>>2617932The first part, I basically agree with you.
>It is precisely the proletariat, through its struggle within and against capital, that creates the new social relations.This is mostly a semantic disagreement dressed up as a theoretical one. If the proletariat, through struggle, produces an alternative mode of production, that is a qualitative transformation, not merely the continuation of the same subject under a new name. That qualitative shift is exactly what I mean by a post-capitalist subjectivity emerging from new material relations.
My point is not that some external or "magical" subject abolishes capital, but that the revolutionary agent cannot precede the new relations it enacts. The proletariat as it exists within capital cannot simply will communism into being. Only once new economic relations are materially constituted does a new form of social subjectivity emerge, capable of abolishing capital as the dominant political and organizing force.
In that sense, the overthrow of capital follows the consolidation of a new mode of production, not the other way around.
Calling that mystification just avoids the question. How do new material relations actually come into existence? Rather than assuming the contradiction resolves itself at the level of logic.