& Humanities

Classical History is actually kind of interesting, since Marxtards have been pushing a narrative for decades that they've had to continually readjust to fit the same facts that contradict them. Marxists initially rallied behind the idea that the Roman economy was a "gift economy" where significant trade was either non-existent or scarce. Archaeological evidence, particularly of shipwrecks, proved this to be untrue (there's copious evidence of a highly developed system of trade within the Roman Empire) so instead of re-examining Marxist ideas on historical economies they ostensibly accepted it while peddling the same crap.

And I'm the same, I'd probably be a small c conservative in political terms but Marxism's autism, especially when Marxists stick their noses in highly developed fields of scholarship and do the "let me tell you about your historiography" thing maddens me.

Marxtards are cretins.

Dialectic just means between the two.

>Why is it called "dialectical" though? The back in forth push between the bourgeois and proletariat?

Yes. Because it's not only a struggle of force, or violence, it's also a struggle of language, rhetoric and culture.

Working class and upper-class people usually don't mix well, and it's not only because their economic interests don't align, it's because almost everything that is true for a working class person, is considered uncouth or plebeian for an upper class person.

While I don't personally agree with dialectical materialism, his sociological analysis of capitalist society, is at least somewhat accurate.

The idea that "capitalism" is some distinct "thing", when it's just a difference of degree rather than kind compared to what came before (Roman Empire had fucking futures markets for grain for goodness sake), as well as an elementary concept of equity.

Well capitalism is a distinct thing today, but that doesn't mean it hasn't existed in pockets for quite a while.

There are several economic historians for example, that claim that certain city-states in the Middle-Ages practically had capitalist economies which is why they were so rich and prosperous compared to the rest of the world at that time.

>distinct thing today

No it isn't. The systems that are ancillary to capitalism like equities markets, credit creation etc have literally always existed. The only distinction is one of degree: Technology has created huge capital surpluses that can be plowed back into industry in the form of capital investment. That's not some ideological thing, nor is it necessarily sui generis.

The idea of capitalism as some wholly distinctive thing is bullshit. Pre-Meiji Japan had a rice futures trading floor. Banks/proto-banks that facilitate credit creation have existed for millenia etc.

Marxtards just have zero knowledge of macrohistory beyond a few events (e.g. the Gracchi) that they read their pre-conceived notions about the world into.

Yeah, but the Marxist claim is that private ownership of the means of production being so endemic as it is today, is a new thing.

Which it is, depending on which country or region you are talking about. For most of history the King and his vassals literally owned the entire country.

>is that private ownership of the means of production being so endemic as it is today, is a new thing.

What metric are they using to assess this?

The bulk of iron production in the Roman Empire came from private foundries, even in the late Imperial period.

>For most of history the King and his vassals literally owned the entire country.

This... Depends on what you're defining as "most of the country". Are you talking about land? Because land ownership patterns varied enormously. Sometimes it could be a Bishopric who technically owned the actual freehold, who was often at odds with a central authority figure like the Emperor or King anyway. Moreover, de jure legal control of the land sometimes didn't mean that much, for example following the Black Death.

And anyway, the King owning the country's capital stock is.... kind of the point of monarchy, the idea being that someone actually owning it incentivizes better care of it over time - as opposed to liberal democracy where control of the capital stock is temporary and usufruct, changing every 4-10 years by political party, therefore not incentivizing careful stewardship.

Marxism is just stupid. It never actually re-examines itself introspectively, it just massages facts into its overall narrative, hence nonsense like false consciousness.

Well maybe I misspoke abit on the first point.

Capitalism is more about it actually being seen by most people as necessary, just and moral to have private ownership of production.

Which could be said to be something new, at least historically recent.

>And anyway, the King owning the country's capital stock is.... kind of the point of monarchy, the idea being that someone actually owning it incentivizes better care of it over time

Could also easily be said of a family-run private business.

>the King owning the country's capital stock is.... kind of the point of monarchy, the idea being that someone actually owning it incentivizes better care of it over time

>the point of monarchy
That's wrong though.

