I'm genuinely interested. He seems to make a reliable point, and stretching it to it's limits of feasibility, it checks out.
I don't really want anyone who hasn't read the book on the subject, but in the interests of bump order.
Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org
*Sigh*
*book semi related*
History can be viewed under multiple lenses. sometimes it fits/makes sense under one lense and sometimes it doesn't or it's lacking.
>listening to the man who created Communism and led to over 100 million people dying and who's work led to Cultural Marxism and the destruction of the family and marriage and traditional values that is currently destroying western civilization as we know it
I couldn't even imagine
>Can you disprove Marx's Historical Materialism?
We shouldn't have to disprove what no one has ever been able to prove. Cultural Marxists are the only people who push these ideas and expect us to take them serious when they fail in every country. Marx brought nothing but destruction to this world.
What do you mean by 'disprove'? A theory is falsified when it allows for specific predictions and they are wrong.
Considering most of his predictions were wrong (and all of the major ones), it is dead and buried.
Well, you can focus on things other than modes of production but all historical analysis must be Materialist. Just don't assume everything is 'progress'
Ignore Popper, unfalsifiability is unfalsifiable.
>What do you mean by 'disprove'?
A situation that the umbrella of the theory does not cover
>Considering most of his predictions
What predictions? Sources and pages please.
>Considering most of his predictions were wrong
Exactly. I've never bothered to read this G*rmanic Isr*elite but considering what it's led to no point in trusting it. The whole white guilt stuff alone is enough. Pushing the whole white man to blame for everything thing.
That's stupid, you can fit any number of models you want to the past, even consistent ones. You know all the relevant information so you can twist and wind your structures around that.
The real validation is in being able to predict the future and historical materialism failed miserably at that.
Can you explain what a cultural marxist is? Just to make sure you're calling me the right thing.
>Cultural Marxists are the only people who push these ideas and expect us to take them serious when they fail in every country
Don't bother. This place is flooded with them.
>The real validation is in being able to predict the future and historical materialism failed miserably at that.
No, the most important part of historical materialism is the ability to create a better understanding of the historical perspective.
You know what i'm talking about unless you haven't read into the Frankfurt school and what they did the universities in the west. If you haven't dug deep into it you probably have no clue about it.
Why are you people mentioning communism in a discussion on historical materialism, especially to disprove historical materialism? They are linked, yes, but not in any way where one could disprove the other.
>when you asked for people educated on the subject and then fools start posting
>if you know what I'm talking about, I won't explain it because you know it already
>if you don't know what I'm talking about, I won't explain it because it's too hard
Very nice.
Ah now I see
> Frankfurt school and what they did the universities in the west
It's the conspiracy theory about colleges not conforming to conservative views
>dig deep
Ah, thank you so much
>White guilt
>Pushing white man's burdens
Get the FUCK OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE FUCKING BOOK ON THE DAMNED SUBJECT IMMEDIATELY
Historical materialism assumes far too much rationality of history's great actors, imho.
>conspiracy theory
Conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something
How does that disprove the facts at hand?
There were never any facts presented in Anons original.
Labelling something a conspiracy theory truthfully does have negative connotations because they very rarely come with evidence, but I was not attacking the "facts at hand", I was attacking the fact that "Facts" were never presented
Strip away Marx's class model and his theories essentially become "rich people own shit and shit changes over time lmao" which while basically right isn't really an original inference.
An example might be the "class conflict" between the landowning aristocracy and emerging merchants/bourgeois in Britain. If his theory were correct one would expect to see clear divisions in the civil war and competition between the whigs and the tories in parliament, in reality each had a mix of both "classes". An erudite landowner's paternal acres could gradually become a mere fraction of his income inclining him towards free trade. A merchant might dislike catholics and feel he is part of a clique and see no wrong voting against his economic interests. Class loyalties were a minor factor at best and you cannot obtain a clear view of history with an irrational fixation on it.
> can you disprove an unfalsifiable tool of observation
How is your second year of university progressing chump?
Hitler and other fascists had no materialistic reason to wage the biggest war ever. No monetary gain. It was pure philosophy. in the case of hitler, it was even racial.
>Hitler and other fascists had no materialistic reason to wage the biggest war ever
The Nazi economy was built by repressing unions, ramping up working hours and getting cheap labour through organisations such as the Reichsarbeitsdienst, and looting other countries and Jews, they had support from industrialists (military-industrial complex) and certainly had a materialistic interest; preventing socialist revolution and restoring profitability to Germany after its economic turmoil. Nazis tried to buy off the German working class, which had a strong communist movement, by distributing the proceeds of war and keeping the massive state-sponsored rearmament program going.
