Posts
The Scottish Independence Referendum: The Great Diversion
Karl Liebknecht: “The basic law of capitalism is you
or I, not you and I.”
One of the ruling class’s weapons in its armoury is its ability to mask the reality of the exploiter/exploited class relation. Its web of cultural constructs is aimed at obscuring that reality - and the weave of that web is religion, race, gender and above all, nationalism.
Nationalism isn’t “natural”. It is manufactured. It is the particularly manufactured ideology of the capitalist class. For them it is the perfect expression of their rule. They can pretend that in the nation we are all “free” even if some of us are freer than others because they have more money (as Bernie Ecclestone so dramatically proved recently in a German court[1]). And when the capitalists tell us we are “all in it together” their frame of reference is the nation. When they exhort us once again to salute those who fought for “King and Country” they are dragging us into defence of their material interests. After all it is their country. They own it (and this goes for the ruling class everywhere). Wars are actually for defending and extending their property and to get us to support war they appeal to our supposed common “nationality”. And nationalism in Scotland is as manufactured as anywhere else.Read article in full here ..>
One of the ruling class’s weapons in its armoury is its ability to mask the reality of the exploiter/exploited class relation. Its web of cultural constructs is aimed at obscuring that reality - and the weave of that web is religion, race, gender and above all, nationalism.
Nationalism isn’t “natural”. It is manufactured. It is the particularly manufactured ideology of the capitalist class. For them it is the perfect expression of their rule. They can pretend that in the nation we are all “free” even if some of us are freer than others because they have more money (as Bernie Ecclestone so dramatically proved recently in a German court[1]). And when the capitalists tell us we are “all in it together” their frame of reference is the nation. When they exhort us once again to salute those who fought for “King and Country” they are dragging us into defence of their material interests. After all it is their country. They own it (and this goes for the ruling class everywhere). Wars are actually for defending and extending their property and to get us to support war they appeal to our supposed common “nationality”. And nationalism in Scotland is as manufactured as anywhere else.Read article in full here ..>
________________________
Comments
Prolerat on Fri,
2014-08-29 16:49
I have a postal vote and put a, “Neither Yes nor No but
World Socialism”,sticker on my paper.You can get these
at spgb@worldsocialism.org
Here is a sample one.I hope the link works OK.
Here is a sample one.I hope the link works OK.
Prolerat on Fri,
2014-08-29 17:46
I resent the 'moronic'.It is a considered and deliberate
response.I don't have problem with you disagreeing.The
vote was won through struggle and is a part of the
revolutionary struggle.It is saying, "a plague on both
camps".
___________________
___________________
Submitted by shug on Fri, 2014-08-29 18:18
" part of the revolutionary struggle" does somewhat
raise the question of why the ruling class and its media
spend so much effort hyping up every election and
referendumb. And yup, "The vote was won thahrough
struggle" but a wee bit of historical context wouldnt go
amiss. Religious freedom was won through struggle too -
maybe I should be nippng down to the chapel on Sunday.
Prolerat on Fri,
2014-08-29 18:34
Well go figure.In a bourgeois democracy they have to
legitimse their 'policing' i.e. government when
different capitalist interests come into conflict, some
assent is required.In a revolutionary situation the
ballot box can be used to capture control of the armed
forces to ensure guns can't be turned on the workers.The
capitalists of course,will be using it to shower reforms
or the promise of them to prevent this take over by the
proletatiat.But a politically conscious working class
will need the maturity,won from struggle etc. to ignore
these blandishments.
Submitted by shug on Fri, 2014-08-29 19:55
This all assumes a ruling class passively watching
parliament being 'captured' . When it wanted to avoid
even a bourgeois faction like Irish Nationalists being
elected, it just rushed through the 1981 'Reprahesentation
of the People Act' to keep them out. Anything even
remotely approaching a politically conscious working
class would see both elections and Habeus Corpus
suspended in the 'national interest'. As always, the
SPGB swallows the myth of the primacy of parliament.
Modern capitalist rule is far more complex and
sophisticated. Even in the limited context of
parliament, the braying mob on the benches are little
more than stage extras.
I'd recommend having a look at Clive Ponting's 'Breach of Promise' that shows how in the Labour administration of 1964 onwards the major defence and economic decisions by the executive were run past America for approval before even the cabinet were aware of them.
