/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10617669]

Is there any method of analyzing socioe-economic phenomena that has surpassed Marxism / historical materialism?
I spent some time on major sociological theories, and none of them stand up to scrutiny, or are washed up, liberal interpretations of Marxism. Therefore, I am forced to remain a Marxist unless I find something truly worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.10617689]

was it autism? when it comes to sociology, you don't have to treat it like physics where you gotta test whether all your calculations adhere to the current prevailing theory of everything

[Anonymous No.10617739]

>>10617689
What else should be the norm for testing a sociological theory, other than its adherence to conditions in the real world? So far I have found Marxism to consistently have the most accurate analysis of historical social structures. Of course I'm talking about Marxism as expanded with theories by Engels, Lenin, Bukharin, various later westerners like Althusser, contemporary work by Harvey etc.
Again and again I find that most "detractors" of Marxism simply imagine some kind of 19th century meme and conclude that it no longer applies because we aren't living in industrial capitalism, completely ignoring later writers in the tradition. While this is unfortunate, it's ultimately not the problem of Marxists themselves who have continued to analyse contemporary conditions of capitalism admirably.

[Anonymous No.10617854]

>>10617669

I remember reading a critique of Marx that he ignored and brushed off nationalism. It wasn't long after thst it became one of the main ideologies that spanned from politics to economics to family planning.

You could argue it's another opiate... but it could be used to destroy capitalists and NWO and communists alike.

So I think there should be a writing taking nationalism into account.

[Anonymous No.10617865]

>>10617739
Isn't basically undisputed that Post-Structuralism is considered the best socioeconomic analysis?

[Anonymous No.10617872]

>>10617669
Reminder that Mises perfectly dissected socialism

[Anonymous No.10617898]

>>10617865
Tell me how there is no fucking structure and similarities within societies

[Anonymous No.10617905]

>>10617689
Why not?

[Anonymous No.10617919]

>>10617898
Oh. You're a fucking moron. Nevermind then.

[Anonymous No.10617928]

Try Cornelius Castoriadis' The Imaginary Institution of Society. Castoriadis was the founder of French autonomist Marxism but later came to be critical of Marxism while remaining committed to the communist goal. The first few chapters are an elaborate critique of Marxism and the only one I ever came across which doesn't rely on gross oversimplifications or misreadings.

[Anonymous No.10617944]

>>10617898
That's not what post-struturalism means, anon

[Anonymous No.10617951]

>>10617739
>Engels
>Lenin
>Bukharin
>Althusser
[determinist misreading intensifies]

[Anonymous No.10617964]

>>10617951
>Engels misread Marx
This is a good meme, they collaborated on most works. The shift from early-optimistic-Enlightenment Marx to late-grumpy-economist Marx was not initiated by Engels and Lenin.

[Anonymous No.10617972]

>>10617964
Engels wrote a lot of stuff after Marx' death, you know?

[Anonymous No.10618042]

>>10617669
Ecology

[Anonymous No.10618058]

>>10617669
You're wasting your goddamn time.

[Anonymous No.10618150]

>>10617689
>like physics where you gotta test whether all your calculations adhere to the current prevailing theory of everything
Physics doesn't do that though, doesn't have a 'theory of everything' either. Even areas of classical physics are still developed further.

[Anonymous No.10618170]

>>10618042
This.
When is ecology and biology at large, going to step up and do what philosophers and the like, have failed to do or even make any progress on, for several centuries?

[Anonymous No.10618194]

>>10617739
>So far I have found Marxism to consistently have the most accurate analysis of historical social structures.

[Anonymous No.10619094]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/158724467