Why Socialism Is Realized After Capitalism

 1. As we know, Marx sees the core of historical development as the relationship of productivity and production. In other words, the process of developing history has a law The point is that in order for humans to advance their history to the next level, it is not possible only because of the will, but also because of the development of materials that enable the will. In other words, in order for the capital system to be overcome, the development of matter requires the formation of a subject that can overcome it It's a way of thinking that's not that different from structure and behavior in social science and the environment and human category in humanities. 2. The feudal system of the West could not be brought down by simple peasant rebellion, but by industrial capitalists who grew with industrial development and were more daring in "creating another world," and the grandfathers who owned small and medium-sized land were able to overcome the contradiction. 3. This has been criticized by many people, but I feel a little bit different from rigid social development. First, unlike the known scheme of primitive communism -> slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism - Marx was constantly showing attempts to "typize" the economic structures of many countries in the history process. And typification is that the same feudal system shows different characteristics in different civilizations. By distinguishing Prussian feudalism from Asian production styles (India and Arab civilization) and Chinese production styles (Northeast Asia), we called for a richer interpretation of historical development. Secondly, by suggesting the "leap" of the history process, he acknowledged that unlike many people's misunderstanding, he could go straight from feudalism to socialism. In his letter to Russian theorist Jasurizzi, Marx mentions that the Russian people can go to the New World without having to suffer the suffering of the Western proletariat. 4. Third, Marx's theory of historical relics, although there are various possibilities for interpretation, does not just refer to the law of matter. The premise of historical development is matter, but the main component is superstructure (human will and thought). Again, theoretical work expresses as much interest in the social process of the 1800s French Revolution (not the Great Revolution) and the modern bureaucracy as in the analysis of the economic structure. His descendants theorize about the interest in modern superstructures. 5. His theory of historical development seems to be more appropriate to understand as a degree of tendency. In fact, he believed in the same Marxist theory during the liberation period, but Park Heon-young said the bourgeois revolution and Baek Nam-woon and Yeo Un-hyung said the New Democratic Revolution, which is a different view on how to interpret his theory. Personally, I think Baek Nam-woon and Yeo-woon were right.