Though on the other hand, basically every self-assurance we've had that gender norms somehow magically carried over for all time has turned out to be bullshit.

Women received hunter burials in a number of notable cases[1] that we ignored because "Hurr Durr, Men Hunter, Woman Gatherer."

So, like, the pre-historic past was clearly not some perfect rehearsal of gender norms that evolutionary psychologists and bad historians want it to be.

[1] Clearly not in perfectly equal numbers, but a lot of societies seemed (as with everything we base it on limited evidence) to just let anyone who had any talent with hunting... hunt. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Scientia has existed since the classical period as a subset of philosophy. Only in the modern day does one separate science from philosophy. Come Again.
Though that is really just a case of increasing differentiation coming with increasing volume. The natural sciences used to be lumped together as "Natural Philosophy", and thus indeed a subset of philosophy, but as knowledge accumulated, society did begin to require separate fields for physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc. Also, having the natural sciences as part of philosophy led to some pretty strange stuff, like holistic theories trying to apply the same principles to maths, physics, biology etc, even when there was no causal link. I think it can absolutely be said that treating natural sciences as different from philosophy has made them far more professional and effective.
 
Which I do not disagree with. I disagree with her assertion that there were no medieval scientists, there were.
 
Which I do not disagree with. I disagree with her assertion that there were no medieval scientists, there were.
Ah right. Sorry, didn't see that!

Though, if I may suggest so, I think you two are violently agreeing. I think "back then that all fell under 'natural philosophy' ", the thing you said, is what Konradliejon meant with "that concept didn't exist in the Middle Ages" (emphasis mine).
 
Ah right. Sorry, didn't see that!

Though, if I may suggest so, I think you two are violently agreeing. I think "back then that all fell under 'natural philosophy' ", the thing you said, is what Konradliejon meant with "that concept didn't exist in the Middle Ages" (emphasis mine).

Yes exactly, they idea of peoples who's job it was to use the scientific method to objectively learn about the world wasn't a concept in the Middle Ages, and another example of anachronistically projecting modern concepts on the past. Like science was not at all separated from philosophy and art.
 
Well, "class analysis" is certainly a solid starting point as an answer.
Yeah, the ideas that "class matters" and "maybe economic conditions have an impact on what people do" are so obvious now, but weren't a major factor in how history was studied for a long, long time. (Which is why the economists who want to deny everything about Marx, including his historical analysis, can't actually find a way to root themselves in the real world at all. It turns out that material conditions do actually matter.)
I think Freud is sort-of an example? Like, he was dead wrong about every theory he came up with, but he still got the ball rolling on actually studying psychology.
He actually had one really good theory, but then all the well-to-do people he was indirectly accusing got upset and denied it so he came up with the Electra Complex instead. Because clearly his patients had to be describing fantasies, and not something that'd actually happened.

It was, for obvious reasons, a bit downhill from there. Once you take "the patient's experiences are rooted in reality" off the table, your theories are going to get a bit peculiar.
 
Though on the other hand, basically every self-assurance we've had that gender norms somehow magically carried over for all time has turned out to be bullshit.

Women received hunter burials in a number of notable cases[1] that we ignored because "Hurr Durr, Men Hunter, Woman Gatherer."

So, like, the pre-historic past was clearly not some perfect rehearsal of gender norms that evolutionary psychologists and bad historians want it to be.
Controversial historical opinion:

I dabble in evolutionary psychology, think its core concept is valid... but that it should no more be used to justify absurd sexist bullshit than "quantum mechanics" should be handwaved as a justification for why someone claims to have the psychic power to bend spoons with their mind.
 
The thing is... Mao didn't do much good at all.

Like the things he did hurt China's development, retarding it and not promoting it. China mostly benefited when he was sidelined. Every time he had control, he'd actually spend a lot of time wrecking the process of industrial development.
Certainly, I don't mind people weighing the good and bad and deciding that he was a net-negative. I just question the logic of "other people could've done the good so we won't count it".

It seems like a flawed argument.
 
