Philosophy! How many different thoughts and feelings aroused by this
word who would not now considered a philosopher, who does not speak today
conviction of what is and what is the truth?
Everyone wants to have its own particular being, who does not think so original
according to their own feelings arbitrary, that
has no spiritual autonomy is considered a being tasteless, one who has not
thought their own little ideas, well, he's not a genius,
no depth in it, and today no matter where you look, is
full of geniuses everywhere. What these geniuses have invented impostors
what were the fruits of their small deep ideas and visions, which
been proposed, which have achieved something truly meaningful? Bakunin
Introduction
Lucky for movement and a couple of months have created a very interesting debate, even in disagreement that may be, helps give depth to the ideas that have been silenced long lost luster, attractive and real capacity of analysis. Moreover in some latitudes where anarchism has been conspicuous by its conceptual clarity, doctrinal and political.
It has thus come to the fore a debate that is, to say the least, very old and fundamental as it aims to essential not only how to understand certain concepts or tradition, but the nerve axis of the struggle itself, the points cardinal feeding a proper program context and allows progress with some certainty in this long and hard road is the class struggle ....
As last thing, though and pedantry irony is a rhetorical appeal, can not seem to be useful conceptual. Thus, even if it costs, try to ignore those comments, so give way to reflection fraternal and not deathmatch.
read more
About the crash of Manuel de la Tierra.
a) Problems of perspective?
extremely confusing
The trial of Manuel de la Tierra (TM) takes us on a multitude of problems ranging from ontology, historiography, literary style, rhetoric and other edges that only reveal the inability to go directly to the topic , which is why we have doubts whether it's real concerns or the old tactic of speaking much and saying nothing. If we could sum up the theme of the essay in one paragraph, in which MT makes clear his idea, wrong, moreover, classism, I think the longer MT circumlocution forces us to try to clarify a number of legitimate questions , but in his pen are but clear signs of its total confusion. All this makes them see the trial as a great rant out of the head of a newly injured. Apparently, the MT attempt landing was quite forced, and more it seems we have crashed in the attempt. While we made clear his confrontational spirit, it is a pity that their weapons have been shattered trying to make its position clear. The only thing that remains clear is that libertarians need, urgently, to start thinking and deepen our theoretical premises. The absence of critical and serious work is leading us down trails of helplessness and inaction of political blindness or the time to act, which is fatal to the movement.
Despite the obvious questions that requires reading, one thing we can not blame the current text is the lack of honesty: "In many things I think just ignorant." And as we move into the trial, that we have very clear. Obviously, the debate about class struggle, classism, etc. is not MT safe, but at least he admits. Plus.
other hand, ignorance is becoming more apparent as we find sentences like this: "I think the class struggle exists both as scientific truth or god. Ie there while someone considers useful for understanding the world. " Apparently, MT believes that the problem of class struggle, and all the complexity involved, it is merely one of perspective, a particular way of understanding reality and not a concrete historical reality, objective. It would be mere doxa, an opinion that can coexist, for example, the traditional idea of \u200b\u200bconservative historiography that sees history as activity of great men and personalities, forgetting about the masses (classes, we would say) that are the foundation of all historical activity. In the end, none is more valid than the other, total, is a matter of opinion.
