[hogFeast]

Actually this is just Marxist history (which isn't the same thing as political Marxism btw, it just means a history that looks at how material conditions create reality).

I didn't read the article, I am not going to but the abstract suggests it is a pretty severe interpretation (talking about relationships is risky ground imo)...you have to be careful because material conditions tend to be correlated to other stuff but it is a well-developed branch of history (particularly, economic history).

[lifeisstillgood]

Honestly that's the most convincing thing about Marxism - economics drives everything else, because if you ain't got the money you can't do anything else in the game.

[Proven]

That’s a puzzling assertion - Marxism is one of few isms that reject the fundamental principle of voluntary exchange which says in order to get what you want you need to provide the other party with something of equal or better value (in other party’s opinion) in return.

In Marxism everyone should get what they “need”. Which means no one does which eventually results in shortages and corruption.

> because if you ain't got the money you can't do anything else in the game.

And how does one “get money”? By looting? What would Marx do?

You ought to read Economics in One Lesson.

[hogFeast]

This isn't Economics...I tried to explain this in my first post. Marxist history != Marxism. They overlap significantly but most economic history until the 1990s was Marxist because it emphasised economic determinism (and, in fact, a lot of economics these days is Marxist in this sense too). The implications of economic determinism are slightly more complex (even Lenin did not completely buy it) but it is different from the layman's understanding of Marxism.

To give you an example, Adam Tooze (who has written a ton of very good books on economic history) is a Marxist historian.