Present-day Class Distinctions (on Marxism)

Xxxzx Xyyxyz Xxxzx at SPAMmarxists.org
Fri Oct 1 22:12:56 MDT 1999





> perhaps he says Marxism has been superceded on this point.

  Marx, and most Marxists to follow him until about the 1920s, used
tools (i.e. dialectical materialism) firstly and foremost; answers
and tactics came as a result.

  You do not "superceded" the teachings of Karl Marx by approaching it
with different tactics! With such nonsense, good luck trying to
explain that Lenin was Marxist!


>On the substance here, Xxxzx seems to be willing to throw out the
>classical Marxist

  It is not being thrown out Charles. It is GROWING. It will move
forward with the present day, despite all the reelings of old,
reactionary "marxists".

  As if such a movements could ever not be Marxist! What kind of
backward Marxist is this that does not change? Do I need to show you
Marx, Engels, (et. all) explaining that all things change, that all
theories, all ideas change?

  Oh! But it The Sacred that does not change!

  What kind of religious muck is this dross?


>Also, the idea of defining classes by income
>instead of ownership

  Relationship Charles. Classes are defined by their RELATIONS to the
means of production.

  By your ownership, explain to me the class distinctions in Fuedal
society. I will give you a hint about Marx's thoughts; there were
quite a few different classes (about six); tell me how you can make
six classes, er (excuse me) how it was Marx saw six classes in this
society by means of the "idea fixed" of ownership.



>such an old argument between Marxism and bourgeois social science,
>that one wonders whether Xxxzx has heard of it before.

  That must be the answer to this problem of facts and tactics! An
"old bourgeois argument" that Xxxzx is digging up from the past! With
a whisk and a broom, you can defend against any attacks! All you need
are the proper phrases! No dogmas here!


> At least he should acknowledge that it is an old fight,

  I acknowledge that this is the very old sledge hammer of youth that
always comes to smash up the crooked, backward, and idiotic ideas of
those who no longer have eyes to see beyond their own idea fixed.


>typical of what we hear from left "free thinkers",

  The ranting begins: "You miserable little young ones; new ideas, new
opinions, changes, changes -- JUST GO AWAY! Leave our ideas alone!"

  No amount of apprehensions will save your out-dated ideas.


>liberal DOGMA

  :)

  Yes, liberal, and so very dogmatic to be kicking the shit out of you
old windbags.


>about how allegedly dogmatic Marxists are.

  Is this a joke? You pretend most "marxists" are not dogmatic?

  You have a big broom for recent history comrade! Sweep, sweep,
sweep! Reaction becomes you!


>It is the sort of thing that left bourgeois academics

  Yes, it is academics who talk about class distinctions today; that
talk about new forms of oppression and struggle. Yes! They (of
course!) are on the forefront of such struggles, and the most able to
bring forward such truths!

  Those academics. But it is for the "workers" that nothing changes,
for the "workers" that the idea fixed remains tested and true... in
the realm of ideas.... er, in practice. Yes, in practice. For the
"workers". the "workers".

  Academics are full of ideas Charles. Workers are full of the
material world. One is constantly changing, the other can try to be
unchanged for millenium. Which one is it, if you think you could
answer without retreating into dogmas, which position is it that is
attacking you Charles?


> Marxiism is not and does not have a liberal arts school ethic.

  Yes, it has no such ethic.

  However, any backward nonsense about Marxism being transcendent from
liberalism is backward.

  A proletarian government, Lenin explained, will have just as many
forms as bourgeois government. There are Liberals, i.e. reformists,
in proletarian governments. This is normal  -- productive forces
advance, the structure needs to be updated; it needs reforms.

  Any who deny the existance of Liberals as Marxists in a proletarian
government would be swept into the same mistakes made by the Soviet
Union.

  The reformists in the Soviet Union were last seen in the 1920s, when
they were banished. Revolutionaries (once reformists) came back in
the 1930s, tried to overthow the government, but were caught and
executed.

  Reaction held quietly for decades, until the 1980s, when the
productive forces advanced so absurdly far, and reaction had been so
excruciatingly tight, that reforms could only burst open the system.

  To say in regards to proletarian government (where there will be
Marxists, but certainly not only Marxists): "liberals are wrong", is
to show a wealth of nothing in historical study; it is to regress
into the failures already committed by once proletarian governments.


Xxxzx

___________________
marxists.org janitor

"In those days, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history made
slow organisational and educational work the task of the day."

Vladimir Lenin, Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution
  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/tasks/ch12.htm









More information about the Marxism mailing list