Implicitly, it appears that MT carries an epistemological very "politically correct" to be tolerant of anyone who wants to say, but that, ontologically, is a window into the most horrendous positions. In their need to "broaden" the perspective of class, MT says, "arguing that these classes are opposed, it is perfectly possible and useful to capture multiple situations of oppression men over men. But I think that this way of seeing things is incomplete as it misses a number not less chance of hierarchies that are exempt from direct relation with the modes of production. " If you stopped reading MT for a while so critical historiography and stopped at the odd philosopher (as Spinoza, Hegel, Lukacs, Korsch, etc.), Or in some classic socialist thought (Bakunin, Marx, Luxemburg, the old Kropotkine, etc.) you can see that this old debate between fact and interpretation, between purely ontological or epistemological conception, and has cost enough ink and have drawn arguments terribly consistent as to set aside this idea of \u200b\u200b"all perspectives" or "diversity of topics" which lie separated from each other and demand, each one a unique perspective. Not coincidentally, this smells much to the results that overdevelopment has effectively alienated from the social division of labor, where the reality appears to be a set of specializations that are not commonplace, so politics is on one side The economy of another, God of another, the science on the other hand, the moral in another, etc. Althusserianism strange to leave, which apparently bothers MT. While trying to save odious comparisons Althusser, the French had the decency to put a concept pointing to the unity of that which can not avoid presenting as separate and, finally, is the beginning of dissolution of the "system" over-determination. Unfortunately, MT does not introduce any similar concept and reality, under his pen, seems to spread in a (bad) infinite, which has nothing to envy mechanical vacuum illustration and bourgeois myopia can only see separation and quiet in each aspect of life. MT no time for no development, just abstract definitions and disagreements scholars. Thus, as most of the intellectual world of revolutionary intent, has lost something that is indispensable for any process of radical change that aims to overcome capitalism: the perspective of wholeness. It is only by the absence of this central point for MT reality seems to be a set of monologues and manifests completely unintelligible languages \u200b\u200bwith respect to each other. However, we suspect that the problem is not reality, but the ears and ability to understand "reading" of the MT, which say: "mate, if you live misunderstood the reality, because it speaks in a language incomprehensible to you does not mean that reality fails to understand one herself, does not project! ". It is perhaps this deficit of MT which speaks and says: "All [the potential prospects] are useful for used in certain instances, but not for everyone. " Not having accurate records, we believe we can conclude the following: "Every revolutionary politics is helpful in certain cases, but not for everyone." It is clearly the partner has dissociated theoretical problems of political reality and fails to see the connection or, put another way, can not get the real consequences of their assumptions, so that we can not but reaffirm his schizophrenia. But calm fellow in politics nothing is incurable. Now with all this, we understand that the partner is declared ignorant on certain issues.
Therefore, while we try to answer to the ignorance of MT, try to give a much more extensive and complex the issue of class struggle and, above all, the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Surely we will be asked as succinct a definition as the idea may have MT classism, but as you go reading this text, you will realize that we can give a simple definition, but rather to build a concept.
b) The historical significance of the proletariat.
If I have understood MT, and being consistent with his perspectivism, the idea of \u200b\u200b"fetishism" refers to a certain object, in this case the working class-is not arrogate properties are peculiar, but would dadas por quienes las presuponen. Si eso es correcto, en este caso particular, “la ‘clase trabajadora’ ha sido marcada por los dioses para transformar este mundo de injusticias en otro ‘mejor’”. Es decir, según MT, la clase trabajadora sería un mero objeto, sin propiedades intrínsecas, o, en el mejor de los casos, un objeto susceptible de ser descrito pero del cual no se puede esperar ninguna tendencia espontánea de acuerdo a su realidad histórica. Como bien es común en la filosofía hoy de moda –ejemplo de esto es Laclau- esta tendencia al socialismo de la clase obrera sería una determinación discursiva, sin arraigo en sus características objetivas. Por lo tanto, no There is nothing intrinsic goal, that makes the revolutionary working class. All expressions of radical rebellion against capital out of nowhere, a magical activity, or perhaps by a group of lit-grouped in a newspaper, for sure, able to lead, in certain circumstances, the workers under banners radicals. However, do not expect anything "in itself" of workers as its classism is a mere point of view, something random does not obey anyone or anything.
However, like MT are profoundly anti-theological and anti-teleological, we, as anarchists we are, God, gods and all forms heteronomous are products of human history. Said in rather classic, god, gods, external and artificial control, the State, etc., are but human creatures who have rebelled its creator, have gotten out of control because of the very social relations and have made we kneel before them. But critical thinking knows his secret and understand their origins, as well you say each of the human rebellion against oppression.
However, this certainly anti-theological and anti-teleological is not the same to lack a historical consciousness, this means that although no human-or nature-are determined in advance, they are "themselves - determinations history, born of a certain type of social relations that does not detract from objectivity, but historicized reality.
Now, before falling into a possible historical relativism, those who adhere to a materialist conception of history, we do from a fundamental ontological assumption: work. Since Proudhon to some German-Jewish name I do not pretend to not be accused of judeoalemantismo-work, as a creative activity, was central and operated as a demarcation line in their analysis. Unfortunately, outside of a few intellectuals, the labor issue lies inert and undeveloped, so the revolutionary perspective has lost much of its more powerful and consistent arguments. However, long before the world was a little sad and dull, Bakunin assumed the job as a basic activity to get what he needed most: freedom. Without freedom of human creativity is impossible freedom as such. All their proposals are related to securing an organization off from work, as is the German Jew conceived it means an association of free producers. Hence Bakunin recognized in the working classes (peasants, workers and other subaltern classes) social groups capable of carrying out a revolutionary process, because they embody the most fundamental of human being: the creative activity to be freed from their subordination to the interests of others, individuals of a class, moreover, does not work, but lives the work of others.
