Daniel Bonevac Lecture 2013 Fascism Clip Two 07:27 to 09:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf8YpfTCXLs

In any case he did diverge from Marx is some ways which are familiar but in one really fundamental way.
First of all, like Lenin, he said the revolution isn’t going to come on it’s own there will need to be revolutionary elite. A group of people who will develop the social myth; who will tell the narrative; who will not only develop proletarian consciousness in the sense of making people aware of their conditions but then a story to make a certain type of sense of their conditions but then a story to make a certain type of sense to it and to get them interested in revolution.
Secondly he rejected Marx’s materialism he thought Sorel (Georges Sorel) was right. The power of ideas; of myths; of stories; of narratives is very important. So he rejected Marx’s materialism and he’s Economic Determinism. He said no there is an independent power of ideas, of myths, thoughts are an important part of how society functions and how people act. So they have to be recognised as apart of a theory. They aren’t just economic and they aren’t just material things.
But here is the final one, which really was the fundamental brick, here is where he diverged not only from Marx but Lenin and Social and a variety of other people he rejected the idea of class struggle. He said look if all the conditions that matter are economic and if we are really just pawns in economic forces then indeed then there is nothing to understand about history except the way these economic interact and so you can think about the whole history of the world be about class struggle but if you reject that economic determinism. If ideas have separate importance if it matters what type of story you tell; what type of myths people believe in; how they understand themselves in other words. Then this idea of class struggle doesn’t really make any sense. This can’t be the sole driving force of history even if it’s one of the things that makes a difference.