|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:37 am
To quote what Enerst Mandel said. Quote: Socialists (in the begining) had two key goals: the eight-hour day and universal suffrage, and they didn’t start from the question: How are we going to realise that, in what form of power, what form of government? No, they said these are objective needs of human emancipation, and we will fight for them by all means possible and necessary and we will see what will come out................................................................................................ ................................. The real fact was that the eight-hour day was, as Marx and Engels pointed out, in the objective interest of the working class, and that is the reason why you shouldn’t subordinate the fight for such demands to any pre-established power scheme.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:48 pm
he is... not to good... im not to fond of mandel, he is a reformist...
those goals, the 8hr day and universal suffrage are in the interests of the working class, as indeed marx and engels fought for, and every communist should fight for.
but they must be fought for withing the context of the class struggle. they are not something we should concentrate on, once achieved we can move onto something else. no.
they have to be fought for with the constant aim of the complete emancipation of the working class.
that is ONLY possible through proletarian revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:44 pm
What is wrong with the bourgeoisie? It's the middle class, would you rather there be an upper class and a lower class?
the world requires balance and equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:04 pm
you are in correct comrade, see yourself to the "NCS school/learning thread" the bourgeois are definitely not the middle class in any way shape or form, unless you're talking about the feudal (or minicapitalist) era where the feudal nobility was in a position above even the bourgeoisie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:08 pm
the bourgeoisie is a diverse grouping, under which all who own at least subsistence providing property belong.
they range from the petty bourgeoisie who might be a peasant who owns jut enough land to make enough food for himself and his family to eat, with enough of a surplus to get some clothes and fertiliser.
another example could be the corner shop owner.
all the way up to bill gates.
now, please, tell me, how is billy 'middle' class in anything except legal forms?
it would seem that the view you put foward, that of the bourgeoisie being middle class, is too legalistic.
yes, in strictly legal terms the bourgeoisie get no benefit over any other part of the population.
but that is only law.
it is not fact.
the fact is that the big bourgeoisie are just as upper class in their effects and manners as the british nobility, the real upper class.
now to say we need balance, what kind of balance?
you mean to say that we need a society in which there is a class of people, slaves in all but name working in a society in which they have equal political and legal rights, but that these are superfluous?
as opposed to what, maybe a society in which all labour as much as they are able to in order to provide all their needs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
