Post in /his/, this is off topic here. Read the sticky.

>>25403142
/his/ is just race and religion general at this point, basically the bastard child of /int/ and /pol/

File: png.mp4 (3.85 MB, 720x1280)

3.85 MB MP4

context for modern papua new guinea

>>25403141
Read foucalt

>>25403149
Yes. So he can do his baiting there.

>>25403161
What I know about foucualt is his rejection of human nature. I'd expect nietzsche to be more relevant here since he rejects almost everything that comes before, but he doesn't build a coherent metaphysics around what history is. What about the post modernists? Don't they also reject grand theories, but didn't they branch out of the frankfurt school who were marxists? I am really confused about these philosophers who 'reject' and yet are comfortable in viewing history as a sort of grand theory playing out in real time.

>>25403141
Psychoanalysis does not light up your mind, it is literally a jew making shadow puppets on the light instead, and telling you "See!? Gay sex is there! It was there all along!"
The same thing goes for Marxism and history, "See!? It is capitalism!", even marxist admit that Marx completely butchered the medieval economy and didn't know/understand how it actually worked

>>25403156
The irrepressible savage soul of the noble PAPVAN stirs the effete civilized weakling to feckless vomitous blabbering

>>25403180
*grand narrative

>>25403187
You do know your slavoj zizek.

>>25403185
Can't even make the right strawman

>>25403179
Its not bait, leftoid

>>25403235
the average litoid has been mindbroken into a state of perpetual reaction to twitter posts, they can't even tell when a post genuinely wants to engage in something, yet they will be the first ones to get baited into replying

>>25403245
There were no Marxism threads before this cocksucking troon faggot arrived. Now the board is shitted up to fuck. Stop encouraging the prick.

File: Pepe-with-communist-hat-o(...).jpg (19 KB, 348x299)

19 KB JPG

>>25403141
>Why do marxists believe in whig historicism, or rather, why do academics take it seriously?
These are 2 different questions. Also very sloppy b8.

>Why do marxists believe in whig historicism
They don't. In fact, Marx's historical materialism is literally opposed to the whig historicism idea that the world progresses according to reason. His entire critique of Hegel and of the Young Hegelians is that abstract speculative reasoning, to determine what is "Rational" for "Man", has no bearing on history in-and-of itself because what is considered rational is contingent on one's class and society.
Even the younger Marx who is still hegelian critiques the idea that reason drives history, despite believing that there is still a rational of organizing society according to man's essence.

>why do academics take it seriously?
Because his texts were foundational to sociology and are more or less the logical conclusion of materialism applied to social sciences, which is popular within academia.

>Can't they see it is a self serving ideology based on circular reasoning.
Wtf does that even mean here ?

>>25403180
>yet are comfortable in viewing history as a sort of grand theory playing out in real time
There's no grand narrative. The polemical texts like the manifesto make it seem like so because they were written at a time where revolution seemed imminent. In his later text Marx drops the teleologic semantic and focuses more specifically on what creates the condition for change in the mode of production.

>>25403141
youre ignorant.
come back when you deserve to post

>>25403271
I don't get it. Isn't your class or rather how class is defined already part of how history has defined it. For instance, if you are a serf today, then that term has to already apply historically because some person decided to treat you as a serf based on what they understand to be a serf. So the history is already there because others rely on it to reinforce the definition. You don't magically become a middle class. It seems to me what marx was going for, is argue that you need to fight to become middle class, but as i've established here, that still relies on you identifying as a serf, so marx doesn't escape this. And this isn't really my argument which has to do with everyone accepting that there's nothing else beyond serf and middle class, hence my papua new guinea argument which gets ignored as an irrelevant category or just gets smuggled into the serf category which is self serving because treating them as serfs ensures they become serfs. I am not sure you are getting my argument.

>>25403293
Marxism and industrialization come into being in the same window. indutrial and techno exploitation allow a burger class to become a petite bourgeoisie class, whose wealth and productive powers overwhelm the nobility struxcture.

whats youre question again?

>>25403141
I'm not going to read your niggerbabble-ridden strawman

>>25403141
You're be better off asking ai. This place is a midwit gatekeeper of personality philosophies. Everyone is trying to defend their favorite philosopher and if your questions don't cite him or his way of thought, then you are either dumb or baiting.

>>25403141
Marxism is whiggish because it's derived from Hegelianism and the core dichotomy at the heart of modern historiography is whether you're a follower of Rankean historicism or the Hegelian dialectic march from a benighted past to an ever-more glorious present and future. Kind of like political philosophy has been little else for the past centuries but a debate between Hobbes and Rousseau.

>>25403156
They're not subjected to wage slavery.

>>25403385
>Rankean historicism
My question is why is this not more popular than what we have today. Marx and hegel are over represented in academia.

>>25403387
>why do leftist captured institutions use leftist historiography
dunno man

>>25403387
Ranke is great. But historians in academia as >>25403411 sarcastically pointed out don't use methodologies that don't serve ideology. Its the nature of the beast.

>>25403411
>>25403497
Has anyone ever attempted to reproduce marxist philosophy on the basis of rankean historicism? I suppose it would be very difficult because of the absence of primary sources, but perhaps it could be done if you started after ww2 or some other relevant modern period. Maybe this is what Austrian theory is based on?

>>25403141
This point was made re the history of political thought just the other day:

>>25397251
>>25399917

>>25403293
You genuinely make no sense. Wtf are you trying to communicate and why are you talking about serfs and middle class ?

