tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11635675.post4316004246006586663..comments2023-10-29T05:11:37.677-07:00Comments on Porcupine blog: The Phases of Anarchist HistoryLarry Gambonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11635675.post-68841372133114246962011-01-09T22:45:57.905-08:002011-01-09T22:45:57.905-08:00What your refer to as "hismat" WAS Marxi...What your refer to as "hismat" WAS Marxism circa the 1960s and 70s or were at least the beliefs of 99% of those who called themselves 'Marxists' at that time. As far as I can discern This interpretation of history was what Marx and Engels actually meant in the original formulation. The idea that the "economic base" is an "ultimate determinant" was the whole idea behind Marx and Engel's "criticism" of anarchism as "petit bourgeois".<br /><br /> No doubt some few Marxists were not as crude, and their numbers have increased in recent years. My own question is, when you factor in not just social class structure but also national particularities and historical accidents (amongst other factors), is the result worthy of being called "historical materialism" ? <br /><br /> I think the name is misleading as pretty well any and all social critics take account of the economic basis of society. I do, but what I think can hardly be termed "historical materialism", and my own opinions are much more "economistic" than many (most ?) Marxists who use the term. <br /><br /> Maybe the term is useful in the same sense that "genetics" is useful to describe the thought of a branch of science that has evolved over the course of a century to be far more complex than the original formulations. present day "genetics" would seem like a foreign language to people in the 1930s. Genetics, however, evolved as a science by the usual methods (dialectic in the original sense and not in the Hegelian/Marxist sense)0 of evidence and testing. <br /><br /> Historical materialism lacks the falsibility of an actual science. The best a critic can do is to point out a problem. I have done this, and I doubt that either class/social structure explains how anarchism exists today in different countries. The differences are far more a result of historical accident and its handmaiden "national character" ie how frequently a given idea will be "taken up" in a given social context.<br /><br /> All sorts of people, myself included, believe in giving "the economy" a major role in how we see the world. This sort of thing is hardly 'Marxist', and is different from the idea of "historical materialism" as originally formulated by Marx and Engels.mollymewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10608757779720671118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11635675.post-17482626714527382082011-01-08T17:44:48.520-08:002011-01-08T17:44:48.520-08:00You are thinking of "hismat" which was S...You are thinking of "hismat" which was Stalinist ideology. I am referring to a general analysis which entails economy, class and social structure, as opposed to an analysis which refers to theories, ideologies or the actions of individuals in isolation.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11635675.post-78694677940593433762011-01-07T18:39:38.469-08:002011-01-07T18:39:38.469-08:00Very interesting thoughs and worthy of more develo...Very interesting thoughs and worthy of more development. One criticism however. I don't think that "historical materialism" has anything to say about the national differences amongst anarchism(S) today. Or at least very little. At least from its strict definition relating ideology to the political economy.mollymewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10608757779720671118noreply@blogger.com