this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
23 points (100.0% liked)
theory
963 readers
1 users here now
A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for !literature@www.hexbear.net will be removed.
The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah I guess "choose" was the wrong word here, I understand this didn't happen in a planned and intentional manner, what I'm asking is why didn't they cool the frog rather than boil it, why did so many civilizations drift into hierarchy and class and not the other way around? Conceivably rather than drifting slowly into class society they could have continued nurturing a more egalitarian form of being.
The social relations generally arise from the level of material development. That's the central point of Marx, at certain levels of productive capacity, certain social formations become more suitable. It's also where the debates about stageism came from in the Bolshevik/Menshevik understanding. The Mensheviks vulgarized Marx's conception of historical development, thinking the bourgeois democratic revolution needed to develop before the proletarian revolution could happen.
The abolition of private property cannot happen without developed means of production suitable for the total abolition of private property. In this way, communism rhymes with early communalism, this is the negation of the negation.