>>I don't have the patience right now to look up the exact history of the
>term
>>*idiot*, but I know it in general. In Greek *idiotes* (sp?) meant
>something
>>like a private person, a person who did not take part in the collective
>>(political) life of the *polis* and was therefore (as we can see from
>>Arisotle's use of *political* [I forget the Greek]) "not all there, not
>>fully human, incomplete."
Also, I think Jim and Hobsbawm are right below. Marx was talking about the _sociological_ idiocy of rural life, where the peasant families tended to very isolated from each other, encouraging a very individualistic outlook. (Sounds like L.A.!) Marx thought that people in the city, especially workers in factories, were more able to unite in a sustained way, a necessary condition for their liberation. Peasant rebellions, on the other hand, tend to be temporary, followed by a return to individualism. People like Barrington Moore picked up on this, arguing that peasant revolutions are likely to establish some other group (likely an urban one) as the new ruling class. (See his SOCIAL ORIGINS OF DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY.)
>My yuppie Verso edition of the Communist Manifesto has an introduction
>by Eric Hobspawn that talks about Marx's use of the phrase "the idiocy
>of rural life". He says the sense Marx meant was the isolation, both
>cultural and political, the peasantry had from the larger society.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html