The best way to "disprove" Marx is to never read him and insist what he meant was USSR world domination.
Just yesterday I was in a thread on /pol/ where people were depressed how distanced they are from their labor, how they work for someone else, work is unsatisfying, they wish they could be like a craftsman, his work directly linked to him, so he has a passion and reason, and soon.
In the same thread, everyone was shitting on commies for making things that way and Marx was directly and unironically blamed for the 1% existing, because they are all jewkikes and he was a jewkike and bawww bawww bawww.
>The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
Ridiculously, naively, foolishly simplistic. Just like
>The history of the world is but the biography of great men
or
>History is the inevitability of progress
For most of History (particularly when there is gradual change over a long period of time) Historical Materialism holds up.
Having great men in the right place at the right time would result in an outcome not predicted by Historical Materialism.
The only other example I can think of is new Religions and Philosophies. A revolution may be predicted through the theory but who usurps power and what ideology takes its place is wholly outside what H.M. can predict.
I'd say H.M. pre-supposes people only care about their material surroundings and worldy control. But yes, for most of History it makes sense.
Am socialist, but the developmental model promoted as universal by historical materialism is only applicable to the history of some parts of the globe, namely Europe and Japan. Chinese history in particular shows how inaccurate that notion is; they never really had feudalism nor followed the same order of stages.
Marx did talk about an "Asiatic" mode of production, inspired by Hegel
marxists.org
How about you prove it to me?
The two most industrialised countries of the time, the US and England never got a Communist revolutions.
The third most industrialised country of that time, and the least politically stable country of the century never got a Communist revolution.
Germany did had a small one and it failed because they ad too few supporters. It happened only when external conditions kept the economy on the ground.
Communist revolutions did happened in countries with almost no industry but where social order prevented the start of industrialisation.
History show that Communist does not come after capitalism in the natural order of things, but rather appear punctually to remove some obstacles to development and lead to capitalism.
Today 199 years ago, Karl Marx was born. Here's a list with the top 10 countries in which his ideas succeeded:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that the thing you're describing actually happened.
The material conditions are what even allow great men to emerge.
The well field system was around as of the Qin, China just constantly collapsed so social developments tended to shift very quickly.
The Song were basically semi-capitalist and were undergoing an industrial and scientific revolution when the Mongols destroyed all of their progress.
>never got a Communist revolutions.
History isn't over.
>No, the most important part of historical materialism is the ability to create a better understanding of the historical perspective.
And how do you verify if your understanding is 'better'? If you mean a more accurate description of reality, it's only by checking if your model still holds water once you move past what you already knew that you can decide this; any number of models can be built to fit the past.
Communism is a thing of the past. Take a look outside.
We can't even determine if it makes good predictions yet; As I said, history isn't over.
Marxism does, however, make predictions about how societies will develop, and this can be used in the past. Japan and Europe both developed feudal political subsystems after the development of their feudal economic systems, for example, exactly as would be expected. The Qin, on the other hand, did not develop that feudal political system and collapsed promptly, in the same way the Roman Empire did in the face of villas.
How about
>communism is destined to arise in industrial western nations not eastern backwater like Russia haha
>History isn't over.
Communism never did arise in Russia though, so Marx's point still stands.
No it's not, but that doesn't mean that the revolution won't be stifled by the old carrot and stick approach. Which it will, btw. People who have lots of money actually aren't stupid, contrary to popular belief. If things look like they are headed in the direction of angry mobs, those mobs will be dealt with by a mix of buying off those who can be bought, and killing those who cannot.
Communism ain't happening now or ever unless we get star trek style technology.
>communism never reached its final stage in Russia
Ftfy. Communism never reached its final stage because it's inherently wrong. Communism easily reaches its early stages.
Three words. Arab-Israeli conflict. You cannot point to a material cause for the conflict, only a cultural/religious divide, which according to Historical Materialism, doesn't really exist and is driven by material factors.
Communism never did arise in Russia. You might call what they did Socialism, I don't because it was quite clearly capitalism which replaced the bourgeoisie with the State.
Where was the worker ownership?
>those mobs will be dealt with by a mix of buying off those who can be bought, and killing those who cannot.
