What do you mean the planet-hopping strip-mining corporation my protag works for as part of a slave class of underprivileged synthetics could instead just run on friendship and love
woah woah woah are you saying that folks who like to create and flesh out worlds, and usually try to account for as many details as they can while acknowledging they can’t get it perfect might use a foundational tool of sociology and looking at history that does exactly that on the tin? Even though it can’t get it perfect??? I’m calling McCarthy this instant.
Legit even if you aren’t a Marxist Historical Materialism is an observable phenomena. A society’s social structure does indeed tend to correspond with how its economy is organized.
You when a subreddit full of nerds with an attention to detail fetish applies an accepted sociological theory to their work instead of just operating on vibes:
🤬😢
It's almost like sociology is a science and Marx was studying the nature of capitalism.
You can have a pre capitalist world.
But if you're world has capitalism, you are going to need to change the nature of reality itself to not eventually develop Marxist Leninism and is reaction, fascism. You can escape these concepts with poor writing, low world detail (not every world needs to be built if you are making a story about a highschool drama), or you make the world vastly different.
"In my femdom Corpunk world, girl bosses link directly to the conciousness of the working class so they never band against them and always go to bed on time."
It's not propiganda. It's the nature of the reality we are in.
OP has never and will never read any theory related to the matter but his ego says he must be right anyway.
Mfw I say that a kingdom starved because it didn’t have enough grain (this is history) (being made by material) (therefore historical materialism) (I might as well have spit-polished Stalin’s boots and copy pasted the Communist Manifesto)
I know this isn't in good faith but I'll explain it anyway.
The Eastern Roman Empire was losing land. Land necessary for the preservation of their power structures because Medieval contract government systems based on food production that were closely linked to the economy.
The Pope's temporal power was diminishing with the strengthening of European monarchies and rise of empires due to technological and social advancements originating from growing urban centers. These empires were powerful enough that they no longer relied on the pope to preserve their legitimacy as much and so openly disobeyed him and fought amongst themselves (cf. investiture controversy).
Therefore, the Eastern Roman Empire sought out Western European help to reclaim their lost land so they could preserve their carefully balanced economy. The Pope agreed to organize the first crusade so he could strengthen the position of the papacy by encouraging all catholic powers in Europe to contribute to a Papal expedition that directly paid into the coffers of the Roman Curia. European rulers did this because favor in the Pope's eyes meant later support down the line in case of rough times (like, I don't know, an economic downturn or famine) and so a greater chance at preserving their dynasty and lands.
I do not think that the loss of land of the Eastern roman empire can be solely described as an economic issue, as much as it was an existential issue of survival. Even if the lands lost to the encroaching muslims were nigh-useless un-arable land, the Byzantines would have still asked for help because they were simply nearing their breaking beyond and about to die.
Issues between the pope and monarchs were already common and nothing special but it would be wrong to say everything the medieval church did was directly the cause of this power struggle, there were a lot of discussions about heresy and such that began at a theological level and only then filtered to material positions. There is also the fact that any money actually raised for the expedition would have been actually spent on the expedition itself, so it is questionable as a revenue gathering attempt. As a final note on this point, I find it wrong to argue that all political leaders who supported it did it entirely out of self interest, dissmising their personal piety and beliefs, simply on the face of it. Arguing that people don't actually believe what they state they do is a great way to fall into a black hole of historical nihilism where nothing stated by historical sources is actually ever true.
But ultimately, my argument centers more on why anyone actually _went and fought_. Why did the people's crusade happen? Why did the children's crusade happen? Why did so many knights and nobles go against their economic wellbeing and personal safety to go to a desert on the other side of the world as far as they knew, on a quest to fight people they barely knew, for pretty much no expected economic gain? It was because they simply _believed in the cause_, and were willing to go against their economic self interest for personal beliefs, which is something historical materialism can't explain.
The extrative exploitation of natural resources vs the regenerative exploitation of natural resources. Don’t have to get very allegorical for the reader to the fill in the blanks without getting explicitly political.
Comment removed for violating **Rule 3. Submissions and comments should not be used to attack or harass other users.** This subreddit's primary purpose is to satirize and call out ideas and trends, not attack individual people. Therefore, it is not okay to make a post mocking another user's artistic skill or personal attributes.
**This is not a official warning**, further rule violations will lead to your removal from this community.
I feel like that is both a good and a wonky place to start.
