The idea of the revolution as the car emancipation of the workers happens then sinsentido, as I indicate Lenin. Contact information is here: Sela Ward. The compression of the fetichismo since a completed fact leaves us like an enormous not always indicated theoretical problem Who we are? Who we are (Marx, Lenin, the party, the theoreticians) who we criticized? who we are who we can go beyond the fetichismo of the social relations. The same point can be analyzed of different ways. If the fetichismo is an established fact, then the domination and the fight are separated. . The way in which the things are, is the system of the capitalist domination: the question about how we fought to break the domination is, therefore, a different question.
In this perspective, the Marxist theory is the attempt to understand the capitalist domination (of there the Marxist economy, Marxist sociology, etc.). Again: if the fetichismo it is an established fact, then the constitution and the existence of the social forms is separated. It is assumed that the fetichizadas forms of Capitalism were constituted in the birth of Capitalism and that the same now they exist (and they continued existing until Capitalism is destroyed). The genetic criticismo is confused with the historical criticismo: the origin of social forms is understood as its historical emergencia to it (as in most of the debate of the derivation of the state). Consequently, the categories of the marxism are understood like closed categories, categories that historically describe the established operation of a domination way. In opposition to this, it is possible to be argued that the fetichismo must be understood not like an established fact but like an active process of fetichizacion. The social Relations really are and they are not fetichizadas. They are contradictory: its production and reproduction are an antagonistic process in which fetichizacion of these relations always is against antifetichizantes tendencies.