Is there any Marxist historians you recommend? Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:17 No. 1350
>inb4 Grover Furr
Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:43 No. 1595
>>1593 >A huge number of Marx's predictions, big and small, have come true. To mention just a few that pop immediately to mind: that the tendency towards monopolies would continue, and intensify; that the boom-bust cycle of capitalism would continue, and that the capitalists would never be able to eliminate it (for reasons Marx explained in depth); that peasant-type (semi-feudal) agriculture would slowly give way to capitalist agriculture; that capitalism would more and more become an international system; that the class struggle would continue and grow; that the Union would prevail in the U.S. Civil War (because of the much more advanced capitalism of the Northern states); that the workers would not be able to hold on to power in the Paris Commune (the very first working class revolution, in 1871); that the working class could only hold onto power, after seizing it, by establishing its own proletarian dictatorship over the defeated bourgeoisie (a lesson Marx summed up after the Paris Commune, and proven correct by subsequent history); and, late in his life, that the first successful proletarian revolution might well take place in Russia. http://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/MLM_sci.htm That sounds pretty accurate to me, even though Marx didn't claim to be some sort of prophet.
Lenin's imperialism also predicted many things regarding capitalist development. Friedrich Engels even predicted WWI very accurately here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jun/29b.htm So I think you're just talking out of your ass
Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:45 No. 1610
>>1609 >it’s predictions are wrong <actually predicted a lot of things concerning the economy
>muh broken clock this is your brain on neoclassicism
Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:54 No. 1706
>>1633 Isn't one of the main predictions of "historical materialism" that socialist revolution would happen in the industrialized west and not the agrarian east?
>>1627 True, but many marxists including many bolsheviks seemed to believe in historical materialism, so it's interesting that Marx himself rejected it.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:54 No. 1715
>>1706 >Isn't one of the main predictions of "historical materialism" that socialist revolution would happen in the industrialized west and not the agrarian east? That was a popular prediction within many Marxist parties, but it's a prediction *within* historical materialism, rather than *of* historical materialism, if that makes sense.
For instance, consider the hypothesis that large human brains evolved because they helped us build more effective tools, which helped us exploit more resources in our environment (or whatever.) This is a hypothesis framed within the conceptual world defined by evolution by natural selection, but evolution being true (if, if you prefer, being a useful set of tools) doesn't imply this over alternative hypotheses on its own.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:55 No. 1728
>>1727 >Am I wrong that Marx himself made that prediction in his writings? Yes, then he updated in later writings, and had he lived longer, he would have updated further as new information and new reflection forced him to continue to revise his thoughts.
It's a mistake to confuse historical materialism with the person of Marx, any more than one would equate chemistry with Boyle. Although he's the single most important theoretical touchstone of the tradition of analysis, historical materialism stretches back to James Harrington and on into the present day.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:21:57 No. 1750
>>1733 >Can you recommend to me something about modern historical materialism? Ideally some sort of summary or primer? This is a good question for which I have a less than satisfactory answer, because I'm not sure that there are great *purely theoretical* primers on historical materialism (though I'm probably just revealing my ignorance - others hopefully will be able to chime in to correct this). I think you'd actually be better off with just some contemporary applied works.
https://b-ok.cc/book/2853542/f37d6c https://b-ok.cc/book/899406/db0456 https://b-ok.cc/book/2641054/c620a7 https://b-ok.cc/book/686518/97e25e https://b-ok.cc/book/1248134/d11f24 https://b-ok.cc/book/2075341/831818 https://b-ok.cc/book/916406/032dcc https://b-ok.cc/book/885467/35a915 The closest thing I would think of as a theoretical introduction to historical materialism is
https://b-ok.cc/book/848583/b5df69 not because I endorse everything in there, but because it's the only work I can think of that's (1) written in a very clear style and (2) aims at being an utterly general account.
Comrade 21-12-20 05:25:03 No. 3485
Not a list of recommendations, per se, but a very incomplete list of relevant books that you can find PDFs of:
Anonymous 03-01-22 12:27:44 No. 9185
>>9183 Because he's not an historian and having read his book ok Nietzsche and the one on Heidegger i'd argue he's bit of a brainlet too.
Not to mention a dengist
Anonymous 04-01-22 17:50:53 No. 9250
>>9249 There are some very good Jung books
Basically you start reading and if he's just doing cocaine word salad with no logical negations discard the book
If he sound sober there's a good chance there's some real interesting shit in there
Unique IPs: 16