Prolerat on Fri,
2014-08-29 20:25
Oh well prophecy is your gift not mine.I will advocate
using whatever means are to hand.Peacefully if we can
first, then violently if we must.I certainly won't be
looking to leaderist types rushing to barricades
prematurely.
Without a majority of politically conscious workers you will have a jacobinistic/leninistic vanguardist bloodbath. With a majority of politically conscious workers electing recallable delegates with no mandate save revolution we will remove the red herring you posit re.labour party administration.
_________________________
Without a majority of politically conscious workers you will have a jacobinistic/leninistic vanguardist bloodbath. With a majority of politically conscious workers electing recallable delegates with no mandate save revolution we will remove the red herring you posit re.labour party administration.
_________________________
Submitted by Gepetto on Fri, 2014-08-29
21:07
"Oh well prophecy is your gift not mine."It's not prophecy, it's just common sense and learning lessons from history. But the SPGB seem to think that nothing has happened since 1904.
--------------------------
Prolerat on Sat,
2014-08-30 00:57
The SPGB don't have any leaders.You have taken it much
too personally. As for 110 year old body, well socialism
is an idea much older than that .
The SPGB has made a number of contributions to Marxist theory one of which is recognition of leadership as a capitalist political principle, a feature of the revolutions that brought them to power, and utterly alien to the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution necessarily involves the active and conscious participation of the great majority of workers, thus excluding the role of leadership.
The SPGB has made a number of contributions to Marxist theory one of which is recognition of leadership as a capitalist political principle, a feature of the revolutions that brought them to power, and utterly alien to the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution necessarily involves the active and conscious participation of the great majority of workers, thus excluding the role of leadership.
Prolerat on Sat,
2014-08-30 01:01
Some more of those: 8 Contributions to Marxian Theory
The Socialist Party has also made its own contributions to socialist theory, in the light of further developments, going beyond some of the theories of socialist pioneers like Marx and Engels. We set out below a number of these contributions:1. Solving the Reform or Revolution dilemma, by declaring that a socialist party should not advocate reforms of capitalism, and by recognising that political democracy can be used for revolutionary ends.
2. Realisation of the world-wide (rather than international) character of Socialism. Socialism can only be a united world community without frontiers, and not the federation of countries suggested by the word "inter-national."
3. Recognition that there is no need for a "transition period" between capitalism and Socialism. The enormous increases in social productivity since the days of Marx and Engels have made superfluous a period, such as they envisaged, in which the productive forces would be developed under a State control, and in which consumption would have to be rationed. Socialism can be established as soon as a majority of workers want it, with free access.
4. Rejection of any further progressive role for nationalism after capitalism became the dominant world system towards the end of the 19th century. Industrialisation under national State capitalism is neither necessary nor economically progressive.
5. For the same reason, rejection of the idea of "progressive wars". Socialists oppose all wars, refusing to take sides.
6. Exposures of leadership as a capitalist political principle, a feature of the revolutions that brought them to power, and utterly alien to the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution necessarily involves the active and conscious participation of the great majority of workers, thus excluding the role of leadership.
7. Advocating and practising that a socialist party should be organised as an open democratic party, with no leaders and no secret meetings, thus foreshadowing the society it seeks to establish.
8. Recognition that capitalism will not collapse of its own accord, but will continue from crisis to crisis until the working class consciously organise to abolish it.
Prolerat on Sat,
2014-08-30 01:57
The majority of the working class is the majority of
society.There are only two classes.There is no middle
class, however some perceive themselves.You assume too
much. I have been a part of working class struggles all
my life in factories and weaving sheds and elsewhere.So
why, when there is a majority for revolution, should we
advocate getting their heads shot off ?Such is infantile
leftist posturing.
____________________________
____________________________
Prolerat on Sun,
2014-08-31 00:40
"The SPGB has the correct analysis of what a socialist
society involves and
would be more credible if it did not indulge in dishonest debating tricks
with those whom it disagrees. You have given us three examples of SPGB
debating style just in these posts on our site.
------------------------
would be more credible if it did not indulge in dishonest debating tricks
with those whom it disagrees. You have given us three examples of SPGB
debating style just in these posts on our site.
- Outright lies about an opponents position (some of you have Master degrees
------------------------
Prolerat:
The posture of disavowing using the democratic process
which workers have won the right to, flawed as it is, to
propel socialists into the world's debating chambers,as
recallable delegates for the purpose of propagating the
revolution ,which is taking place outside of them and to
ah confound any knavish tricks.
