>>6714>But frankly I don't care about any of this, tolerance is fucking retarded because people have used the word so much they've forgotten what it means and that it isn't all that positive a meaning anyhow. It's a liberal delusion that's a perfect tool for Porky to split the working class with idpol and the inevitable clashing between minority sects.
We should do a genealogical analysis of terms used by liberals.>>6866
Oh shit anon, sorry. Only saw your comment now.
But either way, it's a good introduction and explanation of historical materialism. It talks about what the author (and me) considers to be the correct interpretation of Marxist historiography, and points outs that Popper's argument is actually invalid as it misinterprets it. But he himself doesn't actually consider hismat to be true, because, as he states:
>[…]although limited in scope, the above outline of Marx central theory suggests that it is by far a more complex theory than that which Russell makes of it. However, a defense of one particular reading of a theory over another should not entail an endorsement of the theory in question. I may agree that the correct reading of Kant commits him to a `two world’ epistemological theory, yet, strongly disagree with regards to the validity of Kant’s transcendental idealism.
And presents Max Weber's interpretation of history, the one that talks about the importance of psychology and protestant ethics to the development of capitalism, as opposed to the changes in modes of production, which themselves provoke class struggle.
But even then, he still finds shortcomings in Weber's theory and muses at the amount of evidence supporting Historical Materialism.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.