MARXISM AND FARCE (COMMENT). Annalisa here and Dick Weisfelder here expressed surprise that I acknowledged that in some sense I have Marxist tendencies. It is true that I am not a thoroughgoing Marxist or a scientific socialist (or a socialist). I came across a phrase from the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper in an article by Colin Kidd in the London Review of Books for May 22 which describes the extent to which I am a Marxist: I tend to think that historical events have deep economic causes. The complete quote indicates that Trevor-Roper stopped taking a Marxist approach to history: “I used to think that historical events always had deep economic causes: I now believe that pure farce covers a greater field of history, and that Gibbon is a more reliable guide to that subject than Marx.” I have not yet made Trevor-Roper’s leap.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
You also have a disdain for those who are privileged, to an extent, at least in your views on the aristocracy.
You’re right, Nick. I do. What is unusual about Marx and Marxism is that they seem to have no hatred for aristocrats, reserving their hatred for the bourgeoisie, who are not as well off.
See Phil, once again you reflect “vulgar” utopian norms. Marxism is about dialectics. The bourgeoisie are progressive heros in the struggle against feudal aristocracy, but then become villians when they appropriate the value added by the capitalist means of production for private rather than social ends. Utopians like you think that categories are fixed – good and bad. Marxists know that heros are transformed into their opposities -villians- as modes of production evolve!
Dick, your comment is very helpful and explains a lot that I had not understood. I have never been able to think dialectically. I have thought and still think that the feudal aristocrats in different countries have held on pretty well up to the present day, but perhaps in dialectical terms their day has past.
Pingback: TOM WOLFE AND STATUS (COMMENT). | Pater Familias