Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't know how the medium version of this hypothesis could possibly be verified. It must remain in the company of models like historical materialism that may be true, seem like they could be true, but who knows.
There is some evidence for the weakest possible version. Take this story, where Whole Foods encourages ethnic diversity as a bulwark against unionization risk. There were also leaked emails from Amazon about strategizing to fight a union vote by dividing whites and blacks, which I'm having trouble finding. (TOMT? If anyone knows what I'm talking about please confirm I did not imagine this story.) So it has actually happened at least once. How many such incidents are required to infer that this is the true primary motive behind institutions embracing DEI?
For the strong version, no evidence of such coordination exists, and the idea of such coordination existing without us finding out is IMO crazy.
"Historical materialism" another of these terms people love to shit on, without knowing where it came from.
How hard core non-materialist conception of history looks like?
It looks like this:
(context: Australian and Californian discoveries of gold in mid 19th century)
https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope108alis/page/326/mode/2up
the civilised world, was now supplied by the beneficent hand of Nature.
Yes. The Creator wisely arranged geological processes so gold deposits would accumulate in these remote lands, and then stood watch over them, smiting any dirty pagan or greasy papist who tried to touch them.
They were there since the day of creation waiting for good Anglo-Saxon protestants, coming exactly at the right time when British Empire needed increased supply of money. Awesome.
This was writted not by some obscure preacher, but by one of most esteemed historians of the time. His works, forgotten today, were frequently reprinted (Internet Archive is full of their various editions).
No one, not even the most devoted believers, could and would think and write like this today. We are all historical materialists now, Marx(PBUH) be praised. ;-)
I don't have any problem with historical materialism and believe it's probably mostly right on the money. It's not, however, something we can really verify.
You can say "changes in the mode of production in the late modern period of proto-industrialization caused the liberal revolutions of the 18th-19th century and their attendant changes in ideology and governmental structure." But you could also say "Ideas of the early Englightenment caused intellectual foment in the 18th-19th century, leading to innovation in economic organization and the reconsidering of political structures."
How do we adjudicate these claims? And even if we can prove the materialist interpretation for this particular case, does that generalize to proving materialism is the driving force of history everywhere? It sure seems like the ideas of some figures (take Jesus Christ) were pretty influential to later history, not just the type of slave plantation and tax farming system they were using in 1st century BC Rome.
Likewise, even if we eventually find a ton of evidence that lots of billionaires were cynically pushing idpol, there will inevitably be cases where idpol was pushed from sincere belief. How many examples of the first prove the model? How many counterexamples of the second disprove the model?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link