Justin Schwartz wrote:
> The criticism of Braven quoted here is pretty common, but strikes me as
> wrong and unfair. As far as I can see, the reasoning goes: first, Braverman
> believed in classical socialist revolution, and he believed this was
> necesasry to free workwers from the degradation of work that he describes,
> therefore, he must have rejected all lesser reform struggles;
Of all the misunderstandings of marxism (one is tempted to call them deliberate slanders, since their untruth is so easily verifiable), this is one that has always pissed me off the most. This liberal professor of Spanish at ISU used to come into my office wanting an argument about this or that, and we would chat merrily for awhile. Then he would propound some version of this idiocy (revolutionaries must not be interested in reforms) and the conversation would end with "Get the fuck out of my office, Gordon."
Who wrote the stupid post you are responding to? I just emptied my trash folder so I have no way of checking on the source.
Carrol