Marxist Alternate Histories?

I don't think I've ever seen TLs or proposals for TLs that use the Marxian interpretation of history to create alternate histories, based around the relationships between the Base and the Superstructure. Are there any?
 
I don't think I've ever seen TLs or proposals for TLs that use the Marxian interpretation of history to create alternate histories, based around the relationships between the Base and the Superstructure. Are there any?

Jello Biafra's "Red Dawn" probably covers this, or something like it.
 
I don't think I've ever seen TLs or proposals for TLs that use the Marxian interpretation of history to create alternate histories, based around the relationships between the Base and the Superstructure. Are there any?

That is because Marxist theory of History relies on the inevitability of the revolution within the history of man. It also relies quite heavily on the idea of progressiveness within history (the idea that History is moving towards something [that something in this case being a world wide communist revolution]).

Something we know failed to happen. History doesn't work the way Marxist thought envisions it.

Some parts of Marxist theory regarding history has its uses, but taken whole hog, it is very flawed and shows its age.
 
That is because Marxist theory of History relies on the inevitability of the revolution within the history of man. It also relies quite heavily on the idea of progressiveness within history (the idea that History is moving towards something [that something in this case being a world wide communist revolution]).

Something we know failed to happen. History doesn't work the way Marxist thought envisions it.

Some parts of Marxist theory regarding history has its uses, but taken whole hog, it is very flawed and shows its age.


Maybe something like this could work akin to a DBWI (except writing not from an alternate timeline, but an alternate interpretation or something)? Maybe something like Whiggish history (idea of history moving towards greater liberty) could fit this sort of thing as well. It's an interesting concept posted in the OP. . .
 
That is because Marxist theory of History relies on the inevitability of the revolution within the history of man. It also relies quite heavily on the idea of progressiveness within history (the idea that History is moving towards something [that something in this case being a world wide communist revolution]).

Something we know failed to happen. History doesn't work the way Marxist thought envisions it.

Some parts of Marxist theory regarding history has its uses, but taken whole hog, it is very flawed and shows its age.

Not even close to the truth. At all. I mean leaving aside how Marx never rver claimed revolution was innevitable or how Marxist interpretation of history is the accepted default in the historical community right now, Marxist interpretation of history, otherwise known as historical materialism is simply the belief that technology and productive capacity are the primary influences on societal organization and development.

Also it should be mentioned the most important change from the norm of history is that it actually divorced ideals from historical developments and looks instead at the material aspects of society rather than the ideological ones.
 
To answer your question though, probably not because that kind of alt history would be really hard to make interesting. Although most timelines do contain elements of historical materialism.
 
Not even close to the truth. At all. I mean leaving aside how Marx never rver claimed revolution was innevitable or how Marxist interpretation of history is the accepted default in the historical community right now, Marxist interpretation of history, otherwise known as historical materialism is simply the belief that technology and productive capacity are the primary influences on societal organization and development.

Also it should be mentioned the most important change from the norm of history is that it actually divorced ideals from historical developments and looks instead at the material aspects of society rather than the ideological ones.

Not according to my profs its not. BUT, I am actually making a mistake in my criticism and your right. I was thinking of Soviet historical scholarship, and your right that that isn't Marxism.
 
That is because Marxist theory of History relies on the inevitability of the revolution within the history of man. It also relies quite heavily on the idea of progressiveness within history (the idea that History is moving towards something [that something in this case being a world wide communist revolution]).

Something we know failed to happen. History doesn't work the way Marxist thought envisions it.

Some parts of Marxist theory regarding history has its uses, but taken whole hog, it is very flawed and shows its age.

Didn't Marx say that countries like Russia and China were the last place Communism would succeed because they hadn't gone through Capitalism properly yet?
 
Didn't Marx say that countries like Russia and China were the last place Communism would succeed because they hadn't gone through Capitalism properly yet?

Yes china no Russia, it's claimed often be thought Russia would be the last to face revolution but around the time of his death he really thought there was a chance thanks to Russian industrialization beginning to get off the ground around the time of his death and Marxism was really catching on in certain sections of the empire. And the Chinese revolution was really unorthodox anyway given how Mao essentially replaced the urban proletariat with the peasantry in his rhetoric and that alone made things out of what Marx would define as a strictly communist revolution. He'll his stated attitude was almost nardonik if you ignored the fact that it basically all when's towards him playing on the peoples urge for real change to catapult himself to more and more power in china.
 
Top