Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Even before Das Kapital in 1859, Marx wrote in the preface to the Critique of Political Economy: “It is not people's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
The fallacy, and in fact stupidity, of this postulate is obvious.
Everything is just the opposite-where people's consciousness forms their being, there is success.
Marx's theory fell under the effect of an incorrectly buttoned first button — all further actions do not lead to the expected result.
Marx is an excellent economist, but his social sophistication is no good.
You don't need to understand it. There is no such phrase. “SOCIAL existence determines PUBLIC consciousness”. I.e., the format of society is a determining factor in shaping the worldview of most of society. Now the society is bourgeois. And, accordingly, the consciousness of most people is bourgeois. To do less is to get more; social inequality and exploitation are the norm, etc. To change this perception, you need to change the social conditions. It won't work the other way around. The public consciousness of these conditions will not change.
And being determines consciousness – that's nonsense. A particular individual can have any kind of consciousness.