>>10 (not who you were replying to btw) I'm not totally against this idea, but it definitely goes against the reasons marx identified the proletariat as the revolutionary class rather than any other class. Look at what he said about the peasants in the 18 brumaire, "The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homonymous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes." Does your revolutionary class not also suffer similar issues? The proletariat in marx's day were geographically concentrated and worked shoulder to shoulder as a highly organised mass, and this was the precise tendency that marx thought would enable them to organise for revolution. How can these socially isolated and geographically distributed groups you point to hope to form a coherent mass?
(not who you were replying to btw) I'm not totally against this idea, but it definitely goes against the reasons marx identified the proletariat as the revolutionary class rather than any other class. Look at what he said about the peasants in the 18 brumaire,
"The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homonymous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes."
Does your revolutionary class not also suffer similar issues? The proletariat in marx's day were geographically concentrated and worked shoulder to shoulder as a highly organised mass, and this was the precise tendency that marx thought would enable them to organise for revolution. How can these socially isolated and geographically distributed groups you point to hope to form a coherent mass?