalities, and pit them against each other. As
Marx and Engels said, the working man (person) has no
country. The nation we live in is just the place in
which the bosses are exploiting and oppressing us,
that's all. A true revolutionary is a citizen of the
world. His (or her) race is the human race. One
World-- One People.
Next time I'll talk about the concept of the
revolutionary vanguard party.
**********************************
Response to questions regarding basic idea #2
Granted, it's not easy, but neither is it
impossible. Pointing out that low wages in other
countries make it easy for the bosses to drive down
wages here might help. How many times have we been
told we have to accept cutbacks in order to be
"competitive" with workers in other countries?
Ultimately, however, as the offensive on the working
class deepens and intensifies, and capitalism decays
into fascism, workers will be forced into class
consciousness and rebellion simply as a matter of
their own survival. After all, workers who compete
against each other, rather than cooperating with each
other, are cutting their own throats.
Steve
***************************
He never got a chance to finish. But I think this is a fine example of his scholarship and a good representation of what he stands for.
