Prussia

[PhoenixAsh]

Past material conditions includes human interactions creating conditions & being acted upon by conditions.


You said this:

But history is a reflection of past material conditions. It's essential to know those conditions if you actually want to create new social situations.


That pretty much denies historical development as a statement in this context. History is the (written; and arguably systematic) record of past events. It pretty much exists for a fraction of human existance. The period before that is called pre-history. The question is, without written history, (much less the systematic study of history)....how can there be understanding and if there is no understanding then how can there be new situations?

And even considering all this...Historical Materialism has been around for only a fraction of history.




Bismark had to go beyond advancing Prussia & Junker sentiments in order to advance the rise of the German nation. To do that he had to do some progressive things. You're assuming his origins totally limited his actions. & do you object to workers benefiting from some social legislation just because of the intent of the legislators?

The rise of the German nation has traditionally been tied to the Prussian state. Hence why everything that was not Prussia was called: "Lesser Germany"

To give you an idea...this is Prussia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Map-DR-Prussia.svg/707px-Map-DR-Prussia.svg.png

And that lasted basically untill WWI

[Blake's Baby]

To be fair, that's 'Prussia just before WWI'. It got a hell of a sight bigger between 1800 and 1870.

[Ravn]

You said this:

But history is a reflection of past material conditions. It's essential to know those conditions if you actually want to create new social situations.


That pretty much denies historical development as a statement in this context. History is the (written; and arguably systematic) record of past events. It pretty much exists for a fraction of human existance. The period before that is called pre-history. The question is, without written history, (much less the systematic study of history)....how can there be understanding and if there is no understanding then how can there be new situations?

History is past events. Historical development is an objective fact whether it happens to be understood or not. If it's not understood to a degree, or if it's misunderstood to whatever degree, that's problematical. Your semantics about it is an obfuscation.







And even considering all this...Historical Materialism has been around for only a fraction of history.

You're just considering the history of the term. The historical past & historical development is 14 billion years old.







The rise of the German nation has traditionally been tied to the Prussian state.

Prussia was the biggest state but it was one in 27 in the 2nd Reich.

[PhoenixAsh]

To be fair, that's 'Prussia just before WWI'. It got a hell of a sight bigger between 1800 and 1870.

Yes, exactly my point.

[Ravn]

Yes, exactly my point.


Which is what exactly? It's vacuous. Prussia was one state out of 27. Size isn't everything.

[PhoenixAsh]

Which is what exactly? It's vacuous. Prussia was one state out of 27. Size isn't everything.

Well my point which I was politely trying not to make is that you have no idea about German history.

Geman interests were Prussian interests. Prussia dominated Germany untill WWI, economically, politically, administratively and military. The decline of Prussian hegemony within Germany started long after Bismarck. So when you say that Bismarck had to rise above his Juncker class and Prussian nationality is counter factual.

It may have been one of many states as you say in your previous posts...but the rest of the states were called "Lesser Germany". Which should give you a fairly nice indication of what the position of the other states was in respect to Prussia.

So why did Germany come into existance as a unified state? Because of Prussian interests conflicting with those of the Austrian empire and the Hannoverian dynasty. Germany's whole existance is based on protecting Prussian interests. Simply put.

This position is not really contested in debates between historians. The debate instead focusses on whether the unification of the Germanic states was a Prussian reaction to the defeat of Napoleon and the 2nd empire or the resolution of long term Prussian strategy which culminated in the unification of the Germanic state and creating a central European nation which would break the backbone of the kingdom of Denmark, France and the Austrian empire. This is a debate over details. The consensus is that Prussia was Germany.


History is past events. Historical development is an objective fact whether it happens to be understood or not. If it's not understood to a degree, or if it's misunderstood to whatever degree, that's problematical. Your semantics about it is an obfuscation.

You're just considering the history of the term. The historical past & historical development is 14 billion years old.


Ok fair enough. Lets make some definitions.

Scientifically history is the study of records dealing with human events. Pre-history is everything before somebody thought to write things down.
Archeology is the study of (human related) material and environmental impact...or if you ask history students in Leiden: "Archeology is playing in the dirt".


If you approach history from the perspective of the progression of time and the place humans take in it...then historical development is merely the progression of time and the place humans take in it and what they done.

It is NOT directly linked to progress as in "improving" things. There are a whole lot of periods throughout history where there has been a regression, stagnation or decline.....everything except progress other than the progress of time.

History is =/= progress.

What started the discussion however is not your confusion of the terms "development" with "progress"...nor your linking of both these terms with something positive... but whether or not Historical Materialism is essential for class consciousness and subsequently if Historical Materialism accurately explains history or historical development is always a reflection of the material conditions...or economic position. (HM can not explain the stagnation of economic development when the material conditions were far more advanced than the entire economic system in use for example; nor could it explain the simultaneous existance of competing economic systems in one nation during one time frame; nor has it any answer to developments which run counter to economic interests and material conditions)

And so far that is not the case. Historical Materialism is a method that can explain certain developments. As a tool it is most definately not absolute and it can't be applied to the entire scope of history nor explain every development. Historical Materialism has only been around for a century...a mere fraction of the entire scope of history in your definition and a fraction according to mine.

Before that and even now there are other scientific methods. People were perfectly capable of understanding history without it and inspite of the lack of Historical Materialism a lot of people became very class conscious at a lot of points throughout history.

So it is far from essential for class consciousness. Nor is it in the best interest of the working class. Nor is an understanding of history essential for creating class consciousness in the first place.

