...that the working class belongs to each other, world-wide.
2007-10-12 19:18:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dinah 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think he meant that the non-represented/ under-represented Working Class is a universal issue, not within the confines of any one country/government/ruling system.
Additionally, I think he meant that statement as a counter to democratic ideas about government working for the people, as the Working Class has a lesser voice in democratic systems (because money and clout move the democratic process).
2007-10-12 19:25:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by dlb_blair 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
He meant the working class doesn't have the power or authority a nation has. Things like trade routes and spheres of influence and military power are meaningless to the working class. He was specifically criticizing Nationalism.
However, he was operating under a false premise. A nation, as any other group, is nothing more than the lump sum of all the individuals in it. That is the core belief behind democracy. The individuals within a country, regardless of their "class," are the very ones who create trade routes and spheres of influence and military power.
2007-10-12 19:22:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
the proletariat dont own anything. The ruling elite own everything. Think about it we live as almost permanent indentured servants. You "buy" a house and pay usury thru the nose. Even though I have a 15 yr loan on my house I just now after 3 yrs of paying have come to the point where more of my payment goes to principle than to interest.
2007-10-12 20:52:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The "working class" is just that, a class, they are found in every country and even if they were to have a country all their own, someone stills governs them and so another class is created.
2007-10-12 19:19:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Puppy Owner 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The interests of the proletariat would trump nationalist sentiments. Since the nation itself is largely a construction designed to protect capital, the worker would realize how the nation was a part of their exploitation.
2007-10-12 19:36:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by student_of_life 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
He was saying that the working class are slaves to the rich and powerful who "own" the country.
Of course, communism as it turns out was a failed ideology.
2007-10-12 19:18:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wocka wocka 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Who cares? Communism/Socialism have caused over a billion deaths on the planet and those systems are fundamentally screwball. To hell with them.
2007-10-12 19:18:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by SQD 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
He meant that conservatives are being betrayed by their country when they are forced to pay welfare to able-bodied bums that sit around all day watching TV.
2007-10-12 19:20:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by qwert 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
He thought the interests of the Worker overwhelmed National feelings - boy was he wrong. In this and so many other things.
2007-10-12 19:18:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mike1942f 7
·
0⤊
2⤋