Life as the new Lower Middle Class.

[happyslug]

46. Actually I am a radical capitalist....But in many ways so was Marx.

Marx was dead on when it came to Revolutions, when they occur and how they occur. He was an advocate of taking charge of such Revolutions by having a central group willing to take charge when it came time to lead that revolution.

In Egypt that is still the Moslem Brotherhood for the Communists in Egypt are to small and disorganized to launch lead such a revolution. In Iraq it was the Shiite leadership, thus they were able to take charge when the US Military had taken all of Iraq and the US needed a Civilian Government. The Shiite leadership had the size to take charge and did.

Lenin made the comment that it only takes about 5% of the population to lead a revolution, but that 5% must be united in thought and leadership. Lenin used the Jesuits as an example of what he wanted in a revolutionary group. Small but large enough to take charge of groups from local clerks in a department stores to groups of peasants complaining of their landlord. Each member of the Party must be willing to do his or her part in grabbing the revolution and moving it forward, but in a way the party wants the revolution to go.

As I said the Moslem Brotherhood was doing this in Egypt till the Egyptian Generals decided he was to radical for them (for he was moving to take at least some of the wealth of the Generals). The Shiite Leadership of Iraq did this right after the US took Baghdad, the US thought its puppets it had selected to lead Iraq could take control, but the Shiite Leadership said no, they took charge. Please remember it was protests lead by the Shiite Leadership that lead to Iraq elections. The US Government did NOT want elections they just wanted to make their puppets the leaders of Iraq. The Shiites were strong enough to lead the people of Iraq against that plan.

As to myself I have read Marx and have seen his good and bad points. His good points is how and when revolutions occurs. He also mentioned how to take charge of them (which the Shiites did in Iraq and the Moslem Brotherhood did in Egypt).

Now, Marx himself said it would take 500 years to achieve Socialism, but in his old age he saw things changing that indicated the revolution he advocated may be avoided if the causes of the revolutions were addressed by Society. On the other hand Marx made a comment no class has ever given up power without a struggle.

Marx strength is in his analysis of revolutions, his concept of stolen labor (and I understood it and why he used that term) has been rejected (and the term made a term of fun as to Marxist as some sort of statement of an idiot not an observation that all capital started as labor by someone somewhere).

OF Marx I like mentioning the comment Keynes made in the 1950s in a meeting of Keynesian Economists. Keynes said it was NOT a Keynesian Economist. The same with Marx, in many ways communists as implemented by Lenin, Stalin and Mao were NOT Marxists and had Marx lived till the 1930s, he would have denounced Stalinism and later Maoism to say if those were Marxist states, he was not a Marxists.