: You are adamant about denying the existence of the Industrial Revolutioneh?
: (and the corresponding capitalist mode of production) which has bonded the labor of all people together.
Except it hasnt really. You might as well say that eating has bonded all people together, its about that meanignful.
: Under capitalism individuals cannot 'revoke th[is] relationship' nor can they 'place for themselves provisions or standards upon the terms of th[is] relationship.'
Hence the second part of my post - I knew you would need to fall back on a class interpretation.
: All they can do is accrue money to change their status within the relationship.
I thought Stuart Gort had entirly changed his 'relationship'?
: Easy enough? They must submit to the interlocking labor market in order to accrue money. Thus the 'freedom' of the worker is contingent upon the terms set by the unified capitalists.
Millions dominated by hundreds huh? It doesnt happen without the *willing* complicity of the millions.
: Now consider (very) basic Marxist theory. There are two great classes, the capitalist and the proletarian. They have different interests.
(tolerated the dichotomy for awhile) They are also highly fluid, damn if those sons of guns in America, the 70+% of millionaire business owners who started out 'in the labor market' like most Americans do. Damn them for not being a stable pool of hereditary land owners who we could more comfortable blame.
: They have irreconcilable antagonisms. Only one can rule. Presently the capitalists rule. Communism proposes to change that. I never said that the capitalist class---after the proletarian revolution---gets to retain the rights they presently enjoy. Or even gets to simply walk away with all their land and loot and commence the counterrevolution. Oh no, I did not say that.
I assume by this you do mean hereditary land owning privilaged people, or will the terror be visited upon Gort, your local grocer, the one who started what became New&productive Inc, and the retired couple next door whose stock portfolio supplies a comfortable existance?
Not that the above should worry. There is no 'mass consiousness' ammong the 'proletariat'. Its a fallacy.
: Communists are not interested in the happiness of the capitalists. Not before the revolution and certainly not after it. Once classes have been resolved into one single class---the worker (i.e. work expected of everyone), then things will be happier. Especially if everyone contributes equally in the administrating of the society in order to prevent a new ruling class from emerging. This last point, I believe, is the key to a viable socialism.
Absolutely, it also explains why it has *never* occured at any scale approaching more than a village, and why the new ruling 'class' tends to be those who speak loudest about equality and suggest they might 'lead' us there.
: The idea that each person can pick and choice individually which economic system to live under, as you often do, however, without acknowledging that society itself imposes limits upon each individual, is simply childish prevarication. There will always be limits. Communism proposes to make them equitable. That alone would be a very dramatic advance in the history of humanity!
In communism one is tied to all other peoples whims, there is no arbiter in objective law, walking on eggshells forever having to check every action with ones 'brothers' or be checked by them.
