Marxism #1 Historical Materialism

[Caesercel]

Historical materialism is an amalgamation of historicism and materialism.

Historicism means that history follows a pattern and that pattern can be revealed through analysis to understand the logic behind the flow of history and development. Materialism is the idea that our material/physical circumstances can shape our consciousness and beliefs.

So historical materialism means that human history develops via the material circumstances that surround people at any given time. Which then create culture/laws/norms of that time. So history is a bunch of changing material circumstances and the people themselves changing with it. And if we can analyse the logic behind these material conditions and how they lead to a new place, we can decode the flow of history.

In reference to Capitalism it means that Capitalism is neither just "an economic system" , nor is it a pure ideology that everyone magically adopted at some point to create a new world, nor is it human nature. Instead, Capitalism is a direct result of the specific material circumstances and conditions that existed in our past reality. Specific people at specific places did very specific things, reacting to the material forces surrounding them which lead to the rise of the capitalist mode of production and it's inherent human relations/classes etc.

More precisely, the logic of the material development of history is behind the rise of Capitalism from some specific initial state of history.

 

[plastic chewer]

You don't often see others being supportive of the Marxist view of history on here.

What is your outlook on the future, what kind of system do you envision emerging once capitalism is thwarted?

 

[Caesercel]

What is your outlook on the future, what kind of system do you envision emerging once capitalism is thwarted?

I do hope for some kind of socialism to eventually materialise. But I am also vary of trying to play the magician with a crystal ball. But first people must understand exactly how they are being exploited and the systems in place, which most don't.

 

[retributor]

I do hope for some kind of socialism to eventually materialise. But I am also vary of trying to play the magician with a crystal ball. But first people must understand exactly how they are being exploited and the systems in place, which most don't.

Most are designed to be herded like cattle so long as they receive their basic needs in my opinion.

 

[hierophant]

Historical materialism is an amalgamation of historicism and materialism.

Historicism means that history follows a pattern and that pattern can be revealed through analysis to understand the logic behind the flow of history and development. Materialism is the idea that our material/physical circumstances can shape our consciousness and beliefs.

So historical materialism means that human history develops via the material circumstances that surround people at any given time. Which then create culture/laws/norms of that time. So history is a bunch of changing material circumstances and the people themselves changing with it. And if we can analyse the logic behind these material conditions and how they lead to a new place, we can decode the flow of history.

In reference to Capitalism it means that Capitalism is neither just "an economic system" , nor is it a pure ideology that everyone magically adopted at some point to create a new world, nor is it human nature. Instead, Capitalism is a direct result of the specific material circumstances and conditions that existed in our past reality. Specific people at specific places did very specific things, reacting to the material forces surrounding them which lead to the rise of the capitalist mode of production and it's inherent human relations/classes etc.

More precisely, the logic of the material development of history is behind the rise of Capitalism from some specific initial state of history.

The effort and simplicity is appreciated.

 

[Caesercel]

Most are designed to be herded like cattle so long as they receive their basic needs in my opinion.

Nobody can speak for any such "design", and anyone can claim they should be the ones holding the whip. That's the fundamental contradiction.

The effort and simplicity is appreciated.

thx

 

[1Disturbed]

I do hope for some kind of socialism to eventually materialise.

 

[Pikacel]

The West doesn’t need anyhing. It’s already first world with loads of amenities

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

And what if just always they same patterns repeat themselves and the progress throughout history is just an illusion?

 

[Caesercel]

The West doesn’t need anyhing. It’s already first world with loads of amenities

Maybe so, but they can't maintain that system without stepping on the non-west. So the contradiction is still unavoidable. The west is not an isolated entity. And these concessions did not come about on their own. Their was a real threat of far left populism is early twentieth century and the west can very well return to the days of Oliver Twist

And what if just always they same patterns repeat themselves and the progress throughout history is just an illusion?

Idk. We went from horse carts to airplanes. Some material development is evidenciary.

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Idk. We went from horse carts to airplanes. Some material development is evidenciary.

