It’s been almost a century and a half since Karl Marx’s death, and decades since the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. In the still nominally…View Post
An easy example is this: "Marx regarded the working class as the only potentially revolutionary class—but, in fact, history shows that revolutions can be started by any disgruntled group."
Yes, this shows that they didn't even read the communist manifest "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle", which in the text makes clear what you wrote long and broad, that it is fundamental to understanding of Marxist, Engelian and plenty of Hegelian thought there are various revolutionary subjects. It just depends on the material conditions (and a few more things).
A valid critique could be phrased as:
The revolutionary subject which Marx saw as the proletariat (and even in its permissive form as the working class) isn't, as developments in the adaption of capitalism, digital surveillance, the union of authoritarian power and free markets (alá Zizek in regards to China) showed capitalism is able to reign in the working class. The only revolutions that happened came from groups better described as XYZ.
However it would be wrong. For two reasons, I'd like to mention, the first is that Marx makes clear that a coup which merely changes who reigns but leaves the system in tact is merely half a revolution, it achieves the change of rulers from one to another group, but the contradictions and forces of capitalism (that for example destroy the planet) remain in force. It isn't a revolution in the Marxian sense.
The other is that even if there are other revolutionary groups which are "disgruntled" and can coup or revolt I would like to see specific examples and in most cases these disgruntled groups aren't revolutionary, in exceptions they are but in those exceptions they are unable to achieve a revolution against capitalism itself, even if they manage to do anti colonial revolutions - for example.
I think I was too generous towards the author, actually. I shouldn't assume they've read anything they cited. They don't demonstrate substantial knowledge of it and made "baby's first anticommunisn"-style errors on Marx, like equivocating on what exploitation means in the Marxist sense.
Yeah, there is a difference between a general coup or revolt -- which may represent nothing but power changing hands by force -- and a revolution -- which changes nearly the whole of society in its impact on relations of production.
Yes, this shows that they didn't even read the communist manifest "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle", which in the text makes clear what you wrote long and broad, that it is fundamental to understanding of Marxist, Engelian and plenty of Hegelian thought there are various revolutionary subjects. It just depends on the material conditions (and a few more things).
A valid critique could be phrased as:
However it would be wrong. For two reasons, I'd like to mention, the first is that Marx makes clear that a coup which merely changes who reigns but leaves the system in tact is merely half a revolution, it achieves the change of rulers from one to another group, but the contradictions and forces of capitalism (that for example destroy the planet) remain in force. It isn't a revolution in the Marxian sense.
The other is that even if there are other revolutionary groups which are "disgruntled" and can coup or revolt I would like to see specific examples and in most cases these disgruntled groups aren't revolutionary, in exceptions they are but in those exceptions they are unable to achieve a revolution against capitalism itself, even if they manage to do anti colonial revolutions - for example.
Yes, of course.
I think I was too generous towards the author, actually. I shouldn't assume they've read anything they cited. They don't demonstrate substantial knowledge of it and made "baby's first anticommunisn"-style errors on Marx, like equivocating on what exploitation means in the Marxist sense.
Yeah, there is a difference between a general coup or revolt -- which may represent nothing but power changing hands by force -- and a revolution -- which changes nearly the whole of society in its impact on relations of production.