Materialism and Class Consciousness

[Widerstand]

As far as I'm aware, Idealism holds that ideas create (or change) material reality, that they precede it. Materialism on the other hand is opposed to this, stating that material reality precedes ideas and that ideas are born of material reality. Right?

If so, and if we are to accept that Marxism is a materialist theory, how does the conception that Class Consciousness (which by all means is a set of ideas the proletariat has about it's own) lead to Revolution (a change in material reality) fit in? It would strike me as that the notion "Class Consciousness leads to Revolution" is Idealist rather than Materialist.

[Thirsty Crow]

As far as I'm aware, Idealism holds that ideas create (or change) material reality, that they precede it. Materialism on the other hand is opposed to this, stating that material reality precedes ideas and that ideas are born of material reality. Right?

If so, and if we are to accept that Marxism is a materialist theory, how does the conception that Class Consciousness (which by all means is a set of ideas the proletariat has about it's own) lead to Revolution (a change in material reality) fit in? It would strike me as that the notion "Class Consciousness leads to Revolution" is Idealist rather than Materialist.

Ask yourself what would, if not class conscious workers, lead to a revolution.
Or ask yourself what then, if not the activity of real men (which always presupposes a degree of consciousness regarding the aims of the activity), leads to social change which is, in retrospective, called history.
My answer would be that by abandoning any notion of class consciousness we would fall into the trap of mechanicism of "iron laws of society/economy" or whatever else. That would entail a fall into idealism of the worst sort.

[Rjevan]

If so, and if we are to accept that Marxism is a materialist theory, how does the conception that Class Consciousness (which by all means is a set of ideas the proletariat has about it's own) lead to Revolution (a change in material reality) fit in? It would strike me as that the notion "Class Consciousness leads to Revolution" is Idealist rather than Materialist.
No, it might seem so at the first glance but we have to remember where class consciousness derives from. Is it (same goes for Marxism itself, btw.) some super-natural concept dwelling somewhere in outer space or is it a product of material circumstances? Clearly the latter, as all other ideas and concepts. But of course this doesn't exculde that ideas have a strong impact on reality:

New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces, which hamper the development of the material life of society.

Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the development of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.
[...]
Hence, in order to be able to influence the conditions of material life of society and to accelerate their development and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting into motion broad masses of the people and of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary forces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

And before somebody chimes in to claim that Stalin had no idea of Marxism and distorted materialism into idealism, here is what the boss himself says about this subject:

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

[Black Sheep]

A revolution does not happen by merely a class concious ploretariat, but by the class struggle oriented actions of the class concious proletariat.

Class conciousness->revolutionary action->revolution
;)

An idealist view would be that the mindset itself of a class concious proletariat (or proletarian,idealism often focuses on the individual) would alter,warp the material reality.

But material change requires action.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Materialism would suggest that "class consciousness" can not just come from nowhere - peasants in Feudalism could not just have "thought-up" a proletarian revolution because there is no material basis for that kind of class consciousness let alone class struggle.

But if you look at how ideas develop through material conditions, there is a hitch which Marx notes when he said: "the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class". So the consciousness of existing workers is informed both through their own material circumstances as workers, but is also influenced by the ideas of the ruling class who have the material means to spread their ideas through schools, the church, academics, and politicians.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rjevan, quoting Marx (and Stalin to the same effect):


The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter.

Which explains why not one single worker raised his/her hand in defence of the fSU (or the Eastern Block 'People's Democracies) when they fell -- these ideas had not 'siezed the masses'. Plainly, they rejected them.