Socialism and Class Struggle

[28350]

If class antagonisms between a thesis and antithesis lead to a synthesis class, wouldn't a socialist revolution lead to the formation of a new class? Why is this class conflict the last? While I wouldn't argue some sort of teleological march towards socialism that Engels wrote of after Marx's death, there is a clear general trend throughout the epochs of a move towards greater freedom. Or is the point of a dictatorship of the proletariat the cessation of class formation? But on the other hand, the class of the proletariat is defined by their relation to the means of production and capital. If there is state ownership of the means of production and the elimination of capital, would not the proletariat be transformed into... something else?

Also, when would class struggle cease during socialism? One can have social classes with little or no class conflict (I believe Marx said this is why the Asiatic Mode of Production was so stagnant - because there was little conflict / interaction between the ruling elite and the isolated communal peasants). Would class struggle end before communism, or would its end signal communism?

Clearly I'm very confused :(. Perhaps I'm looking into unpredictable and insignificant details that are the responsibility of the future to straighten out. Either way, I'd appreciate some help.

[CartCollector]

Well, once socialism has been won, who would the proletariat exploit? Specifically I believe Marx's answer is that, in socialism, exploitation and classes aren't needed for production like they are in previous societies, so they would cease to exist.

EDIT: I should have said "communism" instead of "socialism."

[AK]

Class struggle would still be existent under socialism. Ideally, socialism involves fully democratic control of the state and economy and truly socialised means of production. So the Proleteriat as a whole class completely rules over the state and creates and abides by it's own laws. The only class struggle that I can think of involves economic competition, propaganda wars and maybe even a military confrontation or an arms race between the socialist Proletarian states and the Bourgeois-ruled states. Communism signals not only the end of all classes, but the also the end of all class struggles. Because wherever there are classes, there is class struggle.

[¿Que?]

Perhaps I'm looking into unpredictable and insignificant details that are the responsibility of the future to straighten out. Either way, I'd appreciate some help.
My advice is that if there are more than about 4 questions to the post, you should separate them from your exposition and bullet or number them. This way, you will get more specific answers to your questions, rather than people just responding to one or two or making general comments somewhat related to your post.

As to your specific questions, I'm not really sure how to answer them. The proletariat is in a unique place in society, it is the only class whose interests are the same as all collective humanity. I forget exactly how it's worded, though.

[mikelepore]

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a heap of 19th century superstition. I suggest that everyone forget about it.

[flobdob]

If class antagonisms between a thesis and antithesis lead to a synthesis class, wouldn't a socialist revolution lead to the formation of a new class? Why is this class conflict the last? While I wouldn't argue some sort of teleological march towards socialism that Engels wrote of after Marx's death, there is a clear general trend throughout the epochs of a move towards greater freedom. Or is the point of a dictatorship of the proletariat the cessation of class formation? But on the other hand, the class of the proletariat is defined by their relation to the means of production and capital. If there is state ownership of the means of production and the elimination of capital, would not the proletariat be transformed into... something else?

Also, when would class struggle cease during socialism? One can have social classes with little or no class conflict (I believe Marx said this is why the Asiatic Mode of Production was so stagnant - because there was little conflict / interaction between the ruling elite and the isolated communal peasants). Would class struggle end before communism, or would its end signal communism?

Clearly I'm very confused :(. Perhaps I'm looking into unpredictable and insignificant details that are the responsibility of the future to straighten out. Either way, I'd appreciate some help.

The way I've always interpreted it was that, with the working class coming to power, for the first time in history it would be the majority of people having access to the means of production, not the few. This would cause a radical change; as the old exploiting class would be eliminated, there would be only the one left - and as class is a relative concept, in lieu of another class to oppose it, class would be a dead concept.

Or something. I could be wrong, but that's always how I've seen it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a heap of 19th century superstition. I suggest that everyone forget about it.
I'm fairly sure that when Marx referred to it, in his critique of Proudhon, he was being derisive.

[mikelepore]

I'm fairly sure that when Marx referred to it, in his critique of Proudhon, he was being derisive.

Marx does say there that Proudhon is reductionistic about it. However, the problem is that thesis-antithesis-synthesis _sometimes_ works, just like "the transformation of quantity into quality" _sometimes_ works. These heuristics don't allow us to distinguish in advance between any true prediction and a false one, but they explain some things after the facts. That's a shortcoming that they share with evolution by natural selection, which is undoubtedly a scientific model. When the 19th century scholars tried to expand the social sciences into a track to change the world, I can easily see them being attracted to such formulas. In the same way that Pop Sci writers of today attempt to think "deep thoughts" as they claim a lot for fractals or chaos or emergent phoenomena, tidbits pulled out of Hegel had that role in the futuristic literature of 150 years ago.