Revolution and Dialectics:
Hegel, Marx and Martin Luther King Jr.
February 2019, By Lil Joe

Martin Luther King declared:

"I'm not talking about communism. What I'm talking about is far beyond communism. My inspiration didn't come from Karl Marx; my inspiration didn't come from Engels; my inspiration didn't come from Trotsky; my inspiration didn't come from Lenin. Yes, I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago, and I saw that maybe Marx didn't follow Hegel enough. He took his dialectics, but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism. And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach, and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called 'dialectical materialism.' I have to reject that. What I'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." (Martin Luther King)

Marx never used the phrase "dialectical materialism". Dialectics of nature and the reasoning movement of Logos were first written of and articulated by and among the ancient Ionian materialists. In particular Heraclitus' dialectics of nature. In the modern era dialectics of nature was also recognised, independently, by the peasant German mystic Jakob Bohme (See Hegel's History of Philosophy Part Three, Section B). Hegel wrote of Heraclitus and Haraclitean dialectics as follows:

"The dialectic is thus three-fold: (a) the external dialectic, a reasoning which goes over and over again without ever reaching the soul of the thing; (b) immanent dialectic of the object, but falling within the contemplation of the subject; (c) the objectivity of Heraclitus which takes the dialectic itself as principle. The advance requisite and made by Heraclitus is the progression from Being as the first immediate thought, to the category of Becoming as the second. This is the first concrete, the Absolute, as in it the unity of opposites. Here we see land; there is no proposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my Logic". (Hegel's "History of Philosophy Chapter One: Section D")

As is well known Plato used dialectical reasoning expressed in the Socratic Dialogues. He brought together the Hindu concept of Maya, Pythagorean geometry and philosophy of Numbers and reincarnation. He fused these ideas with the monotheism of Ikhnaton of Egypt. Plato's own contribution to this metaphysical cosmology is in the Dialogue named Timaeus. In it the concept of Demiurge is presented as the created creator and the "only begotten world and first animal of every species. In so doing this created creature organises the otherwise and previous tumultuous material chaos into cosmos. In the name of Socrates' monotheism, Plato formulated a metaphysical Idealism.

Plato's Dialogues engendered the Idealist school of philosophers called the Academy. A few centuries later Neoplatonism was founded in Rome by Plotinus and the Manicheans. Christian author of the Gospel of Saint John took the Demiurge as it had been merged with the Stoic concept of Logos. The Stoic concept of the Logos is the active reasoning in all things, see e.g. Cleanthes "Hymn to God".

The concept and language of Demiurge and Logos was subsequently appropriated by Christian cosmological Christology. The Demiurge, as the "only begotten" in Plato's Timaeus, is merged with the Stoic concept of Logos. Jesus was said to be God's "only begotten son". He is called the Logos who made the material universe (John 1:1). The author of the Epistle attributed to Paul, The Epistle to the Colossians, identified Plato's Demiurge as Christ and called him the "first born of every creature". Hegel saw the history of philosophy as sublating the positive and negating the negative by the same process of progress as transitions from advances previously made by the philosophy that preceded it.

Stated in Hegel's "Science of Logic"

"To sublate, and the sublated (that which exists ideally as a moment), constitute one of the most important notions in philosophy. It is a fundamental determination which repeatedly occurs throughout the whole of philosophy, the meaning of which is to be clearly grasped and especially distinguished from nothing. What is sublated is not thereby reduced to nothing. Nothing is immediate; what is sublated, on the other hand, is the result of mediation; it is a non-being but as a result which had its origin in a being. It still has, therefore, in itself the determinate from which it originates. 'To sublate' has a twofold meaning in the language: on the one hand it means to preserve, to maintain, and equally it also means to cause to cease, to put an end to. Even 'to preserve' includes a negative elements, namely, that something is removed from its influences, in order to preserve it. Thus what is sublated is at the same time preserved; it has only lost its immediacy but is not on that account annihilated."