This is only technical development, no cultural development. As a whole the west is a tge same point like the romans after they got finally rid of democracy or like china after the warring states period, eventhough we may be technological more advanced

 

[Caesercel]

This is only technical development, no cultural development. As a whole the west is a tge same point like the romans after they got finally rid of democracy or like china after the warring states period, eventhough we may be technological more advanced

Technical development still has material consequences , which then has cultural consequences. And there is nothing in common between the material/cultural situation in Rome, china or the west. But I guess you are going for more of a common historical meta-narrative. That part will be covered in the next post.

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Technical development still has material consequences , which then has cultural consequences. And there is nothing in common between the material/cultural situation in Rome, china or the west. But I guess you are going for more of a common historical meta-narrative. That part will be covered in the next post.

I Dont believe in historical progress I believe in historical cyclicism. Rome, China or the occident they all follow the exact same patterns of birth, growing up until they reach their peak and then they stagnate and become civilisations. All of them had their own individual way and specialities but the patterns were always the same.

 

[Caesercel]

I Dont believe in historical progress I believe in historical cyclicism. Rome, China or the occident they all follow the exact same patterns of birth, growing up until they reach their peak and then they stagnate and become civilisations. All of them had their own individual way and specialities but the patterns were always the same.

Yeah, I thought so. This is indeed a meta narrative. Not the one I'm covering but I've heard of it.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Only good thing about it is that it's mostly dialectical. Yet I despise materialism naming itself scientific while not even responding to Hume's critique of its method. It freely bonds base and superstructure without proving necessity of this dependency, not even giving empirical proofs for that. Hegelian method is best, but it becomes unpure and thus worthless when you inject dogmas into it.

 

[Caichan]

, nor is it a pure ideology that everyone magically adopted at some point to create a new world, nor is it human nature. Instead, Capitalism is a direct result of the specific material circumstances and conditions that existed in our past reality. Specific people at specific places did very specific things, reacting to the material forces surrounding them which lead to the rise of the capitalist mode of production and it's inherent human relations/classes etc.

no shit. i don’t think anyone is denying this

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

no shit. i don’t think anyone is denying this

He means teleology by this I suppose. It emerged not randomly, he means, but all previous events had to out of necessity lead to it.

 

[Caesercel]

Only good thing about it is that it's mostly dialectical. Yet I despise materialism naming itself scientific while not even responding to Hume's critique of its method.

I mean, isn't that applicable to the entirety of the scientific method? Not that the critique is invalid but that didn't stop anyone from doing science and I don't believe that's the purpose of this particular project.

It freely bonds base and superstructure without proving necessity of this dependency, not even giving empirical proofs for that.

A valid critique but I still find this idea credible in my anectodal experience. Infact I developed similar beliefs even before (knowing) Marx. Especially when analysing the decline of marital monogamy, the sexual revolution, inceldom and it's link to invention of contraception. Also I have noticed how poor people do not think about the world the same way rich people do.

. Hegelian method is best, but it becomes unpure and thus worthless when you inject dogmas into it.

Hegelian method easily lends itself to dogmas

no shit. i don’t think anyone is denying this

Nah, they do deny it. Many on the "it's just an economic system" crowd (looking at you @based_meme ) would not want to admit that this "free market ideology" they root for emanates from a system of production that wouldn't exist without the history of, say, chattel slavery and colonial exploitation.

He means teleology by this I suppose. It emerged not randomly, he means, but all previous events had to out of necessity lead to it.

This too.

 

[Pikacel]

Maybe so, but they can't maintain that system without stepping on the non-west. So the contradiction is still unavoidable. The west is not an isolated entity. And these concessions did not come about on their own. Their was a real threat of far left populism is early twentieth century and the west can very well return to the days of Oliver Twist


Idk. We went from horse carts to airplanes. Some material development is evidenciary.

Imperialism is inevitable Tbh. Everyone deep down wants to mog and dominate the other

 

[Caesercel]

Imperialism is inevitable Tbh. Everyone deep down wants to mog and dominate the other

I believe people are also capable of being better than that. We just live in a culture where stepping on others is touted as a virtue.

Anyway, Marxism is not based on this particular line of ethical reasoning. It's about the logical contradiction of what happens when everyone wants to mog the other but yet, inevitably, someone has to get mogged.

 

[AsiaCel]

Its ok system. But too many people interpret materialism as "races cannot exist"