> at the beginning the revolution is not a revoltion. It is a mass
> struggle for some dramatic change in the present system. On rare
> occasins (which will continue to be rare) those struggles develop a
> 'logic' of their own, behind the backs of their participants, a logic
> drawing in others AND transforming all involved. (Ted doesn't agree with
> this interpretationo of Marx's "revolutionizing practice.")
Actually, I think this is consistent to some degree with what's claimed about "revolutionary practice" in the third thesis on Feuerbach.
"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
"The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
However, the "self-changing" brought about by the particular kind of "revolutionary practice" involved, is, and must be, "educative" in the sense specified in the German Ideology, i.e.
“Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm
An essential part of this becoming “fitted to found society anew” is “the development of a totality of capacities in the individuals themselves.”
"Thus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence. This appropriation is first determined by the object to be appropriated, the productive forces, which have been developed to a totality and which only exist within a universal intercourse. From this aspect alone, therefore, this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive forces and the intercourse.
"The appropriation of these forces is itself nothing more than the development of the individual capacities corresponding to the material instruments of production. The appropriation of a totality of instruments of production is, for this very reason, the development of a totality of capacities in the individuals themselves." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm
So Marx's "socialism" requires, as an essential prerequisite, the "appropriation" of "the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces" and this, given what Marx means by "appropriation," requires "the development of a totality of capacities in the individuals themselves," "an all-round development" in turn requiring and brought about by a particular kind of revolutionary practice.
Only by means of such an "appropriation" can individuals "achieve self-activity," i.e. turn "the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive force" "into free manifestations of their lives."
"private property can be abolished only on condition of an all-round development of individuals, precisely because the existing form of intercourse and the existing productive forces are all-embracing and only individuals that are developing in an all-round fashion can appropriate them, i.e., can turn them into free manifestations of their lives." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03o.htm
This constitutes “socialism” as the coincidence of “self-activity” with “material life.”
“Only at this stage does self-activity coincide with material life, which corresponds to the development of individuals into complete individuals and the casting-off of all natural limitations. The transformation of labour into self-activity corresponds to the transformation of the earlier limited intercourse into the intercourse of individuals as such. With the appropriation of the total productive forces through united individuals, private property comes to an end.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm
So "socialism" in Marx's sense isn't state ownership of the productive forces; it's their "appropriation" by the mass of individuals, an "appropriation" requiring "an all-round development of individuals" brought about by the required kind of revolutionary practice.
This idea is implicitly reaffirmed in the 1881 draft letter to Vera Zasulich speculating about the possibility of Russian peasants moving directly to "socialism" without first passing through capitalism.
That letter also reaffirms the idea that the initiation of such a revolutionary practice itself requires a significant degree of "integral development of every individual producer," a degree preceding relations, capitalist or otherwise (the letter is speculating about the consistency of non-capitalist Russian peasant relations with such development), must have worked to bring about.
Thus, according to Marx, the differences between “the activity of the free worker” and that of the “slave,” “fit the worker himself to undertake historical actions of an entirely different nature.”
“All these differences in the relation make the activity of the free worker more intensive, more continuous, more agile, and more dexterous than that of the slave, quite apart from the fact that they fit the worker himself to undertake historical actions of an entirely different nature.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/economic/ch37.htm
So, according to Marx, to create “socialism” revolutionary practice must be of the required kind from the beginning, a kind in turn requiring a particular kind of developed “individuality” for its initiation.
No actual revolutionary practice has been of this kind.
Ted