IMO a basic understanding of current economics is far more important than understanding how the Bourgeois interests shaped progressive politics.

[Ravn]

Well my point which I was politely trying not to make is that you have no idea about German history.

Geman interests were Prussian interests. Prussia dominated Germany untill WWI, economically, politically, administratively and military. The decline of Prussian hegemony within Germany started long after Bismarck. So when you say that Bismarck had to rise above his Juncker class and Prussian nationality is counter factual.

It may have been one of many states as you say in your previous posts...but the rest of the states were called "Lesser Germany". Which should give you a fairly nice indication of what the position of the other states was in respect to Prussia.

You're misrepresenting what the term "Lesser Germany" actually meant:
The German Question was a debate in the 19th century, especially during the Revolutions of 1848 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848), over the best way to achieve the Unification of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Question#cite_note-1) From 1815–1866, about 37 independent German-speaking states existed within the German Confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation). The Großdeutsche Lösung ("Greater German solution") favored unifying all German-speaking peoples under one state, and was promoted by the Austrian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Empire) and its supporters. The Kleindeutsche Lösung ("Lesser German solution") sought only to unify the northern German states and did not include Austria; this proposal was favored by the Kingdom of Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Prussia).
The solutions are also referred to by the names of the states they proposed to create, Kleindeutschland and Großdeutschland ("Lesser Germany" and "Greater Germany"). Both movements were part of a growing German nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationalism)."



http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Question


& Bismarck's concerns went beyond just Prussian interests. "Bismarck implemented the world's first welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state) in the 1880s. He worked closely with large industry and aimed to stimulate German economic growth by giving workers greater security.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#cite_note-65) A secondary concern was trumping the Socialists, who had no welfare proposals of their own and opposed Bismarck's. Bismarck especially listened to Hermann Wagener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Wagener) and Theodor Lohmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Lohmann), advisers who persuaded him to give workers a corporate status in the legal and political structures of the new German state.[66]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#cite_note-66)

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Chancellor_of_the_German_Empire


All this is off topic here but you're trying to promote the notion that origins determine outlook. Learning & circumstances are going to work to change a person's outlook in time.





Scientifically history is the study of records dealing with human events. Pre-history is everything before somebody thought to write things down.
Archeology is the study of (human related) material and environmental impact...or if you ask history students in Leiden: "Archeology is playing in the dirt". ]/QUOTE]

You're misrepresenting what the term "pre-history" actually means: "By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record ...

"...In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved ...

"Archaeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology) is a discipline that is especially helpful in dealing with buried sites and objects, which, once unearthed, contribute to the study of history..."

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

[QUOTE=PhoenixAsh;2806376]
If you approach history from the perspective of the progression of time and the place humans take in it...then historical development is merely the progression of time and the place humans take in it and what they done.

It is NOT directly linked to progress as in "improving" things.


But "historical developments" doesn't necessarily imply that progress means always an improvement of things. & I never said it did!







([Historical Materialism] can not explain the stagnation of economic development

That's just incorrect. It's an approach to the study of economic development & society based on a materialist conception of history. It's not based on a preconception about human progress. Nothing is inevitable.



People were perfectly capable of understanding history without it


To the extent that people rely on an idealist conception of the world, they're going to get things wrong. It's essential that people understand to whatever degree that's possible the historic past. & that past is a reflection of material events & developments.







... Bourgeois interests shaped progressive politics.


That's looking at progressive politics in a one-sided way. It's not just bourgeois interests that are involved.

[PhoenixAsh]

snap
[/COLOR][/B]


Sigh.

Well. Fine. If you want to believe your position that Prussia was merely one state of many and didn't totally dominate German politics up to WWI and that the GFerman unification was anything else than advancing Prussian interests....based on some Wikipedia quotes...contrary to all historical research done on the subject and fact then you are welcome to continue to believe so.

If you want to believe that Bismarck "rose above his Juncker class" and did not represent Prussian interests then you are fine to continue to believe so.

Naturally Bismarck had a welfare plan. That wellfare plan was part of real politics. It was implmented to prevent the working class from destabilizing the current system and creating economic advantage which was pretty much in the interest of the ruling classes of the states, including the Junkers who could continue their agrarian domination with improved industry. Now...that is all part of Economic Historical study. So look into it.

If you want to believe that Progressive politics is not subjective then you are totally entitled to continue to believe so.

And if you want to reject your previous notion that you pretty much implied progress is improvement then fine.

If you are going to dispute my argument about history and pre-history...I suggest you need to actually enroll in a history department and actually follow some lectures on what the field of History actually is instead of trying to find a position in debating semantics.


I have no interest in continuing the debate with you based on wikipedia knowledge.

[Ravn]

Sigh.

Well. Fine. If you want to believe your position that Prussia was merely one state of many and didn't totally dominate German politics up to WWI and that the GFerman unification was anything else than advancing Prussian interests....based on some Wikipedia quotes...contrary to all historical research done on the subject and fact then you are welcome to continue to believe so.

What I actually said speaks for itself.


You claimed: "rest of the states were called "Lesser Germany"". That's factually wrong. I didn't say that Prussia wasn't the dominant player but "Lesser Germany" referred to a plan of unification that didn't include Austria. For all your hot air about historical research, how could you have gotten such a basic fact wrong?

[PhoenixAsh]

What I actually said speaks for itself.


You claimed: "rest of the states were called "Lesser Germany"". That's factually wrong. I didn't say that Prussia wasn't the dominant player but "Lesser Germany" referred to a plan of unification that didn't include Austria. For all your hot air about historical research, how could you have gotten such a basic fact wrong?

