Non-Hegelian Marxism

This thread is for those who want to distance themselves from the insipid, flat-headed charlatan's pseudoscience

Historical Materialism takes on the same idealistic method of historical prophecy and muh fundamental principles of society which are rooted in Hegelianism

Marx said that it is a solid rule that material conditions shape the ideology of a society and while it is undeniable that this happens, Marx specified that this is the only way things can happen, which is absurd

People who possess the already existing ideology of a society will use it to recreate it, wrestling against the material conditions they come across. Take the American colonists and antique Greek colonists for example.

Likewise people with no knowledge of how a certain society works will not be able to replicate it even if they got the exactly the same material conditions. The Germanic hordes conquering the Roman lands, in many cases ruined all the roads and burnt all the books. Take what happened to Alexandria for an example.

Once these Germanic hordes had conquered the Roman lands, they did not adapt to the new conditions, they changed them so they would adapt to their own ideology, so while they were previously shaped by material conditions they did not undergo the same process again. They did the exact opposite.

It goes both ways. Sometimes material conditions shape society, sometimes ideology does. It's a constant struggle between the two.

So thus Marxist Materialism is invalid, there needs to be a replacement.

Other urls found in this thread:


Yes they did. They became settled farmers, giving up nomadic pastorialism.


Good thread, ill post later, am at work rn. Meanwhile heres my question from the other thread asking about why material conditions need to be right and what that means

He's an intellectual fraud. Roo pwnd him good.

Mods should really replace "A.W." with "anal water."


Yes, after they ravaged everything

Look up the conditions of the Carolingian Empire


google Analytical Marxism. people already tried to make non-Hegelian Marxism and basically failed.

Charlemagne lacked the basics of economics and decided that cauliflowers would be the official currency

Mass starvation broke out too

Besides, the barbarians who took over already took on the farming lifestyle prior to the collapse of the roman empire bc they took it over from the romans who occupied them

The last sparkle of civilization died in the early middle ages with the dominion of soissons. A ramp state of the western empire which existed as a roman dominion led by Syagrius in upper gaul. Clovis and the franks got rid of it. Needless to say thst the franks were extremely far behind compared to gallo-romans. The merovingian kings decided who was the mightiest. By looking at who had longer hair. A cool thing charlemagne did was taking the last merovingian alive and literally forcing him to shave lmao

Well then Marxism as a theory is wrong if it has to rely on a theory that is already proven to be incorrect

Wtf I'm SocDem now

I'm moving closer to non-Marxist Hegelianism tbh

Must read.


OK diamat needs to be replaced, but with what?

Casually neglecting all the catholic and latin elements of the middle ages. Visigoth and ostrogoth society was highly changed by the influence of catholicism and the remnants of the western roman empire and vice versa. In the end neither of the two cultures survived. Feudal lifestyle forwarded by the church was banlanced between germanic and latin values unsurprisingly it became popular in all Europe. Seems almost dialectical. Historical materialism is basically, conflict drives history, which is a pretty reasonable assumption.

I don't know if "failed" is exactly accurate. There are some successful Marxist economists still, like Samuel Bowles and David Kotz. I believe they both belong to the "no-bullshit" school of Marxism.



I am high all day, every day. Them dialectics man.

Only vulgar interpretation is invalid.

There is a difference between ideology as a set of ideas used to justify arbitrary economic exploitation and power structures, and the information that society carries within itself on how to facilitate the material production and reproduction of itself.

Information on how to form and maintain hierarchical structures is different from information that tries to justify the existence of these hierarchical structures.

That is the starting point to see what is wrong with your assertion about the supposed opposition of ideology to material conditions. Of course ideology also plays its role, but compared to the larger amount of information carried by society that is not specifically the ideology, it is minor.

Dialectical materialism without cybernetics, without a solid understanding of information, and how information relates to matter is just not enough of a tool for understanding the world.

The feeling when the immortal science of dialectical materialism starts to flow in your brain cannot be described with words.

the concept of a "marxist economist" is revisionist lol

Analytical marxism is weak, try stochastic materialism
Unlike analytical marxism which throws away the LTV and historical materialism in favor of a normative ethical argument for socialism, try the post-althusserian/cockshottist school which defends historical materialism and the LTV using probabilistic methods, and furthermore has some pretty good econometric data backing it up.


Oh god, you're so wrong.
Oh god, have you even read Marx or Engels, oh my god

Materialism and dialectics have been proven more and more CORRECT with time, not less. Things like evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, and the periodic table of elements have all confirmed the triumph of Hegel and, even more so, of Marx. Analytic/formalist logicians are living in a shadowy, long-passed fantasy world.