Every new advance build's upon previous advances as at once negation and affirmation, sublation. The rise of global market economies in the 15th and 16th centuries engendered technological advances including the appropriation of the printing press, the compass and gunpowder from trade with China, the inventions of the microscope and telescope enabling directed travel and circumnavigation all of which contributed to the rise of merchant capital. With these came the the practical basis for the rise of empirical sciences and the legitimacy of materialism, humanism and the Renaissance. Copernicus, using and building upon advances in science and mathematics from India, Persia, the Middle East and North Africa, which the Islamic world appropriated and preserved from Ionian and Athenian sources as well as the Alexandria Library, used these advances for calculations that enabled arguments more sophisticated and measurements more accurate than previously proposed by Aristarchus centuries earlier in Alexandria, Egypt. Making use of the newly invented telescope and turning it to the night sky, Galileo proved the heliocentric theory by mathematical measurements based on empirical observation. Giordano Bruno was murdered and Galileo forced to recant the advocacy for a heliocentric world rather than the Biblical tales and arguments by Aristotle and Ptolemy that the universe was geocentric. Bibles, Metaphysics and astrology produced nothing of scientific value.

2 ____

According to King' "the thesis of communism" is in opposition to "the antithesis of capitalism".

This is not the case. King has it backward. Dialectical reasoning of the Hegelian method posit thesis as the initial and the dominant position. The existence of a communist proletariat [wage workers] presupposes the existence of an industrial capitalist class that purchase and exploit labour power. The antithesis arising from the thesis is the challenger to this arrangement. Wage workers challenge this arrangement. Wage workers are the antithesis - the challenger. It's a simple syllogism.

In US political economic relations of production the working class is not dominant. It has never organised around it's class interests as the basis for a Communist Party. The capitalists own the productive forces and the government is it's political representation. The capitalist class is economically and politically dominant. "Capitalism", therefore, is the thesis. The working class the antithesis.

King argues (asserts) that "communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both". This reveals that King doesn't know what he's talking about. Martin Luther King doesn't understand social and political history from the standpoint of philosophical dialectics. His point of view is from the Gospel According to John and the three Epistles attributed to John in the Bible.

King referred to Hegelian Idealism vs Marxian materialism. The inference is along with the study of Marx-Engels' "Communist Manifesto" and Marx's "Das Kapital" he also studied and preferred arguments presented by Hegel's "Phenomenology", "Philosophy of History", "History of Philosophy" and "Science of Logic". Yet, King's preachings, speeches and lectures when explicating religious references are those of a Baptist preachers concepts of the God/Yahweh as given in the Torah, the prophets and the Gospels rather than the pantheistic humanist god of Nature and History as explicated in Hegel's writings and lectures. King actually confuses theology and philosophy. He presents Hegel's dialectics from an American Baptist's Biblical perspective rather than from that of Hegel's which was a summation of the history of philosophy, history as an objective epistemological ontology.

Hegel's "Philosophy of History" presents the Historical process as a bloody "slaughter bench". Yet he affirms it to have been a logical pantheistic process as progress of the Idea. This outcome as understood by philosophers represented stages of the self-consciousness of the Absolute Idea. His contribution is the intellectual achievement of development of Logic to be the dialectic conclusion as culmination in recognition that "the Absolute is not just Substance (Nature) but Subject as well (Man)". This is the culmination in Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" as well.

In "Philosophy of History", the section on Judea was small. He placed the Christian movement of the time in the context of the philosophical developments in the Roman Empire, not as "fulfillment of Hebrew prophets prophesy" of a Jewish Messiah.

Hegel never spoke or wrote of any utopian "kingdom of brotherhood" as any kind of "higher truth", as "synthesis". Rather, he adopted, adapted and appropriated Thomas Hobbes' concept of man in a state-of-nature arguments i.e. an egotistical, viciousness of individuals in a "war of all against all", thus the need for external control (Plato's arguments for a State power in "The Republic") and thus Saint Paul's (in the Epistle to the Romans) assertion that 'political authority and the power of state armies are ordained by God'. This is revised and argued by Hobbes in "The Leviathan". (See Hobbes "Leviathan: 'Chapter I Of the state of man without Civil Society' "and Hegel's "Philosophy of Right Part I: 'Abstract Right'.")

