|
Someone tell me about the relation of Marxism to Hegel's philosophy. Is historical materialism supposed to be a Hegelian Idea/Phenomenon?
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Historical materialism isn't Hegelian because Hegel was an idealist, but dialectical materialism is derived directly from Hegel's ideas. How does it derive from Hegel's ideas exactly then? The whole point of Hegel is idealism, if Marx isn't an idealist then how is he a Hegelian? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Specifically, Marx took the ideas of Hegel concerning thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and applied them to a basically materialistic interpretation of history. So the "dialectical" part comes from Hegel, where the "materialism" is something Marx took from outside Hegel, mainly from Epicurus and the earlier political economists. Here I edited that post after you responded: Historical materialism seems like it makes claims about the physical world that are falsifiable. It seems to me almost like the worst of both worlds, combining Hegelian idealism and Popperian empirical falsification. Did Marx just have a boner for dialectics, and so build his theory around it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Whether the theory of natural selection counts as a Popper-style scientific theory was a serious question in the philosophy of science for a while and any discussion of it will involve a near-endless stream of dialectic evolution of species. mixed-species hybrids will rule the red communist future
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 21:33
|
|
. Run while you can.
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I've unleashed the endless stream of words haven't I the endless stream of the dialectical evolution of human history according to material conditions cannot be stopped, comrade
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
I second the request for Foucault and Derrida. How does their philosophy relate to that of Hegel, AKA that on which Marx's theory is based?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
site posted:So for some reason I was under the impression that Lenin was a good guy, but it turns out he might be really bad? yeah the best you can really say about the Bolsheviks is that they were the only ones vicious and brutal enough to survive
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm not the OP, but I'd like to hear more about democratic socialism and/or social democracy. Social democracy: When the major European labor/socialist parties realized that revolution and continental philosophy-tinged totalitarianism was a bad plus impractical idea they settled for welfarism and moderate reforms within the capitalist system. Not sure where/when this phrase was coined but the post-war labor parties is what it generally refers to Democratic socialism: I think mostly used by former Communist parties now competing in democratic elections to reassure people that they've changed, they swear
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
site posted:See the libertarian thread. Not that kind of libertarian
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
"Property is theft" is actually the tagline from a very readable, practical political pamphlet aimed at the general public instead of a inescapable black hole of continental philosophical navel-gazing
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
site posted:I believe you, but quite frankly I can't trust you guys to not completely derail my thread. Surely you must have realized making this thread that it was a monkey's paw sort of request
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:there seems to be a lot of expectation ITT that political and economic science should work like biology or physics. Popperian empirical falsification was literally developed in response to dialectical materialism, wasn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well, Marx did become more attached to the concept of scientific socialism as he aged, and empiricism. We should mostly see him, though, as reacting against Hegelian idealism in favour of materialism. But it's the dialectic that is unfaslifiable, not the idealism. Moving to materialism doesn't help that, does it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Ormi posted:It would be really great for someone to demystify the actual process of how money gets turned into political power in the United States, because ever since I was first politically aware I've never seen it done. Higher campaign finances correlate with electoral victory, sure, but they don't determine it. Especially since Citizens United, it's easy to draw the conclusion that money simply facilitates already-effective campaigns. Congressional votes line up more with the political views of the wealthy rather than America polled at large, but 50.7% of the country voted for the explicitly pro-business party in 2014, not even allowing themselves the chance to get hoodwinked. Is campaign money responsible for brainwashing the masses into voting for racist, sexist homophobes? Or is it that they see some benefit for themselves in voting against minorities and women instead of for a party nominally interested in reducing income inequality? Does the Democratic congressional voting record really differ from their voting base, taking into account that American households making over $100,000 are around 26% of the electorate? How much is comfortable dysfunction, and how much is human design? If it's outright corruption (through job promises, since funding and gifts are heavily scrutinized), surely some light can be shed on post-Hill employment statistics, something more than a handful of high-profile names. why would socialism require a grand conspiracy against it as a core part of its ideology?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Ormi posted:It doesn't. But the sentiment is held dearly by most abstentionist, anti-parliamentarian (revolutionary) tendencies. "If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal," and such, applied to any liberal democratic context. fabianism FTW, imo
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:You could make another parallel in the two different trajectories of industrialization in the North and South of the US. Economic history in this period not really my strongest area of knowledge so this could be talking out of my rear end, but a lot of the reason why the South lagged so far behind can be traced to Jeffersonian Republicanism and its agrarian, anti-urban ideal, whereas the North and especially Northeast was the last bastion of Federalism, the party of Hamilton with his experiments into government-subsidized industrial development. Now, you could say, "What about slavery?" and that's a fair point, but since Marxism is a bit of a hot topic in this discussion, this isn't necessarily a flaw in the argument. Ideology flows from relations of production in Marxist analysis, and it does so everywhere, in the Early Republic/Antebellum US and in Meiji-era Japan and the early USSR. If reliance on slavery for production of cash crops impeded industrialization in the South, we still have to ask why Southerners did not, in larger numbers or with more institutional support, decide it might be a good idea to move their economy towards industrialization and at that point you'll run into ideas about the moral superiority of slavery compared to industrial wage labor. It's not really any mystery why the South stuck with slavery. Slavery-fuelled cash-crop agriculture and raw material production was simply more profitable than manufacturing. According to standard neoclassical Econ 101 theory this is perfectly natural. Such production was very labor intensive and slavery was a way of driving labor costs down to 0. It's also what led to ISI becoming popular in Latin America, artificially making manufacturing more profitable was a way to reduce reliance on raw material exports and primary industry.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Or it could just be that the Southern states were dominated by slave owners who put their class interests above that of the wider society, it was easier for them to maintain themselves through the continuation of slavery then take the risks inherent in adapting to a new market relationship. Much like how the capitalists who accrue wealth from fossil fuels do everything they can to halt the adoption of renewables environment be damned. That doesn't disagree with anything I said at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 08:24
|
|