[Here is where most people should start if they are going the reading route.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)
Understanding Dialectical Materialism is hard because it's easy. You might already think that way.
Comment removed for violating **Rule 3. Submissions and comments should not be used to attack or harass other users.** This subreddit's primary purpose is to satirize and call out ideas and trends, not attack individual people. Therefore, it is not okay to make a post mocking another user's artistic skill or personal attributes.
**This is not a official warning**, further rule violations will lead to your removal from this community.
I mean, if your community has a tradition of communism and catholicism, it works. And I imagine at least Leninism is compatible with the structured hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
It isn't unless it needs to be. Lol
It would be a contradiction, but religion could be pro working class. And a movement needs religious people to cooperate when there are so many.
But religion typically just piggy backs off of whatever system has hegemony.
Why do we revolt? DEVS VVLT. Why do cast off our shackles? DEVS VVLT. Why do we overthrow our masters? We have no king but God alone.
No greed, no kings, only God. DEVS VVLT.
Look, OP is being lame but "I went through your post history and you post in the feet subreddit so you are wrong🤓" is the lamest redditor shit on Earth.
Comment removed for violating **Rule 3. Submissions and comments should not be used to attack or harass other users.** This subreddit's primary purpose is to satirize and call out ideas and trends, not attack individual people. Therefore, it is not okay to make a post mocking another user's artistic skill or personal attributes.
**This is not an official warning**, but I encourage you to review our rules to ensure we do not have to take further action on this subreddit here.
Thieves (that are stealing because they want to and not because they have to*) prefer Capitalism because there’s more to steal and you’re less likely to be shot over it.
My reaction when I see "uwu church actually good"
As someone who has a fantasy version of the church with both its good and twisted sides, please shut the fuck up
Nah fam, I know when people joke, there are lot of them but I've seen people writing serious walltexts about how "uhh church is actually a perfect institution based on true values" (100% of the times they have studied the church on fantasy novels as far as one can tell)
My man, historical materialism isn't propaganda, it's a methodology for studying history. Marxism is based on it, but so are a lot of other theories. Chill.
man, I'm a rightoid, and can't understand how people actually believe communism could work
however, communism is something that _sounds_ really good. Capitalism also has inherent flaws, and they really suck, so why be mad if someone wants to fantasize about a perfect world when worldbuilding, either by removing the flaws of capitalism or making communism work? Fantasy is the root of epics and romances, and that's peak fiction.
Failed so hard that is gave rise to the only 2 new super powers is the 20th and 21st century; both from countries that started about 100+ years behind most of Europe.
> its good when the government has total control over people's lives because the government gets richer :D
this would be equivalent to saying it's good when elites pay you less than minimal wage because they get richer
Lmao the lifespan of the average citizen in Russia went from ~30 years to ~70 years during the timespan of the USSR, and China has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but yeah gommunism is totally when the government controls things (and the more they control things the more communist it is), and that's *definitely* what u/serenading_scug is praising
Talking about average life span in Russia.
Did you know that after the fall of the communist regime, the average life span tanked so bad they lost something like 15 years of life expectancy, and it tooks them 25 years just to get back on USSR levels ? (from memory, can't be bothered to check, you have to wait until at least 2010 to reach pre 1985 levels.)
Because you made the same talking point that has been beaten to death. "Um communism sounds good but never works. I am so smart and have figured this out"
> ‘communism has never worked’
> dumb point
What the fuck. The fact that people are getting downvoted for pointing out the historical fact that communism has not been successfully implemented yet is absolutely terrifying.
Matter of fact, it’s borderline genocide-denial/war-crime-apologist territory. History is different from economic and political theory, man.
He’s not even saying that communism _can’t_ work. He’s just pointing out it currently has not worked??? He’s not even making a value judgement???
I did try again. Also, you can apply historical materialism without coming to the conclusion that you should be a communist. It's just a goid tool to describe reality, hence to build worlds with.
Literally everything you just said was a canned catch phrase.
You picked up all of it passively. And you accepted it.
None of it stands to debate. And it's all so fucking old. So boring. So self assured.
Your main motive isn't the truth. It's too appear wise for head pats. You are virtue signaling to pad your boring ego.
I mean. You can be sassy. But you can't counter a damn thing I said.
Now continue your life of running away and repeating what you were told.
Go on. Run.
Explanation: This doesn't actually happen very often, but whenever someone mentions theories of history on this sub, the general comparison will be of "Great Man Theory vs Historical Materialism", with historical materialism being portrayed as the obviously correct theory that history isn't driven by single great men.
