Nakena wrote:Byzconia wrote:Dialectical materialism is actually a fine way to look at history. A class-based look at history can fill in a lot of gaps and re-contextualize popular events (as Howard Zinn has proven, even if he does go off the rails every now and then). The only real issue is how Marxists try to use it to predict the future and insist that it's some kind of law of history that must be obeyed. Still, it has far more value in history than Libertarian praxis does in economics.
Thats my main problem indeed with Diamat and why I am opposed to it because it then becomes a totalitarian and only true worldview than merely one possible model amongst many.
Yeah, pretty much. Dogmatic beliefs like that are emblematic of totalitarian systems. It's why Marxism (and especially Marxism-Leninism) often ends up looking a lot more like a religion than any Marxist would dare admit. That said, it does raise the question of what would've happened if libertarian communists (like Rosa Luxembourg or council communists) had come to power at any point. Would they have stayed the course or would they resort to more authoritarian means when their predictions started to fail?
Honestly, I sometimes wonder how Marx himself would've reacted to something like the Soviet Union. I could honestly see arguments either way.