No, it actually isn't factually wrong but unless you move past wikipedia quotes and actually read some extensive research on it you would find the Prussians refered to the rest of Germany as such. What you were refering to was the Klein Deutsche Losung....or Small Germany. In other words we are talking about two seperate things. Which by the way is also explained wrong in your wikipedia article.

[tuwix]

You all miss what is origin of Prussia...

Prussia was originally a land inhabited by Prussians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians) who was a Baltic tribe. Baltic tribes have formed nations of Lithuanians and Latvians and had nothing to do with Germans. They had common roots with Slavs and there is a group of balto-slavic languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto-Slavic_languages). Prussians were harassing Masovia and Masovian prince Konrad asked for help the Teutonic Knights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Knights) to make an order with them. And then the history of Prussians started to end. The Teutonic Knights have conquered Prussia and created a church state. They started to harass Lithuanians who organised a union with Poles and they've won two wars against Teutonic Knights. But Prussians culture and language started to deteriorate. Prussia was divided on Royal Prussia belonging completely to Poland and Ducal Prussia that had an autonomy within Polish Kingdom but was dominate by German aristocrats. In 1700's Ducal Prussia went out from Poland and created a state with Brandenburg. But they wanted to have a king. Brandenburg was part of the Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire) and couldn't have a king. But Prussia wasn't. Them they've changed a name for Kingdom of Prussia. And this is how emerged a Prussia that you're discussing of.


However, that Prussia had to do with real Prussia as much as communism wit the Soviet Union...

[Prometeo liberado]

That pretty much denies historical development as a statement in this context. History is the (written; and arguably systematic) record of past events. It pretty much exists for a fraction of human existance. The period before that is called pre-history. The question is, without written history, (much less the systematic study of history)....how can there be understanding and if there is no understanding then how can there be new situations?

History is something unfolding in the here and now. We live therefor we are history.

[Ravn]

No, it actually isn't factually wrong but unless you move past wikipedia quotes and actually read some extensive research on it you would find the Prussians refered to the rest of Germany as such. What you were refering to was the Klein Deutsche Losung....or Small Germany. In other words we are talking about two seperate things. Which by the way is also explained wrong in your wikipedia article.


You can diss my sources but you haven't provided any of your own here. There's no real semantic difference between "Small Germany" & "Lesser Germany", OK? Proving there was a prejudice held by Prussians against the other Northern German states doesn't change the *fact* that there was two plans of unification that nationalists considered, & that the terms contemporaneously used, "Lesser Germany" & "Greater Germany" are historical facts.

http://http://books.google.com/books?id=vtJcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=lesser+germany&source=bl&ots=9dpvOCRbOn&sig=U6MzQ-9cNWrygYycsC3j3fvFZto&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gRiGVJ-iDIGrogS7loCQBA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=lesser%20germany&f=false

[Ravn]

That pretty much denies historical development as a statement in this context. History is the (written; and arguably systematic) record of past events. It pretty much exists for a fraction of human existance. The period before that is called pre-history. The question is, without written history, (much less the systematic study of history)....how can there be understanding and if there is no understanding then how can there be new situations?

History is something unfolding in the here and now. We live therefor we are history.


History is past events whether we have a written record or not. & past events are past material circumstances. That's what historical materialism signifies. I don't why you people insist on obfuscating on this.

[PhoenixAsh]

You can diss my sources but you haven't provided any of your own here. There's no real semantic difference between "Small Germany" & "Lesser Germany", OK? Proving there was a prejudice held by Prussians against the other Northern German states doesn't change the *fact* that there was two plans of unification that nationalists considered, & that the terms contemporaneously used, "Lesser Germany" & "Greater Germany" are historical facts.

http://http://books.google.com/books?id=vtJcAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=lesser+germany&source=bl&ots=9dpvOCRbOn&sig=U6MzQ-9cNWrygYycsC3j3fvFZto&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gRiGVJ-iDIGrogS7loCQBA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=lesser%20germany&f=false


History is past events whether we have a written record or not. & past events are past material circumstances. That's what historical materialism signifies. I don't why you people insist on obfuscating on this.


Actually you are the one obfuscating the debate.

It was your assertion that Prussia was just an equal amongst all the German states. This is obviously not true. Regardless of the plans for unification and the terms used you have not provided any backup for your claim. Prussia dominated German politics untill WWI and no matter how yoyu try to shift the focus of the debate the consensus between historians is that German interests were Prussian interests and that those interests have been the driving force for the unification.

The terms I am refering to were terms used by the Prussians and have NOTHING to do with the unification plans. Get over it.

It was also your assertion that Bismarck rose above his Juncker class because he became chancellor and therefore had German interests in mind. Which is the assertion that led us to debate the unification in the first place. Again you are wrong on that assertion because...as I have already told you. German interests were Prussian interests and Bismarck did everything in his power to assure the hegemony of the Prussian interests. That included social changes.

We got to Bismarck because of your assertion that progressive politics were not subjective but objective. Which you have completely failed to do. You also asserted and implied that progressive means better. A statement you later denied making and that revolutions can not be anything else than progressive. Again...you have failed to back that up and so far we have established that progress is measured in terms of subjective interests. Now...if you would read the wiki entry for progressive politics you would see a whole range of conservative elements have been called progressive...even scientific racism is called progressive politics. So the term doesn't mean what you think it means.

