>>2658823In both cases the "facts" are irrelevant because no one is taking responsibility for their actions and choices. Both positions are predicated on the fatalistic notion that some outside actor is "forcing" them to do this. But it's all them, the man who beats his wife or posts racial slurs, or the "revolutionary" killing someone are both doing it because they willed and decided to. God or The People are not obliging them to do either. It's all them.
After all; if this were the case, why can we nevertheless reject either and do the opposite instead?
I've argued this in discussions with "race war" proponents before; if the "race war" is inevitable, and we have to act in name of our "race", why is it possible to refuse to do so? Because there is no outside force compelling us.
The notion of an innate class interests is similar. If it is innate and an extension of personal interest, why can people reject it? There is no such thing as "class interest" and people cannot be reduced to classes. There is the interests of communists, who will communism. But not every worker does, and not every member of the (petite) bourgeois is opposed to it.
You argue it's because proles are alienated, but we're all alienated; even the bourgeoisie! From each other, from full pursuit of our own authenticity. Like (paraphrasing) Zizek put it, the archetypal capitalist is the one who dedicates their entire being to channeling and growing capital. But you cannot reduce people to only being capitalists or workers, and often the distinction is murky; ordinary workers also perpetuate the commodity form, they work to ensure goods remain (capitalist) commodities, they aid in organizing production and perpetuating capital. You can see this in various industries from retail to IT and others.
You can argue the distinction is about who "owns" capital, but if you assume a global perspective there is no singular owner of capital, not even the billionaire class as a whole. Capital is an emergent social force which acts through others. It does not have an "owner", regardless of who appears to benefit more from it than others.
>The idea of a vanguard party only serves to educate and make aware the proletariat of their conditionBut this is just elitist arrogance. As if ordinary workers aren't aware they're bein
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.