Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → What do you think of Marxist Historical Materialism as a historiographical method?

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 19


Your stupidity is stunning


You are a truly an anti-intellectual idiot...go back to wikipedia


The near universal stupidity and ignorance about Marx is precious.  Certainly materialist history offers brilliant insights.  That it offers an incomplete understanding is true of all approaches to historical awareness.  This requires original and syncretic analysis.  The German thinker Marcuse historicized Freud, combining a Marxist and Freudian conception to the understanding of history.  The american historian, Christopher Lasch, provided a crisp Marxist analysis, also informed by modern philosophical psychoanalysis.  He merely employed Marxian   methodological theory to the changed sociological conditions seen in america--a nation so commodified by monopoly capitalism and deformed with narcissism that redemption was impossible---he noted that in america the citizen had been transformed by the nanny state into a client---the worker turned into a he wrote---"the stupefaction of america".


You speak balonious nonsense.  "Monopoly Capitalism"?  Non-existent in the USA.
"Ignorance about Marx"?  I know plenty about Marx.  He was a blithering idiot.  He gave the world:  poverty, misery, slavery, torture, genocide.


Name the 'megalomaniac totalitarianism' that has arisen in the last 100 Years?
(Other than, Marxist/Socialists, of course.)


Don't you See how absurd is your argument?


historian, Christopher Lasch was a Socialist.


Behavior is measurable. The rest is conjecture.


Chris, I read your "reply," which is only a quote from a biography describing Pol Pot, and also the link you provided. I know this history very well.
This discussion is supposed to be about "historiography" ... how we discuss and analyze history. Can we first agree that old fashioned "honesty" in presenting all the facts is important? I hope so.
But you, the right wing, and even many "Liberals," NEVER mention two very important facts that appear in the VERY SAME LINK you provide:
"Vietnam entered Cambodia by late 1978, deposing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge early the following year. As the country opened its borders to outsiders, the world became aware of the full horror of Pol Pot’s tenure as Cambodia’s leader."
... and ...
"Pol Pot fled Phnom Penh for the jungle upon Vietnam's occupation, with his party later receiving support from the U.S. and China."
The Vietnamese "occupation" of Cambodia saved up to 2.25 million people who, according to Red Cross officials, were likely to die of starvation if the Khmer Rouge were not quickly overthrown.  This occupation cost the Vietnamese dearly.
AFTER "the world became aware of the full horror of Pol Pot's terror," the U.S. encouraged China to invade Vietnam in 1979 to "teach it a lesson" ... for liberating Cambodia.
Then for the next 10-15 years the U.S. supported the Khmer Rouge government as the "official representative" of the Cambodian people in the United Nations, and via its puppet generals in Thailand armed Pol Pot's forces as they tried to stage a comeback.
To read details on this sordid aspect of the tragedy, see
But now to the larger question of how to approach historical issues.
First, I suggest you read my and PD's comments rebutting the right-wing trope that the Khmer Rouge were "Sartre's children," in the recent History Community discussion on the famous French philosopher (and apologist for Mao). That discussion went to the heart of your ridiculous belief that cultural Marxists are responsible for all the problems of the world.
Western accounts -- even at their most honest -- are very superficial. They usually portray the tragedy simply as Cambodia being a pawn of all the Great Powers fighting in Indochina. And all that is undoubtedly true.
But I've been there and I've seen how even today, once you've visited the "genocide museum" in Pnom Penh, once you take a taxi on dusty roads out even just an hour past Anghor Wat, past a few tiny little villages with local cripples and begging monks and local museums of mountains of shells from de-activated American bombs, you reach a countryside STILL without electricity, where rickety houses are built on stilts so the rain doesn't turn the world into a mud hole.
Do you think the Karl Marx who took so much flack for speaking plainly about "the idiocy of rural life," who stressed that socialism could only spring from the most advanced international capitalism, do you think that THIS man's theory of "Historical Materialism" would lead him or any historical materialist to knowingly support Pol Pot's genocidal agrarian nationalism?
There have been many uprisings by crazed poverty-stricken illiterate and landless peasants, driven to their wits end by war and social degradation. The Taiping uprising in China from 1850-1864, was surely the largest. It was led by a self-described "younger brother of Jesus Christ" and resulted in anywhere from 20-100 million deaths. It's leader had gotten his hands on the first Chinese translation of the Bible. He convinced millions of already desperate and rebellious peasants to copy early Christian precepts to sell their property, divide up what little they had, beat plowshares into swords, and enter into his messianic army.
At first the great Western Powers (and most socialists) didn't know what to make of them. Support them as Christians against the Qing Dynasty? Support them as peasant radicals? As with the "Aghor" (the "Organization," which is what the Khmer Rouge called themselves until 1977) the real story of what they were only became clear after several years.
Writing from afar, but understanding full well the destruction wreaked on China by the opium trade and opium wars, the unemployment brought by cheap western goods that destroyed Chinese artisan industries, the agrarian crisis in China, the political degeneration of the Qing Dynasty, Marx wrote of the Tai Ping leaders in 1862:
"They represent a still greater torment for the masses of the people than for the old rulers. Their motive seems to be nothing else than to bring into play against the conservative marasmus grotesquely repulsive forms of destruction, destruction without any germ of regeneration.”
How better to describe the Khmer Rouge and the Indochina that gave rise to them?
We haven't been able to have a civil discussion in the past. I write all this not expecting any fundamental change in your views ... just a little understanding.
The real forces of history won't be changed by your redefining words. "National Socialism" is the socialism of fools. Only a fool, or a very dishonest person, would try to argue that "Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pot were socialists."


