>The bottom line is that benig anti-determinist, I believe it would have been materially possible for the slavs Marx cites to build commonism, which Marx clearly doesn't.
You are really confusing me now. By saying it is materially possible, you are presumably saying that the material conditions necessary for socialism existed. But the only reason you seem to be giving for this difference of opinion with Marx is that you are "anti-determinist". I can't for the life of me see what difference that makes to a judgement about whether the material conditions for socialism existed at the time.
> Marx's economic determinism is most clearly seen in his insistance that the German and Britain proletariats, being the most "advanced" economically, were closest to revolution.
And you don't understand why a more advanced technology of production brings the possibility of socialism closer? I will explain.
Simply put, socialism isn't possible if the means of production is not sufficiently advanced to satisfy the needs of all. Socialism entails democratic control of the means of production, but if it is not possible to produce enough to satisfy the needs of everyone, then obviously democracy is an impractical system for determining who will eat and who will starve. You might think the egalitarian solution would be for everyone to suffer a degree of want equally, but of course this goes against human nature. There isn't any "fair" way determine who will perish of there is not enough for all to live. In short, socialism is a system that is designed to share the wealth, it isn't at all suitable for sharing want.
So the most basic material condition required in order for socialism to be possible, is that the means of production are sufficiently developed to enable a decent standard of living for all. You might want to quibble with Marx's analysis of whether in a particular instance such conditions existed or not, but if you are saying that it doesn't matter, then you would be what is known as a utopian socialist. I believe that Jesus Christ was an early utopian socialist so you aren't in bad company.
> In reality, they turned uot to be the most reformist of the european working class, and conincidentally Marx's bases of support after the majority of the International sided with the Anarchists.
You are confusing objective material conditions with subjective consciousness.
Material conditions do have an influence on consciousness, which helps to explain why the more comfortable sections of the working class are often more progressive. But that isn't to say that the more comfortable will necessarily be more progressive.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas