Marx was a student of Hegel, so this was a big help to approaching Marx. I was taught "dialectic" first, in the context of Hegel. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated. Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. Outright false information will be removed immediately. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.īigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting. yet what can we learn from this? How can we come to productive conclusions? Yet this seems reductive and erroneous, as Stalin was just one man and so was Khrushchov, the contradiction ( at least what i think it might be) is the dissonance between the party and the people. (if one has the ability and is willing to, please do) The most straight forward analysis to me is that Stalin died, Khrushchov was a revisionist, coupled with corruption, and an alienation between the party bureaucrats and the prolatariat as their interests started to diverge. The understanding that the base, which is the means of production and the relations of production influences the superstructure, which is the state, court, culture ect, and that the superstructure feeds itself back and influences the base.īut then, how can we use all this, to analyse past events? For example, the soviet era of stagnation. Society will progress quantitatively until, it no longer can due to something called contradictions, and then a qualitative change will be made. Despite my question, i have a very incomplete understanding of the concepts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |