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?
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.
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.
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?