> > Left goals are achieved only by mobilizing a minority to create
> > enough public excitement to give the impression of a majority in
> > action.
>
>I suspect right-wingers could have a field day with that sentence
>quoted out of context. Even in context and from a left viewpoint,
>it seems dubious.
American Revolution was only supported by 1/3 of population. 1/3 didn't give a shit either way. 1/3 opposed.
Marx's point about the history of class warfare is that it has _always_ been fought by a minority who've done above. history is the history of class warfare -- congealed in that phrase is the above argument: it's only every been a propertied minority that overturned the class society that had once benefitted another propertied minority.
He tried to argue that the class warfare initiated by capitalism would be of a different kind: instead of a minority overturning the old order, it would be a majority. as such, instead of reinstantiating yet another form of class society, put in place to benefit the new properties minority and fuck over the rest, capitalism would create a massive working class, the majority would be working class, and would also be a +propertyless* working class. ('nothing to lose but their chains')
Marx thought that when a majority has "nothing to lose but their chains" they would try to create a society for _all_, not just for a minority.
this is why there are all these lovely debates on this list as to who thinks of themselves as working class and who doesn't, and whether we should use terms like middle class or not.