/edu/ - Education

CHAD eric Hosbawn.

>>1352
This. Have a pdf OP.

>>1350
NOT ONE CRIME

>>1350
I only really have an art history background so Andrew Hemingway and Dave Beech come to mind.

>>1372
here's a few

>>1373
and here's an anthology book containing various essays, as well as another one of Hemingway's books on British Art in the 18th and 19th centuries

Alexander Anievas
>The history of the modern social sciences can be understood as a series of recurring attempts to confront the challenges of social disorder and revolution wrought by the international expansion of capitalist social relations. In this book, Alexander Anievas focuses on one particularly significant aspect of this story: the intersocietal or geosocial origins of the two world wars fought between 1914 and 1945—­specifically, the historically unique social, economic, and political causes of the Thirty Years’ Crisis.

An anon from old leftypol posted some of Anievas' work. Marxist history nerds rejoice.

anything wrong with Howard Zinn?

>>1350
Main Currents of Marxism - Vol 1-3 by Leszek Kolakowski. These are all you need. It was written as a critique of marxism but exists to perfectly summarize it and offers a complete contextualization. An in depth explanation of the history of philosophy leading up to marx, marx and engels and their writings, and post marx thought; as well as offering a very complete view of marxism and its practical implementation and development throughout europe and asia.

>>1350
Furr is good

it would be embarrassing to be a marxist historian considering marx's pseudoscientific theory of history was proven wrong by history. things didn't play out at all like marx predicted.

>>1591
How is Marx's theory of history wrong and pseudoscientific?

>>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

>>1595
>So I think you're just talking out of your ass
no u. Historical materialism is bullshit. Deal with it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

>>1609
>it’s predictions are wrong
&ltactually predicted a lot of things concerning the economy
>muh broken clock
this is your brain on neoclassicism

>>1609
Absolute cope.

>>1595
> the first successful proletarian revolution might well take place in Russia
When did Marx say this?

>>1613
Great question because according to his "historical materialism" it was supposed to happen in the industrialized west not the agrarian east.

>>1615
He changed his views about Russia later in the life

>>1616
Is it fair to say that he rejected his own theory of historical materialism then?

>>1617
people reject their own theories all time

>>1617
That has nothing to do with historical materialism

>>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.

>>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.

>>1715
Am I wrong that Marx himself made that prediction in his writings?

>>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.

>>1728
Can you recommend to me something about modern historical materialism? Ideally some sort of summary or primer?

>>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.

hobsbawm really is the marxist historian gigachad. should be essential reading for anyone on the left

>>1352
>>1364
lol, Hobsbawn became a complete revisionist later on, and even helped pave the way for "New Labour" to emerge.

>>1587
>He describes Marxism as "the greatest fantasy of the twentieth century", a dream of a perfect society which became a foundation for "a monstrous edifice of lies, exploitation and oppression." He argues that the Leninist and Stalinist versions of communist ideology are not a distortion or degenerate form of Marxism, but one of its possible interpretations.

Sounds like hot garbage.

any good books on Latin America? Either in English or Spanish

Not a list of recommendations, per se, but a very incomplete list of relevant books that you can find PDFs of:

