Re: Was Lenin So Blind? Reply to Nestor

[clyder@xxxxxxxxxx]

Quoting dmschanoes <dmschanoes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
 > 
> 2. Lenin's rentier state does not exist.  Moreover, no mechanism for bribing
> the working class by distributing profits from more exploited areas has been
> discovered or described.  Indeed, in this period of supposedly unchecked US
> imperialism, working class conditions have worsened-- as they did concretely
> between 1973 and 1993.
> 


There exists a substantial population of unproductive employees of
finance capital whose wages derive from surplus value - the sort 
of people who were working in the twin towers. This group is obviously
distint from productive workers, but still comprises a substantial
part of the population of the US and UK

> 3. To use a phrase like "bourgeoisification of the working class" may be
> cathartic to the individual using it, but it is certainly not analytic.  If
> the working class is not or no longer or permanently unrevolutionary then it
> is necessary to dispense IN TOTAL with Marx's analysis of capital  and
> replace it with some other because Marxism is of a whole; the class
> structure and struggle is the logic, the very substance of commodity
> production which manifests itself in overproduction, reproduction, technical
> advance and decline, destruction of values, and the necessity-- necessity
> requiring, meaning AGENT-- of revolution.

This strikes me as Hegelian teleology.

Why should a working class who have a reasonably secure and stable
standard of living risk the dangers both economic and physical that
revolution entails?


Is it not more likely that the spontaneous form of politics of 
such a working class will be social democratic?

  


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