This is why proletarian organizations need to be economically powerful enough so that it would hurt capitalists more to destroy them than to let them free. If you look throughout history, you'll notice that the merchant classes, perhaps the most advanced and rich wing of the bourgeoisie, was often massacred, legislated against, killed in war, or simply declined as pre-feudal states collapsed. At some point, however, they became so wealthy and powerful that they became vital to the normal functioning of the state and society, and what ended up happening is that they were granted more and more privileges, given more and more power in the sate, until eventually they took over the state for themselves.
The same process will happen with the proletariat, if history is anything to go by. They will develop structures that don't threaten the capitalists, or the capitalists will be busy with other issues, until eventually the proletariat becomes necessary for the functioning of society and the state, and eventually makes moves to take power themselves. Before that point, any attempts of theirs to take power will continually be stifled and destroyed via military force, or they will succeed and then fall back into the old order.
Control over the land is as material as it gets. The religious/ethnic divide is the cover, but what both groups really want is control over the land. Very easy to identify a material cause there.
Historical materialism didn't originate with Marx
>centralized economy
>soviet consuls
>not socialism
Kys. Also Marist Leninism specifically states you need an enlightened vanguard to guide the masses into communism. Which is exactly what they got up to. Also the ussr was 100% socialist, that's not even up to debate.
>centralized economy
You don't need that for socialism, look up decentralized planning. FFS, know what you're talking about before you talk.
>soviet councils
Were destroyed, so again, read your shit.
>Also Marxist Leninism specifically states you need an enlightened vanguard to guide the masses into communism
I'm not an idiotic Marxist-Leninist.
By the way, have you noticed that Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of countries that go from pre-capitalist production to capitalist production in the east? That's because Marxism-Leninism is basically liberalism for the east. It's an ideology of industrializing, not a socialist ideology, contrary to what the retards say.
>Also the ussr was 100% socialist, that's not even up to debate.
Where the fuck was the worker ownership? Production relations set up the structure of the entire society. If you don't have worker ownership, you don't have a socialist society.
Soviet consoles weren't destroyed you fuckwit. They were there until the end.
>Where the fuck was the worker ownership
All over the place ya retard. The workers were in consul.
>Soviet consoles weren't destroyed you fuckwit
Holy shit are you retarded? The soviets were gradually phased out. Worker's councils disappeared and became a purely legislative concept to maintain the illusion of democracy. This is basic Soviet History.
Third time now: Where the fuck was the worker ownership? The worker's councils were phased out and any historian worth their salt would tell you that.
>The soviets were gradually phased out. Worker's councils disappeared and became a purely legislative concept to maintain the illusion of democracy.
[citation needed]
Using materialism to interpret history is quite nifty, but his prediction is meh.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Both of these have sources for further reading. It's common knowledge that the Soviet Union was by no means a democratic organization.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Sure, control over land is a material factor, but the difference between "Us" and "them" such that control over the land by 'our' group is obviously better than 'their' group cannot be reduced to materialistic factors. You don't see the same sort of conflicts in Israel every time the government changes, even though control has shifted each time, because if you're an Israeli, each of those is a legitimate government, just one you might or might not like as much.
>Communism never did arise in Russia.
Oh great another one of those retards.
You know why it never arose? Because it's a pipe dream only shared by delusional retards.
But inevitably, whenever people try to make it arise, mass graves soon follow.
> cannot be reduced to materialistic factors
Right, it's somewhat arbitrary what groups do what, but that's not really the core element either. Marxism is here to tell you what causes conflicts, not why people separate themselves into different groups or anything. I'm sure, though, that the current state of affairs in Israel is the design of the capitalist countries that established the status-quo though.
>when you don't get historical materialism but are still posting
Yeah yeah ideas run history bad ideas don't work yeah yeah. Run along. We're actually having good faith discussion here, for the most part.
>Run along.
Looks like someone doesn't have an argument
> Marxism is here to tell you what causes conflicts, not why people separate themselves into different groups or anything.
But when that separation is indispensable for what causes the conflict, you need to have a mechanism to account for it for your theories to make any kind of sense. Why wasn't there war in Palestine/Israel back when the Ottomans held it? Why isn't there a civil war every time there's a change of government in Israel?
Even if a conflict is for some material goal (and it isn't always such), you don't have a conflict without two groups that oppose each other for some reason. If you can't account for that, you have a pretty shit theory.
> I'm sure, though, that the current state of affairs in Israel is the design of the capitalist countries that established the status-quo though.
That sounds very tautological.
