There are two angles on this. There is the rejection of the humanities in favor of science and wealth, which are good things in themselves but are not everything. But, on the other hand, what many modern humanities faculties offer is a very time-bound activism that rejects books from 500 years ago and is not interested in the permanent things.
It probably doesn't help that much of the medieval liberal arts curriculum is now taught in high school using modern textbooks, much diminishing the value of learning Ancient Greek so you can study Euclid's now 2300-year-old Elements for your Master of Arts degree.
They offer generalized marxism (that isn't even generalized well. Had that slop taken over a physics department instead of humanities we would have gotten all the * studies currently plagueing us and all the rest they havent generalized to yet in the firat two weeks. Its not a good or productive look, which is why i have given up on humanities despite holding a humanities degree in economics.
Materialist analysis is not marxism although marxism is a kind of materialism-based economic analysis. Plenty of radical movements are not marxists (because Marx had a narrow understanding of the materiality of social relations), and plenty of marxists are very conservative.
As someone who's not a marxist myself, i find it weird and scary how the US neo-fascist movement lumps every social study together under the guise of "societal marxism". Or as the french neo-fascists call it, "islamo-leftism". Or as the historical nazis used to call it, "judeo-bolshevism".
Doing a little more reading, I am concerned you don't understand the point. It sounds like Materialist analysis is pretty much exactly the definition of generalized marxism. It's the framework that marx applied to the mode of production generalized to whatever you want to moan about. It's basically missing the requirement for praxis and the application of the dialectic for analysis purposes, which is present in the vast majority of the * studies generalizations of marxism I was talking about, as well as marxism itself. Which makes sense, given most of the * studies were created by butt hurt marxists by generalizing marxism away from the mode of production to <insert dichotomy you think you can use to divide society and cause strife to achieve your revolution here>
Its generalized marxism because nearly all the * studies people trace their academic lineage back to butthurt marxists watching the ussr not work and free markets turn the poor underclass marxism preys on for its power into middle class families too busy picking out their second car to have time for intensely stupid and radical marxism. Those butthurt marxists generalized the bad ideas to other dichotomies and today we have the * studies programs.
Comments
There are two angles on this. There is the rejection of the humanities in favor of science and wealth, which are good things in themselves but are not everything. But, on the other hand, what many modern humanities faculties offer is a very time-bound activism that rejects books from 500 years ago and is not interested in the permanent things.
It probably doesn't help that much of the medieval liberal arts curriculum is now taught in high school using modern textbooks, much diminishing the value of learning Ancient Greek so you can study Euclid's now 2300-year-old Elements for your Master of Arts degree.
They offer generalized marxism (that isn't even generalized well. Had that slop taken over a physics department instead of humanities we would have gotten all the * studies currently plagueing us and all the rest they havent generalized to yet in the firat two weeks. Its not a good or productive look, which is why i have given up on humanities despite holding a humanities degree in economics.
Materialist analysis is not marxism although marxism is a kind of materialism-based economic analysis. Plenty of radical movements are not marxists (because Marx had a narrow understanding of the materiality of social relations), and plenty of marxists are very conservative.
As someone who's not a marxist myself, i find it weird and scary how the US neo-fascist movement lumps every social study together under the guise of "societal marxism". Or as the french neo-fascists call it, "islamo-leftism". Or as the historical nazis used to call it, "judeo-bolshevism".
Doing a little more reading, I am concerned you don't understand the point. It sounds like Materialist analysis is pretty much exactly the definition of generalized marxism. It's the framework that marx applied to the mode of production generalized to whatever you want to moan about. It's basically missing the requirement for praxis and the application of the dialectic for analysis purposes, which is present in the vast majority of the * studies generalizations of marxism I was talking about, as well as marxism itself. Which makes sense, given most of the * studies were created by butt hurt marxists by generalizing marxism away from the mode of production to <insert dichotomy you think you can use to divide society and cause strife to achieve your revolution here>
Its generalized marxism because nearly all the * studies people trace their academic lineage back to butthurt marxists watching the ussr not work and free markets turn the poor underclass marxism preys on for its power into middle class families too busy picking out their second car to have time for intensely stupid and radical marxism. Those butthurt marxists generalized the bad ideas to other dichotomies and today we have the * studies programs.