Yea, certainly Marx and Engels indicate that in abolishing bourgeois private
property, the proletariat abolishes all private property and all
antagonistic classes or all exploiting/exploited classes. So, in this sense,
the socialist revolution is the first step toward the both classes in the
antagonistic contradiction. So, ultimately, both side of the contradiction
go in communism, the second phase.
In the socialist phase of communism, the proletariat still exists , and does
become the dominant aspect of the contradiction, changing places with the
bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie may still exists in some countries as the
ruling class.
CB
>>One way to think of it is that antagonistic contradictions are
irreconcilable. One side or the other of the contradiction has to go. Or one
side can't gain without the other side losing ( "zero sum game" is
antagonistic contradiction.
But like all definitions, this is limited .
Charles<<
**********************
WL: One can describe anything . . . anyway they choose. How has antagonism
been described in our communist history and within our polarity? If we rely
upon
our individual understanding we get in trouble. Below is a couple of quotes
from the Textbook.
One side of a contradiction, that evolves in a mode called antagonism,
cannot
abolish the other side, (in the context of social classes) that it was
birthed with; or that aspect of its own existence that makes it what it is,
without
its own self abolition by definition. For instance the modern proletariat is
modern and proletariat only in its unity with the bourgeoisie.
The proletariat does not abolish ("has to go") the bourgeoisie: or in a
contradiction evolving in the mode called antagonism, "One side or the other
of the
contradiction (DOES NOT) has to go."
Both aspects of the contradiction "has to go." That is why it is
antagonistic, meaning it cannot be reconciled.
What characterizes antagonism above all other consideration is the process
of
polarity as external collision. Irreconcilable means exactly what? Cannot be
reconciled . . . yes? What is its mode of resolution that the word
antagonism
summarizes? We already know an antagonistic contradiction is irreconcilable
or
it would not be antagonistic.
If in fact, antagonism is a specific mode of resolution, then it stands to
reason one must describe the path of evolution of this mode. I did no more
than
describe the specific form this mode of resolution expresses itself in on
the
basis of how the previous generation of communists described things and then
pointed out my difference with the previous generation.
HERE IS THE EXACT WORDING from page 174 second paragraph, of the Textbook of
Marxist Philosophy, American English.
"The contradiction of any process is resolved, not by some external force,
as
thinks the mechanists, but by the development of the contradiction itself.
This is true also in regard to antagonistic contradictions. But in the
course of
development of an antagonistic contradiction at its different stages, only
the premise for its resolution are preserved and ripened. The contradiction
itself at every new stage becomes ever more intensified. An antagonistic
contradiction does not pass beyond the stages of its partial resolution."
Here is what I wrote:
Antagonism replaces and destroys contradiction. Antagonism is a mode of
destruction and transformation to a new quality. The contradiction that
expresses
any process is resolved by the development of the contradiction itself as it
passes through its various quantitative boundaries. In contradictions "that
are
not antagonistic" or rather, that do not evolve and resolve themselves in
antagonistic form, the development of the contradiction itself signifies not
only
the growth of the forces making for its final resolution, but each stage in
the quantitative development of the contradiction is at the same time also
its
partial resolution."
HERE IS THE EXACT WORDING from page 174 fourth paragraph, of the Textbook of
Marxist Philosophy, American English.
"Antagonistic contradictions are resolved by the kind of leap in which the
internal opposites emerge as relatively independent opposites, external to
each
other, by a leap that leads to the abolition of the formerly dominant
opposite
and to the establishment of a new contradiction."
I took exception to this description and wrote:
>>"An antagonistic contradiction does not pass beyond the stages of its
partial resolution. Something else must happen. Antagonistic contradictions
are
resolved by the kind of leap in which the internal opposites emerge as
relatively independent opposites, external to one another. And this process
of
externalization does not happen all at once because what is polarized and
separated
from itself is not simply "the primary contradictory forces" - (say
bourgeois
and proletariat), but the bourgeoisie is polarized within itself, as one
"side"
of the contradiction and the proletariat is polarized within itself as the
other "side" of the contradiction.
If contradictions resolved on the basis of antagonism are not partially
resolved at various stages in their quantitative development, how and what
causes -
compels resolution? In the past communist workers and Marxists have simply
stated, the proletariat seizes power and abolishes bourgeois property by
becoming the dominant side of the contradiction. Abolishing bourgeois
property is a
political act and important but the larger real issue is on what basis the
proletariat abolishes itself and its historically specific form of laboring.
This theory of the proletariat becoming the dominant side of the
contradiction, as exposition of the meaning of antagonism, as a mode of
resolution of the
contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat, is inadequate and
expresses
the historical limitation of the form of Marxism of the period of the Third
International and the Stalin era. The bourgeoisie and proletariat do not
"change positions" as such with the formerly "subordinated" aspect of the
social
contradiction that is the capital relations or value producing relations,
becoming "dominant" and the formerly dominant aspect becoming the
subordinated."<<
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