>Why isn't there a civil war every time there's a change of government in Israel?
Because a mass of people who didn't live there before suddenly being made the ruling class AND forcibly exiling those who aren't part of this new mass of people combined with modern communication technology and imperial interests on both sides isn't a situation that's happened before in Israel. It has to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel, who was involved, what actually happened. But the conflict is not purely ethno-religious, that's for damn sure. I don't know why I even entertained that idea.
Israel was entirely an ethno-nationalist creation, it has nothing to do with the ridiculous theory of your fatass jew. In fact Israel almost vacillated towards a socialist system. Or rather, more accurately, national socialist.
>Israel was entirely an ethno-nationalist creation
Right, and that's why it has the difficulties it has.
>Can you disprove [insert spurious mumbo-jumbo here]
The answer is no, because you can't disprove a non-existent effect. Can you disprove homeopathy? You could run 100 million studies, each of which could come back negative, but you STILL wouldn't have disproved homeopathy, because the very next study you make might come back positive. This is why it is the person making the ridiculous claim who has to prove it, not the people who laugh at it.
>Because a mass of people who didn't live there before suddenly being made the ruling class AND forcibly exiling those who aren't part of this new mass of people combined with modern communication technology and imperial interests on both sides isn't a situation that's happened before in Israel.
Why does this matter? The only "material factor" you listed there was "Modern communications technology", and somehow, I think that those conflicts existed before such tech, as in the crusades.
Especially this part
>Because a mass of people who didn't live there before suddenly being made the ruling class AND forcibly exiling those who aren't part of this new mass of people
Is nothing new. You had the entire migration period to testify to that. Again what material difference is there between Alemanni and Franks that justifies a war in the 4th-5th centuries? Why is there an "us" and "them" divide?
> It has to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel, who was involved, what actually happened.
That's a whole lot of words to say nothing. And it's hardly the only ethnic or religious conflict, just a recent and obvious one that you're struggling to find an answer for.
> But the conflict is not purely ethno-religious, that's for damn sure.
So, if we removed the ethno-religious factors, say, by wiping out the Israeli population and replacing them with Jordanians and Syrians, you think the conflict would continue?
>Why does this matter?
>Mass of people moving from one place to another affecting every aspect of native people's way of life
>not material
>That's a whole lot of words to say nothing.
Do you want me to list every single factor that relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'm not gonna do that.
> And it's hardly the only ethnic or religious conflict
It's pretty much the same story every time.
>you think the conflict would continue?
Oh hell yes it would, you think it wouldn't? Palestinians still have their land gone, it doesn't matter who took it, they still want it back. Are you retarded?
>Mass of people moving from one place to another affecting every aspect of native people's way of life
Which is why we have civil wars in America with every migration wave. Oh wait, no, that doesn't happen.
>Do you want me to list every single factor that relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'm not gonna do that.
No, I want you to actually universalize it in Marxist principles of solely material factors. "It happened because of specific reasons that are particular to this case" can be said about every single conflict, or every single historical prcess ever, and isn't a theory.
>It's pretty much the same story every time.
Yes, it is. You have two or more groups, which want the same thing, and fight over it. You still haven't come up with a reason as to why those groups form, and why they fight as opposed to other groups that don't fight over the same issues.
>Oh hell yes it would, you think it wouldn't? Palestinians still have their land gone, it doesn't matter who took it, they still want it back. Are you retarded?
Of course it wouldn't. There was no distinction between "Palestinian" and "Jordanian" before the formation of Jordan, and most of the 1947 "Palestinian" population moved to Jordan and are now Jordanians.
> Palestinians still have their land gone
Who is "They"? What's a "Palestinian"? What makes a land belong to a "Palestinian" and not an "Arab" or a "Muslim" or a "Jordanian"? Why didn't you see similar conflicts when you had the settling of the Canadian border with the U.S., or the state borders between Michigan and Ohio? After all, they're conflicts over land, people lost their homes and weren't able to return. I must have missed those decades long non-conventional wars.
>Are you retarded?
Pot, meet kettle. You've managed to completely miss the point, once again, even though I've explained it like 3 times.
>Of course it wouldn't.
We disagree fundamentally then. If you replaced the entirety of the Israeli population with a group that's not Palestinian and have the exact same situation, the exact same outcome would occur.
>Why didn't you see similar conflicts when you had the settling of the Canadian border with the U.S.
