well as being the key to the static society, the productive forces and relations of production constitute the instrument of his interpretive ¬ mica dynamic, since they are the driving force of its development, or the law of history itself. Marx believed, in fact, that at a certain stage of development of productive forces tend to pay certain relations of production and property (a type of agricultural productive forces, for example, correspond to feudal relations of production). However, the relations of production are maintained only up to-do when promoting the productive forces on, and should be destroyed-when you convert into obstacles or in chains for the same.
Now, as the forces of production, in conjunction with technological progress, the fastest growing of the relations of production, which express relations of ownership and therefore tend to remain static, it follows a regular situation of friction or contradiction, the dialectic between the two elements that creates an 'era of social revolution, the' -. In fact, the new productive forces have always embodied by a rising class, the old property relations are always embodied by a ruling class at sunset. Consequently, it appears inevitable the clash, which is played not only social, but also political and cultural (as in the latter case, - 'Battle of, ideas). In the end, almost always wins the class that is an expression of the new productive forces,-which manages to impose its way of producing and distributing wealth ¬ king and its own specific vision the world, since "the ideas of clas ¬ if they are dominant in every age the ruling ideas, ie the class which is the dominant power mate ¬ rial is at the same time its dominant spiritual power."
This theoretical model, according to Marx, is its most typical examples, with regard to the past in eighteenth-century France, where at one point there was an open clash between the bourgeoisie (expression of the new type of productive forces understood ¬ Listica ) and the aristocracy (an expression of the old agrarian-feudal relations of property.) He won at the end of the bourgeoisie, who managed to impose its ownership and the pro ¬ vision of the world ere.
Similarly, in modern capitalism was taking shape a contradiction seem more pre ¬ "explosive" between the social productive forces and production of private law: ¬ indefatigable will, the modern factory, although a property., capitalist (or group of shareholders), produced only by the collective labor of workers, technicians, managers and so on. But, according to Marx, if the social production of wealth, social should be distributing it. And this means that capitalism brings with it, as a requirement dialectic socialism : capitalism creates the basis of socialism, since it generates for the first time in history, the "objective conditions" favorable to a revolution com ¬ nist world. The law of correspondence and contradiction between productive forces and relations of production allows Marx to give an overview of past history and pre ¬ feels, and to articulate humanity's progress over time in some major economic and social formation ¬ ni qualified by certain methods of production, by specific property relations, by particular legal and political institutions and corresponding forms of consciousness. In the "Preface" to the Critique of Political Economy, where the expression appears óikonomische Gesellschaftsformation (ie "social-economic formation ', in The German Ideology as we speak simply of" diproprietà-forms'), Marx distinguishes four major " eras' each characterized by a particular economic ¬ mica formation of the company: Asian (based on communal forms of ownership), the oldest of slavery, the feudal and bourgeois.
However, as both Marx and Engels sometimes hint at a "primitive community" (Urge ¬ meinschaft) communist-style (understood as a general type of company, of which the Asian is a sub-type, both as separate and distinct type ), we can say that the great ¬ of social-economic formations identified by the "classics" of Marxism are as follows: 4
the primitive community, the Asian company
4; 4
ancient society, the society
4 feudal, bourgeois society
4;
4 the future socialist society.
Although these periods do not constitute, strictly speaking, a necessary step in the history of the companies (many of which have in fact missed one or the other stage), however, is no doubt that from the point of view of Marx, they represent many steps of a sequence that goes to the upper dall'inferiore. Equally unquestionable is that the "classics" of Marxism, the story progresses from primitive communism (however it is intended) to the common future, through the halfway stage of class society, which is based on the division of labor and private property (concepts Moreover, for Marx are identical, as' the first is expressed in reference to the work exactly what each other is expressed in reference to the product of "). Also no doubt, then, is that this diagram historical development of civilization (which has much fascination exerted on minds later) rests on the argument that communism is the inevitable outcome of historical dialectics.
Communism is for us not a state of affairs that must be established, an ideal to which reality must conform. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things
. (For a Critique of Political Economy
The "dialectical" materialism Marx's historical and continuing its relationship with Hegel is therefore clear. For Marx, like Hegel, history is in fact set up - formally - as a totality of the case dominated by the force of contradiction with ¬ putting and end to a "final result". But with this difference in content: Marx estimated that it had to walk the dialectic of Hegel 'feet', rather than on ¬ 'head', because: 4
the subject of the historical dialectic is no longer represented by the Spirit, but from economic structure and the classes;
4, "dialecticity" the historical process is conceived as an "Empire" is the scientific mind ¬ "observable" through the facts themselves;
4 oppositions that move the story are not abstract and general, but concrete and specific, although all related to the dialectic between productive forces and relations of production which is the heart and the strategic center of the whole Marxist science society.
0 comments:
Post a Comment