Hegel's category of civil society (political community) is defined as the "spiritual kingdom of animals" dominated by a king. The chief duty of a king is to maintain the rule of law by coercive methods. The rule of law is predicated upon the existence of private ownership of the means of production and violent State enforcement of property rights. See the Section on Civil Society by Hegel in "The Philosophy of Right". In Hegel's world-view (weltanschauung) the conflict of the individual human animal vs social animal is rule of law governed by Constitutional Monarchy.

To return to Martin Luther King qua Martin Luther King.

Socialism and capitalism will never embrace. King's concept of "synthesis" in an illusory "higher unity" as a unity of the class of social producers (qua "communism is thesis") and capitalism ("capitalism is the antithesis") into a "higher truth" qua "kingdom of brotherhood" could mean only that the individual capitalist retains ownership of productive forces, as "individual" capitalists, and conversely that workers give up their unions and independent political party. Capital still dominates labour. Capitalists will exploit workers so long as labour remain wage labour in the labour process as valorisation process of capitalist commodity production. Socialism is not government providing workers with guaranteed universal income, free health care and free education funded by taxes. This is not socialism or communism.

Workers are rising in rebellion against the negatives of economic exploitation of capitalist commodity production by wage labour - labour process as valorising exploitation process of production is global. This is what's happening in capitalist France, Britain and other European countries. They have already won gains. But, they are still dominated and oppressed under capitalist government austerity policies. State power is still capitalist class monopoly.

Rebellion must become revolutionary class struggle by workers consciously fighting to raise themselves to a position of absolute power to expropriate the productive forces from capitalist possession. Revolutionary negation of negation means a rising class understands the necessity for becoming the new ruling class. It must deliberately destroy its ruling class to have power to destroy capitalist dominated relations of production that made the propertyless classes servile and the Owning classes its masters. Massive social production by social labour on a global scale makes possible the end of all class societies. That is communism. Its plausible.

Marx the materialist proletarian partisan wrote: "Meanwhile the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle of class against class, a struggle which carried to its highest expression is a total revolution. . . . a society founded on the opposition of classes [must] culminate in brutal contradiction, the shock of body against body, as its final denouement" ( See Karl Marx "The Poverty of Philosophy" Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy").

Hegel classified rebellion as different from revolution. Rebellion is individual action against aspects of a condition of bondage.The individual as an individual cannot destroy the mode of appropriation and production. He or she can only rebel, protest and give speeches. Talk about the need to "speak truth to power" and about "truth crushed to earth will rise to new life", "the arc of justice", "social justice", "lives matter", "race matters" all presuppose the permanence of the existing ruling class and are thus advocacy for reforms.

Chris Hedges' book about the "imperative to rebellion" is about individual rebels that he admires. Hedges advocates for permanent rebellion as opposed to permanent revolution, including denouncing Marxism, Robespierre and the French Revolution as well as Lenin and Trotsky in the Russian Revolution; he says at public rallies to working class protestors "our's is not to take state power". His buddy and fellow Ordained Christian preacher Cornel West also denounces revolutionary expropriation of political power and the means of production by workers. The old adage is regurgitated "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Yet, they talk of God as omnipotent. Wouldn't that make God as the Almighty absolutely "corrupt"?!

Revolution is negation. Negation is to Destroy the "system" i.e. to put end to the economic based social relations that make masters and bondsmen of men. Capitalist ownership of the nation's productive forces and financial institutions along with ownership of politicians of governments is what need to be negated. Destroyed. The revolutionary workers are at the same time a transition of society from capitalism to socialism and communism. The productive forces and government are taken into the possession of the producers, the working classes.

