Dialectics

[Ligeia]

Does Marxism postulate dialectics?

Is dialectics not a theory about thesis,antithesis and synthesis ,as well as about contrasts in history?

I always thought dialectics is about the everchanging processes in history that seem to be natural consequences (e.g.feudalism-industrialisation-capitalism).

But where does Marx in his works say something like that?

I don't think that this theory works.-----but I don't know if I'm right either.

That may be stupid questions....sorry

[ComradeRed]

It has been said that people who use the word "paradigm" are people without idea...dialectics' use is no different.

Since no one has taken the time to coherently explain dialectics in a manner that shows their "usefulness", I have a very crude understanding of them (Hegel doesn't really shed much light on the matter either!).



Is dialectics not a theory about thesis,antithesis and synthesis ,as well as about contrasts in history? Dialectics is hard to classify. A German windbag named Fichte classified them as the "interplay" between the "thesis" and "antithesis", this "interplay" constitutes a new "thesis"...a sort of Idealistic holism if you will.

Another German blowhard Hegel argued that this was "too" structured, and thus needs to be more ambiguous.

What you are beginning to think about in the latter part, the contrast of history, that is called historical materialism. This (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) is one of the better treatments of the theory.

The two, historical materialism and dialectics, are not the same!!! Dialectics is apparently some stoneage form of reasoning, and historical materialism is a central part of the scientific paradigm of Marxism.



But where does Marx in his works say something like that? In obscure letters if you interpret certain things certain ways, it means different things.

Why if you read one backwards it reads Hegel Love Me :lol:

According to the dialecticians, it is omnipresent and ubiquotous in Marx's writings. According to the Marxists, it really isn't that explicitly spoken of except in a few letters in passing, and in two (I think) prefaces.

[Amusing Scrotum]

There have been quite a few threads discussing dialectics recently....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44759
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=44445&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44445&st=0)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43292
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42399

....just ignore all the flaming and read the relevant points, that's what I did.

[Storming Heaven]

I get most of my information form Karl Popper's (mostly) excellent book Conjectures and Refutations, particularly the chapter 'What is Dialectic?'...

Dialectic was originally a theory postulated to explain the development of ideas. The gist of it is something like this: an theory or thesis is nearly always imperfect, and so stimulates the development of an opposing theory, the antithesis. This to is imperfect, so eventually the best points from both will be combined a better theory, the synthesis. The synthesis may even become a new thesis, producing a new antithesis and so on...

Marx believed that the material world (including history) developed in accordance with a certian dialetic (hence 'Dialectical Materialism'). Marx's Dialectic was essentally an Materialist's version of the dialetic of his philosophy teacher Hegel, who also applied a Dialectic to the world. Hegel was an idealist, that is, he believed that the world that appears to us is nothing but a bunch of ideas in some mind, and material reality doesn't exist. Considering this, it was quite natural for Hegel to apply a theory of the development of ideas to the world - Hegel maintained that the world was nothing more than ideas.

The defining feature of Hegel's dialetic is that it accepts contradictions...indeed, both Hegel and Marx hold that contradictions are the very source of progress. To see why Hegel thought this, we must go back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in particular his critique of metaphysics.

Kant held that metaphysical reasoning is absurd, because he thought that we could only know the world-as-it-appears (to us), and not the world-as-it-is. Kant discovered that any attempt to reason beyond appearances (i.e. metaphysical reasoning) could be developed in contradictory directions. Metaphysics thus can tell us nothing at all, and cannot lead to true knowledge. The tree that fell on my cay could just as easily been an act of God, or an act of the Devil. Alternatively there could be no reason why it fell on my car at all! Kant held that it is impossible for us to know which is correct.

Hegel, however, wanted to re-admit metaphysics to philosophy. So he simply denied that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, and inserted contradictions into dialetic by holding that the antithesis was the contradiction to the thesis, and that the synthesis contradicted them both. Reality thus developed through a stuggle between contradictory elements. Marx simply adopted the Dialectic of his esteemed teacher, and (holding that Hegel was mistaken, and that the mind developed from the world), turned it on it's head.

And so a philosophical nightmare was born...

[Janus]

Is dialectics not a theory about thesis,antithesis and synthesis ,as well as about contrasts in history?
Well, Hegel never used the terms "thesis", "antithesis", and "synthesis". So that explanation is too simple to say the least. Dialectics is based on contradictions or conflicts in systems, thus driving it forward. That is the main tenet of the philosophy.

Some of these sites might help you in understanding dialectics but you shouldn't get too immersed in it.
http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm

[Storming Heaven]

Now to answer a few of the questions and comments...


always thought dialectics is about the everchanging processes in history that seem to be natural consequences (e.g.feudalism-industrialisation-capitalism).

But where does Marx in his works say something like that?


The difference between 'Historical Materialism' and 'Dialectical Materialism' in Marxist though is subtle. Historical Materialism holds that material conditions (wealth, access to resources etc.) are of primary importance in determining the course of history, as opposed to ideological influences. Dialetcical Materialism holds that the material world develops as a Dialectic triad (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).

In Marxist thought the two get blurred, because Marx held that history (like the rest of the material world, he thought) developed as a Dialectic. I am not well-read in Marx's works, but I imagine he mentions the Dialectic frequently. Engels certianly does. He refers to the easiness to understand Dialectical Materialism, and tries to make a case for it, by showing a seed to be equivilant to the thesis, the plant to the antithesis and the new generation of seeds to the synthesis. If you ask me, it's all a rather lose way of talking.


In obscure letters if you interpret certain things certain ways, it means different things.

Why if you read one backwards it reads Hegel Love Me

According to the dialecticians, it is omnipresent and ubiquotous in Marx's writings. According to the Marxists, it really isn't that explicitly spoken of except in a few letters in passing, and in two (I think) prefaces.

Marxists are Dialecticians. They invoke dialetics as a sort of apologetics, to such an extent that if you reject Dialectical Materialism you might as well reject Marxism.


Well, Hegel never used the terms "thesis", "antithesis", and "synthesis". So that explanation is too simple to say the least. Dialectics is based on contradictions or conflicts in systems, thus driving it forward. That is the main tenet of the philosophy

I was not aware of this, but it should have been obvious - Hegel wrote in German, not in English!!! (as far as I am aware). But at any rate it matters little - he still espoused a Dialectic, and a nightmareish one at that!!!

[Ligeia]

Firts of all,thank you. ;)

So historical materialism is part of dialectics or totally independent from this?Something totally new?The historical materialism didn't develop out of dialectics?

I always get confused about the two and mix them up but I&#39;ll learn. <_<

And is historical materialism now the one which develops the theory that the economic neccesity leads to changes?


I&#39;m reading Gramsci&#39;s works at the moment and he (roughly said) says that there is no apparent neccesity anymore that can lead to changes like it was thought before but that this belief at least can get comfort although it isn&#39;t true anymore because of high living standards in industrialised countries.And I was wondering to whom theory he was refering to... :unsure:

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2006, 05:14 AM
Well, Hegel never used the terms "thesis", "antithesis", and "synthesis". So that explanation is too simple to say the least.
That&#39;s because the pompous windbag could never say anything in such simple terms.

[Seong]

yeah, is it mandatory that good ideas and theories must be difficult to understand. It&#39;s like obnoxious students who get off on using the prefix &#39;psuedo&#39; alot.

[Storming Heaven]

So historical materialism is part of dialectics or totally independent from this?Something totally new?The historical materialism didn&#39;t develop out of dialectics?


My understanding is that Dialectic isn&#39;t necessary for Historical Materialism.

Historical Materialism is the theory that material conditions are the most important factor in determining the course of history. For example, imagine a conflict between two nations of different religion, and differing amounts of wealth. Let us say that the less wealthy nation is the aggressor. Historical Materialism holds that the root reason for the conflict is that the poorer nation desires the wealth of the richer one, and that the apparent religious (ideological) conflict only serves to mask this, as a sort of &#39;justification&#39;.

On top of this, Marx also applied a Dialectical form to the development of history, believing it to procced in stages equivilant to the thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

I hope this clears it up for you&#33;&#33;&#33; :D

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jan 29 2006, 01:03 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jan 29 2006, 01:03 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2006, 05:14 AM
Well, Hegel never used the terms "thesis", "antithesis", and "synthesis". So that explanation is too simple to say the least.
That&#39;s because the pompous windbag could never say anything in such simple terms. [/b]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Storming Heaven
On top of this, Marx also applied a Dialetical form to the development of history, believing it to procced in stages equivilant to the thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

That&#39;s a good way of putting it -- material conflicts provoke a dialectal reaction -- however I&#39;d say that keeping the explanations within the historical materialist school of thought, produces far better results.

Take your example (of warring nations), isn&#39;t it better (and more coherent) to say....

Two nations with opposing material interests came into conflict and based on the material conditions of each nation (the size of their armies, level of military technology, etc. etc.) one of the nations emerged victorious.

Or to say....

Two nations which represented a thesis and antithesis, came into conflict because they contradicted each other and produced a synthesis (the victorious nation).

Personally, I&#39;d find the first statement more useful.

[Bannockburn]

On top of this, Marx also applied a Dialetical form to the development of history, believing it to procced in stages equivilant to the thesis, antithesis and synthesis

Well no, not really. This is a general mistake, but can easily be corrected. Marx never used dialectics to understand the material conditions of history. In fact, dialectical materialism was an offspring of Russian Marxist thinkers, but not Marx. There is a little book titled “the Marx Engels reader by Robert C tucker” (great book) that explains this.

In order to understand Marx, one must know Hegel. I doubt any of you, or most of you have read the phenomenology, and I don&#39;t say that in spite of any intelligence, but its hard core philosophy generally only done in philosophy courses, and to try to understand it on your own is mental suicide.

Historical materialism is only the necessity of of past events. Like Hegel the past shows the necessity of now, while now is contingent. For example, I would not be the person I am now if I decided not to read Marx than reading him. At the time of picking up Marx was completely contingent, but looking at history not as mere facts, but as an information tool shows the necessity of me turning out who I am now by the contingent moment.

Well same same with Marx, just Hegel “flipped on his feet”. No real dialects at play, but the current material conditions of society can be explain by the necessity of past historical conditions. Take the example of feudal society and the emancipation of serfs from the land to wage laborers, etc.

What you have hitherto been explained to you are simply common misconceptions of Hegel, dialectics and Marx. For example, forget this “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” crap. This is formal dialects which neither Hegel nor Marx claimed to have within their philosophies. For example, in the Preface for Hegel, during the necessity of the past, some periods have more spirit than others, and spirits self-reflection of its own otherness sometimes is low in spirit, others high. For example during Napoleon&#39;s period, it was a high moment of spirit self-reflection of itself, but say during the Hellenistic period after Aristotle would be lower in spirit. Obviously Hegel would say there is more spirit during Plato/Aristotle than say the Stoics and Skeptics, but if it was a formal dialectics, it would imply the opposite.

Let&#39;s see, anything else I can fix for you. Well if you have any questions just post it here I guess.



Two nations which represented a thesis and antithesis, came into conflict because they contradicted each other and produced a synthesis (the victorious nation).

Personally, I&#39;d find the first statement more useful.

Yeah, but sorry its bullshit both in Hegelian and Marxist theory. For Marx, a revolution implies a complete destruction of the previous material conditions of the previous existing society. For example feudal lords and estates were abolished for bourgeoisie society. That is simply stated in capital and in the German ideology I believe.

Likewise with Hegel ideas come from previous ideas, but are not the same ideas previously. They are new, which came out of the previous ideas, but do not resemble the previous ideas. Thus, the above example is bullshit since the victorious nation is the same as before the war started. The above example is a general mistake which is common among most people. If you take “the End of history” by Fakuyama is a classical example. He claims that the Soviet Union and the US were thesis and anti-thesis and the United States is the victor and hence the “synthesis”. Well that doesn&#39;t work for either Marx or Hegel, and this is a classical example of idiot people who never took a philosophy course or have a degree in philosophy try to explain philosophical ideas.

Well for Marx if this was true, the US would have had to had a complete change of its material conditions, this obviously didn&#39;t happen. Likewise with Hegel but with ideas. You must remember that for both Hegel and Marx, for Hegel for example its an evolution of conciousness of higher consciousness than before, and as the above example does not show any evolutionary process. It still remains static.

This is why I think a lot of people are under some kind of illusion of a revolution. A revolution consist in the complete change of the material conditions of the existing society which does not resemble, but obviously came from the previous existing society. Nobody here in this forum has ever proposed as I&#39;ve thus seen so far to offer any alternative.

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:19 AM
[QUOTE]

Historical materialism is only the necessity of of past events. Like Hegel the past shows the necessity of now, while now is contingent.


No real dialects at play, but the current material conditions of society can be explain by the necessity of past historical conditions. Take the example of feudal society and the emancipation of serfs from the land to wage laborers, etc.


For Marx, a revolution implies a complete destruction of the previous material conditions of the previous existing society. For example feudal lords and estates were abolished for bourgeoisie society. That is simply stated in capital and in the German ideology I believe.

A revolution consist in the complete change of the material conditions of the existing society which does not resemble, but obviously came from the previous existing society.
So historical materialism only explains why now became what it is but doesn&#39;t neccesarily show an evolution in the "future now"?

And what about revolution?Is revolution inherent ín the theory of historical materialism as every "now" exists because of a revolution?But at the same time this does not predict anything for the future,nor did Marx ever imply something like a stream of events? :unsure:

[Storming Heaven]

In fact, dialectical materialism was an offspring of Russian Marxist thinkers, but not Marx ... What you have hitherto been explained to you are simply common misconceptions of Hegel, dialectics and Marx. For example, forget this “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” crap. This is formal dialects which neither Hegel nor Marx claimed to have within their philosophies.

Touché. A little research here reveals that I stand corrected - Diamat (Dialectical Materialism) was developed by Russian Marxists. However, I think to call Diamat the &#39;offspring&#39; of Russian thinkers is unwarranted, suggesting originality. From what I can gather they drew directly on the writings of Marx and Engels.

I have it on good authority that Engels makes reference to a Dialeticical development of the material world (which is also the central thesis of Diamat). He identifies the plant as the &#39;negation&#39; of a seed, and the new generation of seeds as the &#39;negation of the negation&#39;. Admittebly I cannot find Engels giving reference to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis model, but equating &#39;negation&#39; with the antithesis and the &#39;negation of the negation&#39; with the synthesis is all too easily done. Is such an equitation mistaken?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 31 2006, 06:43 AM


I have it on good authority that Engels makes reference to a Dialeticical development of the material world (which is also the central thesis of Diamat). He identifies the plant as the &#39;negation&#39; of a seed, and the new generation of seeds as the &#39;negation of the negation&#39;. Admittebly I cannot find Engels giving reference to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis model, but equating &#39;negation&#39; with the antithesis and the &#39;negation of the negation&#39; with the synthesis is all too easily done. Is such an equitation mistaken?
I&#39;m pretty sure thats from Socialism:Utopian and Scientific by Engels.

[ComradeRed]

I have it on good authority that Engels makes reference to a Dialeticical development of the material world (which is also the central thesis of Diamat). He identifies the plant as the &#39;negation&#39; of a seed, and the new generation of seeds as the &#39;negation of the negation&#39;. Admittebly I cannot find Engels giving reference to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis model, but equating &#39;negation&#39; with the antithesis and the &#39;negation of the negation&#39; with the synthesis is all too easily done. Is such an equitation mistaken? I&#39;m not a dialectician, and dialectics are often explained through esoteric jargon so I may be way off; however, from my understanding the "negation of the negation" is when something occurs "twice" but the second time "isn&#39;t the same" as the first.