What buggers me when this happens is that people will fail to mention that Historical Materialism is actually the _marxist_ theory of history, which argues that history happens mostly as a material struggle between the proletariat and burgeoisie. And while by now there _are_ versions that have diverged from marxist roots, it still has many issues as a theory. Mainly, in that it discounts things such as culture, religion, moral beliefs, Alexander the Great waking up and deciding to conquer all of persia one morning, etc, as being simply the results of present material conditions, which has obvious problems.
he didn't wake up and decide to conquer Persia one morning dumbass his conquest were fulfilling a political and cultural vision that he took on after his father and was encouraged those around him to do so
You better shut up before I decide to wake up and just take Persia with no material conditions to support me.
I'll have you know I'm a GREAT MAN. I can pull the trigger at any time.
Me, when it turns out that culture and religion are backed by material conditions: (I can't attach images to comments, but imagine a surprised reaction gif)
I don't really understand whether if you really believe that Alexander "woke up one day and decided to conquer Persia" or it's satire because that's really not what happened there
>that it discounts things such as culture, religion, moral beliefs
The theory literally accounts for all of this, lmao
"For Marx and his lifetime collaborator, Friedrich Engels, historical materialism is the *'view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another.'*"
Your ass is ***NOT*** using Wikipedia
> 'view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events **in the economic development of society**
> Mainly, in that it discounts things such as culture, religion, moral beliefs, Alexander the Great waking up and deciding to conquer all of persia one morning, etc, **as being simply the results of present material conditions**
bruh you couldnt even finish the sentence
No it isn’t. Marxism is communism, and literally only one country still practices that dumbass shit. Historical materialism is just separate from that.
Sometimes a person’s ignorance is so astounding that reading the first few lines on wikipedia about the topic they’re talking about is enough to prove them wrong;
”Marxism is a political philosophy and method of socioeconomic analysis. It uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as "historical materialism," to understand class relations and social conflict. It also uses a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.”
If you go a few lines further still, you’ll find the extent to which I was understating Marx’s influence
”As a school of thought, Marxism has had a profound impact on society and global academia. To date, it has influenced many fields, including anthropology,[7][8] archaeology,[9] art theory, criminology,[10] cultural studies, economics,[11] education,[12] ethics, film theory,[13] geography,[14] historiography, literary criticism, media studies,[15][16] philosophy, political science, political economy, psychology, science studies,[17] sociology, urban planning, and theatre.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
You haven’t spent a day studying any of the social sciences if you think this.
Woah bro you’re citing Wikipedia? Woah dude, that’s a totally trustworthy source! Cool beans man! Wikipedia is literally right about everything and should always be trusted!
Historical materialism is a framework for understanding history. Marxism is an economic theory. The two are pretty clearly separate just from the fact that they serve entirely different purposes. Anyone who tries to tell you ‘we all use Marxism actually’ is a commie who wants to pretend that their ideology still has some relevance.
Anyway here’s Encyclopedia Britannica on Marxism. You’ll find they also agree with both myself and wikipedia.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism
Though something tells me there’s literally no source I could cite that would convince you.
>encyclopedia britannica
If they’re so smart, how come they can’t spell Britannia right, eh? Teaches ‘em right for trying to be posh bastards anyways, it’s just fucking Britain don’t need to be saying it like you’re Shakespeare talking to the Queen (Rest in Peace) or nothing.
Le random Redditor who is practicing basic common fucking sense. It doesn’t take a degree in anything to realize that an economic theory and a historical understanding are entirely different things- if we expect works cited for that, we might as well start putting bibliographies for saying that fresh water and salt water are different.
Unfortunately Science, rather than ’Common Sense’ (as defined by le random redditor) is the basis for fields like sociology. So no matter how you feel your revisionist history makes more sense than the evidence we actually have, I don’t think you’re going to be very succesful in changing the facts.
Yknow seeing this notification I was half expecting you to make some actual argument for the Social Sciences not being proper science, maybe appealing to Karl Popper or something, but clearly my expectations were too high.
Any idea that the medieval clergy had which is still strongly supported academically or is somehow foundational to some modern theory, is probably fairly defensible, with the exception of anything directly religious.
historical materialism is a great and very useful theory that is unfortunately entirely inapplicable to fiction. I wish it was applicable though, materialist analysis is so fun
.... not if the world you are making is based on materials. Then it can be consequential.