Obviously, the work should not be reduced to wealth, nor subject to a purely quantitative, but the work must be understood as a creative faculty holding the society together and that acquires different meanings in each stage of historical development . I say this not to start the inductive argument make universal judgments derive from particular situations, arguing that, for example, a bourgeois individual can have a patio behind his house and plow, it makes the worker and, inductively, comparable others who work, ergo, revolutionary. However
class analysis, which is based on the anthropological conception of work, not individual cases, it is not inductive, it is dialectical and historical, but clearly has a strong base of empirical data, but its logic interpretation is very different. Thus, for example, that the aforementioned German Jew saw that in a certain state of development of productive forces is much more than technique, incidentally, generated a qualitative change in human relations. To give a concrete example, the author sees in the "engineer" the emergence of what he calls "working class collective ", or Proudhon identified certain deficiencies as" collective forces "- ie, it assumes that the production process as such can not operate but as the simultaneous activity of men attached to machines, and only that. That is, before the workers there that could work separately and give similar results, and can not do more.
The implications of this are historical leap, as it now is not just the ability to work which gives some determination of the proletariat, but, while the proletariat held different social relationships that separates them from other sectors Social also busy as the peasantry, working in different social conditions in a property regime that has different social implications, etc.. And here is playing a crucial point to understand the character of the working class, the proletariat. Why? Why assume this means taking that leap with the development of capitalism are radicalized and emphasize the social characteristics of the production. While all production is social, not every moment of historical development involve the same degree of interdependence, where every moment is a need in the development of the whole. That is, with the advent of capitalist production, human productive capacity has been socialized as never before and this level of socialization, historically, is embodied in the working classes. Today, as never before in history, society is really social, but has not yet taken the decisive step to a company owned by himself and not subject to particular class interests. To that must be overcome to classes as such.
It follows that work is not only a key element, but the way that historically acquired. And is that while the slaves and servants were working classes, were not revolutionary. Conversely, the bourgeoisie never worked, but nevertheless was revolutionary. Thus the proletariat is to be understood as the overcoming, on occasion, the two terms [1] bear not only fundamental human capacity, but because they are in a period where the society is more social than ever. Therefore, its revolutionary potential is that, by its historical situation, has the possibility, let it be understood: a possibility, mode of production (life) differently, which goes beyond a pure new economy.
In conclusion, this would allow us to answer the following question and answer little MT right when he says, "Why is the working class set for driving the changes? Because it is the most suffering to the prevailing economic order and because without it, capitalism could not exist. " MT is right to say that no workers capitalism can not exist, but is more than wrong when he says that the official capacity of the working class lies in being the most "suffering." I'm sure there are many social sectors that suffer more than the average worker, but that is not directly linked with its revolutionary capacities. As mentioned above, is the creative power charging in the working class of a new social order which makes revolutionary, not for being the most suffering. Therefore, think everything in terms of class struggle is clearly a nonsense when you have so small and short-sighted idea of \u200b\u200bwhat the proletariat actually involves, in all its dimensions and only on a small prism so ephemeral and subjective as "suffering."
c) Economics v / s mode of production.
MT, continuing his fine tactical applications of confusion gives us a beautiful prayer that, in my opinion, deserves more than an award for being able to see a great depth there where there is only a puddle of water. After referring to the alleged messianic powers of the working class, gives the final blow by saying: "As if there was only holding on economic or that will determine for itself all the others." This statement, addressed directly against all-classical tradition obliges us to square with all the intellectuals who fought and lost and now fits in a corner, so that, apparently, now that we're young, we must look for some stalls in a school because, but knew, MT has ended the class struggle. However, stubborn as we are, we can only try to bring out the shine to this idea. Personally, at no charge so critical historiography reading, I can not understand the substance of the sentence, but I think I can interpret it as follows: I think MT accuses his "big Other" to reduce operation to a business issue, assuming that there is exploitation in other aspects of life and that pure economic exploitation does not explain the others. As a man breakaway which is apparently good but MT is not operating in other aspects of life, while, as a good taxidermist in fact, has dissected the economic in a pure place, remembering that, beyond There are more things to dissect.
