Skeptic Project

You've dabbled in the field, Matt? What sorts of topics do you like?

Was it the "12 Byzantine Emperors" podcast? That ruled! I've actually talked to the guy who did that, Lars Brownworth. He's awesome. Very active on Twitter.

"Problems of Marxism

1) Problematic conception of human interest (humans are productive creatures
2) Presumes that material conditions trump human sentimentality and cultural ties
3) Fails to consider the symbology inherent in artefact and object"

Could Kaiser or someone else elaborate on number 3 for me?

Sil,

I'll elaborate that point when I get back from my run

Monst3rmind,

Everyone has summed it up pretty well. Your conception of history, especially the italian city states is pretty erroneous.

Omni,

Good thing you took AP world history. That class is worth mad college credit.

Everyone says it's one of the more notorious tests in terms of difficulty.

Is this claim valid?

I'm going to take it anyway, I just want a better idea of what I'm getting into come May.

LOL!

I'll definitely attempt the Essays... my teacher trained us really well for DBQ's, CCOT's, and Comparative essays.

As for the questions, well I actually READ the goddamn textbook (unlike maybe half of my class) so I think I can handle the multiple choice fairly well.

Ok, so, the last critique I was touching on is one that hits on Marx's over-materialization of history and objects. Essentially, Marx goes on at length accurately dissecting the different material values an object can hold. This is perhaps Marx's most profound contribution to the understanding of capitalism (though his 'solutions' are now notoriously problematic). But what I am suggesting is that Marx, rather wrongheadedly, divorces symbolic values from the production of goods in capitalism. If I am not mistaken, there are moments in Das Kapital when Marx suggests that capitalism has dehumanized our material world, and this is a function of his perception of what makes a human, well, human. But what Marx doesn't get it at is how symbolism and sentimental value actually do persist through objects, though not in a characteristically religious, talismanic, or spiritualistic fashion. If we stop to think about common values in American society such as the value of "hard work" we all can have a perception of that value without all having the same exact definition. But, that value of "hard work" is materialized in the purchasing of some object. Its not actually just materialistic selfishness (though it absolutely can be) but rather an object that represents that value of hard work. Similarly, even objects which are purchased and gifted carry much more value than simply an exchange. Objects constantly possess simultaneous meanings and values beyond Marx's simple "alienation" and "fetishism." Indeed, anthropologists have studied how, even in industrial societies, our methods of exchange are saturated with complex systems of value and symbol. And so, where Marx makes that critique that capitalism is dehumanizing and alienating, it is absolutely clear that there is a much more complicated picture. I would argue that Marx critiqued a form of capitalism that was intertwined with a fairly incompatible socio-political structure, but we don't live in these perfect systems. Human society, culture, and common life tends to make things a little more complicated.

Sorry for the long-winded post. Hope its clear. I swear I'm better spoken than my writing would have you believe.

Also, Omni- The test isn't that bad. AP Chem and Physics were way worse.

Funny story about AP history essay though. The prompt was to describe women's rights movements and the role of women before 1900. My friend, who would done none of that reading or material wrote: "According to my teacher, women didn't exist before 1919"

Kind of, although one thing I've learned is that you're always going to reinvent the wheel, so you best know that it was invented before you and how it was done. There's always value to be found in old forms of thought and theory, even if its just to recognize old systems within our newer ones. Case in point- Conspiracy movements that utilize bits and pieces of Marxist theory without being anywhere near as articulate or coherent.

nope. There never really were. But that doesnt mean theories cant help us gain insight into the parts of a system which we do utilize. Its just means you have to be smart enough to know how to apply theory.

Somalia is an example because there IS no government.