Why do Marxists have a superior grasp on history?

[aelf]

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.

 

[Agent327]

Presumptions, presumptions...

 

[Masada]

Mmm someone is presumptuous

 

[Hygro]

NO SUCH THING!

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.

Having a leaning in which you think government should stay out of business as much as possible, except to establish contract law, some obvious "don't poison us" regulations, handle externalities, and levy taxes, and that government should stay out of our personal lives, you have libertarian sympathy. Most Americans prefer far greater government intervention in business than the Berkeley economics faculty.

edit: notwithstanding that macro economics as a discipline is a pretty good measurement tool for everything except crisis, ironically, and in understanding it, doesn't preclude a libertarian bent. Unless your definition of a libertarian is someone who is simply wrong.

 

[Dachs]

I'm kind of annoyed (but completely unsurprised) that my only post on the central matter of the thread has drawn basically zero interest.

Of course, I probably should have defined "history", as that means a lot of different things to a lot of people.

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.

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.

Uh, what about the history department?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm kind of annoyed (but completely unsurprised) that my only post on the central matter of the thread has drawn basically zero interest.

I just figured that, because it's pretty much indisputable, nobody bothered disputing it.

 

[Dachs]

I just figured that, because it's pretty much indisputable, nobody bothered disputing it.

But a few people have disputed it, at least implicitly.

 

[Agent327]

Then, by all means, crush them just as implicitly.

Mmm someone is presumptuous

Glad you got that one.

 

[Hygro]

Uh, what about the history department?

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.

 

[Tarquelne]

Then, by all means, crush them just as implicitly.

Maybe they're intrinsically crushed.

 

[Agent327]

Ah, okay, nevermind then.

 

[Ergo Sum]

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. Pretty bare-bones surveys of history. I wouldn't be surprised if much of suburbia, or even big urban libraries, are the same way.

P.s. after reading all the poll options multiple times I still can't make heads or tails of them.

 

[Tarquelne]

I've actually found my local library's collection of history to be pretty unimpressive.

I thought it was common for libraries to be part of inter-library lending networks.

 

[Dachs]

P.s. after reading all the poll options multiple times I still can't make heads or tails of them.

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

That's most of it, I guess, but the way I would put it is:

As for the OP, I think it is rather that the ideology of Marxism demands that one be knowledgeable about history

This. Imagine that a religious sect - the Reformed Adventist Redeemed Baptists - say that you must eat bacon, but only from certain kinds of pigs. Well, the RARB's would quickly become more knowledgeable on average, on pigs and bacon, than your average Joe. Of course, among expert veterinarians, there might not be any significant difference in pig-knowledge between religions.

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.

I never thought of that, but, duh. It's not just that Marxists have mostly taken a step forward. Most of the rest have taken a step backward.

 

[jtb1127]

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 had the same problem.

 

[Hygro]

well in all fairness, Dachs, it was to discourage folk like jtb1127 from voting the downtown option

 

[Dachs]

Like I said: by design.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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.

I'd say either, seeing history as a series of conflicts or as a seek for stability, makes you a crappy historian.