>>25403497
>>25403411
>>25403387
This is a completely moronic take that really shows how little you guys understand about Hegel (or Marx). Ranke is a historian, his method is just an epistemological claim about how history should be studied. He's not used in academia because we have better models today, like that initiated by the Annales school.

Hegel on the other hand is a philosopher. He's not trying to develop a method on how to analyze history, he's making a claim about how humans discover the rational form of social organization by discovering "truths" about themselves (I'm doing a very secularized and simplified version here).

>Why do marxists believe in whig historicism, or rather, why do academics take it seriously?
They don't. Historical materialism isn't whig historicism.

>>25403161
any particular suggestions for works?

>>25403271
>what is considered rational is contingent on one's class and society
oh god really? did he have examples?

>>25403559
Those are just examples I used them because they are both historically and economically relevant.

Let me rephrase the gist of the question. Why is it still popular to think of history as progressing in a fashion that involves the conflict of classes or categories that used to exist 100 or 200 yrs ago and if it is observed that something exists out of these classes because it had not been observed before, then it is either forced into having belonged to these classes or done away with as being irrelevant to history? I suppose the confusion comes from mixing marxism and hegelianism but the question still applies because marxism is built on hegel treating history this way, he just replaces that with whatever material conditions human were facing, so feudalism, capitalism, communism, etc. Maybe I am wrong.

>>25403722
>Why is it still popular to think of history as progressing in a fashion that involves the conflict of classes
Where? Sociology is predominantly based not on Marx's writings, but on that of Weber. The most common approach toady is the 'civilizational' approach and it is not based at all on anything that Marx wrote and may only incidentally resemble his writings. Indeed, one often repeated 'critique' of Marx is to say that economic differences (which are often treated as just quantitative differences, but regardless) are not that important and are not so important as 'status', 'power', 'culture'.
For example. The prevailing dogmas of Critical Theory are not really related to Marx. They worship Foucault (who rejects Marx), Derrida (who likewise is skeptical of Marx), Butler (who concerns herself entirely with different topics). The Frankfurt school starts off with analyzing the 'average individual'. The 'average individual' is already a category which makes no reference to class at all. They are the progressive wing of bourgeois thought, one could say, maybe radical in some aspects, but not Communist and not Marxian.
>or categories that used to exist 100 or 200 yrs ago
Because you have adopted bourgeois ideology as 'common sense', you understand a class as some kind of purely naturalistic entity. For you (and this is extremely obvious) a worker is someone who merely, from the looks of things, works physically in a factory. That is all a worker is to you. Now, because you are an idiot /his/ or /pol/ tourist, you don't bother actually reading Marx to understand what the working class actually is. It's not necessarily the class that physically works. It's not necessarily the class that works in a factory. Marx concerns himself with SOCIAL relations of (social) production, not with whatever vulgar economists (who like to derive profit from all kinds of magical sources, such as land itself, the physical land itself (which is altogether an irrational idea)) deem to be a class.
So, a worker, a proletarian is that person who primarily survives, reproduces himself as a class and as an individual through selling their labor-power, as a commodity, to someone who buys it, who then utilizes it in social production (the capitalist). It is the relations of production, not ephemeral physical characteristics of a human, that make them working class or not. Through this understanding, the working class exists today just as much as it did back then and actually, in significantly greater numbers worldwide.
>and if it is observed that something exists out of these classes because it had not been observed before, then it is either forced into having belonged to these classes or done away with as being irrelevant to history?
Incomprehensible niggerbabble. Rephrase this.

>>25403497
>Why must we use ideological structures to analyse untestable processes
Ranke is naive and a weak historian

>>25403156
PNG is in the process of bringing diverse, informal "tribal" people into cities to work industrial jobs. It isn't really a nation in the way that say, Belgium is because the vast majority of the workforce are informal subsistence farmers who speak hundreds of different languages and don't really need anything the metropol has to offer them even if the metropol could reach them (PNG's terrain is incredibly difficult to traverse).
The men in this video were probably tribesmen at some point who were brought into the city and are carrying on their traditional customs of bow warfare, or maybe they're just criminals trying to mow down rivals with whatever weapons are available. Regardless PNG is more of a frontier than a developed country and will probably be split into a bunch of smaller, more coherent polities in the near future.

>>25403387
Historicism is fundamentally relativist in character and therefore not especially suited to appropriating the past to the political needs of the present's status quo, unless your political goal is to discredit the status quo through relativism. Though honestly our official historiography is rather more like a chimera of the hegelian and the rankean perspectives insofar that it's hegelian because of course history is little else but a long march to the Stonewall riots and eating the same indian food in whichever western metropolis you happen to exist in, but also relativist when it comes to discrediting the political enemies of the status quo who usually exist outside of the academic complex whose ultimate purpose is to control legitimacy in the realm of knowledge. But of course when it comes to the sacred cows of the status quo, a relativist approach is strictly forbidden. Hence the fierce academic resistance to Hayden White-esque hard relativism.

>>25403722
The other anon in >>25403744 is completely right but he didn't answer your question
>then it is either forced into having belonged to these classes or done away with as being irrelevant to history
It's not. Classes are not some a priori classification derived from speculation. Classes are sociological observation centered around one's relation to the mode of production. Some african tribe that's refused modernity doesn't uphold the same classes that the modern western country does.

>>25403888
And they're completely correct. The Absolute Idea is getting a gay immigrant servant to bring you slop in a snowstorm for 2.50. Anyone telling you otherwise is pushing an agenda

>>25403141
ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm