Send an Instant Message to AK Using...
leftist unity is for weiners
High School Anarcho-Communist
eat social democrats
"Reform or revolution?" is one of the biggest and most controversial questions asked when it comes to creating a socialist society. One question that is rarely asked is that of the class rule that should come place after the revolution. Whilst all socialists agree it must be democratic, there are other questions that need to be asked - but rarely are. Questions such as "Will this democracy be representative or direct?" The answer lies in how minority classes come to rule society.
[B][I]Bourgeoise [/I]- as well as other similar misspellings - are not words. It pisses me off when people misspell or incorrectly use these leftist terms. Learn how to correctly spell and use them. I can't stress this enough.[/B]
[B]Bourgeoisie (Noun): [/B]The upper ruling capitalist class of private property owners which do not work on the means of production that they own; instead, hiring workers to carry out the labour.
[B]Bourgeois (Adjective): [/B]Of or relating to the
All classes, past and present, have been and are defined by their relation to productive property. Under capitalism this can be shown by observing an individual's relation to the means of production (also known as private property; as opposed to personal property which includes tangible items as well as houses, cars, trucks and boats): the working class of Proletarians which own no means of production of their own have to sell their labour to the Bourgeoisie (or sometimes the Petit-Bourgeoisie)
[COLOR=Black][B]UPDATE: This entry has been superseded by [URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=891"][I]The Myth of the Middle Class: Blurring Class Lines and Dividing Labour[/I][/URL][/B]
All historical and current social classes are defined by property ownership or their relation to production. So where does this ambiguous "middle class" fit in with respect to property ownership or a relation to production? Nowhere, it is merely an attempt to disprove Marxist
[B][I]ALL [/I]war is for the purposes of economic dominance.
[/B]Even a Communist revolution (if violent - which will inevitably always be as the state has become too powerful) is for the purposes of economic dominance as it entails the working class of Proletarians taking over the economy and placing the means of production and distribution under democratic control - not the control of a privileged few.
Just as in any other war, the spoils will go to the victor in Iraq.