History as you use it is unscientific. Strange because you keep insisting on a scientific approach to historical research. The field of history only concerns itself with the period where there is written documentation/records/sources. If you talk about a scientific approach to historical research you are by default talking about a scientific approach to the period of which there are written sources....no matter how often you repeat the vulgar dictionary defintion of history. History as a research field is something entirely different.

Now your insistance that history is the result of material conditions and only historical materialism can lead to an understanding of history is complete and utter bullshit. Historical materialism is problematic because it doesn't actualy explain anything outside of a very specific time frame and can not deal with inconsistancies and obvious histrociual developments which run counter to the theory. Even Marx himself didn't dare name Historical Materialism the only method of understanding history.

You have failed to adress ANY of the sources I gave to you about the matter and you have not addressed one of the concerns and criticisms that were noted in those sources.

So no...I have not been obfuscating anything. You have no idea what we are talking about.

[Blake's Baby]

History is past events whether we have a written record or not. & past events are past material circumstances. That's what historical materialism signifies. I don't why you people insist on obfuscating on this.

No, you're quite wrong. 'As an archaeologist', specialising in (late) European prehistory, I can completely back up PheonixaAsh here; European history begins with writing in and about Europe. There is no 'history' before the Greeks (before Herodotus really) because no-one was writing history. In the north, there is (almost) no history before Caesar; in Scotland it's arguable that there is no history before AD1100 (I've heard prehistorians refer to the period from A600-AD1100 as 'proto-historic' which seems reasonable).

Prehistory is pretty precise as a concept. Where there is no 'history' (ie written accounts to provide a conceptual framework of chronology) then the culture is 'prehistoric'.

[Ravn]

Actually you are the one obfuscating the debate.

It was your assertion that Prussia was just an equal amongst all the German states. This is obviously not true.

I said it is was one in many states. You can't infer from that any magnitude of power.



Regardless of the plans for unification and the terms used you have not provided any backup for your claim. Prussia dominated German politics untill WWI and no matter how yoyu try to shift the focus of the debate the consensus between historians is that German interests were Prussian interests and that those interests have been the driving force for the unification.

German interests were not just Prussian interests because the interests of all the other states were involved regardless of Prussia being the leading state.



The terms I am refering to were terms used by the Prussians and have NOTHING to do with the unification plans. Get over it.

The terms you refer to was specifically the terms used by those who supported one unification plan or the other.



It was also your assertion that Bismarck rose above his Juncker class because he became chancellor and therefore had German interests in mind. Which is the assertion that led us to debate the unification in the first place. Again you are wrong on that assertion because...as I have already told you. German interests were Prussian interests and Bismarck did everything in his power to assure the hegemony of the Prussian interests. That included social changes.

My point was Bismarck's origins didn't dictate his outlook. His interests in Prussian hegemony & the his interest in unification guided his outlook. & you seem to be operating with the great man theory. The driving forces that influence Bismarck's thinking was the rise of productive forces, growing German industry that made it necessary for unification to begin with. You're all hung up about Prussia. Prussian interests was just a means to an end greater than itself.





We got to Bismarck because of your assertion that progressive politics were not subjective but objective. Which you have completely failed to do. You also asserted and implied that progressive means better. A statement you later denied making and that revolutions can not be anything else than progressive. Again...you have failed to back that up and so far we have established that progress is measured in terms of subjective interests. Now...if you would read the wiki entry for progressive politics you would see a whole range of conservative elements have been called progressive...even scientific racism is called progressive politics. So the term doesn't mean what you think it means.

I said that Bismarck did some progressive things regardless if he did so only to maintain the status quo. You can't claim w/o absurdity that worker's compensation is not a good thing, no matter how lame it may have been. Just because I call it progressive is not an endorsement of reformism.


History as you use it is unscientific. Strange because you keep insisting on a scientific approach to historical research. The field of history only concerns itself with the period where there is written documentation/records/sources. If you talk about a scientific approach to historical research you are by default talking about a scientific approach to the period of which there are written sources....no matter how often you repeat the vulgar dictionary defintion of history. History as a research field is something entirely different.

The field of history does not discount pre-history because there are records & artifacts other than written documents that can determine things about the past.




Now your insistance that history is the result of material conditions and only historical materialism can lead to an understanding of history is complete and utter bullshit. Historical materialism is problematic because it doesn't actualy explain anything outside of a very specific time frame and can not deal with inconsistancies and obvious histrociual developments which run counter to the theory. Even Marx himself didn't dare name Historical Materialism the only method of understanding history.

History, that is past events, didn't happen in an immaterial realm. By historical materialism, this is what I'm talking about:

"What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another?
This force, historical materialism holds, is the method of procuring the means of life necessary for human existence, the mode of production of material values – food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc. – which are indispensable for the life and development of society.


"The first feature of production is that it never stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state of change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in the mode of production inevitably call forth changes in the whole social system, social ideas, political views and political institutions – they call forth a reconstruction of the whole social and political order ...


"The second feature of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes and development of the productive forces, and in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of productions First the productive forces of society change and develop, and then, depending on these changes and in conformity with them, men's relations of production, their economic relations, change. This, however, does not mean that the relations of production do not influence the development of the productive forces and that the latter are not dependent on the former. While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this connection it should be noted that the relations of production cannot for too long a time lag behind and be in a state of contradiction to the growth of the productive forces, inasmuch as the productive forces can develop in full measure only when the relations of production correspond to the character, the state of the productive forces and allow full scope for their development. Therefore, however much the relations of production may lag behind the development of the productive forces, they must, sooner or later, come into correspondence with – and actually do come into correspondence with – the level of development of the productive forces, the character of the productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental violation of the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production within the system of production, a disruption of production as a whole, a crisis of production, a destruction of productive forces."


file:///root/Documents/1938:%20Dialectical%20and%20Historical%20Materiali sm.htm







You have failed to adress ANY of the sources I gave to you about the matter and you have not addressed one of the concerns and criticisms that were noted in those sources.

