Why is studying history from a Marxist perspective so widespread?
99% of the world doesn't give a shit what Marxists think about economics or human rights, so why should we care how they think historical study should be approached?
Because jews
>>1198509
>99% of the world doesn't give a shit what Marxists think about economics or human rights
That's frankly untrue, and this is coming from someone who is very right wing. Regardless of your political affiliation one should always study those who hold different convictions, especially if it goes against you. You can't safeguard yourself against Marxism if you don't understand it. Also there's nothing wrong with looking at History from different perspectives, same with literature/music/film/etc. It fosters a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Studying something from a Marxist perspective doesn't mean that you have to be a Marxist.
>>1198509
>Why is studying history from a Marxist perspective so widespread?
It isn't. Doing history using Marxist historiography is widespread. Probably because the Annales and CPGB Historians Group demonstrated that it produces superior social history.
>99% of the world
doesn't give a shit about the discipline of history. Argument from the people is a shitty fallacy mate.
>what Marxists think about economics or human rights
What connection does this have to quality of historiography?
>so why should we care how they think historical study should be approached?
Because it is a field dominant methodology which has wide spread acceptance amongst conservative historians of politics and war, and liberal historians of mentality and event and culture?
>>1198509
because the marxist approach to philosophy is an academic gold mine
you can basically revalue the whole of history to fit your plebeian views and a thousand academics and hack intellectuals will back you up
>>1198546
>because the marxist approach to philosophy is an academic gold mine
Go read Thompson's "Poverty of Theory." The Marxist historians basically told the Marxist philosophers to shut their fucking mouthes.
>>1198522
This is the true way, amigos
>>1198548
I'm sure they all experience odium figulinum from time to time, but Marxist historians are just as ridiculous as Marxist philosophers. No one outside academia takes either group seriously.
>>1198548
fifel pls go or at least upload a .pdf of that book that no one but yourself knows/cares about
>>1198509
>amateur historians don't take professional historians seriously
>therefore, professional historians are incorrect
>>1198522
>if you eat shit every morning, you will understand why people don't eat shit
This is some retarded fucking logic
>>1198610
yeah because 2000 people is totally a social movement
communist economist is a contradiction in terms
>>1198585
>professional historian
>>1198606
Not as retarded as calling things you don't agree with "shit".
