The dialectical exit from this double thesis (that the proletariat both can and cannot, that it is the first class which tends toward classless society, but that it does not possess the light which will shine on the human species after the death of classes) lies in the double step described in the Communist Manifesto: first, party then, dictatorship. The contradiction is that the individual cannot, and neither can the collectivity and this would lead to an eternal inability to not only want the future, but also to foresee it. Nor can he concentrate in himself the vision of the class and the future of human society except as a convergence of class forces. Therefore an individual cannot rise to the vision of communist society as a result of reflecting on his personal interests and benefits that would be vulgar materialism. Only that single class which, present in this capitalist society, has an interest in the abolition of society divided into classes, can aspire to the ability to fight for this end and to obtain within itself knowledge and a vision and this class (Marxism revealed) is the modern proletariat.īut as long as this class exists in capitalist society, the conscious vision of its future cannot arise in each of its members or even in its totality, and it is simply foolish to demand this consciousness and will of the majority of the class this is nothing but one of the great many bourgeois derivatives which muddle the minds of proletarians and which only the passing of generations can erase.
In these societies, and above all in those that take grandiloquent liberalism for their ideology, the higher the level that an individual occupies in the hierarchy, the more of a puppet on the string of determinism he is.Įven society as a whole, as long as it is a society divided into classes, possesses no vision or direction for its own future within it, the interests of the contending classes disguise themselves over the course of history as anticipations (prophecies) and contrasting ideologies, but they do not attain the power to foresee and prepare the future. The personal subject is immersed in this impotence to foresee and lead to the utmost, and in societies with an individualist structure all the more so. Here, the Marxist response is a classic one.
#OBLITERATION WANDER FREE#
The dialectic arises from asking: does this impotence, this negation of human free will, concern the individual, or does it concern human society as well? They make it, yes, but not in the way they understood and believed they would, nor the way they expected and desired to make it. Without doubt they do make it, with their hands, feet, even mouths, and with their weapons materially they make it, but what we deny is that they make it with their heads, namely, that they so much as “construct it” (a detestable phrase, and one fitting for the bourgeois entrepreneur) according to a model, or a project – everything already thought out.
Marx said that men make their own history – an old objection of various parroters. That is a thesis turned upside down, rather than the synthesis of a thesis and a fruitful antithesis. The dialectic should not be interpreted as consisting of saying: the economy makes politics, but then politics (basely reduced to state practice) in its own way alters the economy. Notwithstanding the fact that dialectical materialism was very poorly presented by Stalin in his book, which had as its sole aim the justification – with concessions to an aberrant historical voluntarism – of the pretense of building artificial socialism in isolated and backward Russia, we can now make a clarification with regard to the fact that the expression “ dialectical materialism” can be accepted as the perfect equivalent of “ historical materialism”.
0 kommentar(er)
