Two giants exchange arguments :-(

Hugh, not the name but as in "what?" I guess it's huh. I spelled it wrong. Anyway, here. Short, basic, in plane language.

http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/28/why-was-marx-a-materialist

Longer, not so basic

http://www.marxist.com/historical-materialism-study-guide.htm

Forgive my Marxist transgressions.

are there any good history books on the 21st/20th century written using historic materialism? covering major events and such? all the recommended ones were written a hundred years ago,
thanks!

This is a a very broad question. Can you be more specific in what time periods or events you're interested in learning about? A few things that do come to mind however.

Rosa Luxemburg's Junius Pamphlet concisely analyzes the imperialist rivalries that exploded in World War I, dispensing with idealist notions that it was a noble war by the Entente against "Prussian militarism" or by the Central Powers against "Czarist absolutism." Though I've only read the beginning of it, James Heartfield's Unpatriotic History of the Second World War appears to do something similar for World War II, situating it in the context of class struggle and away from the widespread illusion of heroic democracies so horrified by the evils of fascism as to launch into battle against them. Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa similarly analyzes colonialism in relation to material factors (e.g. the need of European industry for raw materials) and avoids ideological obfuscation. Rodney seems to have been some sort of Leninist, and there's a number of silly remarks about the "Socialist states" of the Eastern bloc, but those are few and far between.

Malatesta wrote an essay entitled A Talk About Anarchist Communism Between Two Workers. He did however, tend to refer to himself as an anarchist and as a communist but used the conjoined term less frequently. Kropotkin, on the other hand, used it on countless occasions; in his essay Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles, for example. It frequently appears in The Conquest of Bread, among others, as well.

those are great thanks , i guess im just looking for a 'best of' with emphasis on contemporary books rather than something about napolean . i have read some chomsky books but im starting to realise flaws in many of his books

Those aren't transgressions. Nothing to forgive. Marx established the validity of historical materialism with his Class Struggles in France... and the 18th Brumaire.....

History itself is materialism. It is made by human beings reproducing themselves in social relations.

But does not historical materialism itself undermine marxism as an ideational protuberance of its determinant concrete social underbase and that, historical materialism is an idea too? Or was Marx wrapped in mummy bandages and buried on Jupiter?

Word association game:

Communism; Marx

Anarchism; Bakunin

Communist; Lenin

Anarchist; Proudhon

Tyrrion wrote:

I can understand that Kropotkin and Malatesta would use these terms to distinguish their ideas from the authoritarianism of Marxism which was still unfolding and yet to be fully revealed.

I would contend that this is no longer necessary as we have now seen Joe Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Kim Il Sung, all self-avowed Communists.

I know that some use the term to distance themselves from 'primitivists' and the like. This is allowing them a concession they don't deserve.

It doesn't surprise that any number of would-be politicians holding views antithetical to anarchism would appropriate anarchism for the purposes of hyphenation. This is an ackowledgement of the inherent appeal of anarchism as opposed to say, communism which could mean a jackboot in your face.

Marx himself, in the wake of the Paris Commune and sensing the libertarian direction of the prevailing winds, came over all anarchic-like in The Civil War in France. Here he wrote; 'the task of the emancipation of the working-class is up to the workers themselves' (Trots will quote this at you when you attack Marx's authoritarianism).

But he was just gammin as he pretty much showed his true colours when he manouvered to move the IWA to New York in an effort to defeat the anarchists.

If you are an anarchist, there is no good reason to use the term anarchist-communist (or such like). Using the term also concedes legitimacy to the term anarcho-capitalism which can never be countenanced as it is a contradiction in terms.

Defending the definition and meaning of anarchism is not about ideological purity. It is defending the history of the practice of anarchism from which its definition and meaning is derived.

Middle-class uni student smart-arses will say "Like, er, that's only your opinion". What next? The wholesale dispossession of the indigenous people of Australia is merely a 'matter of opinion'?

Kropotkin and Malatesta are not special nor are they heroes. There are no anarchist heroes, only comrades. There are plenty of Communist heroes, why else would you describe your ideas by the name of a single individual?

As a general rule, Marxists are middle-class managerial types or aspire to be so.

There's plenty of good reason. Beyond the connotation of random chaos, the term "anarchist" is frequently appropriated by primitivists, lifestylists, "anarcho"-capitalists, and other "fake" anarchists--this is distasteful, but reality. Using a term like "anarchist communist" or "anarcho-communist" is more descriptive and makes for clearer political communication, which I place rather more importance on than feeling righteous by refusing to "concede legitimacy" to notions that are widespread regardless of any concessions I do or don't make.

When conversing with more politically literate people, it's also a useful term for distinguishing one's views from certain older traditions, such as Proudhon's petit-bourgeois utopia and Bakunin's quasi-capitalist collectivism.

Perhaps you could cite some of these would-be politicians holding views antithetical to anarchism who have described themselves as anarcho-communists? None of the people you've unfavorably mentioned in your post (Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Marx) ever did so, as far as I know.

I'm impressed by your intimate knowledge of the thousands (millions?) of people who have described themselves as Marxists over the years.

