Communist swine execute general with a mortar round

[FireIceTalon]

And yet, we have about 150 years of history that have passed since Marx formulated dialectical materialism. They do not bear the scarcest resemblance to the process he predicted. One can try to patch up the theory to fit the facts, as many (Gramsci included) have done, or one can reject the theory. But the basic problem must be dealt with - almost none of Marx's predictions about the evolution of society, which he considered to be established scientific fact, have come true.

Again, Marx probably underestimated capitalism ability to re-invent itself, but he was fundamentally correct about its internal contradictions, flaws and operations. And one of his most important predictions, that America would rise as the largest empire out of the industrial revolution, ultimately came true. As far as DM goes, of course it is going to be adjusted over time - to keep it as a rigid, stale way of analysis would be in error, because we live in a world whose material processes are constantly changing. All science should be flexible. DM isn't a theory anyway, its a method and mode of analysis.

Except that this isn't even close to what has actually taken place. Throughout the industrialized world, workers are richer, better educated, and live longer by not just a little bit, but by enormous margins, than they were in Marx's day. Class antagonism, far from defining politics, has largely receded into the background as a driving social force. Bit by bit, life gets better, richer, fuller, freer. Some years or even decades are better or worse than others, but the overall trend is clear across basically all indicators.

No. This is EXACTLY what has taken place. Patriarchy, racism, and poverty still exist, and very strongly so, in both developed and undeveloped nations - this is indisputable, and you don't have to be a Marxist to know this. And these things will exist so long as class society exists. The fact people live better now has NOTHING to do with capitalism or capitalists becoming more humane, moral, or better - and everything to do with that such improvements came through struggle, worker movements, solidarity, and of course, labor unions - which eliminated child labor, shortened the work day some, and gave them weekends. These achievements have no relationship or relevance to capitalism as a process, or capitalists. They were grudging concessions made by them so the workers didn't become radicalized - to discourage and prevent revolution. The capitalists didn't make these concessions out of the kindness of their hearts (though to be fair, this is kind of hard to do when you lack that organ hehe) - they did it so capitalism would stay intact. Capitalism is a very unpredictable and corrupt system, a lot of the gains that were made in the past are now in grave danger of being rolled back - austerity right now is bad, and getting worse by the day in the global system. And it is completely ludicrous to think that changing policies can ultimately save these things - if that were the case the gains made in the past wouldn't be threatened now. Even the capitalists can't control their own system anymore, and politicians are no better at doing so - the beast is way too wild and far gone now.

Class antagonisms ARE the reason politics exist. If there is no classes, there is no such thing as politics, period. And the reason they have been put on the back burner or neglected altogether is because it is the capitalist class that determines how political discourse takes place - Gramsci was/is right. The entire debate must take place in their framework, and theirs alone. The ruling class knows this very well, which is why anytime class is brought up in even the slightest hint, you are labeled a Marxist or socialist or some other thing that capitalists and their apologists hate. You can see it in all our institutions, whether its education, political, or media, they are all controlled by capitalist hegemony, so naturally class politics is marginalized at best. But I reiterate, politics exist because classes exist - class is the driving force: those who have power, status and privilege, and those who are subservient to it. That is how it has been in every class society, whether a theocracy, a feudal society, or capitalism/fascism. All other politics, especially identity politics, are the organic result of the preceding class politics, and they overlap with one another. You want to abolish racism? Awesome. Get rid of class society first, and racism will very likely be abolished. But if you want to keep capitalism - forget it. You CANNOT have it both ways. Why? Because the economic and social laws of capitalism say so, that's why.

Life has gotten much better for capitalists than it has for workers over the last 30+ years. Worker wages have been stagnant at best, while income for the top 1% has increased exorbitantly in that same time frame. I forget the exact numbers, but prior to around 1980, the average capitalist made about 40 x more than the average worker. Today, that number is like 350 x more. But what is worse, is that they don't have to lift a finger to do it, since they have an army of wage slaves that do all the work for them. Then when the workers make a tiny bit of ground or start getting too many scraps from the table, the capitalists close up shop and go to another country where labor laws are less strict and they dont have to throw as many scraps off the table. And then, workers are told that other (and less well-off) workers from other nations are stealing their jobs, fed a healthy dose of patriotism and xenophobia, and foreign workers and immigrants become scapegoats as blame for all the domestic workers problems. But hey, those capitalists aren't the problem, they are just doing what they are supposed to do: maximizing profits. Nationalism is a pre-cursor to racism and xenophobia, and it has done a marvelous job of keeping workers divided and powerless. More austerity and cuts follow. Nationalism becomes stronger and a stronger racist element becomes very prominent within the fabric of society - and usually toward a very specific group, the state becomes more heavy handed, military spending and action is increased, rights against workers, dissenters, women and minorities come under attack, and then we begin to enter the lovely realm of FASCISM. Lenin once called fascism "capitalism in decay", but I think "capitalism on steroids" is a much more accurate depiction.

This is why whenever I see anyone waving a flag, I want to vomit (unless its a red one, hehe).

Reform has a long record of successes in promoting rights and freedoms, an in improving lives. Life in the first world is good, by historical standards, and life in the developing world is getting better by the day. Revolution, by contrast, has left a trail of blood a hundred million people long, and scarcely anything to show for it. Only by persistently denying the first, and disowning the second, could anyone seriously still believe in revolution as a solution to anything.

And again, those reforms came through struggle, movements, strikes, and yes, revolution. Not because capitalism and capitalists all the sudden became nicer. They are still just as sinister, cunning, indifferent, and exploitative as ever, and so is the system they rule.

And capitalist wars, neo-colonialism and fascist dictatorships havent left a drop of blood or the bodies of hundreds of millions anywhere? Come on now. Not to mention, Capitalism itself, the very system you defend so fervently, CAME INTO THIS WORLD THROUGH REVOLUTION, soaked in blood, fire and ash. LOL, how ironic. And more than likely, it will exit in a very similar manner when and if it does. Revolutions are never a peaceful and bloodless process, but they are, and have been proven to be, often necessary. The ruling class never just gives up their power, they will fight to the death to keep it, and much of the violence in revolutions come from them just as well as the revolutionaries. But the ends justifies the means. Wars and competition for resources and power, on the other hand, are NOT necessary, and absolutely have nothing to show for themselves - the ultimate result was that a bunch of people died unnecessarily, and a bunch of plutocrats and politicians got richer. You are real quick to denounce the violence of revolution (even though the system we currently live in came through such means), yet wars between nation states competing for power and resources that result in a multitude of other social ills, are just a necessary, if tragic, part of the current system, right?

With all due respect to Gramsci, who I find far more insightful than Marx or Engels, "cultural hegemony" is not and never could be an objective phenomenon, since it describes an intangible and mutable set of relations, not an observable fact. (Why 1991, exactly?)

It is very observable - the rhetoric of capitalism, consumerism/commodity fetishism, individualism, private property, and so forth can be seen literally everywhere - the work place for starters, along with the media, tv commercials, political debates, social institutions like education, and in the behavior and culture of people that is embedded in the fabric of our current society. You'd almost have to be living on another planet I think not to see it.

1991 was my reference to the fall of the SU. Gramsci's analysis was relevant well before then of course, but I think it was at this time when cultural hegemony became really strengthened, exasperated, and prominent in the western world. But who knows, regardless it is very much there.