The "Great Goddess" cult thing appears to have been invented in the 20th centuries by neopagans who don't do any research. There isn't really any support for it that I'm aware of. There were certainly goddesses in European pantheons who were accorded great respect/fear but the "Great Mother Goddess" appears to be just an attempt at creating a "reversed conservative christianity" religion in the modern age.
There was a push by Margaret Murray to popularize the goddess theory, but it was debunked by pretty much every actual historian who looked at it.
 
A mostly egalitarian religion that worships a Mother Goddess arising in pre-christian Europe would probably make for an interesting work of alternate history.
 
A mostly egalitarian religion that worships a Mother Goddess arising in pre-christian Europe would probably make for an interesting work of alternate history.
Nuwa-cult spreads out of China (and subsequently mutates) due to more political consolidation there earlier?

could be interesting if someone had the history chops to write it.


it's really disheartening that so many people only think of Marx in terms of communism when that was only a fraction of his work. IIRC he worked nearly a decade as a journalist, on top of his social theories like Alienation which really ought to get more attention IMO.
 
Though on the other hand, basically every self-assurance we've had that gender norms somehow magically carried over for all time has turned out to be bullshit.

Women received hunter burials in a number of notable cases[1] that we ignored because "Hurr Durr, Men Hunter, Woman Gatherer."

So, like, the pre-historic past was clearly not some perfect rehearsal of gender norms that evolutionary psychologists and bad historians want it to be.

[1] Clearly not in perfectly equal numbers, but a lot of societies seemed (as with everything we base it on limited evidence) to just let anyone who had any talent with hunting... hunt. Go figure.
I'd cite Mary Weismantel's Towards a Transgender Archaeology: A Queer Rampage Through Prehistory as great article that brings up several examples of the ways that unconscious stereotypes drive inaccurate perceptions of pre-historical societies and how we engage with the evidence presented us, such as presuming the categories 'male' and 'female' when examining historical figurines and then creating a third 'indeterminate' category that we throw all the evidence that doesn't fit our pre-established conclusions into so we don't have to engage with it, or assuming that the inhabitants of an archaeological dig site made their living arrangements according to the nuclear family model.

It's a real eye-opener.
 
He thought you could create an industrial revolution on the farm without having to cater to those dirty city folks. He thought you could substitute the proletariat with the peasant. Which was utterly against a core concept of marxism and sort of stripped away Marx's historic reasoning and the dialectics he relied on for his philosophy.

This is not something even the soviets did, despite Russia being majority peasant. The soviets were actually embarrassed of the peasantry and spent a lot of time trying to crash build a proletariat. Mao was hostile to the proletariat itself.

And the soviets were murderous about crash building a proletariat, but at least it worked, kinda?

Though if you dig into the GLF and culture rev era a bit deeper, there's stuff that worked out well locally, especially when they empowered local communities to develop stuff they already had a modicum of competence on. The great failures happened when Mao decided to write the technical part of things himself and imposed stuff across the board while ignoring both experts and local conditions. Some parts of industrialization could be somewhat distributed, even if stuff like steel really can't be. And a lot of the food distribution issues were more with party bureaucrats not reporting shit properly and having to repay USSR support in kind than just "lol sparrows".

To my knowledge, Maoists who aren't just sects or reading groups do learn from that and start the community economic building before they've fully taken over nowadays, with a less command based structure.
 
Last edited:
And the soviets were murderous about crash building a proletariat, but at least it worked, kinda?

Though if you dig into the GLF and culture rev era a bit deeper, there's stuff that worked out well locally, especially when they empowered local communities to develop stuff they already had a modicum of competence on. The great failures happened when Mao decided to write the technical part of things himself and imposed stuff across the board while ignoring both experts and local conditions. Some parts of industrialization could be somewhat distributed, even if stuff like steel really can't be. And a lot of the food distribution issues were more with party bureaucrats not reporting shit properly and having to repay USSR support in kind than just "lol sparrows".

To my knowledge, Maoists who aren't just sects or reading groups do learn from that and start the community economic building before they've fully taken over nowadays, with a less command based structure.

To be fair to both Soviet Russia and Maoist China, they both ran into the following problem:

Pre-revolution:

"How do we industrialize?"

"Marshal our human, environment, and political capital to build up a sustainable, organic industrial base."

