I Have A Question About The Dialectic of History According to Marxists

[bernie14]

I suppose you hold that expression to a much higher standard than I do!

There in lies the problem

 

[Hygro]

I don't think it's meant to be the genesis of a centralized allotment of purchasing power per labor hour. Even market forces aren't that efficient.

But I do think well adjusted people work pretty hard with their primary economically viable skills, and don't buy much more than they use.

 

[bernie14]

I don't think it's meant to be the genesis of a centralized allotment of purchasing power per labor hour. Even market forces aren't that efficient.

But I do think well adjusted people work pretty hard with their primary economically viable skills, and don't buy much more than they use.

Hmm, don't know too much about economics but i don't think that is the case. Just take the example of credit. Anyways, "economically viable skills" don't necessarilly equate to abilities, and the definition of needs is still constantly changing and subjective.

Fascism needs an enemy to rationalize its own politics. Hitler's state of mind and well being would've been irrelevant. The legitimacy of the entire regime was at stake.

Adolph Hitler, as an individual, did not need to exist for any of the 20th century to unfold the way it did. If Hitler dies on the battlefield in WWI that conflict still devastates Europe, the ascending, world-wide labor movement would still largely have been crushed, widespread banking failures in the 20s and 30s would still give us the great depression, the radical movements of the 30s would still have formed, and the revanchists would still have formed their fascist parties in response.

No matter what they would've called themselves or who led them, something just like Hitler's Nazi party would've come to power in Germany. The exact circumstances might not have been the same but war in Europe was inevitable as the existing power structures were losing their legitimacy and either being voted out like in Spain or overthrown, like in Russia.

This is not meant as a slight to the poster I'm replying to, but I think that great man theories of history are mostly bunk. Historical materialism is far more useful of a lens because even in a world without Hitler all the institutions which brought him to power would still exist.

This is from the nazi thread but pertains to the marxist dialectic...

Question, how or did marx invision/deal with these revanchists in his lens of historical materialism?