Cleishbotham:"What evidence do you have that we have any truck with the notion of "jacobinism" or any other idea that the party takes power. Our tendency split with Bordigism in the early 1950s precisely on rejecting that notion. As it stated in the 1952 Platfrorm "The proletariat does not delegate to anyone not even its class party the task of building socialism".
Prolerat:
I had a look it could be read that way. I'm not making such
a charge of you. However disavowing the use of available working
class democratic structures will open up the real
probability of others being erected which are precisely
jacobinistic.
You have also split the proletariat into two classes.The better educated, higher salaried, ones, you designate as middle class.
You have also split the proletariat into two classes.The better educated, higher salaried, ones, you designate as middle class.
______________________________________________
Cleishbotham
- Deliberately misreading the subject of a sentence. We refer to the SPGB as
socialism which was not our point.
- Completely distorting an argument already made. When we said to you that
not the majority of society we are not disputing that the working class are
the majority of society but in the electoral system they are not. The
abstention rate is not made up of the educated middle class."
Prolerat:
Well .There it is .No distortion on my part.Clarification.The
'educated', 'middle class' as you call them, are
working class.There is no middle class.So the working
class 'are' the majority in the electoral
system.They run capitalism at the top and the bottom.If
they 'have to' work for a wage or salary,even to
send young Biggins to private school,they are working
class.
Cleishbotham:"And this brings us to you rejection of capitalist principles. The one you don't reject is voting. You don't seem to grasp Shug's point that this is the main way to reduce workers to passivity in the face of the system. Going along with it only reinforces capitalist domination over every individual worker and
reinforces the notion that rinning things can be left to our "betters" in the
ruling class. Socialism is not just about a fairer society. It is a society
of active participants unlike any other previously in history. Its either
that or its is not socialism. And we don't get there by encouraging
passivity."
Prolerat :
Cleishbotham:"And this brings us to you rejection of capitalist principles. The one you don't reject is voting. You don't seem to grasp Shug's point that this is the main way to reduce workers to passivity in the face of the system. Going along with it only reinforces capitalist domination over every individual worker and
reinforces the notion that rinning things can be left to our "betters" in the
ruling class. Socialism is not just about a fairer society. It is a society
of active participants unlike any other previously in history. Its either
that or its is not socialism. And we don't get there by encouraging
passivity."
Prolerat :
Marx must have been in the same frame of mind as ourselves then. We
insist that workers DONT vote for us if they want reforms,
but only to indicate support for revolution.We stand
purely on a revolutionary platform hence the miniscule
vote.The vote is for 'themselves' to run socialism.That is
far from passivity.
I am sure you will be familiar with Rubel:
Rubel also frequently quotes, with approval, from Engels' Preface to the 1890 German edition of the Communist Manifesto:
“For the ultimate triumph of the ideas set forth in the Manifesto Marx relied solely and exclusively on the intellectual development of the working class, as it necessarily had to ensue from united action and discussion.”
Rubel even concedes (we say "concedes" since, as we shall see, he does not entirely agree with Marx here) that Marx held that the working class should take political action to end politics and the state and that one of the forms this could take was democratic electoral action:
“The economic and social barbarism brought about by the capitalist mode of production cannot be abolished by a political revolution prepared, organized and led by an elite of professional revolutionaries claiming to act and think in the name and for the benefit of the exploited and alienated majority. The proletariat, formed into a class and a party under the conditions of bourgeois democracy, liberates itself in the struggle to conquer this democracy; it turns universal suffrage, which had previously been ‘an instrument of dupery’, into a means of emancipation” (Marx critique du marxisme, p. 56).
Cleishbotham: And of course there is always the accusation of your opponent taking something "personally" when in fact that its precisely your own attitude (its
you who indulged in the biographical details to prove your superior working
class credentials).
Prolerat:
I am sure you will be familiar with Rubel:
Rubel also frequently quotes, with approval, from Engels' Preface to the 1890 German edition of the Communist Manifesto:
“For the ultimate triumph of the ideas set forth in the Manifesto Marx relied solely and exclusively on the intellectual development of the working class, as it necessarily had to ensue from united action and discussion.”