Because it's a different situation. You're taking individual aspects and coming up with scenarios rather than trying to find a scenario that has all of the aspects I've already laid out. Mass migration alone won't do it. Imperialist meddling alone won't do it. Scarce resources alone won't do it. Displacing large populations alone won't do it. Geography alone won't do it. It's the combination of all of these factors at once that's created the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Like I said, you're acting like a retard right now. "Durr what if only one of the things you listed happened? Would there be a conflict like the Arab-Israeli conflict?" Of course not retard, you need all of the aspects I've mentioned.
You're asking me to explain in a very small space would could span an entire book. Why not try to use historical materialism yourself and try to see if you can come up with an answer, instead of asking me to spoonfeed you and write you a fucking dissertation?
>We disagree fundamentally then. If you replaced the entirety of the Israeli population with a group that's not Palestinian and have the exact same situation, the exact same outcome would occur.
Unless of course, that population is in the umbrella of "Us", you don't get "us vs us" conflicts. Where were all the wars in the rest of the Arab world in their newly independent statuses over tribal and ethnic borders? They didn't happen? Oh, that's weird.
>Because it's a different situation.
What makes it different?
> You're taking individual aspects and coming up with scenarios rather than trying to find a scenario that has all of the aspects I've already laid out. Mass migration alone won't do it. Imperialist meddling alone won't do it. Scarce resources alone won't do it. Displacing large populations alone won't do it. Geography alone won't do it. It's the combination of all of these factors at once that's created the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
No, I've proposed a completely alternative mechanism, one which is non-materialistic, and you've refused to acknowledge it. Which is a much, much simpler system than saying that you have no less than 5 factors, none of which are sufficient on their own, but when combined together do make a war (except not all the time, because you can find instances, like late 19th century immigration from Eastern Europe to America, or the Sinicization of the Yangtze river in the Jin Dynasty, where you do have all 5 of those but still don't get endemic armed conflict)
Furthermore, you have conflicts in absence of some or all of your factors. So it makes a lot more sense to say that the conflicts are actually driven by what everyone involved says they're being driven by, namely ethnic/religious divides, than to come up with this hypercomplicated setup that needs multiple factors that only applies HERE but not in other situations where they come together to come up with an explanation for a conflict that can't be generalized.
> Why not try to use historical materialism yourself and try to see if you can come up with an answer, instead of asking me to spoonfeed you and write you a fucking dissertation?
Because the answers that you get when you try to restrict yourself to historical materialism are fundamentally weaker explanations, requiring more exceptions and are bad at prediction, than other historical analytical methods. By positing that Historical Materialism is in fact correct and then working out explanations for it, you're not being scientific, or as scientific as social sciences get, by trying a number of approaches and seeing which ones work best, you're just fanboying about your own personal favorite system, despite its warts. At that point, you don't have a theory. You have rhetoric that you use post hoc to justify what you want to see. And anyone can do that. I could reach into the dustbins of history and apply Nazi racial struggle theory, or Divine Will theory, to "explain" the Arab-Israeli conflict, or any other conflict for that matter, and I can use them myself to see if I can come up with an answer, and guess what? I will come up with an answer. Maybe not a good answer, and you can knock out underpinnings of either the facts I use to support it or my logic, but I will have an answer. Which means one of two things; either not all theories are equally good, even if they can be used to explain a conflict, in which case the proponent of a theory needs to not only explain why his or her theory is applicable, but also why it's better than other, competing theories; or that they are all equally good, and the only test is whether or not it can be applied, however pretzel-like the logic gets, in which case you have to justify why your theory is any better than any of the other equally valid applicable theories. Either way, you have a mess.
>What makes it different?
It doesn't have all the nuances of the Arab-Israeli conflict as I said. I laid out specifically some of the things the two situations don't have in common.
>one which is non-materialistic
Sure, you can try to formulate history with an "ideas-first" method. I think it's wrong, but it's important to have discourse. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong yet.
>Which is a much, much simpler system
This is absolutely not an advantage when describing human societies.
I must ask, did Christianity destroy the Roman Empire? Is Radical Islam what's holding back the Middle East?
>you're not being scientific
History/sociology isn't a science like Physics is, it's a social science, and all we can do is observe. Sorry. You can (and should) have many different competing schools of historical thought.
>>Today 199 years ago, Karl Marx was born. Here's a list with the top 10 countries in which his ideas succeeded:
>1.
>2.
>3.
>4.
>5.
>6.
>7.
>8.
>9.
