>>> "Michael Keaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/10/99 01:25PM > More generally,this demarcation of intellectuals and the masses is not very helpful. As if intellectuals should be apologetic for being so, wear sackcloth and ashes, or should somehow defer as a matter of course to the masses. What masses? What was Mao if not an intellectual? And so what if his image is somehow improved by his plowing the fields. Galbraith also knew poverty in an agricultural setting, coming as he did from the backwoods of rural Canada. In a technologically developed society such as the one we have now, and would have were socialism suddenly to take the place of capitalism, a division of labour is inherent. Therefore there are going to be rulers and the ruled. The question is really about democracy and accountability. Galbraith's technocracy, and Veblen's, is inadequate because there is the assumption that the technocrats will be guided by rational and altruistic ends, a forlorn hope. As for the Party leadership, and those in any position of power, they require the greatest transparency and accountability of all. Would I trust myself if I were President of the United States? ((((((((((( Charles: I don't know if you meant this, but Marxism does not pose an uncrossable demarcation between intellectuals and the masses. Engels, Marx, Lenin and Mao were all intellectuals connecting with the masses . In general, Marxism notes the ancient antagonism between predominantly mental labor and predominantly physical labor which arose with class society and seeks to reduce and resolve this antagonism. The goal of working class and mass socialist consciousness is exactly redistributing mental or intellectual labor more equally. Does a division of labor require that there be rulers and ruled ? Doesn't Marxism seek to retain the division of labor in communism while abolishing ruling classes ? Charles Brown
