discussion/mode of production: socialism
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Fri Nov 14 23:04:28 MST 2003
In a message dated 11/14/03 1:53:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
juliohuato at hotmail.com writes:
>Of course the advance of history is the result of people's actions. But,
people can't act arbitrarily. The existing conditions enable and/or limit
their actions. Those conditions are natural and social. Within the bounds
dictated by the existing conditions, people's actions will alter the
conditions. The new conditions will enable and/or limit new actions. And
the cycle will go on.
Marx didn't deny this chicken-and-egg interdependence of conditions and
actions. There's no point in counter-posing productive forces to class
struggle; conditions to actions; potential energy to kinetic energy; voltage
to electric current; stocks to flows.
Marx approach to society presupposes the existence of people. What is called
the materialist conception of history presupposes the existence of people.
To elevate people over that which is fundamental in the changes that takes
place in the mode of production and present a proposition that human beings are
somehow abstracted from history that is predicated on their existence is a
blind alley and argument for "first graders."<
The proletarian revolution is not really a revolution of the proletariat but
a social revolution wherein the proletariat is compelled to free all of
society in order to free itself as proletariat. The bourgeoisie creates its grave
digger as Marx states the proposition in the Communist Manifesto.
The bourgeoisie doesn't create the proletariat, but rather its grave digger
and Marx traces the outline of the evolution of this social formation and
process, as it evolves and splits into two distinct social formations called
bourgeoisie and proletariat.
The bourgeoisie does not create the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie and proletariat evolves on the basis of the evolution of the
The communist class evolves from within the proletariat on the basis of the
The chicken cannot come first . . . at least according to this stage in the
development of materialism and science. The chicken emerges from an egg.
The chicken emerges from an egg. :-)
Yea ... you have to think this one out on the basis of the qualitative leap
Want to bet?
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism