Let’s start with where you understand, and we will see where we disagree. My position is history is primarily driven by Material Conditions, ie the status of reality itself and what came before it, and not by individuals moving against the current, so to speak.
As an example, if Karl Marx was born in the year 1200, he would not have had the ideas he does, there would be no conception of Dialectical Materialism from him.
Perfect! Essentially, to wrap it around, the Republican party exists because the conditions for it exist. The idea that we can “vote blue until the Reps are no more, then a left party will take its place” is wrong, because they won’t remove the conditions for a fascist party. The new party will be fascist as well, or permadem rule for right wing Dems, like California.
Could you expand on this a little bit? I don’t think I entirely understand and might even learn something.
Let’s start with where you understand, and we will see where we disagree. My position is history is primarily driven by Material Conditions, ie the status of reality itself and what came before it, and not by individuals moving against the current, so to speak.
As an example, if Karl Marx was born in the year 1200, he would not have had the ideas he does, there would be no conception of Dialectical Materialism from him.
I don’t disagree so much as I thought you may have been saying this, but wasn’t sure. Thank you for clarifying.
Perfect! Essentially, to wrap it around, the Republican party exists because the conditions for it exist. The idea that we can “vote blue until the Reps are no more, then a left party will take its place” is wrong, because they won’t remove the conditions for a fascist party. The new party will be fascist as well, or permadem rule for right wing Dems, like California.