So no...I have not been obfuscating anything. You have no idea what we are talking about.

Castorisdias is a revisionist. Your "primer" is either a poison pill or a blue pill, whichever applies. He not only denies the relevance of historical materialism but he also apparently denies dialectical materialism.

[PhoenixAsh]

I said it is was one in many states. You can't infer from that any magnitude of power.

Actually you can....and the exceptions confrim the rule.



German interests were not just Prussian interests because the interests of all the other states were involved regardless of Prussia being the leading state.

Right. So basically you do not understand what we are talking about at all and do not understand how politics work or how interests are served. Ok.




The terms you refer to was specifically the terms used by those who supported one unification plan or the other.

Except when you actually translate it into German. :rolleyes:



My point was Bismarck's origins didn't dictate his outlook. His interests in Prussian hegemony & the his interest in unification guided his outlook. & you seem to be operating with the great man theory. The driving forces that influence Bismarck's thinking was the rise of productive forces, growing German industry that made it necessary for unification to begin with. You're all hung up about Prussia. Prussian interests was just a means to an end greater than itself.

And that is why your historical materialist outlook completely and utterly fails. Because the German unification was not a materialist factor but extended beyond class inetersts and relatinship to the means of production.


I said that Bismarck did some progressive things regardless if he did so only to maintain the status quo. You can't claim w/o absurdity that worker's compensation is not a good thing, no matter how lame it may have been. Just because I call it progressive is not an endorsement of reformism.

Actually...I can claim that without any absurdity. And this is why.

Lets apply your logic:

A payrise is never a bad thing. Right? Unless that payrise is less than inflation rates in which case the payrise is absolutely zero. In that case payrise is a means to prevent strikes and action which actually do improve the situation of the working class. This was the fundamental argument behind the changes: to prevent changes that would actually change things.



The field of history does not discount pre-history because there are records & artifacts other than written documents that can determine things about the past.

And those are not studied by historians.

You can argue till you are blue in the face...but this will not change.



History, that is past events, didn't happen in an immaterial realm. By historical materialism, this is what I'm talking about:

Yes. And I am telling you that historical materialism is a tool and method and not an absolute fact or the only means to actually understand history. Nor is it the only scientific method nor that the materialist circumstances were the only determining factor in human development.

Unlike your initial claim.


"What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another?
This force, historical materialism holds, is the method of procuring the means of life necessary for human existence, the mode of production of material values – food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc. – which are indispensable for the life and development of society.

"The first feature of production is that it never stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state of change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in the mode of production inevitably call forth changes in the whole social system, social ideas, political views and political institutions – they call forth a reconstruction of the whole social and political order ...


"The second feature of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes and development of the productive forces, and in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of productions First the productive forces of society change and develop, and then, depending on these changes and in conformity with them, men's relations of production, their economic relations, change. This, however, does not mean that the relations of production do not influence the development of the productive forces and that the latter are not dependent on the former. While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this connection it should be noted that the relations of production cannot for too long a time lag behind and be in a state of contradiction to the growth of the productive forces, inasmuch as the productive forces can develop in full measure only when the relations of production correspond to the character, the state of the productive forces and allow full scope for their development. Therefore, however much the relations of production may lag behind the development of the productive forces, they must, sooner or later, come into correspondence with – and actually do come into correspondence with – the level of development of the productive forces, the character of the productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental violation of the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production within the system of production, a disruption of production as a whole, a crisis of production, a destruction of productive forces."


file:///root/Documents/1938:%20Dialectical%20and%20Historical%20Materiali sm.htm

Yes, I am fully aware of what Historical Materialism is...and like I said. It is a tool and not the end-all method of understanding history. Furthermore it is only correctly applicable during a very specific time frame and has severe limitations that actually can not explain large swats of history or certain developments.



Castorisdias is a revisionist. Your "primer" is either a poison pill or a blue pill, whichever applies. He not only denies the relevance of historical materialism but he also apparently denies dialectical materialism.

Yes...and I do too. A lot of historians actually reject historical and dialectical materialism...a whole lot of revolutionaries do too by the way. For us it is a method amongst many.

And incidentally...not all Historical Materialists are revolutionaries or are social and political conservatives.

I will remind you of this article as an example.

https://libcom.org/library/history-revolution-revolutionary-critique-historical-materialism-cornelius-castoriadis

But I would also like to direct your attention to Mann and Gelner who critique Historical Materialism and critiqued the idea of economic primacy and all other social modes being subordinate and only developing when a new system was matured. Their views state quite the contracy where Mann says ideological forces need to change before economic forces can change and Gelner actually saying political and military forces need to radically allow for economic change. Others have argued among similar lines. And we have not even breached the poart where we are going to need to talk about the driving force in history being class struggle.

And that is all besides the fact that periods in time actually directly contradict the theory of historical materialism and historical materialism actually failed to explain history in those periods.

Now...Marx hismelf knew HM was merely a method and actually recognized that his knowledge of history was limited in order for his theory to be anything other than a broad outliner with some valid elements. So I don't get your
unwillingness to accept that HM is not the end-all necessity you make it out to be.

[Ravn]

Actually you can....and the exceptions confrim the rule.


What are you talking about? Signifying, for example, that there's one particular doughnut out of a dozen out of box that's on a dish on the table separate from the other eleven still in the box does not at say anything about what flavor that doughnut it is or what size it is in comparison to the others.

[Invader Zim]

This, I think comes down colloquial vs specialist understanding of what history is. For the professional historian, history is a methodological intellectual discipline which deals with the human past in written civilizations. Indeed, it is separate, albeit very closely related, to both archaeology and classics.

However, most people do not think of history in those terms. They think of history as being the past and even include the non-human past. They think of the history of the universe. But professional historians do not concern themselves with the cosmological past or the non-human past.

The vast majority of historians deal primarily with the written word and do so most of the time. Some might also deal in oral sources, images, material culture (a friend of mine looks at fabrics as a means of expression of political views, another looks at medieval letter seals, another at paper as a cultural item under wartime austerity), etc, but I is not wise to overstate this.

[Ravn]

Right. So basically you do not understand what we are talking about at all and do not understand how politics work or how interests are served. Ok.

Perhaps, you don't understand how politics work. You would have it that Prussian interests completely held sway w/o regard to any other interest within the 2nd Reich. & you just assert this in spite of the evident diversity within that Reich. You got to do better than give other people the attitude of certainty.





Except when you actually translate it into German. :rolleyes:

Klein means small. Grosse, means big. What's the big deal? The point you're making is trivial & pedantic w/o any apparent justification.




.... your historical materialist outlook completely and utterly fails. Because the German unification was not a materialist factor but extended beyond class inetersts and relatinship to the means of production.

Who said the unification was a "materialist factor"? The driving force behind it was the growth of industry. How is that beyond any class interest?








A payrise is never a bad thing. Right? Unless that payrise is less than inflation rates in which case the payrise is absolutely zero. In that case payrise is a means to prevent strikes and action which actually do improve the situation of the working class. This was the fundamental argument behind the changes: to prevent changes that would actually change things.

A pay raise that's not a pay raise isn't going to appease anybody or be a reason to stop strikes. You think people are idiots? They appease people by offering then something substantial or more than miniscule. It doesn't change the fundamental relationship of exploitation but something is better than nothing. (& it doesn't stop people from biting the hands that feed them.) That's not an endorsement of reformism, it's just a fact.




And those are not studied by historians.
You can argue till you are blue in the face...but this will not change.


Pre-history is evidently a subject of scientific inquiry. Lying through your teeth about it isn't going to change that fact.




Yes. And I am telling you that historical materialism is a tool and method and not an absolute fact or the only means to actually understand history. Nor is it the only scientific method nor that the materialist circumstances were the only determining factor in human development.

Unlike your initial claim.

Historical Materialism & Dialectical Materialism are reflected by objective reality. Change & transformation of things is inherently in things & between things. All societies of any size at any time depend on labor in order to exist & all social relations are dependent on that necessity. You can say that ideas can influence change but those ideas themselves are influenced by material circumstances that precede it.

Reification as described by Cartoriadis is just ridiculous. Capitalism has already reduced people to being commodities but that doesn't stop people from resisting & people being reduced to cogs in the machine evidently hasn't stop this system from functioning either.

[PhoenixAsh]

Pre-history is evidently a subject of scientific inquiry. Lying through your teeth about it isn't going to change that fact.

I am ignoring the rest of your post because this is the obvious problem with the continuation of this debate.

You have been told by not one, but three people with a degree in history what the field of history is.

If you keep not understanding it then fine.

Nobody ever said pre-history isn't studied. It is just not studied by historians....

[Fakeblock]

One shouldn't conflate historical materialism with the practice of non-Marxist historians. The development and structure of so-called 'prehistoric' societies are certainly objects of knowledge for historical materialism, though they may not be the objects of ideological history.

[Invader Zim]

Nobody ever said pre-history isn't studied. It is just not studied by historians....
Well, that isn't quite true. Some do, but we are talking about exceptions to the rule. For example, I now a few Africanists, and a mate of mine who does stuff on early-medieval Icelandic society, who work with socities that have recorded their past through non-written mediums such as oral tradition.

This is because have some socities which record their collective folk memory through non-literaty mediums (place names, personal names, oral/rote traditions, songs, spoken word poetry, mythology) which survive or at least survived until eventually they were penned. And you have to hand it to the men and women who do that kind of work because what they do is complex well beyond the kind of work that most historians would ever even contemplate doing.

There are a whole host of methodological challenges, but even more significantly, they have to master language and experssion and dialect in a way that the rest of the profession doesn't have to deal with - at least not in the same way or to the same degree.

In terms of applying these kinds of approaches to 'written' socieites very much within the periods that the disipline usually concerns itself with, then you do see a bit of it. For example, the pioneers of some of these kinds of methodologies, attempted to find ways of getting at the past of those elements of literate socities which lewave little if any archival trace. This is why there was the birth of oral history in the UK in the 1950s (in the US it was in the 1940s but had very different purposes), which sought to record the oral traditions, lives and memories, and accents/dialects of rural communities. People like George Ewart Evans who did pioneering work on this kind of stuff just as recording technology had reached the stage that audio gear using magentic tape could fit into the back of a car. It then picked up in the 1960s and 70s to move into fields such as labour history, women's history, black history, and so on. Giving voice to those who otherwise hadn't been thought important enough to be included in archives - except to be talked about. They actually had no historical 'voice' of their own.


though they may not be the objects of ideological history.

What is 'ideological history'? And why is what non-Marxist historians do different from that of Marxist historians?


Pre-history is evidently a subject of scientific inquiry. Lying through your teeth about it isn't going to change that fact.