At this point you have to roll back a little answer, and explain that MT has understood "economics" in a manner more akin to the idea of \u200b\u200beconomy-bourgeois German Jewish pre-and neo-that is materialism and historical society, which leads us to an entirely epistemological field different and that is not useful to think about the problem, since, as seen, we reach conclusions as those of MT. In that sense, if one considers only the economic and separately, the class struggle can only be perceived as a struggle for better wages or working hours, what is false, and the operation appears to be a mere phenomenon of the economy without assuming their social and historical costs. So I never wanted to be a taxidermist. MT
If perhaps not so critical historiography read and think a little history alive as it is, he would realize that all workers' struggles with revolutionary features are because they carry a new way to experience the relationship social, moreover, have spoken, each time in a radical critique of hierarchy, gender domination and endless problems within economistic idea of \u200b\u200bclasses and their struggles seem excluded. Therefore, never the class struggle has been reduced to what many critics say it is reduced, but in fact, has been and is, much more. But, this does not mean that the farm is an essential and must be treated as the key to our time. Why? Because the problem is to work background, rationale-at least those we start from a materialist and historical society, of human life as such. Thus, the extraction of surplus value in capitalist society and in every class society, it is inexorable to be the objective fact of an asymmetrical relationship.
assume the reality of exploitation implies, moreover, assume the job as the sole source of value and at the same time, identify which sector of society is directly responsible for its production and reproduction. At the same time, this allows us to say who the key players and who are expendable (such as class, not people, get it.) Put another way, the critique of exploitation is the beginning of the current criticism to be the leitmotiv of capitalist society that, unlike 150 years before, is more developed than ever. Hence, on the other hand, has to think in a dialectical concept that has nothing to do with the limited idea of \u200b\u200bthesis, antithesis and synthesis, but, fundamentally, the idea goes through all autodiferenciada, a substance that is at the same time, subject as otherwise, the operation appears as a factor among others and not allow us to understand the link that brings together a number of social phenomena that must be overcome historically, since they all express median ( to use a dialectical notion) this fundamental relationship.
therefore can not think exploitation abstract, but must be understood as a totality. Responding more directly to the sentence quoted above, and we want candidates just have the chance, I must say that exploitation is not an economic relationship-in its small idea, "but a class relation based on work stealing not paid, which is the basis of capitalist accumulation and its subsequent development, which goes far beyond a mere exchange relationship or purchase and sale of goods but the total social set, operates as a gravitational axis. This does not mean that everything is "cause" of the operation, but this relationship, this activity is expressed in a variety mediated moments that, as now, make sense in the overall field of capitalist society and not in isolation. But as mentioned, this fundamental contradiction expresses the moment we consider the work not as a productive factor again, as will the bourgeois economy, but because they think the work helps us to understand what a difference, for all other commodities, characterizes the work, which has implications not only theoretical but profoundly practical. Otherwise, the economy (Bourgeois) had not worked so hard to remove the job as ontological principle of his analysis, so as to deny the operation as a true and objective assuming the theory of value as "a perspective."
At the same time, and is linked to the above, if we see the capitalist system as a whole will be able to overcome, for example, the debate between productive and unproductive workers, realizing that capitalism works as a whole and not split or separate, meaning that the farm while living as direct extraction of surplus productive workers, set the rest of the production mode, as stated, is not only "economy" but the whole social set under certain class interests. This is because as you said the German Jew, is not only ownership of the means of production that makes the capitalist, but the organization of production as a whole with their interests. Thus, exploitation, although, in principle, an economic nature, their impact or extension is not purely economic, nothing in capitalism is purely something, but should be characterized as part of a whole but, exploitation, or politics, or ideology, or other aspects of life, they appear as one factor among others, that is, I think, which is to imply MT.
Considering all this, I ask, Who is really the economist? It seems have the defect in many well-intentioned attempt to overcome the economism, which is to accept its tenets, not trying to overcome their conceptual perspective, which sees society as a set of issues, but adding social spheres, complicating the whole , believing that by having many things together everything is "more complex." But that means starting from his point of view, trying not to rank the areas, but holding them as separate. Economists are arguably more democratic, but Economists finally
d) Anarchy here and now?