...."How do we industrialize in less than several hundred years?"

"Squeeze the peasantry and colonies for exportable goods to import experts, machinery, and resources."

"Jolly good plan!"

Post-revolution:

"How do we industrialize?"

"Marshal our human, environment, and political capital to build up a sustainable, organic industrial base."

...."How do we industrialize in less than several hundred years?"

"Squeeze the peasantry for exportable goods to import experts, machinery, and resources."

"...Mother F*cker!"

Other than a foreign corporation / government / individuals deciding to be anomalously charitable, the only way any given nation can quickly industrialize is to find something to export for the necessary "starter goods", which is compounded as an issue in post colonial societies, since they are set up for exports... but in such a way that the social/political structures are not there for locals to benefit.

To be clear, I am not defending the gross excesses of China/Russia, but do want to highlight that those excesses are not arbitrary choices, but [wrong and damaging, but justifiable in context] logical decisions for those who made them.

Moving on, in the spirit of the thread, my controversial opinion is that Marx [and the post French Revolution communist/anarchist left in general] made a mistake by setting themselves in ideological opposition to religion, as it cemented religion almost universally as an ally of the forces of reaction and robbed them of much ability to appeal to humanities spiritual, transcendent, needs, and caused the extant communalist trends in most major religions to whither on the vine for want of political protection from the religious right. A communism deeply entwined with religion would look extremely different to what we have today - and would probably be unconsiounable for many on this forum, but I do believe it would have been superior in terms of simple ability to survive, spread, and thrive.
 
To be fair to both Soviet Russia and Maoist China, they both ran into the following problem:

Pre-revolution:

"How do we industrialize?"

"Marshal our human, environment, and political capital to build up a sustainable, organic industrial base."

...."How do we industrialize in less than several hundred years?"

"Squeeze the peasantry and colonies for exportable goods to import experts, machinery, and resources."

"Jolly good plan!"

Post-revolution:

"How do we industrialize?"

"Marshal our human, environment, and political capital to build up a sustainable, organic industrial base."

...."How do we industrialize in less than several hundred years?"

"Squeeze the peasantry for exportable goods to import experts, machinery, and resources."

"...Mother F*cker!"

Other than a foreign corporation / government / individuals deciding to be anomalously charitable, the only way any given nation can quickly industrialize is to find something to export for the necessary "starter goods", which is compounded as an issue in post colonial societies, since they are set up for exports... but in such a way that the social/political structures are not there for locals to benefit.

To be clear, I am not defending the gross excesses of China/Russia, but do want to highlight that those excesses are not arbitrary choices, but [wrong and damaging, but justifiable in context] logical decisions for those who made them.

Moving on, in the spirit of the thread, my controversial opinion is that Marx [and the post French Revolution communist/anarchist left in general] made a mistake by setting themselves in ideological opposition to religion, as it cemented religion almost universally as an ally of the forces of reaction and robbed them of much ability to appeal to humanities spiritual, transcendent, needs, and caused the extant communalist trends in most major religions to whither on the vine for want of political protection from the religious right. A communism deeply entwined with religion would look extremely different to what we have today - and would probably be unconsiounable for many on this forum, but I do believe it would have been superior in terms of simple ability to survive, spread, and thrive.

Hmm, have you ever read the TL Malê Rising , I feel like it might interest you at least a little.
 
Moving on, in the spirit of the thread, my controversial opinion is that Marx [and the post French Revolution communist/anarchist left in general] made a mistake by setting themselves in ideological opposition to religion, as it cemented religion almost universally as an ally of the forces of reaction and robbed them of much ability to appeal to humanities spiritual, transcendent, needs, and caused the extant communalist trends in most major religions to whither on the vine for want of political protection from the religious right. A communism deeply entwined with religion would look extremely different to what we have today - and would probably be unconsiounable for many on this forum, but I do believe it would have been superior in terms of simple ability to survive, spread, and thrive.

Have you read Male Rising?

Because that's the closest I can think of to that theme.


Honestly, Marx wasn't as antagonistic to religion as he was later portrayed, AFAIK. The "opiate of the masses" thing took on a very negative connotation (in no small part due to China's due anger over the Opium War), but the original line was in the context of Opium as a medicine used for analgesic purposes.
 