You get that history is not a 'science' disipline, that historians are not scientists, and that their research is, at least 95% of the time, not scientific inquiry, right?

Marxists have a great deal of trouble on this front, because Marx used the term 'science' when referring to his own thesis. However, most Marxists are blissfuly ignorant of the history of science and fail to reaise that the term 'scientist' in its modern incarnation wasn't even coined un til 1833, and that the 'scientific method' was, for the most part, a 19th century phenomenon that still hadn't achieved refinement until the 20th Century and the rise to dominence of empericial falsifiability. Marx's use of the term 'science' does not have quite the same meaning that we use when we think of science, scientists and the scientific method. And the fact is that historical theses are not necessarily falsifiable. A thesis can seem more or less compelling depending on which subjective evidence and subjective mode of analysis is is given most weight. Finding new evidence or new way of approaching specific evidence might make the existing orthadoxy less compelling - and that happens all the time. But usually there is no sure fire way of saying 'x' thesis is now wrong. Rather, the best we can say is that given the following evidence, in the balance of probability, 'x' thesis is most likely inadequate compared to 'Y'. A few years later someone else revisits the topic and say that actually 'Z' is a better working hypothesis, before someone else takes another look and says, actually the original 'x' thesis had a lot more going for it than people have come to believe.

The origins of the First World War is a debate that absolutely highlights this phenomenon of thesis, counter-thesis, sysnthesis, and then various historians going back and actually saying that either the thesis or the counter-thesis were actually correct all along.

Of course, there are theses that absolutely can be falsified - i.e. the thesis of Holocaust deniers that Auschwitz was not used as an extermination camp complete with gas chambers. The vast weight and multiplicity of evidence makes that thesis utterly unsustainable. Even with the passage of time and the inability to go back and check, there is no interpretation of the evidence that can lead a person to honestly accept that thesis and the individual arguments made by holocaust deniers can be falsified. But this only works for these kinds of specific cases. It doesn't help us get any closer to understanding why the Holocaust occured. And there in lies the difference between history and the act of chronicling events. We can usually say with absolute assurity that major historical events occured. Thus, we know that the Holocaust occured. We know that the Battle of Waterloo occured. We know that the US Airforce dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But given that history is about asking broader questions of interpretation - questions of why and how - then we get into realms beyond the falsifiable and in turn what is deemed (at least by today's lexicon) the scientific.

[Ravn]

I am ignoring the rest of your post because this is the obvious problem with the continuation of this debate.

You have been told by not one, but three people with a degree in history what the field of history is.

If you keep not understanding it then fine.

Nobody ever said pre-history isn't studied. It is just not studied by historians....

Three wrongs don't make a right. Historians study all evidence of the past. Just because that requires dependence on other fields, (& that involves scientific inquiry, BTW), doesn't make it less true. & consider this:
"Historians and anthropologists have noted several problems with the term civilization. First of all, it tends to be used in an ethnocentric way; in other words, it is used to assign to others an inferior status. For example, the Chinese of the Han dynasty thought all others in the world were uncivil barbarians; likewise, from the Spartans to Nazi Germany, designating others as less than civilized was often a pretense for conquering or destroying them. Secondly, the term marginalizes (excludes) other people who have made important contributions to history. For example, nomadic people are responsible for the diffusion of some of the most important technologies in history, but most accepted forms of the term civilization exclude them."
http://www.historyhaven.com/AP%20Prep%20WH/PreHistory%20to%20River%20Valleys.htm

If you don't want to discuss things fairly & sanely, that's your choice, & your problem.

[PhoenixAsh]

Three wrongs don't make a right.

These three people are not wrong...and unless you are willing to accept that you are basically saying that there is no point in debating with you.


Historians study all evidence of the past. Just because that requires dependence on other fields, (& that involves scientific inquiry, BTW), doesn't make it less true. & consider this:
"Historians and anthropologists have noted several problems with the term civilization. First of all, it tends to be used in an ethnocentric way; in other words, it is used to assign to others an inferior status. For example, the Chinese of the Han dynasty thought all others in the world were uncivil barbarians; likewise, from the Spartans to Nazi Germany, designating others as less than civilized was often a pretense for conquering or destroying them. Secondly, the term marginalizes (excludes) other people who have made important contributions to history. For example, nomadic people are responsible for the diffusion of some of the most important technologies in history, but most accepted forms of the term civilization exclude them."
http://www.historyhaven.com/AP%20Prep%20WH/PreHistory%20to%20River%20Valleys.htm


This has no bearing whatsoever on the fact of what the field of history is and what it relates to...since this is a segement about civilization and what civilization means...

Much less how it relates to your professed primacy of Historical Materialism as the only scientific method, nor to how HM is essential in understanding history not in how it is essential how an understanding of history is vital for class consciousness.



If you don't want to discuss things fairly & sanely, that's your choice, & your problem.

I am discussing things fairly and sanely.,..with somebody who is not willing to accept facts. This doesn't matter...since part of debating is educating...but if you take the position that three people who are in fact historians or have studied history...then yeah...you need to question whether this discussion is in fact a discussion or just you rehashing your written in stone doctrine like some religious zealot.

I don't care if you do not agree with me. I do care however if you do not agree with me on anything just for the sake of disagreeing or disagree based on semantics when the semantics aren't really the point.

[Invader Zim]

Three wrongs don't make a right.

Yet, given that you haven't engaged with my posts in this thread, I see no reason to believe that what I've said (one of the three alleged wrongs) is wrong.