Rubel even concedes (we say "concedes" since, as we shall see, he does not entirely agree with Marx here) that Marx held that the working class should take political action to end politics and the state and that one of the forms this could take was democratic electoral action:
“The economic and social barbarism brought about by the capitalist mode of production cannot be abolished by a political revolution prepared, organized and led by an elite of professional revolutionaries claiming to act and think in the name and for the benefit of the exploited and alienated majority. The proletariat, formed into a class and a party under the conditions of bourgeois democracy, liberates itself in the struggle to conquer this democracy; it turns universal suffrage, which had previously been ‘an instrument of dupery’, into a means of emancipation” (Marx critique du marxisme, p. 56).
Cleishbotham: And of course there is always the accusation of your opponent taking something "personally" when in fact that its precisely your own attitude (its
you who indulged in the biographical details to prove your superior working
class credentials).
Prolerat:
Far from it, we have been actively engaged in the class
struggle all our lives.It was the slur that we would be
trying to prevent, or impede the revolution, I was
responding to.We would be as actively engaged as much in
the day to day struggle as any others.It is a caricature
of the SPGB position that we would be discouraging of any
such events. They would have been reflected already in the
political process.
Cleishbotham:"There is nothing in the least personal in our political differences and we have many comradely discussions with individual SPGB
members wherever we meet (some even subscribe to our press)."
Prolerat:
Cleishbotham:"There is nothing in the least personal in our political differences and we have many comradely discussions with individual SPGB
members wherever we meet (some even subscribe to our press)."
Prolerat:
Moronic isn't a personal attack? Then a pretended apology
'since cretins' die early.Kindova bushwhacked here.
Cleishbotham:I won't reply to your comment on not needing a period of transition between capitalism and socialism as we are discussing that ourselves but there is an article on it criticisng the SPGB position (among others) in Revolutionary Perspectives 04 which has just come out.
Prolerat:
Below is important as to my responseI came onto the site because I broadly liked your post re the Referendum. We quoted it on one of our blogs along with an AF article (broadly a similar stance to yours) .
socialist-courier.blogspot.co.ukI posted the same post that I posted here on the Anarchist Fed site, and it elicited no vitriolic comment on it whatsoever.
scotlandaf.wordpress.com
Cleishbotham:I won't reply to your comment on not needing a period of transition between capitalism and socialism as we are discussing that ourselves but there is an article on it criticisng the SPGB position (among others) in Revolutionary Perspectives 04 which has just come out.
Prolerat:
Well, the work has been done,the transitional period is
'inside' capitalism on the way to socialism,we should see
different forms and structures beginning to
emerge,exciting times such as we have never seen and the
vote might/will seal the deal with a minimum of bloodshed.
We really have to capture the machinery of government
to stand down the armed forces from an attack on the
revolution and to use, if there is any resistance to the
will of the people.
Discount this at your peril.We can agree to disagree no problems.
Discount this at your peril.We can agree to disagree no problems.
Submitted by Cleishbotham (editor) on
Sun, 2014-08-31 20:59
You cannot "vote for revolution". Class conscious
majority's do not express themselves by voting in
bourgeois parliaments but in action. We have also never
said that you will be an obstruction to revolution. You
will be irrelevant. The fact that you once again refer
to the fact that in thahe past the workers struggled for
the vote demonstrates your fundamental inability to move
with history as the young comrade Gepetto says. We do
not agree to disagree. We continue to argue against this
oxymoron that revolution can come only through the
passive act of voting.
Prolerat
on Mon,
2014-09-01 00:08
You continue to misrepresent my position (below)*.
Cleishbotham:"You cannot "vote for revolution". Class conscious majority's do not express themselves by voting in bourgeois parliaments but in action.
Cleishbotham: They are not being asked to vote in a bourgeois parliament. We have also never said that you will be an obstruction to revolution. You will be irrelevant.
Prolerat:
Cleishbotham:"You cannot "vote for revolution". Class conscious majority's do not express themselves by voting in bourgeois parliaments but in action.
Cleishbotham: They are not being asked to vote in a bourgeois parliament. We have also never said that you will be an obstruction to revolution. You will be irrelevant.
Prolerat:
Let us hope not so.I think we will find socialists of my
kind fully engaged with what works best in the then
revolutionary situation, even if it means disbanding our
organisation and joining others.
