Marxism was born under capitalism. I believe Papa Wolff even called it 'the shadow of capitalism'. Under feudalism...

Marxism was born under capitalism. I believe Papa Wolff even called it 'the shadow of capitalism'. Under feudalism, when capitalism was but a dream, Marxism would have been unimaginable. Am I the only one who thinks, because of this, that socialism/communism/whatever might not be the last stage of society? That our ability to see the nature of these things is extremely limited beforehand.

Other urls found in this thread:

I agree. I think it's pretty dumb to think of communism as the end of history, or the last stage of history, or whatever. I doubt communism (if it ever becomes reality) will be final.

of course it wont be the last stage, what matters to us is that its the next stage. most of capitalisms problems will be solvrd under socialism, but socialism will bring with it a new slew of problems that the next stage will fix to further human advancement. no system is perfect, no matter how many times stupid MLs try to talk to you about the "immortal science".

ML's usually make it very clear that they believe corruption, nepotism, inefficiencies, selfish bureaucrats, incompetent leaders, and all kinds of different problems can exist even in a socialist society, and that a socialist society doesn't necessarily equal a perfect society.


Mao stated that much, but it is a matter of belief


This is exactly what dialectical materialism is. Every societal structure has in itself the contradictions that will bring forth its destruction, the work the materialist is to recognize these flaws and extrapolate anew system better suited for the current social and economical status.
Up to this point in human history social changes have been fought and slowed down to a crawl many times, under communism the materialist basis of its theory will allow a future communist society to transition to its new phase without the centuries of struggle we to this point suffered.

Progress equals struggle and unity of contradictions. If there is a room for progress in society, there'll always be the latter. Still, both possibilities are equally valid: perfect society is achievable and progress will stop, or it isn't achievable and progress and struggle will exist as long as life exists.


well if capitalism ceases to exist what will marxist whine about then?

fully automated luxury gay space communism?

It's the end of history in the sense that it is the end of class struggles. It's not the end of change.

the establishment of communism would account for the end of 'pre-history,' with the birth of communism marking the begining of history itself

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,[A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.

not exactly the quote i was looking for though, i've read more relating to this specifically but can't remember where right now which really pisses me off
"The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation."

The socialised appropriation of the means of production does away, not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of productive forces and products that are at the present time the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today and their political representatives. The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialised production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here. *11

With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the humanity's leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.

To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism.

Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.

no one ever said it was
communism is "the end of history" because "all heretofore existing history is the history of class conflict"

with no more class conflict, we enter a distinctly new period of history

Dipshits like you that don't know anything?

there wont be any such people left, let's make sure of this

Can someone be anti-Marxist but socialist and left-wing?

If class is abolished, then there's no more class struggle. So in terms of Marx's conception of history as the history of class struggle, that would be the end of history, and the mode of production would be forever communism. That doesn't mean it would be perfect and it wouldn't change, just that the underlying mode of production would remain the same (unless some force disrupted it enough to set us back to a previous mode of production).

Sure. There are types of socialism which predates Marx.

Yeah. What's your beef with Marx? I'd call myself non-Marxist but not anti-Marxist.

Mao's basic theory on how reality works is pretty good most of the time, I haven't made my mind up about the negation of negation issue

What's this supposed to mean?

What's the difference?


The last stage of society is neoconservatism. Read a book, OP.

Not the guy you were asking but for me personally I would prefer to live under a Anarchist society rather than a Marxist society. I'm not necessarily opposed to living under a ML dotp it just isn't my first choice.