are you more interested in materialism or historical materialism? the former is (at least to me) a drier philosophical distinction whereas the latter produces a radically different view of what shapes human society when compared to historical idealism / great man theory
well, I see these terms like materialism, idealism, historical materialism, dialectical materialism constantly thrown around. I wanted to see what people thought they were. Since you brought it up, how do you think historical materialism produces a radically different view of history?
It's the ideal that material circumstances (ie. economic restrictions, social structures as they actually operate, physical reality) are basal to Idealist conceptions in human societies. Rather than some talented guy going "I'm gonna do a one-tag now" and imposing a great idea on the world by the force of his beliefs.
That is, your morals and your feelings and culture and how you want the world to be, both as an individual, a class, and a society, are almost entirely determined by material relations. Additionally, what you can do with those ideals is restricted by the same circumstances.
That's why you can't wake up as Napoleon in 1811 and decide to mash the Communism button. That's why if Napoleon had been born 50 years earlier he'd have died an artillery major.
Now there is a dialectic here, in that within the narrow range of possibilities, ideals can choose, and that interaction dictates the change in material circumstances, which then alters the idealist superstructure. But material reality is prime in this.
People and their beliefs matter and can change the world, but the world decides where and how change can happen.
Yes, but I fail to see how this is "radically different". In fact, in some ways I feel this is just an alternative version of the "great man theory": Instead of the idea of great individuals facilitating change, it is the "material conditions" that facilitate change. In both of these scenarios, the causes of change seem distant and intangible, which could easily lead to a deterministic and nihlistic view of history. (i.e. whatever happens was meant to happen, my individual actions have no impact etc) Perhaps Im treating these metanarratives too broadly.
No, it's that material conditions restrict choices, so an analysis of them is needed to chart the right course. Marx is explicitly developing his theory not just as a description but as a method of deciding action.
It's not dogmatic and ultra-determinist, it's dynamic, changing, with ideals and material reality in a constant, mutually altering tension and flux between the world as it is and as it will be, and how the world as it is alters our desires for how it should be, and vice versa.
Masses and individuals have a great effect, but their power isn't infinite, and what they want is also contingent. And until you know how the current society arose from the interaction of material reality with people's desires, you cannot see the avenues where positive change is possible, the avenues that lead to a worse outcome, and those that lead to dead ends.
EDIT: one thing is to remember Marx is developing this in contrast to Hegel. Whereas Hegel says the "Zeitgeist" determines the course of history, Marx says it first arises from history, then alters it.
No, material conditions produce the need, leader provides vessel to channel them through, they are dependent on each other :shrug-outta-hecks: there are thousands of lenins, or ches around the world, but they don’t have societal conditions to become large figures of history, just as myriad of conflicts got choked cause the people which responded to societal need where not capable of doing something
are you more interested in materialism or historical materialism? the former is (at least to me) a drier philosophical distinction whereas the latter produces a radically different view of what shapes human society when compared to historical idealism / great man theory
well, I see these terms like materialism, idealism, historical materialism, dialectical materialism constantly thrown around. I wanted to see what people thought they were. Since you brought it up, how do you think historical materialism produces a radically different view of history?
have you done literally any reading on this
havent read too much on historical materialism, my impression has just been that its just a fancy name for "the correct history"
It's the ideal that material circumstances (ie. economic restrictions, social structures as they actually operate, physical reality) are basal to Idealist conceptions in human societies. Rather than some talented guy going "I'm gonna do a one-tag now" and imposing a great idea on the world by the force of his beliefs.
That is, your morals and your feelings and culture and how you want the world to be, both as an individual, a class, and a society, are almost entirely determined by material relations. Additionally, what you can do with those ideals is restricted by the same circumstances.
That's why you can't wake up as Napoleon in 1811 and decide to mash the Communism button. That's why if Napoleon had been born 50 years earlier he'd have died an artillery major.
Now there is a dialectic here, in that within the narrow range of possibilities, ideals can choose, and that interaction dictates the change in material circumstances, which then alters the idealist superstructure. But material reality is prime in this.
People and their beliefs matter and can change the world, but the world decides where and how change can happen.
Yes, but I fail to see how this is "radically different". In fact, in some ways I feel this is just an alternative version of the "great man theory": Instead of the idea of great individuals facilitating change, it is the "material conditions" that facilitate change. In both of these scenarios, the causes of change seem distant and intangible, which could easily lead to a deterministic and nihlistic view of history. (i.e. whatever happens was meant to happen, my individual actions have no impact etc) Perhaps Im treating these metanarratives too broadly.
No, it's that material conditions restrict choices, so an analysis of them is needed to chart the right course. Marx is explicitly developing his theory not just as a description but as a method of deciding action.
It's not dogmatic and ultra-determinist, it's dynamic, changing, with ideals and material reality in a constant, mutually altering tension and flux between the world as it is and as it will be, and how the world as it is alters our desires for how it should be, and vice versa.
Masses and individuals have a great effect, but their power isn't infinite, and what they want is also contingent. And until you know how the current society arose from the interaction of material reality with people's desires, you cannot see the avenues where positive change is possible, the avenues that lead to a worse outcome, and those that lead to dead ends.
EDIT: one thing is to remember Marx is developing this in contrast to Hegel. Whereas Hegel says the "Zeitgeist" determines the course of history, Marx says it first arises from history, then alters it.
I see now, thanks for clarifying!
Here it is in contrast to great man idealism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/brecht/works/1935/questions.htm
deleted by creator
No, material conditions produce the need, leader provides vessel to channel them through, they are dependent on each other :shrug-outta-hecks: there are thousands of lenins, or ches around the world, but they don’t have societal conditions to become large figures of history, just as myriad of conflicts got choked cause the people which responded to societal need where not capable of doing something