> At 04:51 PM 11/20/2008, Thomas Seay wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 11/20/08, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The idea that universal equality is in some way desirable is
>> > one.
>>
>> Yes, and if there are no ethical precepts even implicit in Marx's message
>> why do intellectuals and people who could be *succesful* in a capitalist
>> system- those that have something to lose- join ranks with the working class
>> under the aegis of Marxism? Is it just an acceptance of the telos?
>>
>
> maybe we are using different definitions of precept. I'm thinking of
> precept: a rule that guides personal conduct.
>
> if that's what you mean, I'd be interested in a couple of examples from
> Marx.
>
> if that's not what you mean, then... what do you mean by "ethical precept".
>
> -s
>
>
>
> "let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of
> debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a
> challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."
> -- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
See: begininng of Communist Manifesto Section II.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement."
Etc. etc...