Re: World Party of Socialist Revolution

[nancybrumback@xxxxxx]

Chris Brady writes:

"....Then there is the mechanical reality that the workers actually have their 
hands on the means of production.  This adds the dynamism necessary to the 
concept that the working class is the engine of history."

I like the idea that the agents of revolution will be the ones who lack power 
-- power to participate in the making of decisions about things that affect 
their lives. It is inclusive, not exclusive. But your phraseology "...the 
mechanical reality ... hands on the means of production....engine of history 
..." is uncomfortably suggestive of the orthodox definition of the working 
class, i.e., those who live on wages received from their labor. Some marxists 
have interpreted this so narrowly that they have focused on organizing at "the 
point of production," i.e., trade unions involved with heavy manufacture.

So, by working class, do you mean those who live on wages received from their 
labor? Because a lot of people would be left out of that category, because some 
people are unemployed, some cannot work, and some work but receive no wage. How 
would you interpret the relationship of these people to "the engine of 
history"? Does their lack of a wage and connection to the means of production 
mean they don't have the dynamism necessary to change history?
nancy

ps: Zwieg's numbers add up to a flat 100%. But already we know that everyone 
who is neither capitalist nor middle class does not work for a wage...

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.