After reading the MT article tried to do an exercise: I waited nightfall, and beside her sleep. Before getting lost in my unconscious annoying, sure would click on some sleep, I wished with all my heart that class society disappears. Confident that my friend would do the same MT said, well, at least two of us, sure enough. However, this morning I woke up and things remained the same. Disappointed I thought that MT did not want it as hard as me. Sad, I decided to write a complaint that failed program, hoping for a better future coordination, but cooler head reminded that I'm lost, you still can not find work as a teacher (and not any other) and other details daily life, which brought back to life by a strange free association, the idea that there is something called history, social life and social relations are the water of this tank of billions. Hence, such claim is transformed in this article and try the other night in an anecdote of my failed attempts to change the world.
Surely many of those who read phrases like "Our proposal is different. We must do away with social classes today "or" We want a world divided into classes. Or tomorrow, and above all, not for today, "laid aside the errors of style and thinking were relieved as heart- I did, it was enough to close my eyes, wishing with great gusto and Zas! would go the next day to organize for communal councils, discussing how to organize production. Unfortunately, the stubborn class struggle does not work that way and these expressions of volunteerism often turn into delusions, well-intentioned, but ineffective in reality.
As we know, MT, on his own confession, it ignores the dialectic, as well as many other things. His arch critic, insurance trends collected from critical historiography and monologues so scattered, you only have to provide separation, but not joined. MT is why it is prey of formal logic and is incapable of thinking contradiction as such, but simply rules it out as impossible. Apparently 50 years of critical historiography have not helped to think about the complexities (contradictory) history. I wonder if ever, with so many critical historiography, has appeared a book that will stop and think-and only-not to mention the revolutionary processes explain how anarchists in government, and in Spain of '36?, How to understand that anarchism has not grown in Russia if the people were more libertarian than themselves anarchists? How can we understand our union activities today, considering the reality of trade unionism?, Or, How can the working class, oppressed class, become the cornerstone of human emancipation? Better yet, as he put the German Jew, "is not enough that working conditions are present at one pole as the capital and the other as men who have nothing to sell except their labor. Not enough to force him to sell voluntarily. In the course of capitalist production develops a working class which by education, tradition and habit recognizes the demands of this mode of production as evident natural laws themselves. The organization of the developed capitalist production breaks down all resistance, the constant generation una sobrepoblación relativa mantiene la ley de la oferta y la demanda de trabajo, y por tanto el salario, dentro de carriles que convienen a las necesidades de valorización del capital; la coerción sorda de las relaciones económicas pone su sello a la dominación del capitalista sobre el obrero. Sigue usándose, siempre, la violencia directa, extraeconómica, pero sólo excepcionalmente. Para el curso usual de las cosas es posible confiar el obrero a las ‘leyes naturales de la producción’, esto es, a la dependencia en que el mismo se encuentra con respecto al capital, dependencia surgida de las condiciones de producción mismas y garantizada y perpetuada por éstas. De otra manera sucedían las cosas durante the historical genesis of capitalist production. " (Capital, p. 922) And elsewhere he says, summing it all: "The Roman slave was bound by chains to its owner, the employee what is by invisible threads." (Capital p. 706)
obviously anyone who has understood the above asks and good, why is it that so oppressed class, as adapted to the logic of capital can bring forth a new world? How can you fight invisible thread or gold chains that look so cute in smoke? Or, in MT key, how is it possible for a class, which is a clear expression of the farm, besides being a part of society, can make the leap to a society of equals, both politically and economically, eliminating classes as such, overcoming historical divisions? Obviously, formal logic can not answer such a conflict, however, fortunately, read the classics more and more to Hegel than some libertarians do not contemporaries beyond the manual of philosophy, acquiring a conceptual matrix can to overcome these contradictions and see not only the misery, but his revolutionary side. One possible answer is that given Bakunin for whom the cornerstone was the experience of struggle that gives exploitation as inherent reality of society capitalist.
Already in "The Politics of International 1869, Bakunin was wondering how to enable workers to give their social instincts, in turn registered in the same relations of production. Given their material, propaganda and education activities are limited to a necessary but insufficient. Against that says: "But the working world still remains ignorant of a theory that still lacks completely. So it remains only a single pathway, their emancipation by the practice. What can and should be the practice? No more than one. Is the joint struggle of workers against employers and character fundamental: the organization and the federation of unions of resistance "(Bakunin, Op Cit.).
