Thank you, it was a very intersting and enlightening read.
I have a question, though : it looks like the takeaway from all that is a mostly individual ethos : lead your life in a way that counteracts whatever power exists. But is there a political takeaway, too? And if so, is it always in some sense tragic : litterally, creating a power that goes against another while understanding that, if successful, would eventually need to be undermined?
Jason, this is incredible. The older I get, the more my thinking is influenced by the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Marxists have always seemed like the man who has hold of the elephant's tail and insists that it is a large snake. If you want a framework to make sense of British history from the Enclosure through the Industrial Revolution, Marxism is useful, but the idea that it is the key to understanding all of human history has always been a stretch.
As you allude, trying to make sense of the social reformers of the late 19th and early 20th century purely through a Marxist lens would leave you with a poorly cropped image. Even the labor movement itself is largely a rejection of revolutionary Marxism. Understanding the mechanics of labor exploitation is certainly useful, but it cannot fully explain the use of power in any and every human society. To do that requires a much more robust toolkit.
Thank you, it was a very intersting and enlightening read.
I have a question, though : it looks like the takeaway from all that is a mostly individual ethos : lead your life in a way that counteracts whatever power exists. But is there a political takeaway, too? And if so, is it always in some sense tragic : litterally, creating a power that goes against another while understanding that, if successful, would eventually need to be undermined?
Jason, this is incredible. The older I get, the more my thinking is influenced by the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Marxists have always seemed like the man who has hold of the elephant's tail and insists that it is a large snake. If you want a framework to make sense of British history from the Enclosure through the Industrial Revolution, Marxism is useful, but the idea that it is the key to understanding all of human history has always been a stretch.
As you allude, trying to make sense of the social reformers of the late 19th and early 20th century purely through a Marxist lens would leave you with a poorly cropped image. Even the labor movement itself is largely a rejection of revolutionary Marxism. Understanding the mechanics of labor exploitation is certainly useful, but it cannot fully explain the use of power in any and every human society. To do that requires a much more robust toolkit.