In fact, I'd say that what I wrote is pretty much consistent with the view that most historians today would say.

[Ravn]

These three people are not wrong...

They are if they assume that historians don't study all evidence of the past. & that definitely includes evidences of prehistoric times, & evidences of societies that didn't leave a written record. That's why I brought up the issue about the term "civilization".



... your professed primacy of Historical Materialism as the only scientific method, nor to how HM is essential in understanding history not in how it is essential how an understanding of history is vital for class consciousness.

HM is essential because it is a reflection of objective reality, & understanding social history is essential to the class consciousness of the proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

Ravn, are you an historian? Or an archaeologist?

If you're not, I don't see why people who are have any reason to listen to your non-technical opinion.

[PhoenixAsh]

They are if they assume that historians don't study all evidence of the past. & that definitely includes evidences of prehistoric times, & evidences of societies that didn't leave a written record. That's why I brought up the issue about the term "civilization".

They don't. This is not assumption.



HM is essential because it is a reflection of objective reality, & understanding social history is essential to the class consciousness of the proletariat.

HM is not essential at all much less objective or able to establish objective reality. Hell; Marxist Historians can't even agree how to apply the corresponding components...but sure...whatever you want it to be? Right?

Nor have you shown that is is essential unless you are denying Historical Materialism in itself. Without Historical Materialism there can be no class consciousness...but Historical Materialism only exists for a fraction of people studying history...and proclaims one of the most dominant elements in development to be class stuggle. Without class consciousness there can be no class stuggle and no change of the dominant class. So Historical Materialism can not be essential to class consciousness.

[Ravn]

They don't. This is not assumption.

Then you're factually mistaken. "Historians increasingly do not restrict themselves to evidence from written records and are coming to rely more upon evidence from the natural and social sciences, thereby blurring the distinction between the terms "history" and "prehistory""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

"The history of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world) is the memory of the past experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience) of Homo sapiens sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens) around the world, as that experience has been preserved, largely in written records. By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record. Since the 20th century, the study of prehistory is considered essential to avoid history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa) and pre-Columbian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian) America."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History#History_and_prehistory

This has been brought up before but you continue to deny it by insinuating that you're an expert & that people should take your word for it.






HM is not essential at all much less objective or able to establish objective reality.

It's essential to recognize that society is the result of past developments & the foundation of conceptualizing about things depends on materiality, not itself. "If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental", Stalin, "Dialectical and Historical Materialism".







Without Historical Materialism there can be no class consciousness...but Historical Materialism only exists for a fraction of people studying history...and proclaims one of the most dominant elements in development to be class stuggle. Without class consciousness there can be no class stuggle and no change of the dominant class. So Historical Materialism can not be essential to class consciousness.

A lack of the theory of evolution before it arrived didn't mean people didn't have clues about biological development. They engaged in husbandry for millennia. The matter is, is that at this stage of affairs, to ignore a clearer understanding of the nature of social development is to go backwards. Class struggle has existed since civilizations divided people into classes. & people's consciousnesses have risen according to whatever level of science available to them.

[Invader Zim]

Then you're factually mistaken.

No, he isn't. That, recently, some historians have applied techniques from other disiplines does not alter the fact that archeology and physical anthropology, the disiplines that examine pre-history, are different modes of analysis, employing different techniques and requiring different training to that of the historian. As I said earlier:

"Well, that isn't quite true. Some do, but we are talking about exceptions to the rule. For example, I now a few Africanists, and a mate of mine who does stuff on early-medieval Icelandic society, who work with socities that have recorded their past through non-written mediums such as oral tradition.

This is because have some socities which record their collective folk memory through non-literaty mediums (place names, personal names, oral/rote traditions, songs, spoken word poetry, mythology) which survive or at least survived until eventually they were penned. And you have to hand it to the men and women who do that kind of work because what they do is complex well beyond the kind of work that most historians would ever even contemplate doing"



"The history of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world) is the memory of the past experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience) of Homo sapiens sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens) around the world, as that experience has been preserved, largely in written records. By "prehistory", historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. By studying painting, drawings, carvings, and other artifacts, some information can be recovered even in the absence of a written record. Since the 20th century, the study of prehistory is considered essential to avoid history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa) and pre-Columbian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian) America."

Which is to employ the term in its colloquial sense rather than its technical meaning. A point that the article actually makes:

"Not to be confused with Recorded history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history)"



This has been brought up before but you continue to deny it by insinuating that you're an expert & that people should take your word for it.

Or, given that you love Wikipedia so much, perhaps we could just read the bits you cherry pick out, haven't noticed, or have elected to ignore:

"Protohistory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protohistory) refers to the transition period between prehistory and history, after the advent of literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy) in a society but before the writings of the first historians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historians). Protohistory may also refer to the period during which a culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture) or civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) has not yet developed writing, but other cultures have noted its existence in their own writings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world


It's essential to recognize that society is the result of past developments & the foundation of conceptualizing about things depends on materiality, not itself.

This is deeply confused. First, even a small child recognises that society and that they "came" from somewhere - it does not require HM to make that observation. Indeed you actually reduce HM to something rather Whiggish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history) when you term it like this. Second, "the foundation of conceptualizing about things depends on materiality" makes absolutely no sense.


"If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental", Stalin, "Dialectical and Historical Materialism".

Which only goes to show that Stalin didn't know what science or historical scholarship was about. HM is a far more complex mode of analysis than simply a reductionist approach that attempts to reduce the human experience idown into laws. Unsuprising given how fast ad loose he played with the past.