Tyrion wrote:

Reality is that the term 'communist' has the connotation of brutal totalitarianism for the overwhelming majority of those who exist outside the rarified atmosphere of academia. This reality is undoubtedly distatsteful for those who use the term alone or even conjoined with another. Are you not cherry-picking reality?

The reality is that for many, 'anarchist communist' would connote violent authoritarianism for precisely the same reasons that for many 'anarchy' connotes chaos. Using the term 'anarchist communism' may be useful as a descriptor for those who wish to distinguish themselves from those who would appropriate anarchism and hyphenate it for a purpose that is antithetical to anarchism, such as anarcho-capitalists. But it in no way facilitates clearer political communication beyond these narrow confines.

Reality is that the word 'anarchy' will always be used pejoratively by the capitalist press and the political enemies of anarchism. Against this, it is up to anarchists to defend the meaning and definition of anarchism. This includes defending against those who would appropriate the name for political ends such as.......

Primitivists, lifestylists, anarcho-capitalists and the like should always have their attempted appropriation of anarchism (which is always to suit their own political ends) challenged and contested. In my view, referring to yourself as an 'anarchist-communist' accepts the premise upon which these types appropriate 'anarchist'. That is, anyone who says they are an anarchist is one by the mere fact of self-reference and that 'anarchism' can be hyphenated to mean anything and everything and therefore nothing. This is why I choose to use 'anarchist' without qualification.

Tyrion wrote:

Certainly not openly but, as I pointed out before, Marx attempted to cloak his earlier authoritarianism with a libertarian gloss in the wake of the Paris Commune. In The State and Revolution Lenin attempted to pass the Bolsheviks off as the 'real' anarchists. Today, any number of trot groups try to pass themselves off as really libertarian - for real!

Tyrion wrote:

A general rule is hardly intimate knowledge and there are exceptions to prove the rule. Are you exceptional?

I should certainly hope not, which is why (on those reluctant occasions in which I do politically label myself around non-communists), I find it more useful to combine these two apparently contradictory terms--random chaos vs. total state control--and receive confusion and perhaps an interest in learning more over assumptions that I'm interested in smashing windows for no apparent reason or favor Stalinist dystopia.

So then there's not actually many opportunists seeking to seize control of the state who have described themselves with the term "anarcho-communist"?

I don't think I've ever described myself as a Marxist, and certainly wouldn't do so at the present time anymore than I would describe myself as a Kropotkinist.

Quite unlike the term anarchist, which has a completely positive connotation for most people...

Marx would say only humans can change the world but the sort of change we can effect is limited by material conditions. Could a neolithic human society even envision an advanced industrial society? It's not having ideas that make one an idealist it is, in part, thinking you can change the world with ideas alone.

The "idea" that workers need to control the means of production is based in materialist analysis. It's not a moral argument, or Marx saying "well, things should just be this way". It's not a theory with no empirical evidence. His critique of capitalism was also looking at the real thing- it wasn't a moral critique or a bunch of unfounded claims. Marx's ideas are based in material reality and in lieu of ideas changing the world, as in, contemplation by philosophers or the actions of a few people, Marx said collective action would be necessary- collective action under certain material conditions. It wasn't so much Marx's ideas that he thought would change the world but human praxis, struggle against the capitalist system itself but struggle guided by communist ideas, ideas and struggle which only become possible in reaction to capitalism.

One wouldn't expect a bunch of peasants living under a feudal lord to facilitate a communist revolution, maybe a sort of primitive communist revolution where they reclaim the land and hunt/forage freely but we wouldn't expect peasants to throw off the feudal yoke and democratically create then run a global industrial economic system. They wouldn't know how or what to do. The materialist conception of history points out the peasants would need to be prolitarianaized under capitalism and bourgeois democracy in order to have an idea on how to run an industrial society- an industrial society that capitalism would first have to create on a global scale.

Anyhow, an idealist will focus on the way the world ought to be without taking into account the limitations placed on his/her ideas by the way the world is. An example of utopian idealism would be Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist people. He thinks we can pretty much immediately automate production and just replace capitalism without any sort of workers revolution and atop of it all he thinks "specialists" can control production/distribution without those "specialists" making up a new ruling class. The idea in his head is that automation is the desired system but the reality is that's a process that would take generations and human labor would still be necessary. The idea in his head is that capitalism can just be replaced because "it ought to be replaced". There's no real plan of action. No praxis. No struggle. No class conflict. No nothing but a bunch of lofty ideas.

The materialist would tell the Zeitgeist people the way the world is, that the reality is capitalism will not just "go away" without struggle against it. The reality is automation of production would take generations and completely abolishing human labor is probably impossible. The reality is those "specialists" who control production would more than likely form a new ruling class.

The idealist would say "if the state would just leave the free market alone the system would work in perfect harmony with human nature, in fact, capitalism would be better off if the state simply didn't exist".

The materialist would point out why, in reality, the state exists- why it interferes with the market. Why coercion is necessary for capitalism to exist. Why social programs became necessary after capitalism was formed. The materialist would point out why the free market capitalists ideas aren't rooted in reality but are rooted simply in the way he thinks the world ought to be.