Economically, the "negation of negation" is the revolutionary act of expropriation of expropriators (not seeking any "higher truth" whatever that's supposed to mean). At once, the political act by which workers take state power, destroy and sublate capitalist democracy is thus the beginning of worker's social democracy. Democracy and individual liberty is preserved but transformed to a higher plane.

3 ____

King's presupposition in a supposed presentation of Hegelian dialectics isn't dialectics at all. Thesis and antithesis are polar opposites. As profits and wages are inversely related the class interests of capitalists and workers are mutually exclusive. Capital, as a class, have all the political power of the bureaucratic-military State at its disposal. The American working class has none. On the other hand the working class is the power of production and distribution. The power of striking. Thus the power to "turn an economic strike into a political strike and the latter into revolution" (Lenin)

Dialectical reasoning is a logical process: Affirmation, negation, negation of negation; position - opposition - composition. These are the same procedures in other words as "thesis-antithesis-synthesis". A series of categorical moments of logical procedures being the affirmative, from within itself engendering the new or rising category displacing it. The critique of the affirmative brings out its negatives thus the negation of the negative begins a new category or 'moment'. Negations and negation of negations is the process of progress. The geocentric astronomy model of Ptolemy was more consistent with the Bible, thus seemed more correct to the Christians. It displaces the heliocentric model of Aristarchus. There was the Ptolemaic moment. With the rise of new science and mathematics Copernicus' critique of the geocentric model of the Bible and Ptolemy 'negates' i.e. displaces it with a new heliocentric system. What appears to be an end to the process is in reality progress of knowledge and the beginning of another. Thus negation is just as much affirmation as negation. Negation of negation engenders a positive.

Descartes' antinomy [dualism?] contrasting the thinking subject vis -a-vis the object the proof of existence of which was called into question, that is whether the stuff (physis) of the external world of things have an objective existence. You've heard it before: 'if a tree in a forest fall and no one is in the vicinity to hear it does it make a sound when it hit ground'? The answer is yes and provable by an experiment leaving a working recorder to pick up the sound to subsequently return and listen to. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics and particle physics is more difficult.

The skeptic cannot doubt that he or she is conscious of the fact he or she is doubting. Doubting is a rational procedure and therefore an objective process. Thus the cogito, ergo sum - "I think, therefore I am". It resurfaced in particle physics testing the wave -particle duality and demonstrating the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the double slit experiment. Hegel dealt with and had to overcome the mind -body duality as did Spinoza. God or substance as Nature with its modes and attributes constituted Thought and Extension in a universe governed by national laws.

Hegel argued what is real is rational and what is rational is real. The external, empirical universe and dialectics of history. Hegel explained humanity moving through history by class wars and revolutions to achieve some teleological end. The material world is knowable. Knowledge of Nature and of the human world - society - is not derived from syllogism or metaphysical dialectic ratiocination. Knowledge comes from experience objectively criticised and by induction using scientific instruments and empirical methods of observation and experiment derived from encounter with things rather than withdrawal from the world of objects to isolated meditation.

Hegelian ontology and phenomenology of Spirit is the same as Hegelian dialectics in science of logic as the "Phenomenology of Spirit". Hegelian discourse on phenomena begins with the encounter of subject and object. This immediate experience is sense perception. Sense-certainty derived from experience means together with perception of the sense, certainty regarding the objective existence of the external empirical universe filled with objective "things". Objective objects. Locke's tabula rasa rather than Descartes cogito, ergo sum is what engenders objective knowledge of self, self-consciousness independent of but in relation to things, places and people. Sense-certainty of self existence and knowledge of external material objects avoid the Cartesian tendency to solipsism.

