>
>
>Eric Dorkin wrote: Help me out here, and I am not being a smart ass.
>But, isn't the point behind "marxism" that it is inevitable? And if so,
>isn;t the issue a matter or "when," not "if?"
>
>No. Ever heard the phrase "socialism or barbarism," or from the
>Communist Manifesto: "mutual ruin of the contending classes." Or
>Gramsci, "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will." Capitalism
>was itself not inevitable: the assumption that it is/was is derivative
>from the metaphysical concept of Progress, a core bourgeois illusion.
>
>Carrol
This is too easy Carrol. Marx is inconsistently inevitabilistic: "Their fsll [the bourgeoisie's] and the victory of the proletariat arer equally inevitable." (From The Manifeso, same document as produces the common ruin formulation). And much Marxism--including Luxemburg! has been inevitabilistic. That, along which parlaimentary gradualism, was her main point of contention with Bernstein--he rejected the inevitable downfall of capitalism. Of course there area lso noninevitabilsitic strains in Marx and Marxism. But if "progress: is a core boirgeosi illusion, it is one deeply adhered to by Marx. jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com