Polylogism and Marxist analysis.

[Broletariat]

Now, generally we would attribute the fact that the bourgeoisie would not arrive at the conclusion of communism because it is not in their material interests correct? How is this not a form of polylogism? Is it because we hold it to be a general rule and not an eternal one? We just hold that material conditions INFORM views and do not MAKE them right?

[BIG BROTHER]

Even Marx himself on the communist manifesto considered that through the revolution a small segment of the bourgeoisie would go over the side of the proletariat.

But this wold happen almost as a personal choice, not as a class.

[Zanthorus]

Now, generally we would attribute the fact that the bourgeoisie would not arrive at the conclusion of communism because it is not in their material interests correct? How is this not a form of polylogism? Is it because we hold it to be a general rule and not an eternal one? We just hold that material conditions INFORM views and do not MAKE them right?

Statements about politics are not the same as logical statements. Logic can only tell us wether or not a statement is possible, not whether it is actually true or false. For example, there is nothing logically wrong with the statement that capitalism provides incentives for technological innovation which would not exist in a socialist economy, meaning that the former would flourish and the latter stagnate. The truth of this statement is dependent upon it's correspondence with the actual state of affairs, and this state of affairs is not dependent on logic, unless of course you are a Hegelian. As for your questions about material interests, yes we would generally attribute the fact that the bourgeoisie would not want to introduce communism to the fact that it is not in their interests to do so. However, even if they wished to do so, it would be impossible, as they do not have the same capacity for collective organisation as the working-class. I don't know about the difference between 'informing' and 'making' views. Marx's view is that errors in thinking arise from the fact that the very nature of the object to be thought about obscures a real analysis. For example, a social form in which the products stand over the producers and in which social relations between human beings become material relations between themselves and social relations between things is particularly conducive to the illusion that the categories of that social form are in fact natural properties of the material wealth of society rather than a result of the specific social form within which that material wealth exists.