It is somehow "different". I guess in this sense the negation of the negation is not the same as the original, but at the same time "the same"?

For example, the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire?

The two vocab sets are not equivalent, however. That one thing I do know about "dialectics".

[Bannockburn]

So historical materialism only explains why now became what it is but doesn&#39;t neccesarily show an evolution in the "future now"?

Yes completely. If we look historically, we can see the necessity of certain events which produces the current now. For example, In Capital Marx shows us how in feudal society the serfs were emancipated from the land, but because of that historical condition lead to bourgeoisie society. The future will come out of the current historical material conditions, but will look completely different, such as bourgeoisie society compared to feudal society. I&#39;ll give you a Hegelian example as well. You have a flower, but before you have that flower, the bud must have came before it. See? I hope this is clear. This current time, the present is only a moment and is contingent, but will become a necessity when we look historically of the potential future society.


And what about revolution?Is revolution inherent ín the theory of historical materialism as every "now" exists because of a revolution?But at the same time this does not predict anything for the future,nor did Marx ever imply something like a stream of events?

Well basically for Marx, a revolution is the complete transition of the material conditions as well as the mode of production (our relation to one another) from its previous material conditions and mode of production. For example, the industrial revolution was the complete transition to a machine production to an agricultural production. I would say every now exist because of a revolution. We are in bourgeoisie society which was a revolution from feudal society. A revolution doesn&#39;t have to be violent in a way. Not like a revolution like the French, Russian, or American, but easy transitions, for example the information age is essentially a revolution from the industrial age. Think of revolution also as an evolution.

Yes and now. It does not predict the future. For Hegel the now, “is the first day of the rest of your life”. The now is only a moment, a contingent present which has the possibility to go many direction (Hegel). However, Marx can “predict” the future insofar the antagonisms between the owners of production and the proletarian will eventually end with communism.



I think to call Diamat the &#39;offspring&#39; of Russian thinkers is unwarranted, suggesting originality. From what I can gather they drew directly on the writings of Marx and Engels.

Not really friend. You are an offspring from your parents, you&#39;re not really original, you have the same DNA, biological features as your parents, but at same time you are not your parents. So, I think offspring is a good term. Certainly not from Marx directly, but came from Marx indirectly.

[Storming Heaven]

You are an offspring from your parents, you&#39;re not really original, you have the same DNA, biological features as your parents, but at same time you are not your parents. So, I think offspring is a good term. Certainly not from Marx directly, but came from Marx indirectly.

Actually, I am original. The total of my DNA is different from that of either of my parents. If Diamat is the original thought of Russian Marxists, then it must contain some essential component that did not come from Marx himself (i.e. some component that came from the aforementioned thinkers themselves, or from some other (non-Marxist) thinker). My understanding is that this is not the case. However, I am no expert, so if I am mistaken, please enlighten me.


... the "negation of the negation" is when something occurs "twice" but the second time "isn&#39;t the same" as the first.

It is somehow "different". I guess in this sense the negation of the negation is not the same as the original, but at the same time "the same"?


:blink: Some thing cannot be said to occur twice if the second time is not the same as the first&#33; Some thing cannot be both the same and different to another&#33; This is a contradiction&#33;&#33;&#33;


Yes and now. It does not predict the future. For Hegel the now, “is the first day of the rest of your life”. The now is only a moment, a contingent present which has the possibility to go many direction (Hegel). However, Marx can “predict” the future insofar the antagonisms between the owners of production and the proletarian will eventually end with communism.


My understanding is that Marx believed current antagonisms would (sic) necessarily end in communism. Why did he believe this, if not for the action of some Dialectic?

[Ligeia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:31 PM
However, Marx can “predict” the future insofar the antagonisms between the owners of production and the proletarian will eventually end with communism.


The question is"will capitalism end or won&#39;t it end?".

If marx said it would end with communism because of antagonisms then I think there is a mistake,since the antagonisms are veiled very well in some parts of this world while in others neccesarily unveiled.

