I was discussing with a leftist and he said to me that the most respected historians in academia are Marxist.
I don't even know who are the "most respected historians", so I don't know if he was telling the truth or bullshitting.
So, is it true or not?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
washingtonpost.com
twitter.com
It's a generalization, and a wrong one. There are plenty of right-wing historians like Goldsworthy, but there are a lot of lefties too like Zinn.
Not most, but plenty. Marxism is especially popular among historians because it's a great framework for understanding the development of any particular class society, whether it's feudalism or modern capitalism.
IMO, Marxism really appeals to compassionate intellectuals. But it fell on it's face when it was tried and that river of blood is difficult to ignore.
Marxist as in commies or Marxist as in they recognize socio-economic struggles between different classes throughout history and make predictions and judgments based on that model? The first one, hell no, the second one, yes, kind of.
Only a vocal minority of historians are actual Marxists. That's where the meme came from. Not to mention right-wing fear-mongering GOP that thought everyone that doesn't agree with them being pinko Soviet plant.
I wouldn't call Zinn respected, just well known.
Keep in mind that being a Marxist historian isn't the same as being a political Marxist.
He's behind the times. In the 60s maybe, that's not remotely true today. In fact off the top of my head I can't think of any major historian in the English speaking world that is Marxist.
Lots of commies do write history though
80% of historians who deal with socialism are anti Soviet commies
LOL no chance. Historians have had good fun over the past few decades dismantling it. It amuses me because I work in an Economics dept and people online (who have never been to college or worked in academia) write things like "college professors are all Marxist-Keynsians who want to destroy the free-market", etc. when the complete opposite is actually true.
Economic teachers aren't Marxist, but I have to take a lot of bullshit classes which are filled to the brim with them. Rhetoric and Literature are two of them
Define Marxist first.
>Economics dept
>academia
Joe McCarthy was actually proven right in the end.
Marxism is actually a pretty valid framework for understanding history as long as you don't get dogmatic about it. I don't know if most respected historians would identify as Marxist per say but a Marxist view of things is useful as one view among others. Sometimes it works, other times another type of analysis is called for.
No he wasn't. No one he paraded before HUAC can be traced back to the Venona Intercepts. In fact, the intercepts are pretty shaky as evidence for convicting anyone as a soviet agent, as documented in the Belmont memo. Try and learn some history outside of /pol/ infographics before you post.
>but there are a lot of lefties too like Zinn.
Zinn made up a bunch of lies in "A People History of America", it has aged the typical way left-wing misinformation has. It has gone from being rightly regarded as a mix of lies and extremely misguiding anecdotes to historical facts.
It probably had the same dynamic as everything in politics does, the centre-left defends and support the radical left to the their last breath while the centre-right sabotages the more hardnosed right so that they won't be called racists by leftists.
below is an example of someone who will fight for leftist propaganda, here throwing out a red-herring and dismissing the issue, allowing the myths to grow
>Only a vocal minority of historians are actual Marxists. That's where the meme came from. Not to mention right-wing fear-mongering GOP that thought everyone that doesn't agree with them being pinko Soviet plant.
>So, is it true or not?
no, not even remotely so.
It's crazy thinking that people believe you actually talked to someone who said that. Don't bother replying but when was the last time you talked to someone face-to-face.
>No he wasn't. No one he paraded before HUAC can be traced back to the Venona Intercepts. In fact, the intercepts are pretty shaky as evidence for convicting anyone as a soviet agent, as documented in the Belmont memo. Try and learn some history outside of /pol/ infographics before you post.
except for the people executed for leaking secrets to the USSR, like the Rosenbergs (among other jews)
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
some profesor told you this, right?
This is an old, but good article on the topic
>The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught.
The most respected academic is Jordan Peterson