Re.: What is Post-Marxism?

[Chris Brady <chris_brady@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Julio Pino wrote: "More importantly, The French Revolution showed, by
counter-example, that England LACKED a revolutionary bourgeosie that
might copy the French model and drown the aristocracy in blood."

There was a Great Revolution in England in the mid-1600s, non?
Q.: Despite its Levellers and Diggers, who ultimately benefited from
the interregnum?
A.: The gentry, the landlord class, many of whom were not blue bloods...
and those that were historically were adapting by adopting the newer
ways of survival that went with a rapidly expanding empire propelled by
cannon, commerce and crown (nominal or beheaded).

By the time the *Industrial* Revolution came around, the British
Bourgeoisie had already benefitted from the *Agricultural* Revolution
and its attendent enclosures.  The British bourgeoisie had no need to
copy any Chanticleer.  To the contrary, indeed.

Professor Pino began his historical lessons by a conclusion:
"class can no longer be the vehicle through which the proletariat takes
power."

Class is not now nor has it ever been a vehicle, but the driver.
The proletariat currently is not in the driver's seat.
The load is the masses, of course.
The vehicle is and forever shall be *social production*.
The driver is heading to hell on earth.
The driver is a crazy motherfucker and must be replaced.
The only force that can overcome that bourgeois butthead
is the working class .  That's what Marxists think, anyway...
We have to activate the critical masses.

Yours for the new driver,
Chris Brady