> William S. Lear wrote:
>
> > A great deal of what Marx himself wrote about was quite accurate.
> > His "Precapitalist Economic Formations" of the Grundrisse tells a
> > vivid story of a past that is no fantasy. That is not to say, for
> > example, that a good deal of the Communist Manifesto is without flaws,
> > but I think it a bit unfair to say the hallmark of Marxism is that it
> > tells us of "a past that didn't happen".
>
> I was speaking about the Church of Latter Day Marxists. Although probably a
> hard, cruel man, Marx understood some thing you and I don't. I tend to accept
> his moral indictment of the capitalist exploitation of people, as well as the
> inherent crisis mode of capitalism. What I think the ghost of Marx is laughing
> at is the kinds of spinning angels on needles that some marxists are prone to
> with regard to THE GLORIOUS past of the Russian Revolution. Maybe this is my
> own form of chauvinism, but until we actually have a revolution in America, I
> do not understand what this has to do with the price of rice in China. As Noam
> Chomsky once told me when I asked why he didn't direct his criticism at the
> Soviet Union, i.e., we have our own problems, I guess I finally take his
> point. "The revolution is going to be local. It has to be local to work. It
> will be like a seed in the heart of the earth. The seed does not grow from the
> outside in; it grows from the inside out." (_The Sayings of Bautiste_, 1:45)
>
> > Capitalism is a system based upon the exploitation of labor. Without
> > the exploitation of labor, the system literally would not, could not,
> > exist. Workers should recognize this by merely uttering the words "I
> > am a worker".
>
> I do not understand how incanting a simple charm will produce a revolution.
> The revolution must begin with a consciousness I guess you are saying. But
> this takes work, lots of internal work. I do not see this in today's workers.
> Football, porno flicks, RVs, and food make up their daily consciousness. Or do
> I oversimplify? And why shouldn't they? In comparison to other really
> _exploited_ peoples they have it good. You can only move a stone as far as it
> density allows. The greater the consumer density, the less easy it is to move
> the stone to consciousness.
>
> > To get a concrete grasp of this, you must understand not only what
> > exploitation means (all other things equal, a person is exploited if
> > they must labor more than the average amount people work in the
> > economy) but also the relationship between inegalitarian distribution
> > of resources ("capital") and the potential for exploitation.
>
> Isn't this a "no-brainer"? Shouldn't I know when I am being exploited? Or does
> the Marxist, scientific explanation detail the "real" occurrences. Now, i am
> not going to contradict you here. I think the Marxist analysis of exploitation
> is correct, although it has to be put into terms such as Doug Henwood has
> done. This is the challenge--how do I create a story or rhetoric that
> resonates with workers and gets them to understand the ramifications of what
> you are saying? Ultimately, isn't it a mater of morality--what should and
> should not occur between people in terms of dignity and understanding? What
> constitutes the content of a right and just society?chuck miller
>
> --
> http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm
-- http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm