[MrCredo]

Greetings comrades, the Communists. I don't know if you'll understand my topic, as you write through the online translator..In school studying English, but the level of knowledge missing to read complex texts and conversations. So I apologize for possible errors and strange terms.

The question I have is this: after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory of marketers market economy established around the globe, with the exception of certain countries in the blockade of the capitalist world among the Communists of the world there are many doubters in the theory of classical Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. The experience of China shows that the system can operate in the presence of a concession of a market economy and small private business, as it was in the period of 1920-ies in Soviet Russia.

But under Stalin worked the farm, cooperatives and individual peasant economy. eliminated Khrushchev during the "consolidation" of farms and conduct of contentious corporate and economic reforms in the late 1950-ies, 1960-ies-the"Kosygin reform", known in the West as the reform of Lieberman. These unskillful actions have led to the collapse of the system and a deficit in the end of 80-ies.

Stalin said that capitalism is not eternal formation of human society. That money and the commodity exchange was under feudalism and under the slave system, this means that capitalism is nothing more than a superstructure of feudalism ++.
Capitalism, he said, has a beginning and an end, imperialism was the highest point of intensity that led to two world wars and the collapse of the colonial system.

What do you think, will there be a new theory, similar to the Marxist, in terms of criticism of post-industrialism? Who will be the basis for the class struggle salariat or precariat?

[Crantag]

An interesting conversation. Excuse me for nitpicking.

Stalin said that capitalism is not eternal formation of human society. That money and the commodity exchange was under feudalism and under the slave system, this means that capitalism is nothing more than a superstructure of feudalism ++.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said this, in the Communist Manifesto.

Capitalism, he said, has a beginning and an end, imperialism was the highest point of intensity that led to two world wars and the collapse of the colonial system.

What do you think, will there be a new theory, similar to the Marxist, in terms of criticism of post-industrialism? Who will be the basis for the class struggle salariat or precariat?

V.I. Lenin is who said this, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

I certainly don't doubt though Stalin could have repeated these tenets.

[MrCredo]

An interesting conversation. Excuse me for nitpicking.

Thank you for your interest.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said this, in the Communist Manifesto.

Maybe, but I first saw this statement Stalin..

It is impossible to consider the production of commodities, as something self-contained, independent of surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed under the slave system and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed under feudalism, and served him, despite the fact that it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production did not lead to capitalism. The question is, why can't the production of commodities to serve for a certain period of our socialist society without capitalism, if you bear in mind that commodity production has no we have such an unlimited and comprehensive distribution under the capitalist conditions that they have put in strict limits thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the elimination of the wage system, the elimination of the system of exploitation?

They say that once established in our country, the dominance of public ownership of the means of production and the system of wage labor and exploitation eliminated, the existence of commodity production has lost all meaning, which would consequently eliminate the production of commodities.

This is also incorrect. Currently, there are two basic forms of socialist production: the state is a national, and collective, not as whole people. In state enterprises the means of production and the products of production are national property. In collective enterprises, although the means of production (land, machines) and owned by the state, however, the products production is the property of separate collective farms, since the labor in the collective farms, like seeds, your own, and the earth, which is transferred to the collective farms in perpetuity, farms dispose of virtually as their own property, despite the fact that they can't sell, buy, lease, or mortgage.

This circumstance leads to the fact that the government can only dispose of the products of state enterprises, while collective production, as their own property, dispose of only collective. But the collective did not want to alienate their products except in the form of goods in exchange for which they want to receive the goods they need. Other economic ties with the town except commodity than exchange through purchase and sale, at present the collective farms will not accept. Therefore, commodity production and trade we are at present the same need for what they were, say, thirty years ago, when Lenin declared the need for the full reversal of turnover.

Of course, when instead of two basic production sectors, the state and the collective, will be one comprehensive productive sector with the right to dispose of all consumer products in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy" will disappear, as an unnecessary element in the national economy. But until then, until there remain two basic production sectors, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in the system of our national economy. How happens the creation of a single combined sector, whether by simple absorption of the collective-farm sector by the public sector, which is unlikely (because it would be perceived as the expropriation of the collective farms), or through the organization of a single national body (with representation from geopromyshlenniki and collective farms) with the right of first account of consumer products in the country, and over time – distribution of production in the order of, say, the exchange of products, is a special question that requires separate discussion. Link Economic problems of socialism in the USSR 1952

V.I. Lenin is who said this, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

I certainly don't doubt though Stalin could have repeated these tenets.

