18 DOI 10.1163/1569206X-12841550 | LOPEZ individuals must be imposed by the state on a separate private owners. (p. 28.) I society of Of course, on one level, he is quite right: Marx did not agree with a purely- political Jacobin or Blanquist revolution. But this did not mean he stoad for a purely social or anti-political revolution. On the contrary, he understood the necessity of a combined social ave political revolution, Overcoming the ai tinomy between civil society and politics requires that both sides are traversed by praxis. Mars’s writings overflow with polities, and it is very strange that Feenberg tonotice. A few simple examples come to mind. The Communist Man. written for the Communist League, calls for the formation of the proletariat into a party and identifies socialism with ‘winning the battle of democracy’#* He writes that ‘every class struggle is a political struggle’ Indeed, as Adolfo Siinchez Vazquez points out, Marx helped found the Communist League in the hope that it would become the key mediation between proletarian theory and practice.* Similarly, Marx consistently fought for politics and political posi- tions in the workers’ movement. From its first volume, the Collected Works of Marx and Engels is filled with explicitly political writing, For example, he ar- gued that the working class must demand representative democracy, women's emancipation, the abolition of slavery, the national emancipation of oppressed countries like Poland and Ireland, and so on, He spoke out explicitly against the anti-political abstentionism of anarchists like Bakunin. In one of his last major works, The Civil War in France, Marx remarked that the Commune 32 Indeed, much non-Marxian socialism is characterised by this antinomy. On the apolitical’ side stand utopian sacialists, trade-unionisis, syndicalists and some forms of anarchis ‘These approaches envisage a purely (or at least mainly) social overthrow of capitalism, free from the corruption of politics. On the ‘bourgeois-political’ side stand Blanquists. Lassaleans, Second International-style so 0 on, who enwi turing the state in order to lead social transformation. OF course, every ‘apolitical’ or ‘anti-politica’ approach implies a concrete politics just as much as every purely-p approach implies a social and economic basis. The problem is, by abstractly rejecting their opposite (be it either politics or economics), these approaches aecept and reinforce the antinomy, The existence of thisantinomy is one of the most important facts fora dia- lectical conception of polities and is based on the antinomie division between state and al-demoerats, an ge ay civil society, the analysis of which Marx adopted critically from Hegel 3a Engelsand Marx 1976, p. 504. 34° Engelsand Marx 1976, p. 493 35. Sénchez Vazquez makesthis point inan excellent but largely forgotten book, whichis also entitled The Philosophy of Praxis, Viequen 3977, PP. 135-7 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM (2018) 1=26