Beyond the particular tactics, the emphasis should be placed on it by way of practical activity, the development of the experience of the masses, that is taking shape class consciousness that, please understand, there is a psychological phenomenon, but historical. What elsewhere is derided as "accumulation of forces" must be translated into development of class consciousness, which involves not only the qualitative and quantitative and implicitly seems to follow the idea of \u200b\u200b"accumulate." In other words, we could called class consciousness to the capacity gain broad masses of workers to fight for a program that best suits your needs and, ultimately, there exists a radical historical change and the imposition of a new mode of production, new social relations , while new, reconfigured the social spectrum, suppressing employees as such, as the socialization of the means of production and the abolition of political power, as the heritage of a group, re-to found the society in a very different logic. It is this process that explains the contradiction between the medium (a tutorial) and end (the classless society), this because, as we have repeated until fatigue, the working class with potential historical burden, not messianic, that can be realized. However, this process has had many attempts and no success, but as long as capitalism exists the possibility still dormant.
In this sense, the ability to revolutionize society should be sought on the objective characteristics of the working class, already mentioned which are promoted, or who becomes aware through the daily struggle, which involves all forms of organization to the most diverse social political expressions. Hence, the working class, considered as a productive force, put tension on the relations of production. When their business activity "denial" is not impossible to think that his revolutionary activities as part of society, involving the removal of the entire society, has outdone itself in this activity. MT shame for such a process is quite hard and complex, not subject directly to the good wishes I long for the abolition of classes here and now. This is a fight for history, not a mere intellectual tantrum.
Finally, I think the latter may be linked to the initial controversy generated by the article published in HyS. Given MT's ideas I can only reaffirm what I said in that article. In my opinion, sums up the tradition and Makhno Arshinov Platform is one that fails to understand this rich dialectic of the historical process and class struggle. They understand that we must bring together the revolutionaries to advance the well-organized that breaking point, even if it hurts, not subject to our well-intentioned pen, but the correlations of class, to a certain state of world capitalism, its conflict and contradictions. Makhno and Bakunin, Balius, Fontenis and many many sincere revolutionaries are the constant reminder of objectivity in history that does not say that the world operates at a frame rate, which must be understood if one wants to be politically effective. If not, we go to bed every day thinking about that last night not so strongly desire the abolition of capitalism, and every day we will wake up disappointed and perhaps end up writing nonsense such as MT. Lucky for us it is not so.
Finally, two things.
one hand, I'm pretty sure this item will be more insulted by my constant references to the aforementioned German Jew than substantive arguments. I think the most likely to be accused of judeoalemantismo and other epithets which, apparently, are suitable only for the worst of the worst. But I do not care. In open defense of German Jew, I would like to quote another German who can express better than anyone what recover critically involving the old, the German Jew so often cited in this article "(...) is now just one of many pioneers, founders and followers of the socialist movement of the working class. No less important are the so-called utopian socialists, from Thomas More to the present. No less important are the great rivals of Marx, Blanqui, and irreconcilable enemies, as Proudhon and Bakunin. No less important, in terms of outcome, more recent developments such as the German revisionism, French syndicalism and Russian Bolshevism "(Korsch). Hence, it is impossible to deny his contributions if the idea is to build a theory real revolution and not merely make a corporate defense of anarchy, which strikes me as sterile and scholastic.
Finally, I apologize for not having kept my word about the non-use of irony, but I must admit I do a lot more fun writing.
Gabriel Rivas
March 2011 Notes:
[1] This point is worth clarification on the issue of the peasantry. The classical anarchist tradition, as well as Russian and other expressions of populist policies understood, despite some idealization, the revolutionary potentialities of the peasantry, while consuming class, but not without taking some specific aspects of context and never thinking in the abstract. For example, Russian populism based his idea of \u200b\u200bnew peasant society in the old tradition of the mir, it was a communal form of organizing and distributing the land. Also, Bakunin understood the strength of the French peasantry, but was critical to the figure of individual ownership of land, which opposed the idea of \u200b\u200babolishing the right of inheritance, Why? to move progressively to a more socialized ownership of it. Moreover, today there are a number of indigenous expressions with a clear revolutionary potential, since, like the first case mentioned, in addition to being working class, loaded a political culture appropriate to the release of work, organizing the self and the common ownership of land, etc..
0 comments:
Post a Comment