Historical Materialism seems to be the very core of Marx's philosophy. Where can I learn more about it? Also...

Historical Materialism seems to be the very core of Marx's philosophy. Where can I learn more about it? Also, what is your view of it? Do you think it holds as a philosophical position?

(pic related was the most similar thing I had to a Marx photo)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Read the 18th Brumaire for Marx's only concrete hist-mat analysis as such. Read Capital for the only other worthwhile example of such analysis.

In a strict sense hist-mat is obviously true. In the general Marxist line, however, it is just as obviously false. The more general it becomes the more tunnel-visioned and stupid the concept becomes.

>In a strict sense hist-mat is obviously true. In the general Marxist line, however, it is just as obviously false.

Why do you say that in the strict sense it is true? I do believe that the production and distribution of material goods is important, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is the sole motor of history.

I mean, if that is the case, the fact that people are born with different abilities and capable of doing different things has no role at all in the development of the human species. It makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint nor from a philosophical one.

Moreover, it seems to me that it is an abhorrent and demeaning vision of human beings in general, to claim that our history only aims at a fair distribution of material goods. It is like saying that the existence of human consciousness in the universe, with all its complexity and sensibility for beauty, is there only as a machine to satisfy the material needs of the body - and that this necessity for satisfaction ends up being the sole factor of change and development in human history.

Moreover, current life in developed countries shows that a human being whose material needs are fully satisfied can still experience unhappiness. Shouldn't this make us re-think the idea that history develops solely from material needs?

Do self-proclaimed communists embrace this vision of history or are most of them just attracted by the idea of a fair distribution of goods? Because it seems to me that if that idea follows from a flawed philosophical background, one should doubt its validity, and maybe re-think it.

In a strict sense it is true precisely because regardless of what you want to dream, the "material" aspects of life underpin your society's conception of itself and by extension your self-conception to an immense degree. You have to be massively ignorant of the current systems of beliefs, governments, and social structures in general in relation to the "economy" to think you're some kind of free spirit at your own command. It is true in a very strong statistical sense, and that's undeniable.

Read Walter Benjamin's Thesis on the Philosophy of History. Rather short, great essay on Historicism and Historical Materialism.

I have never said material goods do not play a role, nor have I say this role is not important.
I do not believe they are the ONLY motor of history, which is what Marx thinks they are.

If Marx's theory was true, very simply, you would not have the case of individuals who can satisfy their material needs and yet are unhappy - which is a widespread, very common condition in first world countries.

All I am saying is that this need for something more - whatever this more is - must be taken into consideration as a valuable factor in the development of history, and that if we do, we are going to disrupt historical materialism and consequently a Marxist view of the world by placing value on something that is not only a material good.

The importance of religion as a cultural manifestation, for instance, can hardly be reduced solely to a matter of distribution of material goods, as well as the development of forms of art and the peculiar aesthetic that distinguishes one civilization from the other.
There are many other examples of cultural manifestations which cannot be explained in the framework of historical materialism without recurring to ridiculous theories.

>ONLY motor of history, which is what Marx thinks they are.
Marx doesn't think this.
>you would not have the case of individuals who can satisfy their material needs and yet are unhappy
Marx literally talks about this in the 1844 manuscripts as a problem of alienation. Marx never said the problem is that people don't have enough "stuff".
>All I am saying is that this need for something more
So does Marx, hence the call for political practice through organization and agitation. Ideas do matter, and not just any idea can be injected anywhere.

Marx's claim is that the material life is the most important determination, and in a general observation of modern life he is undeniably right, but he's not right in the general course of history.

>the "material" aspects of life underpin...

There is no known measure of such Teleology. Thinking there is one and trying to interpret History that way yields absurd results as soon as you look beyond 19th-20th century Western Europe. To even ask how Material aspects were instrumental to the Mongol Empire's expansion and downfall, to the Basque identity, or to the Dutch-Japanese relations is not only irrelevant but of strictly negative value. Even asking how Material aspects were instrumental to the appearance and propagation of Material thing - the bicycle, the printing press, the bow and arrow - yields almost nothing relevant.

...

>To even ask how Material aspects were instrumental (...) to the Basque identity (...) is not only irrelevant but of strictly negative value

Completely wrong, you metaphysical-idealist kid.