I think Tv Tropes says it pretty well " Maybe his most misinterpreted line is: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions." In other words, because people suffer, they turn to religion as a form of Escapism. If you want to get rid of religion, don't be an insufferable Hollywood Atheist, but get rid of the conditions that make people turn to religion in the first place. "
 
Honestly, Marx wasn't as antagonistic to religion as he was later portrayed, AFAIK. The "opiate of the masses" thing took on a very negative connotation (in no small part due to China's due anger over the Opium War), but the original line was in the context of Opium as a medicine used for analgesic purposes.

This has come up before, and no it wasn't. Marx meant opium very much as a crippling drug of people who flee into a drug haze instead of facing reality and improving matters for themselves. Marx was writing very much an anti-religious screed there, in which he even explicitly called for the abolition of religion. That was not some fancy innovation of later Marxists.

Karl Marx in the introduction to his "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right said:
For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis ["speech for the altars and hearths," i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

Marx sees religion very much as a part of the system to be overcome, and moreover, as basically the essence of that system, the thing that gives that system legitimacy. That is why this text is in the introduction to the "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law" - Marx believes that, ultimately, the entire exploitative system of Princes and capitalism is philosophically propped up by religion, which is why "the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism". Or as he put it: "The criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics." There is no difference between religion and system!

The religious attitude that everything is god-given is a direct inversion of class consciousness, a direct inversion of the awareness that society is man-made. Therefore, religion is at the centre of that system. The struggle against religion is the struggle against the exploitative system, "whose spiritual aroma is religion". Religion consoles man, but it also makes him blind to the world. It mystifies suffering and promises reward for it, in order to justify suffering. Thus: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."
 
Last edited:
Moving on, in the spirit of the thread, my controversial opinion is that Marx [and the post French Revolution communist/anarchist left in general] made a mistake by setting themselves in ideological opposition to religion, as it cemented religion almost universally as an ally of the forces of reaction and robbed them of much ability to appeal to humanities spiritual, transcendent, needs, and caused the extant communalist trends in most major religions to whither on the vine for want of political protection from the religious right. A communism deeply entwined with religion would look extremely different to what we have today - and would probably be unconsiounable for many on this forum, but I do believe it would have been superior in terms of simple ability to survive, spread, and thrive.

While this is the case for Marx, there are significant leftist movements based in religion- Liberation Theology is the first thing that comes to mind to me.

It's difficult for those groups to thrive when those religious organizations are the "forces of reaction" and crack down upon leftists in their religion. The hegemonic religious authorities will inevitably resist political upheaval, even when local priests support the common folk.
 
Last edited:
Moving on, in the spirit of the thread, my controversial opinion is that Marx [and the post French Revolution communist/anarchist left in general] made a mistake by setting themselves in ideological opposition to religion, as it cemented religion almost universally as an ally of the forces of reaction and robbed them of much ability to appeal to humanities spiritual, transcendent, needs, and caused the extant communalist trends in most major religions to whither on the vine for want of political protection from the religious right. A communism deeply entwined with religion would look extremely different to what we have today - and would probably be unconsiounable for many on this forum, but I do believe it would have been superior in terms of simple ability to survive, spread, and thrive.

In France specifically, I'm pretty sure that's because the First estate was at least as much of a problem as the second during the revolution, and even once deprived of its material holdings, remained the linchpin of the reactionary monarchical thought.

Meanwhile, in Germany or England, the church was literally the state.

I think the best place in the west where this was an option at any time is the US. And guess what? The US left was quite a bit less anti religious and even its atheist members had no issue cooperating with religious people. Because what you need is a much less centrally organized religion that isn't invested in or controlled by the bourgeois state for this to work, and the US is basically the only western place where you had neither the catholic church or a state church.

Though I guess Latin America is one place where you could have attempted to contest control of the church hierarchy, maybe? But it has its own issues due to it often being opposed to indigenous local religions with roots in the lower classes and its past as an arm of the Spanish/Portuguese colonial expansion.
 
Back
Top