"Do you think the Karl Marx who took so much flack for speaking plainly about "the idiocy of rural life," who stressed that socialism could only spring from the most advanced international capitalism, do you think that THIS man's theory of "Historical Materialism" would lead him or any historical materialist to knowingly support Pol Pot's genocidal agrarian nationalism?"
"The real forces of history won't be changed by your redefining words. "
Except that "redefining words " is the entire point of my original post.
" Marxist Theory is Population Control on a Massive Scale."


Tu Madre, Cabron!


Thank you Barros. Now I understand your views clearly. I haven't heard of Professor Angel Palerm or his son before, but I'm sure they were great teachers with many special insights.
The argument between Kautsky and Lenin over democracy was also a fight over how to -- really whether to -- take advantage of weak links in the worldwide system of imperialism to start the socialist revolution in backward Russia. Many far smaller and weaker oppressed nations and cultures in the "Third World" have faced their own dilemmas when faced with a chance to "seize power," whether peacefully or through popular uprising. You know this history of "Third World Socialism," and probably feel the all-too-frequent tragedy of it, far more deeply than I.
I was moved by the last paragraph you wrote. I feel the same way.


Well, pequeñito, a few names aren't the problem except when you have nothing to say other than that. You deteriorate quickly into flame war as soon as your submental ideas are punked, which seems to happen in here regularly, mamón.
No soy venezolano, menso. Soy de la Virginia Occidental, EEUU. Esto no es mi nombre verdadero. Duh... I wouldn't use my real name online because rightwing nuts like you might try to firebomb my family.
What I support in today's world is the demosocialism of the EU, Israel, Japan, NZ, Australia, Canada... in fact EVERY developed nation but the backwards U$A. I don't see any viable "socialist" systems being built other than those. Venezuela is screwed up, not only by the egos of the people involved, but by foreign interference, mostly, of course, from the U$A and oil companies.
So, take your straw man and shove it. Why do Denmark, France and Canada have so much more sanity in their societies than in the U$A? Because of retrograde miscreant connedservatives like you, idiota.


I haven't read Kautsky since I was a student, but I wouldn't have associated him with any of the anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, et al.). I remember him as part of the revisionist debates along with Bernstein, arguing against revolution (as opposed to Rosa Luxenbourg). Maybe I'm confused, but I thought he opposed violent overthrow of government in favor of gradualism, reforms etc. along SPD lines??
As for Hist. Materialism, I recall he used the term as Engels had, more or less. I seem to remember thinking that he didn't (as Barros Serranos notes somewhere above) see culture as being primary, but relegated it to a secondary or derivative status while forces and relations of production were the primary drivers of history. I thought that was somewhat reductive at the time, but perhaps my recollections are too vague to be reliable. I see you recommend Kautsky's writings here and on the thread about the disappearance of paganism. What were his views on the extent to which cultural forces had (some/any) independence from economic forces (i.e. forces and relations of production)? And was his "historical materialism" deterministic as with Marx and Engels (i.e. history seen as autotelic, or moving towards a more or less inevitable communist future)? What were his views on revolution, not just in pre-industrial Russia, but the industrialized world? I hope I'm not asking too many questions. If there is a fairly succinct overview of his views (by him or a reliable secondary source) please let me know. I hadn't heard his name in quite a while, but since I like many of your comments and you recommend him I'm interested in knowing a little bit more about his work.


"I wouldn't use my real name online because rightwing nuts like you might try to firebomb my family."
I wouldn't waste the lowest octane at the Lukoil pump, Jivaro!
" demosocialism "  jejejejejejejejejejejejej!!!!  " demosocialism "?????  jejejejejejejejejejejejej
" demosocialism "?????   Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Hysterical, in any Language.


What an idiot you are -- you don't even read your own links!
From the link YOU provided, here is a quote from Mussolini himself:
"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization."


Well,historical materialism makes the claim that history is the product of the fight between  social classes for the appropriation of means of production ,so this assertion leaves no spot for human idealism .
This means that history has not been guided by ideals such as libery,justice and so on but rather for the very selfish end of  means of production.


You are abysmally ignorant. Democratic socialism is the system of the EU and every other developed nation! Go to Europe and laugh at it... they'll simply shake their heads and exclaim: "autre imbécile américain!" I think the German party is called "Social Democrats". In France it's just "Socialist Party", if I recall correctly. The outgoing French President Hollande is of that party. In Britain they are either Labour or Liberal Party, the Liberals being further to the Left. In Israel they're the Labour Party, unfortunately out of power currently.
So, menso, while you think socialism means N Korea, in fact it means the most advanced and progressive societies on earth, and thanks to retrograde traitors like you, it is only minimally part of the U$A social system. Medicare, for example. But in every other developed nation, medical care is universal!
You're not hysterical at all, boy. You're stupid and disgusting.


More gibberish to explain the original gibberish.
This is typical from the Right. Having no argument, they quickly run out of Faux News cliches and start babbling about how smart they are, how anyone with a real argument is insane, a troll, etc.
Boy, you have nothing to say. You haven't the intellect or knowledge to deal with me, so shut up.

Posts: 19

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → What do you think of Marxist Historical Materialism as a historiographical method?

Similar topics in this forum