>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 03/19/99 09:23PM >>>
>CB: Doesn't seem unclear to me. Why do you say it is unclear that
Marx and his followers projected and project not only that capitalism
is the precursor to socialism, but that a developed proletariat is
necessary to be the agent that makes the change ?
>
because what a *developed proletariat* is, is unlcear. does this mean 'socially decisive'? does it mean a proletariat of a certain character? where the prole are the majority? something else?
((((((((((((((((((
CB: This was what I addressed earlier with respect to proletariats, especially in the "advanced" bourgeois countries, having lone history and experience of the objective factors - a proletariat that has been in industrial and mass production for decades. One that has been through all the wars, poverty, alienation, tricks , lies, takeback of reforms of the bourgeoisie, phony bourgeois democracy. To the extent that the objective factors prepare the proletariat to become fed up with capitalism, there are many proletariats that are fully prepared. Maybe you call this the negative dialectic. I don't know.
Of course, it also means sufficient numbers, a majority even with the definition of proletariat as all wage laborers. Yes, they are POTENTIALLY socially decisive. They are our only hope.
Charles Brown