Is marxist history an even bigger meme than whig history?

Is marxist history an even bigger meme than whig history?

Attached: 1522273896651.png (2880x2020, 757K)

Yes. Historical materialism is ret-conned, forced trash and that's coming from someone firmly left of centre.

It's the same thing, except that whigs want freedom only for rich people, while marxists want freedom for everyone.

it's not the same at all. Whig history says that rights for everyone progresses as time goes on while marxist history says that one tier of rich gets overthrown every "era" till there is nobody left but the poor.

Marxist history is retarded because before the french rev you can't even find one of these so called revolutions. Whig history is retarded because the progress meme didn't exist till the enlightenment.

I've always been skeptical of the "slaving empires" part of Marxist historiography. It only fits with an extremely outdated view of how the roman economy operated, and doesn't fit with a whole lot of other ancient economies either. It doesn't really fit into the whole idea of one class overthrowing another either. Its like they wanted another data point to prove the "march of history", but couldn't think of a good example for anything before 1780.

>firmly left of centre
>probably an amerimutt
basically makes him equivalent of a nazi in any decent society

Attached: 58c.png (680x735, 356K)

britanon, my man. note the spelling of centre

t. celto-germanic-slavic-roman-greek euromutt

Marxism is an ideology formed during the birthing pains of industrialization. It's not applicable to pre or post industrialization. They will of course continue to try to fit square pegs into round holes ad nauseam though.

Just another thing Marx plagerized, like he did from Hegel.

There's an entire subfield of Marxist theory devoted to backtracking and making excuses for DM via conventional logic when DM fails like it inevitably does every fucking time.

In addition to all the other reasons people in this thread are bringing up, one other reason why Dialectical Materialism is utter fucking garbage is that it assumes that the wealthy class are too dumb to recognize patterns and won't attempt to buy off the poor. Actual history shows this to be false and stupid with the examples of Germany in the 19th century, America in the aftermath of the depression and the entirety of post-ww2 Europe as examples.

>one other reason why Dialectical Materialism is utter fucking garbage is that it assumes that the wealthy class are too dumb to recognize patterns and won't attempt to buy off the poor

There's a whole strain of Communism that deals with exactly that, Third-Worldism. They believe that as First World proles (or labour aristocracy, as they're called) are bribed with a portion of imperialist plunder to buy their loyalty to the national bourgeois, their class interests turn against Third World workers and thus have no revolutionary potential. Consequently, it promises nothing but immiseration and negation for First-World workers and their interests in the event of a real global revolution (and frequently takes morbid glee in the prospect of the west's desolation, settler nations in particular), so it largely remains academic and fringe.

>There's an entire subfield of Marxist theory devoted to backtracking and making excuses for Marxism via conventional logic when Marxism fails like it inevitably does every fucking time.

Fixed

Marxism never fails because it is inherently right and objective source of the morality.

That's hilariously retarded. If the first world proles are willing to function as an army for the Burghers or what have you, then any attempt by the genuinely oppressed nations of the third world to break that system will inevitably fail because the Oppressors have all the fancy tech, money and manpower they could ever want.

All teleological approaches to history are garbage

Third-worldists are generally mocked quite thoroughly even by other leftists.

Figured as much, there has to be some limits to the stupid. These Third-worldists sound like the leftist equivalent of nazis or something similarly dumb.

>the leftist equivalent of nazis or something similarly dumb.

Those are known as Nazbol/Tankies and view Stalin like /pol/ views Hitler.