I mean even if you make it wacko fantasy land where I can just make a hot air balloon out of my thoughts, that is still a material condition that would form my culture and history (of madness).
What do you mean the planet-hopping strip-mining corporation my protag works for as part of a slave class of underprivileged synthetics could instead just run on friendship and love
woah woah woah are you saying that folks who like to create and flesh out worlds, and usually try to account for as many details as they can while acknowledging they can’t get it perfect might use a foundational tool of sociology and looking at history that does exactly that on the tin? Even though it can’t get it perfect??? I’m calling McCarthy this instant.
Legit even if you aren’t a Marxist Historical Materialism is an observable phenomena. A society’s social structure does indeed tend to correspond with how its economy is organized.
You when a subreddit full of nerds with an attention to detail fetish applies an accepted sociological theory to their work instead of just operating on vibes: 🤬😢
It's almost like sociology is a science and Marx was studying the nature of capitalism. You can have a pre capitalist world. But if you're world has capitalism, you are going to need to change the nature of reality itself to not eventually develop Marxist Leninism and is reaction, fascism. You can escape these concepts with poor writing, low world detail (not every world needs to be built if you are making a story about a highschool drama), or you make the world vastly different. "In my femdom Corpunk world, girl bosses link directly to the conciousness of the working class so they never band against them and always go to bed on time." It's not propiganda. It's the nature of the reality we are in. OP has never and will never read any theory related to the matter but his ego says he must be right anyway.
Mfw I say that a kingdom starved because it didn’t have enough grain (this is history) (being made by material) (therefore historical materialism) (I might as well have spit-polished Stalin’s boots and copy pasted the Communist Manifesto)
now explain the crusades
they looked different than me
"If you think famines are caused by a shortage of available food, then explain the crusades. Checkmate, Liberal."
there was a shortage of copium and therefore the crusades happened to mass produce christian curch copium after they all failed
Historical Materialism doesn’t mean ideology doesn’t exist, ya silly goose!
I know this isn't in good faith but I'll explain it anyway. The Eastern Roman Empire was losing land. Land necessary for the preservation of their power structures because Medieval contract government systems based on food production that were closely linked to the economy. The Pope's temporal power was diminishing with the strengthening of European monarchies and rise of empires due to technological and social advancements originating from growing urban centers. These empires were powerful enough that they no longer relied on the pope to preserve their legitimacy as much and so openly disobeyed him and fought amongst themselves (cf. investiture controversy). Therefore, the Eastern Roman Empire sought out Western European help to reclaim their lost land so they could preserve their carefully balanced economy. The Pope agreed to organize the first crusade so he could strengthen the position of the papacy by encouraging all catholic powers in Europe to contribute to a Papal expedition that directly paid into the coffers of the Roman Curia. European rulers did this because favor in the Pope's eyes meant later support down the line in case of rough times (like, I don't know, an economic downturn or famine) and so a greater chance at preserving their dynasty and lands.
I do not think that the loss of land of the Eastern roman empire can be solely described as an economic issue, as much as it was an existential issue of survival. Even if the lands lost to the encroaching muslims were nigh-useless un-arable land, the Byzantines would have still asked for help because they were simply nearing their breaking beyond and about to die. Issues between the pope and monarchs were already common and nothing special but it would be wrong to say everything the medieval church did was directly the cause of this power struggle, there were a lot of discussions about heresy and such that began at a theological level and only then filtered to material positions. There is also the fact that any money actually raised for the expedition would have been actually spent on the expedition itself, so it is questionable as a revenue gathering attempt. As a final note on this point, I find it wrong to argue that all political leaders who supported it did it entirely out of self interest, dissmising their personal piety and beliefs, simply on the face of it. Arguing that people don't actually believe what they state they do is a great way to fall into a black hole of historical nihilism where nothing stated by historical sources is actually ever true. But ultimately, my argument centers more on why anyone actually _went and fought_. Why did the people's crusade happen? Why did the children's crusade happen? Why did so many knights and nobles go against their economic wellbeing and personal safety to go to a desert on the other side of the world as far as they knew, on a quest to fight people they barely knew, for pretty much no expected economic gain? It was because they simply _believed in the cause_, and were willing to go against their economic self interest for personal beliefs, which is something historical materialism can't explain.
Byzantine Empire was losing land to grow crops in. They wanted to take the land back. So they gathered The Boys to have a hey day.
The extrative exploitation of natural resources vs the regenerative exploitation of natural resources. Don’t have to get very allegorical for the reader to the fill in the blanks without getting explicitly political.
[удалено]
Comment removed for violating **Rule 3. Submissions and comments should not be used to attack or harass other users.** This subreddit's primary purpose is to satirize and call out ideas and trends, not attack individual people. Therefore, it is not okay to make a post mocking another user's artistic skill or personal attributes. **This is not a official warning**, further rule violations will lead to your removal from this community.
I've never heard of historical materialism before, sounds like I've got something new to research!
I feel like that is both a good and a wonky place to start. [Here is where most people should start if they are going the reading route.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/) Understanding Dialectical Materialism is hard because it's easy. You might already think that way.
[удалено]
Comment removed for violating **Rule 3. Submissions and comments should not be used to attack or harass other users.** This subreddit's primary purpose is to satirize and call out ideas and trends, not attack individual people. Therefore, it is not okay to make a post mocking another user's artistic skill or personal attributes. **This is not a official warning**, further rule violations will lead to your removal from this community.
Those damn liberals ruined my worldjerking!
Fr, the fuck is OP doing here. Aight now who wants to analyse the worldbuilding of this Marx x Engels erotica I found?
Op when he realises that the world is made of materials: Oh, I'm just living in a marxist propaganda
Is it worse than the tradcath propaganda in r/worldjerking?
Wait until you see my tradcath-core Marxist-punk world
I mean, if your community has a tradition of communism and catholicism, it works. And I imagine at least Leninism is compatible with the structured hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
It isn't unless it needs to be. Lol It would be a contradiction, but religion could be pro working class. And a movement needs religious people to cooperate when there are so many. But religion typically just piggy backs off of whatever system has hegemony.
This is just twitter 'communists'. Like legit, it's cursed.
Why do we revolt? DEVS VVLT. Why do cast off our shackles? DEVS VVLT. Why do we overthrow our masters? We have no king but God alone. No greed, no kings, only God. DEVS VVLT.
> 2 hours after posting, 0 votes, 58 comments Oh boy.
10 hours after posting, still 0 votes, 95 comments
Is this marxist propaganda in the room with us right now?
*waves*
[удалено]
Look, OP is being lame but "I went through your post history and you post in the feet subreddit so you are wrong🤓" is the lamest redditor shit on Earth.
Yeah. Ad hominem fallacy at its finest.
Comment removed for violating **Rule 3. Submissions and comments should not be used to attack or harass other users.** This subreddit's primary purpose is to satirize and call out ideas and trends, not attack individual people. Therefore, it is not okay to make a post mocking another user's artistic skill or personal attributes. **This is not an official warning**, but I encourage you to review our rules to ensure we do not have to take further action on this subreddit here.
Thieves (that are stealing because they want to and not because they have to*) prefer Capitalism because there’s more to steal and you’re less likely to be shot over it.
Fair enough.
My reaction when I see "uwu church actually good" As someone who has a fantasy version of the church with both its good and twisted sides, please shut the fuck up
You know the uwu church good is largely a counter-jerk to the all too common explicitly evil church trope
Nah fam, I know when people joke, there are lot of them but I've seen people writing serious walltexts about how "uhh church is actually a perfect institution based on true values" (100% of the times they have studied the church on fantasy novels as far as one can tell)
lol
The *best* kind of propaganda.
What the fuck.
In my Propagandapunk world, all worldbuilding that involves economics is historical materialism
> Marxist propaganda
Its from wj, it could be worse
its not propaganda if its true :\^)
Ackhually, any information deliberately presented in your favour/against some other party in a political context is propaganda, be it factual or not
My man, historical materialism isn't propaganda, it's a methodology for studying history. Marxism is based on it, but so are a lot of other theories. Chill.
man, I'm a rightoid, and can't understand how people actually believe communism could work however, communism is something that _sounds_ really good. Capitalism also has inherent flaws, and they really suck, so why be mad if someone wants to fantasize about a perfect world when worldbuilding, either by removing the flaws of capitalism or making communism work? Fantasy is the root of epics and romances, and that's peak fiction.
I don't think you know what historical materialism is
Interesting, coming from the far opposite end of the isle I can respect this take and vice versa
Failed so hard that is gave rise to the only 2 new super powers is the 20th and 21st century; both from countries that started about 100+ years behind most of Europe.
Holy shit. Don’t.