Cleishbotham:The fact that you once again refer to the fact that in the past the workers struggled for the vote demonstrates your fundamental inability to
move with history as the young comrade Gepetto says. We do not agree to
disagree. We continue to argue against this oxymoron that revolution can come *only through the passive act of voting. "
Prolerat:
Cleishbotham:The fact that you once again refer to the fact that in the past the workers struggled for the vote demonstrates your fundamental inability to
move with history as the young comrade Gepetto says. We do not agree to
disagree. We continue to argue against this oxymoron that revolution can come *only through the passive act of voting. "
Prolerat:
I have never argued this...'only'.
Of course, establishing socialism is not just a
question of voting for a socialist candidate and waiting
for a majority of socialist MPs to vote it in (much as
people do today who vote for a party which promises some
reform of capitalism).
People have to have organised themselves outside parliament into a mass democratic socialist party, into trade unions and other workplace organisations, into neighbourhood councils and the like.
The socialist MPs would be merely the delegates – the messenger boys and girls – of the organised socialist majority outside parliament.
So, we have in mind a democratic, majority political revolution which begins with the winning of political power via the ballot box by a socialist-minded majority. The majority then uses this control of political power to dispossess the capitalist class, declaring all property titles, all stocks and shares, all bills and bonds, all limited liability companies and corporations null and void.
This means that the means of production become the common heritage of all.
The socialist majority can also co-ordinate the physical take-over of the means of production by people outside parliament, organised and ready to do this and keep production going.
It is you who has to tell me, how else the armed forces and the minute man missiles can be prevented from firing on the people?
People have to have organised themselves outside parliament into a mass democratic socialist party, into trade unions and other workplace organisations, into neighbourhood councils and the like.
The socialist MPs would be merely the delegates – the messenger boys and girls – of the organised socialist majority outside parliament.
So, we have in mind a democratic, majority political revolution which begins with the winning of political power via the ballot box by a socialist-minded majority. The majority then uses this control of political power to dispossess the capitalist class, declaring all property titles, all stocks and shares, all bills and bonds, all limited liability companies and corporations null and void.
This means that the means of production become the common heritage of all.
The socialist majority can also co-ordinate the physical take-over of the means of production by people outside parliament, organised and ready to do this and keep production going.
It is you who has to tell me, how else the armed forces and the minute man missiles can be prevented from firing on the people?
Submitted by
Gepetto on Sun,
2014-08-31 18:09
Marx put too much faith in democracy? Well, that's his
problem and I'll cut him some slack on that- but not
people who mindlessly repeat what has been proven
wrong by later historical experience.
No it wasn't his problem, but his insightful reading of
events which were undreamed of in his early days.The
extension of the franchise could be capitalism's Achilles
heel.His thoughts were on the bloodbath of the
suppression of the Paris Commune.
Submitted by Gepetto on Mon, 2014-09-01
00:18
And bourgeoisie will just sit and watch and the SPGB
will ride the unicorn on the rainbow into socialism
without spilling a drop of blood? Sorry only a kid could
think this is a clever idea.
In real world capitalism would just pull a Pinochet out of its sleeve to disband the parliament and jail or execute troublesome MPs.
In real world capitalism would just pull a Pinochet out of its sleeve to disband the parliament and jail or execute troublesome MPs.
Prolerat on Mon,
2014-09-01 00:43
This is a parody on a revolutionary situation.What is it
you don't get? The revolution will already be on the
streets in the factories in the unions in the councils.
Workers will be revolutionary in the army, in government agencies, on TV ,the media.There is a vast difference to a real revolutionary situation and dissent.
Capturing the various houses of representation, will prevent the Pinochets of the world. That wasn't a revolutionary situation.When there is a real majority of workers as opposed to a tiny percentage is a different scenario to the one which saw Pinochet come to power.
In any case government has to be transformed from an administration over people, into a facilitative administration of 'things'.
Workers will be revolutionary in the army, in government agencies, on TV ,the media.There is a vast difference to a real revolutionary situation and dissent.
Capturing the various houses of representation, will prevent the Pinochets of the world. That wasn't a revolutionary situation.When there is a real majority of workers as opposed to a tiny percentage is a different scenario to the one which saw Pinochet come to power.
In any case government has to be transformed from an administration over people, into a facilitative administration of 'things'.
Submitted by Gepetto on Mon, 2014-09-01
01:03
"The revolution will already be on the streets in the factories in the unions in the councils."On the streets you say? So not as peacefully as you claimed.
