I doubt that I can do much better than Chuck's post here did, but I suppose I should answer a few of your wild points...: OK we have the scholar himself rubbishing references...
And I rubbished Ayn Rand's books as well. Just because it's in print doesn't make it true. Crick et. al crank out LOADS of erroneous stuff that only someone NOT FAMILIAR with the PRIMARY MATERIAL would believe.
: That's rich coming from a bourgousie intellectual who sees himself as the next great self important leader...
EXCUSE ME?
: What I WAS ADVOCATING: As any good account indicates, or simply a look at the world without illusion, the workingclass while being the most oppressed and frequent victim of class struggle are not the most responsive or retalitory and therefore it is stupid, profoundly stupid, to assign to them a role that they are incapable of fulfilling.
You're making MY point for me.
The working class DOES need the leadership of a REVOLUTIONARY PARTY in oder to free itself of enculturation.
: what I WAS ADVOCATING: The revolution begins with the individual and progresses from them to the family, community, society and then state.
Wait!
Not so fast!
How about ' The revolution begins with the individual and progresses from them to the family, community'... PARTY, then society and then state?
: : Or shall we just fall back on 'freedom and democracy' for everybody (just like George W. Bush does)?
: Your are underestimating how important these are, why dont you go live in Cuba? Or better yet Red China?
How Cold War of you...
