<html> <body> At 12:59 PM 10/21/2004, Michael Dawson wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote> right. Which is why I can't stand these claims about the "Revolutionary Third" --which Carrol and Yoshie claim is all we need to move ahead. The reason why working class struggle was so important was because it would be different from all previously waged class struggles. It would be waged from below by the majority. A minority would only inscribe it's own narrow interests, whatever made it a powerful minority to begin with. Though I've forgotten the theorists, this is one of the reasons subsequent socialist revolutions failed. They came to power and then proceeded to reinforce and bolster in the power relations that would maintain their own narrowly defined interests. blah blah. excuse this quickie. I'm probably too distracted to be typing keyboards at everyone. <snip for brevity> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">  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).  </blockquote> ooooo. you is going to piss off Carrol! Kelley "George Bush -- where complete sentences go to die."                        -- Peter Schledorn </body> </html>