- 01 Mar 2014 19:26
#14370271
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
The entire Marxist conception of a mode of production rests on a dialectic, and thus does not necessarily limit other forms of trade or currency. Feudalism had a proletariat and merchants and traders. However, they did not constitute the dominant form of production. It was not the economic "base," of society from which the rest of the superstructure was built.
That was feudalism, that is, production from the land done by the serf who existed within a certain system.
You're using a, "stagist," form of psudo-Marxism that Marxists simply don't use. It has long been, and rightly so, been considered a liberal conception that people that don't understand dialectics or materialism try to ignorantly slander Marxism with:
Further, as the manifesto states and has always been part of the conception, capitalism is a world-wide system. What was the Southern States of America? Capitalist. Were they dependent, in that particular area, on agriculture—sure—but it was still part of industrialized western society. You do not escape the economic base of society because you're not at that second working at a conveyer belt.
So yes. If you exclude form Marxism dialectics, geography, history, materialism, and maybe a few other things, and then replace them with whatever crazy things you want—then there is certainly an argument that, "The whole Marxist scheme is just so full of holes."
If you don't go to the bizarre lengths of doing so, you'll find it's reasonably sound—at the very least accepting the logic of dialectics and materialism and the like.
That was feudalism, that is, production from the land done by the serf who existed within a certain system.
You're using a, "stagist," form of psudo-Marxism that Marxists simply don't use. It has long been, and rightly so, been considered a liberal conception that people that don't understand dialectics or materialism try to ignorantly slander Marxism with:
Lenin wrote:Mr. Plekhanov attempts to present the fundamental theoretical prohlem of the impending revolution in Russia. He quotes a passage from Marx to the effect that the 1789 Revolution in France followed an ascending line, whereas the 1848 Revolution followed a descending line. In the first instance, power passed gradually from the moderate party to the more radical—the Constitutionalists, the Girondists, the Jacobins. In the second instance, the reverse took place—the proletariat, the petty-bourgeois democrats, the bourgeois republicans, Napoleon III. “It is desirable,” our author infers, “that the Russian revolution should be directed along an ascending line”, i.e., that power should first pass to the Cadets and Octobrists, then to the Trudoviks, and then to the socialists. The conclusion to be drawn from this reasoning is, of course, that the Left wing in Russia is unwise in not wishing to support the Cadets and in prematurely discrediting them.
Mr. Plekhanov’s “theoretical” reasoning is another example of the substitution of liberalism for Marxism. Mr. Plekhanov reduces the matter to the question of whether the “strategic conceptions” of the advanced elements were “right” or wrong. Marx’s reasoning was different. He noted a fact: in each case the revolution proceeded in a different fashion; he did not however seek the explanation of this difference in “strategic conceptions”. From the Marxist point of view it is ridiculous to seek it in conceptions. It should be sought in the difference in the alignment of classes. Marx himself wrote that in 1789 the French bourgeoisie united with the peasantry and that in 1848 petty-bourgeois democracy betrayed the proletariat. Mr. Plekhanov knows Marx’s opinion on the matter, but he does not mention it, because he wants to depict Marx as looking like Struve. In the France of 1789, it was a question of overthrowing absolutism and the nobility. At the then prevalent level of economic and political development, the bourgeoisie believed in a harmony of interests; it had no fears about the stability of its rule and was prepared to enter into an alliance with the peasantry. That alliance secured the complete victory of the revolution. In 1848 it was a question of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. The proletariat was unable to win over the petty bourgeoisie, whose treachery led to the defeat of the revolution. The ascending line of 1789 was a form of revolution in which the mass of the people defeated absolutism. The descending line of 1848 was a form of revolution in which the betrayal of the proletariat by the mass of the petty bourgeoisie led to the defeat of the revolution.
Mr. Plekhanov is substituting vulgar idealism for Marxism when he reduces the question to one of “strategic conceptions”, not of the alignment of classes.
Further, as the manifesto states and has always been part of the conception, capitalism is a world-wide system. What was the Southern States of America? Capitalist. Were they dependent, in that particular area, on agriculture—sure—but it was still part of industrialized western society. You do not escape the economic base of society because you're not at that second working at a conveyer belt.
So yes. If you exclude form Marxism dialectics, geography, history, materialism, and maybe a few other things, and then replace them with whatever crazy things you want—then there is certainly an argument that, "The whole Marxist scheme is just so full of holes."
If you don't go to the bizarre lengths of doing so, you'll find it's reasonably sound—at the very least accepting the logic of dialectics and materialism and the like.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!