Is there a theory similar to marx's historical materialism

althusser.

File: fuccbault.jpg (29KB, 350x238px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x238px

>>8306105

>without the focus on economics

any political theory is an economic one and vice versa, that's marx 101

>about how societies have a hegemonic framework which through the fruits of this framework gives rise to a new framework which replaces it

any productive discussion ends there

the task then becomes for you to distance yourself as far as you can from the parent society till you find your sweet spot and I'm fairly certain the rest of Foucault's work after the histories of Madness and Sexuality was to fund wild underground BDSM parties

>>8306105
just read marx you retard.

this hegemonic framework nonsense is just foucalt ripping of marx's dialectic. feudalism is overthrown by the bourgeoisie which creates the proletariat which overthrows the bourgeoisie

Hegel obviously.

>>8306171
Those dogmatic slogans are universally retarded. There are many political arrangements which serve no good economic purpose. Generally the dudes on top will make sure they have money and then after that what do politicians care about how well the economy functions?

Cultural materialism via Martin Harris.

>>8306598
>There are many political arrangements
*Proceeds to mention none*

They care about how well the economy functions, because it ensures their continued wealth, and security of their current wealth, as well as their position ensuring their wealth. Ensuring their position naturally means having either financial stability for your population or some kind of tyranny.

File: 130802173153-robert-mugabe-story-top[1].jpg (56KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x360px

>>8306647
In his defense, it's impossible to know for sure whether leaders prioritize monopoly on power and personal wealth over the economy or if they're just really just stupid.

>>8306647
But people don't give a shit about the long run, they care about the moment and the near future.

Just like statistics, you can use economics to justify anything; virtually no academics believe in unrestrained capitalism yet somehow it remains a popular, well-represented idea.

Politics is how a people distribute power, masterful manipulation of rhetoric regarding the economy is important, but actually following through with a good system doesn't really matter and is actually somewhat discouraged in the modern democracies with short term limits. Why do none of the western countries pour much money into infrastructure?

>>8306479
then why didn't protestants become athiests, or pagans?

>>8306479
>the proletariat which overthrows the bourgeoisie
Sadly, Marx uses linear logic here

We now the intelligence distribution of mankind to be a gauss bell

Therefore it makes sense that ultimately we would end up with a society that appeals to maximum of the bell

>>8306479
>feudalism is overthrown by the bourgeoisie
true observation
>which creates the proletariat which overthrows the bourgeoisie
failed prediction

and he infers that there's a pattern here? even though he had to disregard literally everything before feudalism?

>>8306647
A populist politician rarely needs to have a solid economic argument. And many of the economic arguments now boil down to moralising (like austerity "we have been too sinful and now must purge ourselves" or trickle down "we are good people at the bottom and those on high will provide") or blind faith (ideologically driven universal privatisation and its related behaviour of selling off well below market value of state assets).

Look at the recent UK trident business. The only real tangible benefit to Britain having a nuclear response is (maybe possibly) maintaining a permanent seat on the UN. The Brexit vote also made no sense.

I don't disagree with Marx but it is only a lens through which to see the world and plenty of things drop through the cracks. Politics can often be economics on the small scale (tho we have been pushed into a post Keynesian world in the last few decades and this is more tenuous). And the economy related actions above can obviously intersect politics and economics, I'm just saying a lot of the time now they fit a political ideology but make no real economic sense. In the case of austerity in the UK it doesn't even exist economically.

>>8307870
>>which creates the proletariat which overthrows the bourgeoisie
>failed prediction

So far.

>>8307894
>>8307136
I appreciate the response, I may be a little idealistic in my approach.

Yes the idea of unrestrained capitalism I think maintains representation and popularity outside of academica, just because in introductory socio-economics classes the approach is purely theoretical in most cases. As well as Adam Smiths ghostly hands being held in great praise.

As for the UK Trident situation. I have to agree with you, it seems a little childish, but possibly a necessary move to keep their position as you say, after the needless brexit.