Prolerat on Mon,
2014-09-01 01:10
I would not claim to tell the future ,but I would expect
it to be extremely disciplined and peaceful.
Submitted by Gepetto on Mon, 2014-09-01 00:38
BTW hate to break it to you, but as long as the bourgeoisie holds power,
you can't have "socialist minded majority". "Ideas of the ruling epoch
are the ideas of the ruling class", etc., etc. Bourgeoisie controls the
largest TV stations, newspapers, publishing houses etc. to influence the
views of the masses and have at their disposal state education to
condition people into being good obedient workers and citizens. And
police to beat anybody who doesn't conform.
And before you accuse me of "Bolshevik jacobinism", "elitism" or anything- fortunately the working class doesn't need to be influenced by proper political views to establish its own dictatorship, as it was the Paris Commune in which there were hardly any communists, with Blanquists and Proudhonists being in majority.
And before you accuse me of "Bolshevik jacobinism", "elitism" or anything- fortunately the working class doesn't need to be influenced by proper political views to establish its own dictatorship, as it was the Paris Commune in which there were hardly any communists, with Blanquists and Proudhonists being in majority.
Prolerat on Mon, 2014-09-01 01:22
Yes, the 'dominant' ideas are, as you say. Why is this?
Capitalism seeks and has to manufacture assent. But our
perceptions are tempered by real life. Our assent is
also conditional.We are not brain washed zombies.It
doesn't matter if they call it 'macaroni' rather than
socialism.There are already ideas floating about about
free access.
The Zeitgeist movement is one example.This seems a pretty technocratic outfit to me ,but the point is ,the variance from the dominant paradigm.
The majority must perceive they have a common interest in getting rid of wage slavery.
The Zeitgeist movement is one example.This seems a pretty technocratic outfit to me ,but the point is ,the variance from the dominant paradigm.
The majority must perceive they have a common interest in getting rid of wage slavery.
Submitted by Gepetto on Mon, 2014-09-01
00:59
Prolerat on Mon,
2014-09-01 01:29
It was a bourgeois revolution.Without a large enough capitalist class.Hence the establishment of state capitalism.
Let's take a look at the revolutionary situation
that was once in Russia. What does the SPGB do when
faced with it? Mourns its precious little
Constituent Assembly so much as to embarass even the
most fervent Kadet.
-
Prolerat on Mon, 2014-09-01 01:04
The Russian revolution was overthrowing feudalism not capitalism.Submitted by Gepetto on Mon, 2014-09-01 01:08Capitalism in cities and feudalism in countryside.
It was a bourgeois revolution.Without a large enough capitalist class.Hence the establishment of state capitalism.
Submitted by Gepetto on Mon, 2014-09-01
11:43
Splendid! So do you hold infamous Menshevik position
about Russia "not being ready to socialism" and needing
bourgeois revolution first? There are no national roads
to socialism.
Prolerat on Mon,
2014-09-01 15:02
The Russian Revolution Socialist Standard April 1917
The outstanding feature of the past month in the domain of public affairs is undoubtedly the “Russian Revolution”. That this is an event of some importance in the development of human society cannot be denied, but its importance is far less than, and lies mainly in an altogether different direction from that which the capitalist Press of the whole capitalist world would have us believe.
Far from it heralding the dawn of freedom in Russia, it is simply the completion of the emancipation of the capitalist class in Russia which started in the “emancipation” of the serfs some seventy years ago – in order that they might become factory slaves. The revolution’s greatest importance from the working-class view-point is that it brings the workers face to face with their final exploiters.
You will find much of interest in these archives.
The outstanding feature of the past month in the domain of public affairs is undoubtedly the “Russian Revolution”. That this is an event of some importance in the development of human society cannot be denied, but its importance is far less than, and lies mainly in an altogether different direction from that which the capitalist Press of the whole capitalist world would have us believe.
Far from it heralding the dawn of freedom in Russia, it is simply the completion of the emancipation of the capitalist class in Russia which started in the “emancipation” of the serfs some seventy years ago – in order that they might become factory slaves. The revolution’s greatest importance from the working-class view-point is that it brings the workers face to face with their final exploiters.
You will find much of interest in these archives.
I don't want to abuse ICL's hospitality by sticking up articles or extracts.Socialist Standard Archives
_______________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment