Why is historical maretialism wrong?

we're indeed counsciousless automatons, just as every other species, we want to maximize our earnings and minimize our expenses.

we are just economical entities.

> or even culture
> culture
Did you forget about trendy buzzwords or what?

No, culture exists, and not every mind functions the same. For example you somehow ended up so brainwashed that you can't see that while it's completely obvious to me. And it's not because zebras can't be domesticated or some shit.

>Historical materialism is basically pretending there is no such thing as consciousness or subjectivity or even culture, and that humans are just interchangeable automatons that if presented with a certain input will all generate the same output.
t. someone who has never read a word about historical materialism that wasn't blatantly against it

it isn't

No, I'm going by what every single historical materialist (and that's 99% of this board) says.

culture itself is derivated from the context of production.

Explain the Roman civil wars in the "context of production".

Marx and Engels would never say there is no such thing as subjectivity or culture. Saying subjectivity and culture are founded in production is not to say they do not exist, nor that they do not have some autonomy across material eras.
>Greek art in the 19th century “still give us aesthetic pleasure and are in certain respects regarded as a standard and unattainable ideal”

what "historical materialists" on Veeky Forums is worth fuck all. Only a fool (you) would assume they represent a historical methodology.

sila vs mario = proles vs porkies

A man can not live on bread alone.

>everyone who isn't a white American is united in some kind of evil Communist bloc against poor white people

>this is what white nationaltards actually believe

Really, explain how the context of production led to Gothic architecture.

Except that's completely wrong. Westerners don't enjoy or even understand Chinese or ancient Mayan art, and vice versa. That shit isn't universal.

of course, because gothic architecture was developed with religious purposes (the taller the building, the closer they were to heaven), due to the fact that religion is just determined by the context of production, gothic architecture was developoed because of the economic nature of humankind.

This is why historical materialism and pretty much every other theory of history are, as previously stated, just tools and cannot be disproved or proved.

You can explain most any event through economic terms if you want.

Except neither of them had material differences in terms of army composition or strata of support they drew upon, which was geographic rather than ideological.

It wasn't "proles vs porkies" it was "Everyone, from aristocrats down to slaves, who supported the Populares position, vs everyone, from aristocrats down to slaves, who supported the Optimates position."

And in neither case, was anyone advocating any kind of change in production system, merely another round of priveleges in the senate.

Plus, that doesn't even begin to cover other civil wars (and I'm sorry, I was really thinking the imperial period, but I didn't delinate). Try something like the year of the 4 emperors.

yeah, it's pretty unfalseavable. even thoguh it has predicted very well many historical phenomenon.

tbqh i don't know shit about roman history, even though if you say that it had to do more with geographical circumstances rather than ideological ones, it sounds pretty much like a economic-realted conflict

While I'd love to see you try to show how the "context of production" explains Christianity, let's stick to the subject and tell me why did Orthodox Christians or Muslims, who have a heaven too, never build Gothic cathedrals? Why do they have domes instead? Is it a difference in the "context of production"?

It hasn't predicted shit.

The problem with the Great Man and the other one, the general trends and forces or whatever, is that they assert that Human events are only caused by one thing.

History is the result of a million different factors all converging.

A trend may have been occurring, but does it culminate in something significant unless there's a great man to exploit it?

The "Great Man Theory" doesn't exist, it's just a strawman created by historical materialists to conflate two positions: the imaginary position that everything is caused by great men and nothing else matters, which nobody has ever defended, and the position of sanity that humans do play a role in history, which historical materialists deny.

consider the following:
Language is the backbone of every culture
Culture is therefore not a buzzword like "class", "proletarian" or "bourgeois" but an actual defining atribute to a set of common associated signals (language, daily habits, traditions, clothing, aesthetics, etc...) that define an identity clade of a group of humans

>Marx and Engels would never say there is no such thing as subjectivity or culture.
of course they're not as delusional as to say that.
They do say that every single instance of human expression is dependent on material concerns and conditions
I'm quite aware of the base and superstructure distinction.
It can be easily turned in its head and you can offer just an equally good explanation by defining culture as the defining element of human history, with material conditions subservient to it.
Someone did it actually. He's called Spengler. (Toynbee later developed on this, with its very own different work)
His analysis is just as valid and just as limited and erroneous as Marx's

exactly.
Its all bullshit by the way.
Its simply the human brain doing what it always does since before the paleolithic.
Trying to make sense of a very random and unexpected world, and to look for patterns that fit into your inherently biased world view

> even thoguh it has predicted very well many historical phenomenon.
>mfw

human brain is not that complex, just as the animal we are, we just only want to maximize earns and minimize expenses.

> what is linguistics
> what is religion
> what is geopolitics

Aren't you pushing another strawman now or?

Progress is built from the present into the past, not the other way around.

You see, what you think you said is

> I just made a deep observation about human history

But what you actually said was

> I think human existence can be narrowed down to a single theme

Culture is a vague term, but lets say we include literature, language, art, religion, architecture and philosophy as things that make up society.

Now to start off, architecture I'll give you, at least in scale and craftsmanship you can tie it into economics.

Linguistic development? Not so much. You may as well be claiming that haplotypes are connected with the means of production.

Literature? Yet again, not so much. Plenty of societies of different 'means of production' can produce equivalently complex literary works, the Illiad, the Aeneid, the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc.

Likewise visual arts.

Also likewise, theology.

Also likewise, philosophy.

Because it is by definition not allowed to be proved wrong, it's a secular faith/cult however you cut it.

If by historical materialism you mean Marxist dialectical voodoo divinations then they're awfully wrong which should be known to you already.

If by historical materialism you understand what some people call historical determinism then sure - had Hannibal been born as simple fisherman and he wouldn't achieve his military successes. Which however is still pretty much a dumbfuckery because without Hannibal, with his personal characteristics, 2nd Punic war would happen... maybe at the same time, maybe later and run differently.

As a result historical materialism is sort of true and sort of wrong just as great man theory.

from linguistic to literature, theology and philosophy are determined only by the context of production by the simple fact that we want to fucking maximize earnings and minimize expenses!

linguistics are developed thank to our need to communicate each other, to make economic simbiosis,
literature is the fucking photography of the context of production in a determined region and time.
theology is just the opium of ignorant proles(check marx for full explanation).

marx isn't wrong!!! reee

If the human brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't understand it.