<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> But Marx tapped the working class for two reasons: 1. because its interests are in socialism, and 2. because the working class is the majority, and always will be.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You are right, though, that it was spoiled, impatient, philosophically Idealist 60s radicals who reacted to the survival of capitalism after 1968 by chucking the majority overboard.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> All this was rooted in a one-sided view of class struggle, which Marx himself probably contributed to with his excessive political optimism about the nearness of socialism.  Class struggle, if you read the literature, appears to be something that only comes from below.  But it also comes from above, and the uppers have the upper hand in it!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 60s rebels forgot their was class struggle from above, so ended up blaming their ultimate defeat on the workers.  Talk about “middle-class!”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The classes = 1. those who must work to survive (working class); 2. those who must work to sustain moderate to great personal comfort (middle class); 3. those for whom work is entirely optional and whose survival and extreme personal privilege are unrelated to their own work because of the scale of existing wealth (capitalists).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: lbo-talk-bounces@lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces@lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of snit snat Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:43 AM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</st1:PersonName>; <st1:PersonName w:st="on">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Class Action: The Million Worker March, October 17<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> At 12:30 PM 10/21/2004, Eubulides wrote: <o:p></o:p> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Johanning" <jjohanning@igc.org> In this sort of context, "middle class" is simply a derogatory epithet. No denotative meaning whatsoever. ================= Identity politics.<o:p></o:p> </x-sigsep> <x-sigsep> Well, I would say that Marx's claim about the working class as the locus of revolutionary struggle was, indeed, the reason why id politics emerged. When the working class did not revolt as predicted, theorists set about trying to figure out why and/or looking for the real locus of revolutionary struggle: marginalized intellectuals, the vanguard, the marginalized (marcuse), women, black women, lesbian women, third world people, third world women, etc. etc. Kelley<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>