grok wrote: > > As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> > mounted the barricade and roared out: > > > Hi grok, > > Your Marxist concept of "class" and "class struggle", which as a good > > Marxist you cannot abandon, despite all its historical failures and > > ominous consequences, is mainly what ruins your whole picture. > > That may be the ongoing bourgeois Party Line, komrad -- but it's pure > bunkum. > And we've suffered more than 1 century of disastrous world wars to > prove that > definitively, all by itself. Now we're being set up for the hat-trick. > > Marxist class analysis has in fact stood the test of time most > admirably -- which is > why the bourgeoisie have amassed armies of all sorts to try and > destroy all vestiges > of it, in their classic totalitarian manner. Your approach here is > just the latest of > the usual from a usual angle, from the supporting cast. > > And for the record: this -- and the eventual outcome of it all -- all > has very much > to do with the success of OU, et al., research. > > > > > > > It's also the main culprit of the disastrous historical consequences > of Marxism. > > The construction of an identifiable enemy, an identifiable "other", > that must be > > fight by all means, is in the end the best service you can do to > your potential > > adversaries. Even in strategic terms, as these adversaries are > usually much more > > powerful and organized than you, your discourse amounts to no more > and no less than > > a dreadful strategy in the game that you are trying to play. > > In fact, the working-class is the hugest class now on the planet -- > both in relative > AND absolute terms -- and the bourgeoisie remains a tiny, > highly-organized minority > which constantly moves to keep the masses disoriented and disorganized > (viz. > religion, for instance -- and thru its control of the mass means of > communication, > among other things). However, once the working-class finally reaches > critical > organized mass -- it did not, after 1917, for whatever reasons -- > there will be no > returning to capitalism, brother: which more and more bears more than > passing > resemblance to its feudal antecessor, in its declining and decadent phase.
If a significant part of that "working class" could, they will act and behave similarly to their burgueois "enemies". And you completely fail to see this. You completely fail to see (as Marxism does) , that the problem is not the social class to which you supposedly belong, but your human nature, that trascends it. > > > > > > You are the other, grok. So, you are on the inside, in part at > least, the enemy > > that you're trying to combat so fiercely on the outside. > > > Regards, Mauro > > And this is mystical pseudo-dialectical mumbo jumbo AFAIC, Mauro. It is logical and expected that you, as a Marxist, will say that. But that "mumbo jumbo" is not the one that is fostering conflict and violent confrontation. And Marxism has failed not because of its supposed analytical failures, but in spite of its analytical successes. Most often than not, the ones that critic and despise the current social and economic order, are not up to the task of building a better one. And that is made specially clear when they are given some power. I'm not in favour of the actual social order, at all. But certainly wouldn't be in favour of a communist one. Not one as history as showed. If you foster conflict, you'll harvest tempest. You will. And it will be your responsability, that part of the violence, hate and destruction that your acts will be fostering (but this is just mystical mumbo jumbo, of course.) So, in the end, you're no better than the ones you're trying to condemn. Only less powerful. > Sorry. Nothing to be sorry about. > ;> > > > So... what's up with that Mylow character anyway..?? > I'm SO disappointed... > > > -- grok. > > > > > >
