MARXIST INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY.

May 17, 2008 · Economics, History

MARXIST INTERPRETATIONS OF HISTORY. I associate claims that changes in technology have resulted in changes in social behavior with Karl Marx (see for example this wikipedia article). Because I am interested in, and persuaded by, some of these theories, I am to that extent a Marxist. (Kids, I assume this surprises you). The Economist special section on cellphone nomads is also Marxist when it argues that the capital-intensive work of the industrial era led to a separation of homes and factories. The Economist has interesting speculations on future changes in society from the new cellphone technology—from traffic patterns (cars making local trips rather than commuter trips) to how people relate to each other (more frequent communications but fewer of them face-to-face). To me, these speculations are also, in a broad sense, Marxist.

6 comments

Chris Weisfelder May 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM

The June 2008 issue of The Atlantic discussed the use of the Internet by Obama and its potential impact of he becomes President. Good reading when you’re thinking about how the young people in the US are becoming involved in the political process.

Lee May 18, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Following up on Barack Obama and the his use of the Internet: he has a huge following on Twitter, a social network where you can send and receive 140 character “what I’m doing” updates with friends. Hillary’s campaign is on Twitter, too. Tech columnists I read have pointed out that Obama will automatically “follow” you back if you follow him, unlike Clinton. I think getting an automatic follow-back is supposed to be some sort of validation.

I don’t get the importance of being mutually followed because I doubt there’s a volunteer reading what the 31,000 Obama fans are saying.

Barack’s and Hillary’s updates. I do think it’s a neat way to get quick little tidbits of information out to the faithful.

Mary Jane Schaefer May 24, 2008 at 12:59 AM

Marxist theory: I’m no expert. But if it involves compulsory socialism, the government running all aspects of the economy, based on a utopian ideal of equality and plenty–well, how did this guy convert anyone who’s observed human nature for more than ten minutes? Let alone how businesses are productive. I won’t go into economics because it’s not my field. But, people are often greedy, corrupt, power-hungry, and manipulative. And these are the people who, in any political system, rise to power. So, how will equality and the sharing of a nation’s (or world’s) resources be effected by them? No, my child, and there is also no Father Christmas. Alas. At least Freud had the unconscious and the subconscious! Marx is peddling naivete!

Annalisa May 25, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I am VERY surprised that you would describe yourself as Marxist in any way, Dad! I wish I could remember it better now, but Peggy had a lot to say about Marxist literary critique of Shakespeare. I’m sure it’s all in my notes, which you spent a lot of time reading a few years ago. I need to track down those notes and put them somewhere safe.

MARXISM AND FARCE. | Pater Familias May 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM

[...] AND FARCE (COMMENT). Annalisa here and Dick Weisfelder here expressed surprise that I acknowledged that in some sense I have Marxist [...]

Dick Weisfelder May 31, 2008 at 3:46 AM

Mary Jane thinks that Marx was a Leniinist or Stalinist. In fact he longed for the lost freedom of the independent individual producer who made the whole shoe, not the assembly line human robot whose contribution was just to nail on the heel! His alleged statism reflected in the concept of the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,” can be seen as an amusing play on words, namely that all former systems had been dominated by the few, but for the first time in human history, the majority will be in control after the socialist revolution. Marx was more of a vulgar utopian (liberal) than he cared to admit!

On the other hand, Freud lived in a world of artificial constructs!