aelf
Ashen One
Nah, he's probably just implying that the initials 'TF' could not be used to refer to anyone else, as he is wont to believe about the meaning of signs.
That's utter nonsense. History shows us if you lack a form of economics that can handle crisis, you risk extreme politics that completely usurp freedom. I.E. if you sputter along in a depression and you aren't making any progress, you risk fascism/sovietism. Whereas neoclassical economists will say "depressions are fine, we'll get back on track in the long run" the common people start getting ready to engage in organized violence in hopes to set up a state with a strong interventionist government and therefore command economy. Which is of course a much bigger danger to freedom than deficit spending to stimulate an economy.NO SUCH THING!
If you were going to define history as "history according to Marxian analysis", you might have a point, but it wouldn't really describe anything.Of course, I probably should have defined "history", as that means a lot of different things to a lot of people.
Uh, what about the history department?Hygro said: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.
I just figured that, because it's pretty much indisputable, nobody bothered disputing it.I'm kind of annoyed (but completely unsurprised) that my only post on the central matter of the thread has drawn basically zero interest.
But a few people have disputed it, at least implicitly.I just figured that, because it's pretty much indisputable, nobody bothered disputing it.
Mmm someone is presumptuous
No idea. I took one history course in the department. Taught be Leon Litwack. A leftist, but I don't know if he was a Marxist.Uh, what about the history department?
Then, by all means, crush them just as implicitly.
I dunno. A library card might be a lot more useful.
I've actually found my local library's collection of history to be pretty unimpressive.
They do specifically exclude a very large group of people from voting on them at all - namely, the group that is not ideologically Marxist and disagrees that Marxists have a superior grasp on history. But I believe that was by design.P.s. after reading all the poll options multiple times I still can't make heads or tails of them.
If nothing else they'll often learn two histories: The standard version, and the Marxist one. They might pick up misinformation in either, but the different focus of each is likely to give them a broader or more detailed view.
As for the OP, I think it is rather that the ideology of Marxism demands that one be knowledgeable about 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.
They do specifically exclude a very large group of people from voting on them at all - namely, the group that is not ideologically Marxist and disagrees that Marxists have a superior grasp on history. But I believe that was by design.
I'd say either, seeing history as a series of conflicts or as a seek for stability, makes you a crappy historian.Seeing history as a series of conflicts probably helps. Though it seems obvious there are many people who'd like to see history as a search for stability which is often attained and then unfortunately destroyed. Marxists may hope for some form of future stability, but looking back they seek nothing of that. Even where there is stability there is still conflict, and stability only remains for some time through superior force.