2,512
edits
added ref section
No edit summary |
(added ref section) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
An error that leftists often make is defining the socialist system as some ideal, or a state of affairs to be established. <blockquote>Communism is for us not a ''state of affairs'' which is to be established, an ''ideal'' to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the ''real'' movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm Karl Marx, The German Ideology.]</ref></blockquote>What defines the socialist system is not some abstract ideal of removal of class or the value-form (a critique by left-communists), but the system is defined by its ''telos'', thus the qualitative change is a change in ''telos''. Attributing a single economic component as the defining reality of socialism and putting the rest on the side would be un-dialectical. Each of the components, whether in the socialist system or the capitalist system, are contained within the first. | An error that leftists often make is defining the socialist system as some ideal, or a state of affairs to be established. <blockquote>Communism is for us not a ''state of affairs'' which is to be established, an ''ideal'' to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the ''real'' movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm Karl Marx, The German Ideology.]</ref></blockquote>What defines the socialist system is not some abstract ideal of removal of class or the value-form (a critique by left-communists), but the system is defined by its ''telos'', thus the qualitative change is a change in ''telos''. Attributing a single economic component as the defining reality of socialism and putting the rest on the side would be un-dialectical. Each of the components, whether in the socialist system or the capitalist system, are contained within the first. | ||
For example, in regard to the capitalist system, Marx says that value-form is the most ''abstract'' (highest in form) and most universal (dominant) taken by the product.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1]</ref> In the instantiations of socialism it would obviously not the case, as the dictatorship of the proletariat has the strongest, most abstract and universal command over production. Dialectics really is the important part here; abolition is not what determines the change, it is the ''telos'', i.e, A and not-A are contained within each other, one taking dominance over the other in each economic system because of who controls the forces of production. | For example, in regard to the capitalist system, Marx says that value-form is the most ''abstract'' (highest in form) and most universal (dominant) taken by the product.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1]</ref> In the instantiations of socialism it would obviously not the case, as the dictatorship of the proletariat has the strongest, most abstract and universal command over production. Dialectics really is the important part here; abolition is not what determines the change, it is the ''telos'', i.e, A and not-A are contained within each other, one taking dominance over the other in each economic system because of who controls the forces of production. | ||
== References == | |||
__FORCETOC__ | __FORCETOC__ | ||