> Marx never held that there was one correct way to end capitalism, beyond
> saying that it had to be the work of the working classes themselves. He
> expected that a serious attempt to abolish capitalist relations of
> production would encounter violent resistance that would have to be
defeated
> by force. But he wasn't dogmatic about that either. Where the state was
weak
> and democratic culture far advanced, he entertained the idea that there
> might be a peaceful transition. He supposed that Holland and (as he say
it)
> mid-19th century America might satisfy those preconditions. In the
> Manifesto, an early work, he sets forth a 10 point program that involves
not
> a general strike but a struggle for democracy taht would inmvolve winning
> and extending state power. But there he says taht specific methods and
goals
> will vary with the circumstances. I suspect he would have thought naive
and
> rigid that the idea that capitalism could be abolished by a single
> one-size-fits-all strategy. AT the same time, he was in favor of political
> strikes. --jks
Okay, but what did he say about using a General Strike to destroy capitalism? Did he think it could work under the right conditions? Did he think it was one of the many ways that could end capitalism or was it doomed to failure under all realistic circumstances?
Joe R. Golowka JoeG at ieee.org Anarchist FAQ - http://www.anarchistfaq.org
"The end is in the means as the tree is in the seed." - Mahatma Ghandi