Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Feb 22, 2012.
I dunno TF, he makes a pretty compelling case. I think my entire undergrad studies might have been refuted.
As for the OP, I think it is rather that the ideology of Marxism demands that one be knowledgeable about history, and if one is not and finds moral resonance with Marxism nonetheless, then it forces such a background upon them.
I think another poster asked Marxists which came first for them. For me it was history. As my morals realigned during what I like to call the "Age of Reason," I came in contact with Marxism and found its foundations vindicated, for it helped to explain so much of what I had observed, yet never managed to fully connect the dots or finds the words to express adequately. Rather like Brecht's discovery of Marx, when I think about it, 'cept his was with regards to his plays.
I voted the first option, I think a large part is a strong tendency to study and learn extensively about certain past periods of history.
I'm not really happy with all the poll options though, certainly this takes more than a simplistic explanation.
I think my answer is better put that whatever the reason for this, it is the same reason that Marxists, opposed to others who are still roughly socialists/communists/lefists but would refuse the label "Marxist," tend to have the least understanding of science.
Marx never said capitalism wasn't necessary. In fact he said quite the opposite. According to Marx, a Communist society is supposed to be part of the natural evolution of human society and would only rise out of a fully developed capitalist society. Now he never stated what constitutes a fully developed capitalist society, but he did say capitalism was a necessary step to achieve Communism.
So really, to be a true Marxist, one must at least temporarily support a capitalist system in order to eventually achieve the Communist ideal.
Qualifying it as such is not necessary. Marx did not say that a fully developed capitalist society was necessary for socialism, he said that socialism would inevitably arise out of capitalism because of its inherent contradictions. The statement that a society is "ready" for socialism is not one he would have likely understood, he would have likely replied that a society is ready for socialism when its working class is prepared to act in unison to destroy that which makes its society capitalistic.
A very debatable statement. Marxism is not so deterministic as this.
The point I was trying to make was that for one to amass wealth in a capitalistic manner and then use that wealth to get an education that leads to support for Marxist ideology is not as much of a contradiction as a lot of people would think.
I was also trying to make the point that capitalism and Marxist ideology do not necessarily need to oppose each other since, if Marx is to be believed, one will invariably lead to the other.
A superior grasp on history relative to whom, exactly?
They don't have a better grasp of history.
Why do Apple drones have a superior grasp on history?
I suspect it's the same answer.
The first two. Marxism is grounded in a particular understanding of history. By contrast, the liberalism that informs mainstream contemporary understandings of the world and politics is damn close to being completely a-historical and based instead on a set of principles which are assumed to be universal.
Oddly they're both fairly teleological and contain an assumption of ongoing progress.
Of course, I probably should have defined "history", as that means a lot of different things to a lot of people.
Edit: oh and Dachs, I'd hardly call Berkeley a bastian of Marxism. Centrism (not in an American modern political sense, but in an academic sense) is the ruler of the day. I.E. the perfect example being the economics department is chalk full of a bunch of libertarian leaning Keynesians. You find some personal-Marxists where Marxism doesn't have anything to do with anything (so they don't teach it), like in Classics. The only place where Marxists rule the day is about one third of the geography department.
Marxists are Apple drones?
Are there any articles on this?
I second what Azash said on page 1. The thread title is a loaded question.
No no, I swear, and the poll options are perfectly comprehensive.
Aha. So they are. Still, I kinda disagree with the way you wrote the thread title.
Personally, I don't think there's a historical precedent to judge by.
I don´t see any posts of Thunderfall on this thread.
Actually, there are plenty of Marxists with a rather poor grasp on history; and I´m not just thinking of what was considered ´history´ in the Soviet era.
No, but it´s an equally valid question, given the lack of evidence for the OP question..
Actually, the poll is; if you´re not a Marxist, you can´t vote.
Summing up, plenty of theory on this thread and very few - if any - facts. Is that typical for Marxist discussions?
Because they have such a poor grasp on economics.
NO SUCH THING!
Actually, I can't accept the premise that Marxists have a superior grasp on history. I had a few Marxist professors, and of them only a few actually seemed good at what they did. The others all just put everything in Marxian terms, so while they were knowledgeable in Marxism, they lacked any other kind of perspective.
I'm certain I had a closet libertarian as one of my professors and he was actually the one I would go to with questions. He never discussed anything political, it was just some of the anecdotes that he shared and his general attitude on things that happened to him.
dachs isn't a marxist.
therefore marxists do not have a superior grasp of history.
edit: not worth staining my katana.
Separate names with a comma.