I conclude this offering providing the Readers with several quotes taken from Marx on writings with regard to dialectics, materialism, species -being (humanism) in response to same in the writings of Hegel and Feuerbach from Marx's Economic and Philosophic {Paris} Manuscripts of 1844

||XXIII| "The outstanding achievement of Hegel's Phanomenologie and of its final outcome, the dialectic of negativity as the moving and generating principle, is thus first that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, conceives objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and as transcendence of this alienation; that he thus grasps the essence of labour and comprehends objective man - true, because real man - as the outcome of man's own labour. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers - something which in turn is only possible through the cooperative action of all of mankind, only as the result of history - and treats these powers as objects: and this, to begin with, is again only possible in the form of estrangement. . . .

"Let us provisionally say just this much in advance: Hegel's standpoint is that of modern political economy. He grasps labour as the essence of man - as man's essence which stands the test: he sees only the positive, not the negative side of labour. Labour is man's coming-to-be for himself within alienation, or as alienated man. The only labour which Hegel knows and recognises is abstractly mental labour. Therefore, that which constitutes the essence of philosophy - the alienation of man who knows himself, or alienated science thinking itself - Hegel grasps as its essence; and in contradistinction to previous philosophy he is therefore able to combine its separate aspects, and to present his philosophy as the philosophy. What the other philosophers did - that they grasped separate phases of nature and of abstract self-consciousness, namely, of human life as phases of self-consciousness - is known to Hegel as the doings of philosophy. Hence his science is absolute."

* * * * *

"Feuerbach is the only one who has a serious, critical attitude to the Hegelian dialectic and who has made genuine discoveries in this field. He is in fact the true conqueror of the old philosophy. The extent of his achievement, and the unpretentious simplicity with which he, Feuerbach, gives it to the world, stand in striking contrast to the opposite attitude [of the others].

"Feuerbach's great achievement is:

(1) The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned;
(2) The establishment of true materialism and of real science, by making the social relationship of "man to man" the basic principle of the theory;
(3) His opposing to the negation of the negation, which claims to be the absolute positive, the self-supporting positive, positively based on itself.

Feuerbach explains the Hegelian dialectic (and thereby justifies starting out from the positive facts which we know by the senses) as follows:

"Hegel sets out from the estrangement of substance (in logic, from the infinite, abstractly universal) - from the absolute and fixed abstraction; which means, put popularly, that he sets out from religion and theology. Secondly, he annuls the infinite, and posits the actual, sensuous, real, finite, particular (philosophy, annulment of religion and theology). Thirdly, he again annuls the positive and restores the abstraction, the infinite - restoration of religion and theology.

"Feuerbach thus conceives the negation of the negation only as a contradiction of philosophy with itself - as the philosophy which affirms theology (the transcendent, etc.) after having denied it, and which it therefore affirms in opposition to itself. The positive position or self-affirmation and self-confirmation contained in the negation of the negation is taken to be a position which is not yet sure of itself, which is therefore burdened with its opposite, which is doubtful of itself and therefore in need of proof, and which, therefore, is not a position demonstrating itself by its existence - not an acknowledged ||XIII| position; hence it is directly and immediately confronted by the position of sense-certainty based on itself. [Feuerbach also defines the negation of the negation, the definite concept, as thinking surpassing itself in thinking and as thinking wanting to be directly awareness, nature, reality. - Note by Marx ]

"But because Hegel has conceived the negation of the negation, from the point of view of the positive relation inherent in it, as the true and only positive, and from the point of view of the negative relation inherent in it as the only true act and spontaneous activity of all being, he has only found the abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history, which is not yet the real history of man as a given subject, but only the act of creation, the history of the origin of man. Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General, Marx, 1844

So, what - precisely - is it that Martin Luther King Jr. object to by associating Marx and Feuerbach? Oftentime King indulge in out right attack on the materialist elements of Marx's dialectical ratiocination processes? He called communism "evil". King said he read the "Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital". Yet, he hasn't (to my knowledge) ever written any critiques of the content of either book. Of Feuerbach's analysis derived critiques of speculative philosophy, generally, and Hegel in particular, King has not cited or published any of Feuerbach's articles or books - e.g. "The Essence of Christianity". Had King Read Feuerbach's critiques of religion and Christianity, and subsequently Marx and Engels critiques of Feuerbach e.g. "The [Critique of] German Ideology and/or Engels' "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy", then why did't King publish any refutations of these books and pamphlets? in an economic/ materialist and explications?