>10.
any country with """(((cultural marxism)))"""
>material communism
>"if you strike me down, i shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine".
>u didn't read it
>"""""""objective value"""""""
Lmao
It's all based on superstitions.
That was a bourgeoisie revolution you mong.
"The great man" view of history is fundamentally entrenched upon the concept of Historical Materialism.
The history of all hitherto existing societies has indeed been one of struggle for resources.
Marx was right about his theory of Communism, he was of course a Hegelian at heart and understood the fundamental contradictions within the system.
Some may argue that the 20th Century was the "death of communism" however it is pretty evident that a Semi-Feudal Russia and Agricultrual China were not ripe for Communism in accordance with Orthodox Marxism.
Marx proposed that Communism would occur in the most economically developed nation at the time, and honestly with the rise of technology and automation, we are genuinely heading towards a form of Socialism through the inevitable introduction of a Universal basic income.
Capitalism is running out of options.
If we suppose that the entire foundations of capitalism is to maximise profits at all - well then you have an inherent contradiction here. The capitalist will automate to replace workers and to maximise profits however this in turn will mean less profits as workers would no longer be able to purchase their goods hence signalling the inevitable introduction of a Universals basic income or a revolution.
OP here. Thanks, user
Wrap it up mods
>frankfurt school
>historical materialists
Why are stormfags so dumb?
>cultural marxism
what *is* this?
What you call anything you dislike if you are too retarded to actually read shit.
Or, you know, the trend we are seeing, with a service based economy developing and greater economic effort being put into things incapable of automations- which are still plentiful.
There are a great deal more forms of labor in a modern society than material production.
To truly automate all of human endeavor and therefore demand a universal income or ruin would require reaching the technological singularity, and surviving it intact.
I guarantee you've never read into the Frankfurt school. I can tell already, we were all blue-pilled at one point.
you really don't know what you're talking about
I'm not a Marxist but every time I see this shit repeated I want to be one.
IT'S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU SHITLORD
What works of theirs have you read? Or did you just find some Youtube videos and infographics about DA JOOS?
By "read into" you mean watched a bunch of conspiracy videos and /pol/ infopics. Fuck off to your containment board brainlet.
Every single prediction made by using historical materialism as a method of analysis has been wrong.
Really, it is hillarious when you think about it. These guys spent the last 150 years going about how theirs is the only scientific method of historical analysis, and they've been WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>this historical development Marx could never predicted and that actually contradicts some of his writings is proof that he was right all along because he said capitalism wouldn't last forever and it didn't
Marxism after the failure of international revolution to materialize it's nothing more than grasping at straws to prove you're right. It's like those Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages that tried to conciliate Greek reason with Christian revelation.
It's bullshit.
>IT'S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU SHITLORD
That phrase first of seems obnoxious to plebs but once you understand does it truly make sense.
It's literally "it's not my job to spoonfeed you"
Historical Materialism isn't a theory but a method of analysis. It's not something you prove or disprove you dumbass.
i feel like most /pol/tards implicitly accept some form of historical materialism, especially if you extend that to the genetics as well
Napoleon arose because of the economic conditions of 19th century Corsica!
>this is what Marxtards believe
Sure. Why are Polynesian cultures so radically different if they developed from the same base, that is, in the same material conditions?
>Historical Materialism isn't a theory but a method of analysis. It's not something you prove or disprove you dumbass.
No. It is predominantly used as a method of analysis today, sure, but it is a theory that postulates that the base (material conditions and production-relations) completely determines the superstructure (culture, ideology, religion, law...) of a society as well as the flow of history itself (through the process of class struggle which is caused by production-relations). Which makes it an attempt to explain history by theoretical means. You wouldn't call historical materialism a method of analysis any more than you would call Pythagora's
theorem a method of analysis (obviously, historical materialism can be used as a method of analysis, unlike Pythagora's theorem, but that is beside the point).
Automation: on the verge of taking everyone's jobs since 1780
wtf, what else was Marx talking about, there had never been a communist revolution before Marx and the transition from feudalism to capitalism is a core concept in his theories
Dialetical materialism is a contradiction in terms because it abstracts out the ideal, which is an intrinsic part of what it should be explaining.
>The capitalist will automate to replace workers and to maximise profits however this in turn will mean less profits as workers would no longer be able to purchase their goods
This is the same old shit people have been saying for millenia, whenever technology makes people redundant new needs arise which create new jobs. There is no limit to capitalism until there is a limit on human needs.