>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?"
>thanks
Not Marxism, but class struggle (which after all was going on around them at the time Marx & Engels were writing). Here's my non-scholarly, simplistic, non-post-modern take: They thought that through working together in large-scale production it would dawn on people that the profiteering owners weren't necessary to the production of the things humans want and need, and were in fact were causing a lot of misery. Eventually people would have had enough. It's an unfair caricature of their claim--though a common attack--to say they are determinist / inevitablist. One gets tired of writing in the subjunctive, no? From what I've read, they thought people are the actors in history, but no, if we don't try to change things, thinking and analyzing and rolling with the punches at least as vigorously as our opponents, things will not necessarily change. Otherwise, why bother with all the analysis and struggle? Que sera sera.
> I thought that capitalism was inevitable, just not the final point of
scoial equilibrium. >Moreover, I though that it was not final because of the
ever strengthing class strife >between Capitalists and Proletaria. And that a
no class strata society would be final. my >bad.
Final, hmm. There is that little thing about the unfair division of labor between men and women. All hitherto existing society and all that... no danger of history coming to a screeching halt.
Jenny Brown