This may be a coincidental benefit (and whether it actually is is questionable too) but monarchy is not motivated that way. The feudal system came to be when the military elites of society realised that they had the power to rule the people they were protecting. A feudal lord did not need to justify his position through an argument of reason in a sense of claiming superior stewardship. He motivated his rule through military force, the ability to protect but also to oppress.

And when it comes to monarchy in particular it should be considered that for most of the middle ages, the monarch was not the absolute ruler but he relied on other sovereign noblemen who ruled their parts of the country. In the HRE or Poland for example, the monarch was elected by other noblemen and clerical princes, which usually involved bribery. But even if we're talking dynasties, it is far from historical truth that monarchs were generally careful stewards.

>Free will
Free from what? Physical causes of behavior are what we call "reasons"
>Imma free spirit wolfkin and everything I do is free will that comes from nowhere
Stupid cunts! Both nature and nurture are physical causes
>My will is caused by muh spirit and muh god
Ok, set aside that occam's razor obliterates everything supernatural, all you have done is list non physical causes which will make the same choices in circumstance.
>goes of metaphysics bullshit rant
Fine fucker. Human knowledge is limited and number of choices are reduced based on your power. You are never smart enough to know every consequence and actually know the outcome of a choice. There will always be choices you are too weak to make or options that match your will, but are guaranteed failures.
>talks about quantum physics being complicated. Doesn't know that the observer effect exists because subatomic measurement requires interaction via firing electrons and photons at the measured particles.
>MUH INFITTITITE UNCERTAINTY AND UNKOWABLF KNAWLIDGE AND MULTIVERSES
>FREE WILLL IS DA TRUFH b'CUZ SCIENCE
Plebs will say the complexity of quantum mechanics disproves causal relations and reductive materialism even though causal relations and reductive materialism are already assumptions of the scientific method, I.E-
>things need clear material evidence
>experiments must have the same result when the circumstances are identical
Retards think causal material evidence disproves causal material evidence. Not to say the scientific method and even the trustworthiness of our senses can't be criticized with mindfuck subjectivist philosophy arguments, but mindfuck bullshit will never be a tool for real social prosperity.

TL;DR
I'm tired of "free will" even though it has no coherent definition and its only appeal is "I'm speshul"

>I'm an atheist

you're a fool, you think your reason is trustworthy

LIberals have created three words, beyond the Christians words that they use for their doctrine,
-class struggle
-sexy
-social media

It turns out liberals just love sex, money, liberal opinions, wanting people to love liberal life and becoming upset when they see people less liberal then them.

bump

>What's the most ridiculous concept that Enlightenment/Modern philosophy has produced?
Anarchism and related strands of anti-statism.

If you think that, you have a poor understanding of historical materialism. But I've been a student too, and it feels good to say "oh god, this particular system of thoughts discussed for decades by the greatest thinkers of the world is completely stupid heh".
One day you'll see a student do the same and you'll feel silly about that.

>Why is it called "dialectical" though?

Marx is considered part of the left hegelian school. Hegel introduced the concept of a universal dialectic. There's an eternal dialectic in this world. Thesis and antithesis which come together in synthesis. This synthesis will become the new thesis which will inevitable need a new antithesis and so on. That is a metaphysical concept because Hegel operated with terms like God or existence and non-existence. Marx put that into a material perspective, hence dialectical materialism.

Not an argument.

Doesn't make what I said any less true.
Historical materialism is a useful tool to better understand history. In Marx's analysis you'll find many references to other things and you'll see that as a philosopher he was never hell-bent on pretending his vision was true and absolute. Serious thinkers never are.
From a historical point of view his analysis on the 1848 French Revolution is extremely insightful.

>I believe in the "spirit of man"
This.
I don't care what your opinion on the Enlightenment or God or whatever, is, but talking about the "indomitable spirit of man(kind)" makes you sound like a victorian fedora, and you deserve to get headbutted to death for being a pretentious asshole.