Thinking that this could happen makes up passivity but nevertheless gives hope but now,he viewed this eventual change also as a neccesity out of ecenomy but then it is some kind of compulsion out of history since there would always be problems....?

And this isn&#39;t historical materialism but what is it instead?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by "Jean&#045;Paul Sartre — The Dogmatic Dialectic and the Critical Dialectic"
The content, the development, the order of appearance of negations, of negations of negations, of conflicts, etc., the phases of the struggle between opposed terms, and its outcome – in short, the reality of the dialectical movement, is governed in its entirety by the basic conditions, the structures of materiality, the initial situation, the continuous action of external and internal factors, and the balance of the forces involved.
[...]
In other words, the dialectical movement is not some powerful unitary force revealing itself behind History like the will of God. It is first and foremost a resultant; it is not the dialectic which forces historical men to live their history in terrible contradictions; it is men, as they are, dominated by scarcity and necessity, and confronting one another in circumstances which History or economics can inventory, but which only dialectical reason can explain.
The notion of class struggle is dialectical. Without class struggle [and dialectics], one of the pillars of Marxism collapses.

[Bannockburn]

Actually, I am original. The total of my DNA is different from that of either of my parents.

Granted, but you are arguing in a box. DNA contains genes. Genes are the hereditary units from your parents. Granted, even though your DNA is original to you, you&#39;re not original insofar as your genes. This is completely besides the point, and trying to argue my metaphor instead of the argument at hand.


If Diamat is the original thought of Russian Marxists, then it must contain some essential component that did not come from Marx himself (i.e. some component that came from the aforementioned thinkers themselves, or from some other (non-Marxist) thinker). My understanding is that this is not the case. However, I am no expert, so if I am mistaken, please enlighten me.

Well you will never see in Marx&#39;s writing the term dialectical. Historical materialism yes, of course, but not dialectical materialism. Dialectics comes from Hegel.


My understanding is that Marx believed current antagonisms would (sic) necessarily end in communism. Why did he believe this, if not for the action of some Dialectic?

Well yes Marx did believe that it would end in communism because of not dialectics, but because of the historical material conditions. The revolution of the proletarians out of the bourgeoisie society.


The question is"will capitalism end or won&#39;t it end?".

Well for Marx, yes.


If marx said it would end with communism because of antagonisms then I think there is a mistake,since the antagonisms are veiled very well in some parts of this world while in others neccesarily unveiled.

What does that matter? Like Hegel, some class consciousness is not yet for itself, but only in itself. Likewise, with Marx.


The notion of class struggle is dialectical. Without class struggle [and dialectics], one of the pillars of Marxism collapses.

Not really, and to use Sartre as a source is really bad and shows more lack of understanding than understanding. Sartre fused Hegel with Marx, and had to because of his original position of the primacy of consciousness. Sartre could never come to terms with Marx. I agree with you with class struggle, but not dialectics. Again, this is Russian, not Marx the man.

[Storming Heaven]

Well yes Marx did believe that it would end in communism because of not dialectics, but because of the historical material conditions. The revolution of the proletarians out of the bourgeoisie society.

Yes, but my question is why did Marx think that the current antagonisms and/or &#39;historical material conditions&#39; would necessarily end in communism, rather than, say, (to quote Marx himself) &#39;the common ruin of all contending classes&#39;, or in some other state of affairs as yet undremt of?

[peaccenicked]

I dont think Marx would of thought that Communism was the necessary end of history. Being a student of Hegel for better or worse. Hegel, himself was an Aristotle student. Marx too studied Aristotle. In their works there is much reference to accident and contingency. The course of history back to barbarism or extinction
are more modern thoughts. What I would say that Marxs philosophical training would have given the viewpoint that communism would be the logical outcome of the negation of capitalism given that it did not veer humanity in more destructive directions. He was aware of one these directions which he called "crude "communism.

The follow passage from the preface of the "Communist Mamifesto" gives the flavour.
"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. "