> its good when the government has total control over people's lives because the government gets richer :D this would be equivalent to saying it's good when elites pay you less than minimal wage because they get richer
Lmao the lifespan of the average citizen in Russia went from ~30 years to ~70 years during the timespan of the USSR, and China has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but yeah gommunism is totally when the government controls things (and the more they control things the more communist it is), and that's *definitely* what u/serenading_scug is praising
Talking about average life span in Russia. Did you know that after the fall of the communist regime, the average life span tanked so bad they lost something like 15 years of life expectancy, and it tooks them 25 years just to get back on USSR levels ? (from memory, can't be bothered to check, you have to wait until at least 2010 to reach pre 1985 levels.)
By aggressively removing the flaws of capitalism you get Ayn Rand and her fiction is taken as gospel by the most annoying people in existence.
…Why is this getting downvoted?
I said "communism bad", and that's against the social rules
Because you made the same talking point that has been beaten to death. "Um communism sounds good but never works. I am so smart and have figured this out"
…What? That’s petty as hell.
Its a dumb point and there is no new discussions to be had.
> ‘communism has never worked’ > dumb point What the fuck. The fact that people are getting downvoted for pointing out the historical fact that communism has not been successfully implemented yet is absolutely terrifying. Matter of fact, it’s borderline genocide-denial/war-crime-apologist territory. History is different from economic and political theory, man. He’s not even saying that communism _can’t_ work. He’s just pointing out it currently has not worked??? He’s not even making a value judgement???
Thats not what the dude said you illetarate troglodyte
Historical Materialism is such a nice neat formulaic theory it sounds like it came out of fiction Oh wait
You're expecting this sub to be on your side? This sub loves communism, you'd be better off just not being political or saying what they wanna hear.
This sub does have a lot of well read people.
If you say so
No you said so
Nah
Politics will show up in your storytelling wether you want it or not.
What does that have to do with communism? My settings have politics, doesn't mean im a communist lmao.
Except that's not what you said in the first comment, you said communism or no politics.
Give it another read and think through what i mean. I won't bother giving an answer until you can bother understanding what i said.
I did try again. Also, you can apply historical materialism without coming to the conclusion that you should be a communist. It's just a goid tool to describe reality, hence to build worlds with.
Then tell me what i actually meant.
Uh-oh, is that wrongthink? Get ready for 20-something first-worlder champagne socialists to lecture you on what real communism is.
Literally everything you just said was a canned catch phrase. You picked up all of it passively. And you accepted it. None of it stands to debate. And it's all so fucking old. So boring. So self assured. Your main motive isn't the truth. It's too appear wise for head pats. You are virtue signaling to pad your boring ego.
[удалено]
I mean. You can be sassy. But you can't counter a damn thing I said. Now continue your life of running away and repeating what you were told. Go on. Run.
Least dramatic redditor when confronting someone else (IRL they would just cower in fear)
Explanation: This doesn't actually happen very often, but whenever someone mentions theories of history on this sub, the general comparison will be of "Great Man Theory vs Historical Materialism", with historical materialism being portrayed as the obviously correct theory that history isn't driven by single great men. What buggers me when this happens is that people will fail to mention that Historical Materialism is actually the _marxist_ theory of history, which argues that history happens mostly as a material struggle between the proletariat and burgeoisie. And while by now there _are_ versions that have diverged from marxist roots, it still has many issues as a theory. Mainly, in that it discounts things such as culture, religion, moral beliefs, Alexander the Great waking up and deciding to conquer all of persia one morning, etc, as being simply the results of present material conditions, which has obvious problems.
he didn't wake up and decide to conquer Persia one morning dumbass his conquest were fulfilling a political and cultural vision that he took on after his father and was encouraged those around him to do so
You better shut up before I decide to wake up and just take Persia with no material conditions to support me. I'll have you know I'm a GREAT MAN. I can pull the trigger at any time.
Marxism is when you notice that history is driven by people making choices based on the conditions they live in (godless propaganda).
Me, when it turns out that culture and religion are backed by material conditions: (I can't attach images to comments, but imagine a surprised reaction gif)
I don't really understand whether if you really believe that Alexander "woke up one day and decided to conquer Persia" or it's satire because that's really not what happened there
that part specifically is made in jest, but still as a point that material conditions (and arguably systemic theories in general) aren't great
Ahh, pardon, I take that back then
>that it discounts things such as culture, religion, moral beliefs The theory literally accounts for all of this, lmao "For Marx and his lifetime collaborator, Friedrich Engels, historical materialism is the *'view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another.'*" Your ass is ***NOT*** using Wikipedia
Idk man, once I checked Kiwipedia and it stated that Dante Alighieri had lived in XVI century, so it might be possible that he did...