Corresponding to each stage in the Philosophy of History is a stage of the "Philosophy of Right". What Hobbes called man in the state of nature Hegel calls abstract freedom prior to civilisation. Abstract Spirit is the Hobbesian freedom of individuals in the state of nature in a war of all against all. This freedom is sublated in the freedoms afforded by combination of individuals into Civil Society. Instead of physical mutual annihilation the State and Law provide civil means for intercourse and conflict resolution, for instance, contracts and recognition of private property. Once class struggles occur the State has laws and armed forces to mediate all civil and criminal conflict.

The "Science of Logic" begins with John Locke's tabula rasa, Nothing (in an ontological-epistemological sense) if God or Spirit has no contrast to itself, could not know itself and therefore knowing nothing is the same as being nothing. To know itself requires something not itself, i.e. nature ("Supernatural presupposes Natural) thus Being-in-Self alienated from Itself and Opposed to Itself its engendered opposite, Matter, i.e. Nature as such. Thus Nothing is Negated (negation of nothing is negation) engenders positivity is Something. The Synthesis (Composition) of this is the category, the identity of opposites of being and nothing is Becoming. Being is Becoming is the identity of opposites where progress is advanced through negations and negation of negations. I doubt that as an Americanised Baptist, a preacher in Alabama, that this Idealism of Hegel is what Martin Luther King actually identified himself with. But maybe so. I am no mind reader.

The rocky process of progress in Hegel's method of presentation presents arguments in a dialectical series of the thing discussed. What he wants to show in each case is that in the Absolute Idea all conflicting antinomies are sublated and united. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is the same as position-opposition-composition or affirmation, refutation followed by a refutation of the refutation, thus the affirmation is different in its restoration. So, thesis, position, and affirmation are different words with identical definition of the same category. Similarly antithesis, opposition and negation in each case is the category of opposition. Opposition becomes positive once the negative is negated. The category is named respectively, thesis, position and synthesis. Thus the conclusion is synthesis, or in other words, synthesis is the same as composition and negation of negation derived synthesis is the categorical result stated in different terms for the nominal same but higher category. Negation of negation resulting in synthesis is identity of opposites.

The positive is the triumph of what was previously negative. Synthesis is not, as King presented it, a coming together of an existing thesis and antithesis, a combination of opposites by mutual affirmation - "can't we all get along". Rather, whether in logic or human history, it is a process of conflicts and resolutions (sublation) achieved by victories by the rising idea or class negating what was negative in the previous positive - negation of negation; "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" arise as progress by processes of negation of negation.

Affirmative is a positive position derived by the overthrow of the previous position (Notion or Idea -Hegel), or a previous socio-economic system (Marx). The triumphant negation of negation carries the seeds of its opposition from itself to itself through which in turn it will be negated in a new synthesis of positive and negative, in a new identity of opposites or so-called "higher" synthesis. Synthesis is itself the result of conflict of preceding opposites that derived from preceding identity of opposites in conflict. And so on.

When as a Humanist in Feuerbach's materialism camp Marx wrote of capitalist relations of production in Hegelian language:

"Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single whole. They are both creations of the world of private property. The question is exactly what place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single whole. Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property. Within this antithesis the private property-owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter the action of annihilating it." (Marx-1846)

Marx outlined a critique of Feuerbach a-political materialism/Humanism.

"The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the Object, actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the object, or of contemplation, but not as human sensuous activity, practice [Praxis], not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism - but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. In The Essence of Christianity, he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice [Praxis] is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance. Hence he does not grasp the significance of 'revolutionary', of 'practical-critical', activity." (Marx: "Thesis on Feuerbach")

LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe