The Materialist Conception of History and its Dissenters

[coldjwplay]

The book Comparative Religion is proving interesting, even though the author is rather prone to the late Victorian and early twentieth century vice of peppering what is really a fairly academic book with irrelevant and slightly awkward anecdotes. The following, the closing sentences of Chapter IV, is a good example of an interesting point followed

Comments

[prolefood]

It is impressive how the author lists the developments that led to a surplus of production - yet he arrives at such an odd conclusion that has so little to do with the facts he has just mentioned.

Question, is the materialist conception of history really that difficult to grasp? Is it more what Marx says in the last paragraph of your quote "[I]n its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors?"

[coldjwplay]

I think that it's likely a combination of the two

[prolefood]

Well stated.

The discussion brings to my mind a few considerations.

I completely agree that neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, and fascism use elements of a materialist conception of history to develop their philosophical views (especially in the economic realm). I think it is interesting that you mention morality. Would you agree, along the lines of Trotsky, that the Marxist conception of historical materialism is essentially amoral, without a moral quality? Does that also lead to the difficulty in understanding Marx's conception of historical materialism?

Do you think the Frankfurt School and Critical Theorists harmed modern understanding of historical materialism? I have often read descriptions of Marcuse and Adorno as "brilliant dialecticians." I wonder if their convoluted style did more harm than good to clarify postmodern analysis on the materialist concept.