>>11941197>>11941203Like I said, the problem is that the unfolding of bourgeois civil society is conflated with the development of capitalism. Capitalism is not liberal democracy, capitalism is the crisis of bourgeois civilization. Capitalism is the self-contradiction of the premises of bourgeois society: the self-transformation of labor through property, is instead divided between capitalist-property and proletarianized-labor.
Instead of the bourgeois synonymity of property and labor (where every laborer is a proprietor), capitalist production is divided into capitalist and proletarian (where the only property - as capital - a proletarian owns is his right to sell his own labor), which is ideologically expressed in the bourgeois consciousness of the rights of property (really the rights of labor as a commodity; the negotiations of the terms of exchange). Capitalism, as the crisis of proletarianized labor, creates unemployment and overwork, and overproduction and underconsumption; as machinery replaces workers without increasing free time, and products are made efficiently as possible without mind if working consumers can actually pay for the price.
None of these were intended by bourgeois society, and in fact the modern state exists to ameliorate and mediate these endemic problems, without actually resolving them. Capitalist politics has always been defined by moral posturing to compensate for weaknesses in the will and intellect.
Socialism is a phenomenon of capitalism. It is the contradictory expression of the crisis of bourgeois politics in capitalism. The reason why Marx was a Socialist was because he believed that Communism, as a tendency of a socialist proletariat, embodied the historical aspirations of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, while also embodying the anti-bourgeois tendency of capitalism. Communism is actually the ultimate expression of capitalism.
The problem is that there are no more Marxists, only self-delusional progressive liberals.
