‘Vulgar Marxism’ and historiography in the 20th century

by bloopsnoots

Being cooped up has its advantages - I’ve listened to every single episode of ‘Byzantium and Friends’ by Anthony Kaidelis this week. One comment from an interviewee stuck out to me though. She said she ‘wasn’t a vulgar marxist.’ This seemed like an inside historian baseball joke. Where can I find resources about Marxist historiography, pro and anti, during the last century? And can someone with a professional historical background explain why ‘vulgar marxism’ might be a joke?

Libertat

There's a lot on the topic to be said and this short answer on marxist historiography and vulgar marxism could easily be completed. Roughly, "Vulgar Marxism" is less of a joke in itself, than an historiographical tendency that, according Eric Hobsbwawm, could be defined trough

  • A more or less strict "economism"; as in economic factors being not only predominant but all-powerful.
  • The use of infrastructure/superstructure as a down-top and mechanistic device
  • Class struggle as the sole motor and "fundamental law" of History
  • Objectivity of Marxism in all fields, including History, as a revolutionary theory and denial or disinterest of other fields/theories as based on the "wrong" classes or ideologies.

Depending on the context, "not being a vulgar marxist" could mean not being someone that things economic factors have the last word in historical analytics, that class relationship explains literally everything, and that opposing views might be flawed politically.