3 ms·
What? He's citing facts. (True, he hasn't cited any for the proposition that political structure is important. There are some to cite, though. For instance,
by AnimalMuppet 2y ago
What? He's citing facts. (True, he hasn't cited any for the proposition that political structure is important. There are some to cite, though. For instance, see China's 12th-century revolution in iron production that was shut down because the politicians didn't like it.)
To me, it sounds like you are so sensitive to a particular axe being ground that you can't hear it when there's objective evidence to support the viewpoint that you're nervous about.
- bowsamic 2y agoI imagine the person you’re replying to is a Marxist
- gumby 2y agoYour sentence is a refreshing (for these days) example use of their term in a normative, rather than political and/or pejorative sense. Marxism is really a consequence of the Victorian era, despite Marx and Engles being German. It is the fruit of not just the economic system of the mid-late 19th century but its social values as well. It makes no sense for the prior period of early industrialization. Also Britain’s political emphasis of commercial activity predates significant industrialization — just look at the enclosure laws and Corn Laws, and compare them to the contemporary extractive view towards commerce in France.
- bowsamic 2y agoThe reason I said it is because they seemed to be implicitly dismissing anything that isn't a historical material factor (i.e. dismissing an ideological explanation that doesn't address the historical material conditions)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]