Marxism and bourgeois academics

[G4b3n]

I am a student currently enrolled in my second semester of school. I constantly find myself evaluating the extent to which Marxism is present in all of my social sciences courses. Of course, when I say Marxism I mean slivers of analysis or traces of deformed theory.

Interestingly, I recently had a history professor answer a question I have had for quite some time. The question being how is it that anyone would could actually understand the industrial revolution and collapse of the old regime without applying the tools of Marxism? In high school, I saw nothing but arbitrary importance given to certain documents, simply because they were produced by certain individuals, with no regard for existing social relations and economic structure. My history professor said very explicitly, "one can not understand the industrial revolution without looking through the lens of Marxism". I thought this to be a rather controversial assertion, one that liberal intellectuals would prefer to dance around or ignore all together. However, the response from students didn't seem to signify any controversy.

So I have few questions.

Is there any other means by which one can understand the industrial revolution and emergence of bourgeois society? By this I mean, without applying historical materialism in any sense.

If you are or once were a student, to what extent did you notice the presence of Marxist or Quasi-Marxist analysis present in your professors approach to their topic?

Is it desirable for liberal professors to incorporate Marxist analysis (either implicitly or explicitly) into there lessons to students?

[Redistribute the Rep]

In high school, I saw nothing but arbitrary importance given to certain documents, simply because they were produced by certain individuals, with no regard for existing social relations and economic structure.

As another user posted in the "stupid things you learned in school" thread


that history is essentially a linear progression from barbarism to modern liberal democracy

This is basically the understanding I got from my school's teaching of events like the Industrial Revolution. I wouldn't say my teachers explicitly taught it like this, but the way they just focused on arbitrary events and people as you said definitely left me with that impression. With that being said, I'm on the fence about whether it should be taught from a Marxist perspective or not. While historical materialism and Marx's theories are generally correct, we can't say that they apply to every single event in history. There are exceptions to every rule, and Marx admitted to this, so I feel it'd be better to analyze all the available information, and then take note of generalizations and trends. However, as your professor said, some events are difficult to understand without analyzing through a Marxist lens, so I'm not sure of the extent to which students should be taught from that perspective.

[Hermes]

From my own high school (and tiny bit of college) experience, it seems to be in vogue for teachers/professors to credit Marx for certain things while ignoring the conclusions of them. Examples from my experience would be a history professor going on about the proletariat, and 'the capitalists', but still mixing up communism/socialism with Marxist-Leninism and the USSR, etc. Or, in sociology, you'll hear quite a lot about Marx, about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but then you'll also be given this truckload of caveats and nonsensical criticism that serve to discredit him on the whole.

iunno

[G4b3n]

As another user posted in the "stupid things you learned in school" thread



This is basically the understanding I got from my school's teaching of events like the Industrial Revolution. I wouldn't say my teachers explicitly taught it like this, but the way they just focused on arbitrary events and people as you said definitely left me with that impression. With that being said, I'm on the fence about whether it should be taught from a Marxist perspective or not. While historical materialism and Marx's theories are generally correct, we can't say that they apply to every single event in history. There are exceptions to every rule, and Marx admitted to this, so I feel it'd be better to analyze all the available information, and then take note of generalizations and trends. However, as your professor said, some events are difficult to understand without analyzing through a Marxist lens, so I'm not sure of the extent to which students should be taught from that perspective.


Thank you for the response comrade.
Did Marx claim that there are phenomena to which historical materialism is not applicable? If it is true, I would like to see a source.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Thank you for the response comrade.
Did Marx claim that their where phenomena which historical materialism is not applicable? If it is true, I would like to see a source.

I didn't mean historical materialism specifically, but theories and trends in general don't apply to every single situation, as there are always exceptions. I remember reading a quote by Marx or Engels on this, but as for the source, I'll have to get back to on that. I have a lot of school work to do and it's already midnight where I live :ohmy:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is there any other means by which one can understand the industrial revolution and emergence of bourgeois society? By this I mean, without applying historical materialism in any sense.sure, but not very good ones... Enlightened figures, new ideas, technology producing more technology. That's basically what we were taught in high school in the u.s. The end of the aristocracy was not discussed in u.s. High school in my experience. In college it was mostly discussed in romantic terms strangely enough... Or as though it's a foregone conclusion. They talked about "approaching modernity" and the aristocracy as if it was inevitably archaic. Forces of "progress" I guess.

I remember much more clearly that the French Revolution was taught in college in terms of "significant ideas" and philosophers. Material conditions and conflicts, sometimes class based, would be included as "...also..." Within the larger idealist framework. As if material conditions were an obstacle to the ideal being fufilled.


If you are or once were a student, to what extent did you notice the presence of Marxist or Quasi-Marxist analysis present in your professors approach to their topic? i wasn't a revolutionary in high school or college. Marxism in history courses was treated either as a historical necessity (like learning about feudal Christian ideas... To know where people were coming from) or in history and lit classes was thrown in as one of a variety of schools of criticism.


Is it desirable for liberal professors to incorporate Marxist analysis (either implicitly or explicitly) into there lessons to students?for what purpose? To expose more students to these ideas? Right now it might be different than in the 90s in the u.s., but generally Marxism that did work its way into lectures or texts was a very detached and defanged sort of Marxist-based analysis.

For a Marxist or anarchist academic... Sure if they want, and are able, to do a course on revolutionary ideas or histories, that's cool.

I think in terms of general ideas in lectures (by non revolutionary academics) I think the only thing that would counter the tendency for Marxism to become a safe shadow of itself is that if it's a legitimate force outside the academy. If there are mass strikes or new militant working class groupings, then Marxism, the class struggle one, not the just economic insights one, will have to be taken seriously by mainstream academics.