![marx-bio[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/e07tDl1.jpg "marx-bio[1].jpg")
Why can't we have a historiographical Marxism discussion without memetic shitters flooding the thread?
I've only an introduction to historiography and major schools of thought so far though my first year units, so it would be good to have a discussion on the pros and cons of Marxist thought as it relates to the study of history (an in-line definition for the memesters that will be too #triggered by the mention of Marx to look up historiography) without retards spamming
>gb2/lit/
and
>i want /leftypol/ to go
Because Carl Marx himself was a fucking meme.
>>290920
This is why OP. /his/ is mostly garbage.
>>290913
Marx was a dumbcunt. His work is made up of incoherent gibberish with points repeated over and over and over again to compensate for his lack of content and insight. Marx was the original memester.
forced redistribution of wealth is theft
>>291197
state property is also private property
>>291197
Private property may be unjust, but it's not theft. Theft can't exist without private property
>every time it's tried it fails
>>290913
>to have a discussion on the pros and cons of Marxist thought as it relates to the study of history
There's nothing to discuss and obviously there are no cons.
It was all about retarded 12 y.o children "historians" writing about kings, memes and ebin battles until Historical Marxism happened, put society, economy and culture on the centrefold of History and into the trash it went all the retards.
>>290913
Historian here.
Marxism as a historiographic tool started to develop in the first decades of 1900. Antonio Gramsci applied Marxist theories to historical facts. And he was pretty cool indeed!
as comrade >>291588 says, before Marxism, historiography was focused on wars and, above all, heroes, historical figures that standed like statues on the plebs. this is particulary true for 19th century. you can see, all 20th centuries dictators loved roman history and historical figures, because historiography was mainly based on this subjects.
then came marxist history, that reached its peak in the decades from the end of WWII to the 1970's. They putted people at the centrefold of history as my buddy said before.
(not to mention that cultural history and ethnology/folklore studies in the 19th centuries started to focus on subject different from armies and cannons)
after that, starting from the 1960's a generation of left wing scholars criticized the abnormalities of marxist orthodoxy. but I'm too drunk to keep on writing kek
Because Marx and his theories are a joke. The labor theory of value was the basis of his other theories, it was a bunk theory since the development of the law of diminishing marginal utility. If the labor theory of value is incorrect there can be no surplus labor and therefore can be no exploitation as defined by Marx.
Marx knew this, that why he released none of his works after Carl Menger and other economists released their papers on diminishing marginal utility.
He had some interesting insights but prescriptive Marxists are terrible and Marxist ideologies are generally bad. There are socialist theories that don't base themselves on Marx.
>property
That's real fucking spooky
>>290920
This, 2bh.
Even his most loyal and early followers realised his ideas were bullshit after he died, but they were already in too deep to stop. Marx was just one more of the hundreds of anarchists and socialists philosophers of the 19th century. His radicalism was the only thing made him stand out so much. By the time he died, people realised society wasn't going the way Marx had expected.
>>290913
I think that historical materialism can form a very useful basis to explore history from a very different perspective than conventionally used, but I very much think that Marxian historiography really requires going away from a schematic and reductionist understanding of historical materialism.
For instance, I think it is vitally important to identify modes of production organically based on the specific economic form of the relationship between the producers and appropriators of surplus rather than attempting to impose a schema of ahistorical categories as Marx does in some of his earlier work.
>>291181
labour theory of value. progressive taxation justifies the theft
>>291888
>>290913
Marx was a theorist, estimating basic reaction within society which could "evolve" mankind towards a brighter future.
It's a method of socioeconomic analysis.
>>290913
>so it would be good to have a discussion on the pros and cons of Marxist thought
I think the best way to describe marxist thought is opiate for the masses.
>>292108
How seriously did Marx endorse this model? He was so anti-Hegelian and tried so hard to get away from Hegelian historical thought that I don't see how he could take this seriously while being an antimetaphysical atheist.
>>290913
>Why can't we have a historiographical Marxism discussion without memetic shitters flooding the thread?
Because you don't report threads and posters.
Because nobody here really cares about mass subjectivity, whether marxism is scientific, if there is a final determination, and how culture works.
I've only an introduction to historiography and major schools of thought so far though my first year units, so it would be good to have a discussion on the pros and cons of Marxist thought as it relates to the study of history
Read:
Engels German Peasants War
Engels 1844
Marx 18th Brumaire
Marx Civil War in France
Hammond & Hammond, Labourers trilogy
Thompson Industrial Time & Labour Discipline
Thompson Making
Braverman Labor and Monopoly Capital
Thomspon Poverty of Theory
Perry Anderson Problems in English Marxism
>>292971
"could"
>>291736
He never read Menger and "ltv is bunk" ist just another forced meme. Just fucking point out why it's bunk without reciting your neoclassical mantra.
>>290913
historical marxism is a misreading of Hegel. You can't apply dialectics to matter.
>>295551
The "material" in historical materialism is the concrete social relations amongst people in their social reproduction.
You're thinking of "dialectical materialism," when Engels claims in Anti-Dühring that as opposed to all the old idealist metaphysics that matter is ordered dialectically because.
>>290913
You will never get any sort of educated and cultivated conversation on 4chan.
Most people here are worthless and completely ignorant.
Think of this place as a second-tier facebook or twitter, it really is that mainstream.
>>296112
Zero hits for historical materialism in the body of that paper. Nice work citing nothing.
Because the world doesn't have enough robots, and Marx was describing a post-scarcity (at least for basic needs) future.
>>290913
Marx is to reductionistic. Everything boils down to 'muh mode of production'. Why even bother writing if material conditions alone are the only driving force of history?
Read Kojin Karatani's The Structure of World History
>>296663
>Give us a better one then
Anti-Dühring and the first three chapters of Capital.
>>296576
> Why even bother writing if material conditions alone are the only driving force of history?
Because for better or worse material conditions can be changed?
>>295507
>Just fucking point out why it's bunk without reciting your neoclassical mantra.
I don't have to, you fucking motion. A million other people have already.