> 'view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events **in the economic development of society** > Mainly, in that it discounts things such as culture, religion, moral beliefs, Alexander the Great waking up and deciding to conquer all of persia one morning, etc, **as being simply the results of present material conditions** bruh you couldnt even finish the sentence
Bruh, why are you reposting your Ls? We already went over why you're wrong, lmao
average marxist critical thinking skills be like:
Thanks for the compliment I guess, but focus on your own cognitive ability lil' bro
Mfw the concept of critical thinking comes from critical theory which comes from the Frankfurt school which were Marxists 💀
B-but-but I‘ve always been told that Marx was evil and the pure mention of his forbidden name should put revulsion into every brave man‘s heart!
Yeah how dare people defend Marxism? It’s only the foundation of major parts of modern sociology, economics, philosophy, and politics.
No it isn’t. Marxism is communism, and literally only one country still practices that dumbass shit. Historical materialism is just separate from that.
Sometimes a person’s ignorance is so astounding that reading the first few lines on wikipedia about the topic they’re talking about is enough to prove them wrong; ”Marxism is a political philosophy and method of socioeconomic analysis. It uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as "historical materialism," to understand class relations and social conflict. It also uses a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.” If you go a few lines further still, you’ll find the extent to which I was understating Marx’s influence ”As a school of thought, Marxism has had a profound impact on society and global academia. To date, it has influenced many fields, including anthropology,[7][8] archaeology,[9] art theory, criminology,[10] cultural studies, economics,[11] education,[12] ethics, film theory,[13] geography,[14] historiography, literary criticism, media studies,[15][16] philosophy, political science, political economy, psychology, science studies,[17] sociology, urban planning, and theatre.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism You haven’t spent a day studying any of the social sciences if you think this.
Woah bro you’re citing Wikipedia? Woah dude, that’s a totally trustworthy source! Cool beans man! Wikipedia is literally right about everything and should always be trusted! Historical materialism is a framework for understanding history. Marxism is an economic theory. The two are pretty clearly separate just from the fact that they serve entirely different purposes. Anyone who tries to tell you ‘we all use Marxism actually’ is a commie who wants to pretend that their ideology still has some relevance.
Anyway here’s Encyclopedia Britannica on Marxism. You’ll find they also agree with both myself and wikipedia. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism Though something tells me there’s literally no source I could cite that would convince you.
>encyclopedia britannica If they’re so smart, how come they can’t spell Britannia right, eh? Teaches ‘em right for trying to be posh bastards anyways, it’s just fucking Britain don’t need to be saying it like you’re Shakespeare talking to the Queen (Rest in Peace) or nothing.
It’s sure as hell a lot more trustworthy than ’le random redditor’ lol
Le random Redditor who is practicing basic common fucking sense. It doesn’t take a degree in anything to realize that an economic theory and a historical understanding are entirely different things- if we expect works cited for that, we might as well start putting bibliographies for saying that fresh water and salt water are different.
Unfortunately Science, rather than ’Common Sense’ (as defined by le random redditor) is the basis for fields like sociology. So no matter how you feel your revisionist history makes more sense than the evidence we actually have, I don’t think you’re going to be very succesful in changing the facts.
>science >sociology Almost got upset with you there until I noticed this, now I know you’re having a right laugh. Good one!👍
Yknow seeing this notification I was half expecting you to make some actual argument for the Social Sciences not being proper science, maybe appealing to Karl Popper or something, but clearly my expectations were too high.
start defending the medieval clergy then
Any idea that the medieval clergy had which is still strongly supported academically or is somehow foundational to some modern theory, is probably fairly defensible, with the exception of anything directly religious.
\*bangs shoe on desk\* Your children will be communists!!
He's out of line, and shooting at the wrong target but he is right
historical materialism is a great and very useful theory that is unfortunately entirely inapplicable to fiction. I wish it was applicable though, materialist analysis is so fun
“entirely inapplicable to fiction” my dude you are the one building the world
.... not if the world you are making is based on materials. Then it can be consequential. I mean even if you make it wacko fantasy land where I can just make a hot air balloon out of my thoughts, that is still a material condition that would form my culture and history (of madness).