Yoshie wrote:
> There exists an image of ideal-typical class
struggle
> in the imagination of many a leftist:the working
> class, united across borders, fight against the
> capital-states. That has never happened,and that
> never will.
Well, as I've stated before, I have a problem with communists relating uncritically and positively to the category of the "working class" to begin with. A revolutionary reconstruction of society would involve the abolition of the working class, not its emancipation.
That would also entail abolition of the value-form of human labor, and the state. That is valid for people in Iran as it is across the globe.
> Why is it that revolutionary leaders tend to come
> from the middling sort?
Because Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho, Fidel, Che, et al, were completing the tasks of bourgeois modernization, constructing independent nation-states and universalizing the value-form of human labor. The classical task of all bourgeois revolutionaries. Please note that I do not intend this as an anarchist denunciation; these were all tremendous revolutionary figures, and I do not doubt their subjective desire for human emancipation, but they all remained well within the categories of bourgeois society, not transcending them.
That is the common framework of both tiers-mondisme and Amnesty Internationalism.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com