Early on in reading the section, I encountered this somewhat odd idea that while Marxism is fundamentally materialist, with, as Parker states, that “life shapes consciousness, as opposed to consciousness shaping life” (212), a large idea is that eventually, through dialectic, the proletariat would spontaneously rise up in revolution. The question is, how could this incredibly idealistic conception, that people through polarized discourse will eventually through thoughts of their consciousness will end up altering life significantly, end up being the ultimate result from a philosophy that argues the opposite sequence of logic to be true?

Advertisements