> I would flatly say (although I know it will cause a rain of protests
> to fall on my head) that the scientific content of Lenin's Marxism was
> next to nil, and yet he managed to lead a revolution. He didn't do it
> by snowing the Russian workers and peasants with his impressive
> scientific understanding of Russian society; he did it by means of his
> eloquence in urging them to keep demanding "land, bread, and peace"
> (as well as with his great talent for organizational manipulation in
> getting the Bolsheviks into power, of course).
If what you want to create is a community composed of individuals who are immune to demagogic forms of persuasion, you can't do it using such forms.yourself. The end dictates the means.
"what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his mind before he constructs it in wax. At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally. Man not only effects a change of form in the materials of nature; he also realizes his own purpose in those materials. And this is a purpose he is conscious of, it determines the mode of his activity with the rigidity of a law, and he must subordinate his will to it." Marx, Capital, vol. 1, pp. 283
Ted