The Basque Country (País Vasco, a gallicism taken from Pays basque), was the most (and only among the few) indrustialized region in Spain. Many people moved from other parts of the nation to the Basque Country. Industrialization generated wealth. Wealth generated racism, supremacism and classism against the other parts of Spain and against the new labour force.

Sabino Arana, adopting the German idealist-romantic ideas, created the Basque nationalism, to protect the medieval fueros --the privileges of the territory, which were in danger because of the new liberal revolutionary tendencies after the French Revolution that spread across the XIX century through Europe. This "Basque identity" is nothing but the mithology that Sabino Arana created which was popularized in the XX century. They just took up the baton from the carlistas.

By the way, I post here what Engels wrote about the Basques:

>There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.

Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745.

Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800.

Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.

marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

This doesn't even mean anything. To claim something is "mythology" is the ultimate Epistemological bumhood.

>Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused...

This is retarded, reddit-tier garbage - "what doesn't fit into my world model has been manufactured by the enemies my model presents". Not that it matters but I mean Basque identity as in the question of Basque Language, given that Empirical-Phenomenal History in general, of which Historical Materialism is a subset, claims Language is integral to a people's identity and ascertainment of their past in relation to their present. I shudder to think what Marx thinks about that. Don't tell me.

My view is that a flawed overly simplistic understanding of history and the people that lived in it. If you want any good understanding of history, you should check the Annales School. They developed and popularized a form of history that gives up on overly materialistic views and look deep in the mentality of the time, something marxist historiography fails miserably.
You will be better of with other marxist concepts than with historical materialism.

>Only the newly introduced peasant colonists, the Jews and the Saxons in Transylvania, are an exception and stubbornly retain an absurd nationality in the midst of a foreign land.
>my own judgement by which i said a thing about a thing has led me to another thing of which i cannot say say anything
>must be the counter-revolution's fault...

>summarize the History of Spain and the social-political-economic-territorial problem
>This doesn't even mean anything.

Wow, great "argument". You are the king of argumentation. Which is even funnier because you being a lazy brainlet still dare to say

>Epistemological bumhood

Now
>To claim something is "mythology" is the ultimate Epistemological bumhood.

Claiming that Basque nationalist mythology is mythology is just calling things for its name lol. Do you even know what he/they said or wrote? How would you call all this baseless ideas about the origin of the "Basque race" or how different, special and superior by nature is the "Basque race" to Castilians? Do you know about tubalismo? Do you know about the new made up place names replacing the historical ones? Do you even know anything about the Basque Country?

Seriously, you have no argument.

Agur ben hur eta jan yogur.

>claims Language is integral to a people's identity and ascertainment of their past in relation to their present. I shudder to think what Marx thinks about that.

That's what Lenin said in relation to Russian language and literature. If you often "shudder" over things you are completely ignorant of, I guess you are used to shuddering.

Berriro: Agur.

There is no Material aspect qualitatively or quantitatively particular to the Basque Country, least of all industrialization, that would explain their Language being so distinct as to qualify as an isolate. Furthermore, I said nothing of nationalism, race, or superiority. Consider the Albanian identity and their similar Linguistic status.

There's so much nonsense in your replies. Your/Marx's "summary" of Spain's History starts in the early 19th century. You double down on your defense of Marx's recursive statements with a recursive statement. You claim Lenin agrees with...me? Agrees with an argument that is dissonant with the Marxist model...as a rebuttal to...that very argument...that I made?

Are you a p-zombie?

Also, peak hilarity:

>Thinking there is one and trying to interpret History that way yields ABSURD results

>marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
>Only the newly introduced peasant colonists, the Jews and the Saxons in Transylvania, are an exception and stubbornly retain an ABSURD nationality in the midst of a foreign land.

Me: this thinking yields absurd results therefore it's useless.

Engels: this thinking yields absurd results therefore I'm right and fuck the counter-revolution.

Check out Marvin Harris.

Historical materialism is becoming truer everday. Last century, you could've argued that cultural difference was a real factor in the adoption of economic policies, but now that neoliberalism is destroying culture worldwide, it seems Marx's words were right. Right wingers will whine that Marx brought this blight upon us without realizing he just made some observations. Plebs actually think philosophers influence reality. Philosophy is organic.

>There is no Material aspect qualitatively or quantitatively particular to the Basque Country, least of all industrialization, that would explain their Language being so distinct

I never talked about this.

>Furthermore, I said nothing of nationalism, race, or superiority.

You said "Basque Identity", WHICH IS all the thing I've said and you seem (surprise) to ignore.

>Your/Marx's "summary" of Spain's History starts in the early 19th century.

Marx never said (and he couldn't) all the things I wrote because he was dead before these things happened.

It starts when the Basque identity, that thing YOU said, was originated.

Let me explain it very simple:

"Basque identity" =/= Basque language (vascuence, euskera, euskara, etc.).

Furthermore, the Basque identity wasn't build primarly over the Basque language (unlike the Catalan one) because MOST OF THE BASQUES didn't speak Basque, you fucking tontolapikoa. The whole province of Álava, most of Navarra and many cities in Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa spoke Spanish. Even nowdays, despite everything the Autonomous Goverment does to promote the Basque language, not even the ~50% of Basques speak Basque.

So the Basque identity had to be built over the "Basque race", up to the point that the father of the Basque Country (who created the Basque identity: the Basque flag, the main Basque political party, the Basque anthem, the Basque new terms and names for the Spanish ones) claimed: "I prefer a Spanish speaking Basque rather than a maketo [slur term for non Basque people] who have learned Basque".

The carlistas were native Basque speakers (euskaldunes) but they didn't create this identity as it is known (abertzale style).

>You claim Lenin agrees with...me? Agrees with an argument that is dissonant with the Marxist model...as a rebuttal to...that very argument...that I made?

I claim you don't have ANY idea of both marxism and Basque identity, as you have proved on this thread.

>Are you a p-zombie?

Are you an illiterate who speaks about topics you don't have a clue? Yes. Are you a mutt? You might be one, based on how much you love to talk about stuff you don't have any idea.

Joan hadi ipurtzulotik hartzera putakumea.

This barely makes grammatical sense anymore. You've contradicted yourself so many times you might as well be speaking in tongues. You've explicitly vouched for Marxist Historical Materialism as the be-all and end-all Ontology in regards to the Basque issue in every reply thus far. No doubt you'll eventually deny denying that you've done so in this reply if I keep going. The utter ignorance of all my other points and the inexplicable suspicion that I'm Basque (?), it sounds like an automaton jittering before shutting down.

Historical materialism is just systems thinking and evolutionary ecology for psueds.

Don't get me wrong I think it was very admirable over a century ago, way ahead of it's time really.
Today with the way we understand how patterns emerge and systems organize it's adherents are a complete joke..
It's ridiculously anthropocentric, this results in the systematic omission of most of the story there is to tell.
Yes class is very important but it's anachronistic and not so precise. The conversation needs to be about social conventions that put people or other systems in arbitrary power of what the obtain there power from.
So yes property, but all kinds of unjustified authority, such has marx pointed out about the church, but many other things the marxists miss.
Honestly when it comes to historical materialism I have enough beliefs in common with the marxists to say I agree with them, but they are missing so much. Also I formed my beliefs in a completely different frame of reference, ecology and systems science. I think historical materialism can find the patterns fairly well but does a piss poor job at explaining how they emerge.
It's been very interesting learning about the history of political philsophy, as I formed mine close to independently and then began to read about others while I have been refining my own.
What's even more striking to me is the work of anarchists like Goldman and Kropotkin. They could be my comrades.

While his mat is great in that it almost recognizes the autopoetic nature of ecological organization in a narrow social sense, it fails to completely recognize the power of the meaning made from material, which in full scope is everything. Humans and life more generally do not interact with material, only the meaning made from it. we only possess material by proxy, everything from DNA to the food we harvest we possess through the meaning created from it. Otherwise there is no pragmatic way we would know of it's existence. It includes everything that exists in respect to our perception and interpretation of it. all we can possibly know. I'm sure life has many more secrets that we cannot find with our limited human vessels.
This last point is a personal criticism, that position is something that is only beginning to be articulated by the life sciences and philsophy. I only really mentioned it to talk about the implicit problems that come from a materialist perspective, the metaphysical foundations are a fuck up. Maybe I was being pedantic.