Perry Anderson - Lineages of the Absolutist State (1974)
Perry Anderson - Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (1974)
Perry Anderson - Considerations on Western Marxism (1976)
Perry Anderson - Arguments Within English Marxism (1980)
Perry Anderson - In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (1983)
Perry Anderson - The New Old World (2009)
Alexander Anievas - Cataclysm 1914: The First World War and the Making of Modern World Politics (2014)
Jairus Banaji - Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation (2010)
G. A. Cohen - Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (2000)
Gregory Elliott - Perry Anderson: The Merciless Laboratory of History (1998)
Gregory Elliott - Ends in Sight: Marx/Fukuyama/Hobsbawm/Anderson (2008)
Gregory Elliott - Hobsbawm: History and Politics (2010)
Neil Faulkner - A Marxist History of the World: From Neanderthals to Neoliberals (2013)
Chris Harman - A People's History of the World (1999)
E. J. Hobsbawm - The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848 (1962)
E. J. Hobsbawm - Industry and Empire: An Economic History of Britain since 1750 (1968)
E. J. Hobsbawm - Revolutionaries: Contemporary Essays (1973)
E. J. Hobsbawm - The Age of Capital, 1848-1875 (1975)
E. J. Hobsbawm - Worlds of Labour: Further Studies in the History of Labour (1984)
E. J. Hobsbawm - The Age of Empire, 1875-1914 (1987)
E. J. Hobsbawm - Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth and reality (1992)
E. J. Hobsbawm - The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991 (1994)
E. J. Hobsbawm - How to Change the World: Reflections on Marx and Marxism (2011)
Karl Kautsky - Foundations of Christianity: A Study in Christian Origins (1925)
Karl Kautsky - The Materialist Conception of History (1988)
Xavier Lafrance, Charles Post - Case Studies in the Origins of Capitalism (2019)
MARHO - Visions of History (1983)
Larry Patriquin - The Ellen Meiksins Wood Reader (2012)
Charles Post - The American Road to Capitalism: Studies in Class-Structure, Economic Development and Political Conflict, 1620-1877 (2011)
Kees van der Pijl - The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class (2012)
Maxime Rodinson - Mohammed (1971)
Maxime Rodinson - Islam and Capitalism (1973)
Isaac Ilych Rubin - A History of Economic Thought (1979)
G.E.M. de Ste. Croix - The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (1981)
E. P. Thompson - The Making of the English Working Class (1963)
Ellen Meiksins Wood - Democracy against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism (1995)
Ellen Meiksins Wood, Neal Wood - A Trumpet of Sedition: Political Theory and the Rise of Capitalism, 1509-1688 (1997)
Ellen Meiksins Wood - The Retreat from Class: A New "True" Socialism (1998)
Ellen Meiksins Wood - The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View (2002)
Ellen Meiksins Wood - Empire of Capital (2005)
Ellen Meiksins Wood - Citizens to Lords: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Antiquity to the Late Middle Ages (2008)
Ellen Meiksins Wood - Liberty and Property: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Renaissance to Enlightenment (2012)

>>3485
I would like to use this post to gauge interest in a much larger list of available books related to Marxism and the left.

>>3486
Always love book lists with historiographical commentary - colligating by themes or theses or how people think the arguments held up - but a big long list of titles on its own isn't quite as useful to me; I can pull any of that up (and often do) with a "search within text" bar on my favorite pdf procurement site.

>>1791
Don't care, books are very good

>>1445
I do remember that thread, somebody said they were a student of him for a semester or two

Ellen Meiksins Wood- The Origin of Capitalism.

>>3689
is it good I've been planning to read it

Jairus Banaji's Theory as History is very, very good; highly recommended if you want to understand the purpose of Marxist historiography in the 21st century.

Franz Mehring

Mario Liverani, Uruk
https://archive.org/stream/LiveraniMario1998UrukTheFirstCity/Liverani%2C%20Mario_1998_Uruk%2C%20The%20First%20City_djvu.txt
Marc van der Mieroop, The Ancient Near East
https://www.pdfdrive.com/a-history-of-the-ancient-near-east-ca-3000-323-bc-e194493783.html

>>1350
Trotsky

Any in history of socialism/communism overall or concerning countries, preferably overall and how actually existing socialism actually functioned in practice?

>No Losurdo
?????????

>>9180
Losurdo is groved furr tier. I'm sorry, i know he's loved on this site.

>>9182
Why tho?

>>9183
Well Grover Furr is also very good in addition to Losurdo

>>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

>>9185
yet what discredits Losurdo's research ?, because having a diploma is not an excuse for it being valid or not, or else communism is in copium because Robert Conquest and Winston Churchill was right of everything.

>>9219
Like i said i've carefully read the books Nietzsche and the one on Heidegger mostly, partially his book on Stalin were I rember few citations of original sources, his work was good as far as analysing and dismantling the "mythical" of Stalin but not as far as actual reserch.

>>9185
>>9224
The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy has cited his book in their article on Nietsche, so idk…he can't be that much of a brainlet can he?

>>9225
Jung is cited too and he was a Brainlet.

>>9247
Nah lad it's that he wrote a decent chunk of his work high on cocaine

>>9248
Freud did too but there's some insight in his works, Jung's are some xenu tier bullshit takes for the most part. Especially what he wrote on Nietzsche, Jordan Peterson "knowlege" of Nietzsche comes all from Jung. That should say a lot.

>>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

>>9250
i'll give it a try again then

>>9250
>Basically you start reading and if he's just doing cocaine word salad with no logical negations discard the book
Probably a good idea.

the early Annales school

Why do even communists sometimes shit on Furr? What is the criticism? So far I have only read Bloood Lies and it is quite an indepth, meticulous deconstruction of Snyder's book. Why is Furr disliked among comrades as well?

Oops with the sage whatever

>>9843
He's often accused of misquoting the historians he criticizes. Whether that's true or not is something I am too ignorant to tell you.

I remember someone from the leftypol area posted a Soviet historian, named Zoloyev (Zolotev?), but can't find him. Apparently was really, really good.

>>9843
He's a loser

>>9843
for no real reason really.