By Yaqob Yohannes

Part 1: Dialectic

Traditional Marxists have expounded that the dialectic conflict ends with Communism, and thusfar the revolution has been driven by this relationship. It has been accepted by the revolution that, by expediting the sythesis, they would bring about the classless society quicker.
It is my opinion that this has not been the case. Even though the revolution has not seen it's goal completed and it's enemies are still numerous, I believe that it has fell in to a trap; that it has became a separate entity apart the proletariat. I believe that, instead of the anti-thesis of the bourguise being the proletariat, that the anti-thesis has instead became the revolution itself; an entity seperate from the proletariat entirely.
So what takes place when this synthesis is made? It is my opinion that, when the revolution has synthesized with the bourguise it will become a new thesis; The State, an entity seperate of the proletariat, and a new anti-thesis will arise expounding, like the bourgouise did in the French Revolution and the Communists did in the Chinese Revolution, it's opposition to the thesis as against the will of the people.
My suggestion would not be to become this inevitable future revolution now, nor to prepare for it; this is the trap communism has fallen into; the continuition of violent dialectic relationships. To bring about any form of opperable classlessness, it is required that the proletariat actually take control of the situation, not against a fraction of society but rather the whole, and not against them violently. The Proletariat has always been there, as the peasants, or the slaves, or the workers; always there, often involved, but never truely reperesented. They are, in essence, the ever present non-thesis.

Part 2: Classless SocietyEdit

If violence is used to obtain victory, then power is exchanged; the revolution simply takes the throne and becomes the new king, the new ruling class. This is the inevitable event of a class revolution. The Proletariat is not made up of a class, but rather a force of the innocents. Can a Spaniard, wealthy from success as the operator of a shipping company who is good to his employees, be considered an enemy of the revolution due to his wealth? If the revolution takes control of this mans company, and under a communist state nationalizes it and runs it the same as it had been previously, did they truely win a victory for the proletariat, or did they just win a victory for the state?
A true classless society recognizes the contributions of all of its members regardless of the positions the stand in the society. A victory for the proletariat is the improving of life of the most people, not philosophically, but materialistically. To be well fed, housed, and given the opportunities for happiness is the ultimate goal.

Part 3: Revolution of the Classless Proletariat

How will the most people benefit from life? Three conditions must be provided for in order for this to be accomplished; Peace, Prosperity, and Protection.
Protection is the job of the people and the state combined. The state, in it's condition of organization and connection to the outside world, allows for the construction of a military that is efficiant and capable. This military can be deployed to defend the society efficiantly.
It is too, however, the job of the people to provide for this protection. The formation of militias, recognized by and working together with the state, is the peoples duty should they not be in a position where they can join the military, whether it be because of age or being tied down by obligations at home. These militias would help the military to defend their home regions should they be invaded, and through overwhelming patriotism and force turn back the invader.
Prosperity is the job of all, to produce as much as possible while hoarding as little as possible. The distribution of wealth has been a primary problem in the past. The capitalists of Spain and Europe would have us believe that there is a moral righteousness to poor distribution; that a man who sits in the correct office is deserving of one hundred times more then the man who pours forth his labor. This is their fallacy, but it is also their weakness.
Poor distribution of wealth means poor usage of it. If a societies wealth pools in the pockets of a few men, then the society is weakened that much.
It is not only the position of the state and the proletariat to police for poor distribution, but is is also the responsibility of the potentially wealthy to police themselves. If a man is negligent and does not hand over the correct amount in taxes, or make sure to give extreme excesses to charity, then he is guilty in all accounts.
It is likewise the duty of everyone to ensure that those who go without are taken care of. Poverty is a sign of weakness in any society, and those who do nothing to help the poverse when possible are guilty of negligence.
Peace is the most important of these three conditions, as it is through peace that the other two conditions are best secured. It is the duty of everyone to work tirelessly to end all conflict, and ensure that conflict doesn't start. It is the duty of the State to, above all else, work for peace with the rest of the world and bring about global harmony.