They say that Lenin's thesis that imperialism inevitably generates war must be regarded as obsolete, since I grew up in now the powerful national forces in defending the world against a new world war. This is incorrect.

The modern peace movement aims to raise the masses to the struggle for the preservation of peace and for preventing a new world war. Therefore, it does not aim to overthrow capitalism, it is limited to the democratic goals of the struggle for the preservation of peace. In this respect, the modern movement for the preservation for the preservation of peace is different from the movement during the first world war for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war as it was the last movement went farther and pursued socialist aims.

It is possible that under certain circumstances, the fight for peace will develop here and there in the struggle for socialism, but it will not be the modern peace movement and the movement for the overthrow of capitalism.

It is likely that the modern peace movement, as a movement for preserving peace, if successful, will lead to the prevention of this war, to the time it is deferred, temporarily save this world, to the resignation of militant government and replace it with another government that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. It is a good thing. Even very well. But it's still not enough to destroy the inevitability of wars in General between the capitalist countries. Not enough because with all the success of the movement in defense of world imperialism, still remains, remains in force, therefore, remains in force as the inevitability of wars.

To eliminate the inevitability of wars is necessary to destroy imperialism. Link

[The Immortal Goon]

The premise of the post answers itself.

Marxism is a form of analysis, a way to look at the world and draw conclusions from it.

In a sense, you could say that Marx and Engels were v1

Kautsky, DeLeon, and Ebert were 2.0

Connolly and Lenin were 3.0

Trotsky and Stalin were various 3.5 patches

Mao was 4.0

And on from there...

It’s an imperfect way to look at it, but it does demonstrate at each level a similar process and analysis for a different world and environment.

So is there a modern interpretation of dialectic materialism?

Why yes, yes there is. Many, in fact.

[Hong Wu]

Since none of the remaining communist countries are technically Marxist, you'd think a Marxism 2.0 would be necessary.

I still, despite posting this a million times, haven't heard an explanation for how the working class became the bourgeoisie and an alliance between rich people, academicians and people who don't work became the proletariat. It's literally backwards and although western communists don't seem to want to admit it, this point is killing them in debate.

The funny thing is that if we view the classes in a technical/materialistic sense (in terms of what people actually do) Trumpism is practically a working class revolution in the United States. Materialistically, the limousine liberal is the exact embodiment of the bourgeoisie and an inverted false consciousness. Academicians wearing $100 boots and new, deliberately torn clothes pretending they're proles crawling on their bellies towards revolution but in actuality they're sipping soy lattes, doing drugs and going to orgies.

[The Immortal Goon]

Since none of the remaining communist countries are technically Marxist, you'd think a Marxism 2.0 would be necessary.

As described, this has been occurring for more than a century.

I still, despite posting this a million times, haven't heard an explanation for how the working class became the bourgeoisie and an alliance between rich people, academicians and people who don't work became the proletariat.

The explanation is that this didn’t occur.

It's literally backwards and although western communists don't seem to want to admit it, this point is killing them in debate.

You seem to think that ideology is material reality. It is not.

The funny thing is that if we view the classes in a technical/materialistic sense (in terms of what people actually do) Trumpism is practically a working class revolution in the United States.

Indeed. There is a phenomenon Marx wrote about in his work about Bonapartism.

More to the point, it goes under the fact that Marxists view material reality as important, not people’s kooky thoughts or feelings wrapped up into an officially sanctioned bourgeois ideology.

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply meant to comprise all the spheres – political, juridical, philosophical, theological – belonging to society and not only to nature), the ideologist dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through an independent series of developments in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining influence on this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully digested the hardest facts.

It is above all this appearance of an independent history of state constitutions, of systems of law, of ideological conceptions in every separate domain, which dazzles most people. If Luther and Calvin “overcome” the official Catholic religion, or Hegel “overcomes” Fichte and Kant, or if the constitutional Montesquieu is indirectly “overcome” by Rousseau with his “Social Contract,” each of these events remains within the sphere of theology, philosophy or political science, represents a stage in the history of these particular spheres of thought and never passes outside the sphere of thought. And since the bourgeois illusion of the eternity and the finality of capitalist production has been added as well, even the victory of the physiocrats and Adam Smith over the mercantilists is accounted as a sheer victory of thought; not as the reflection in thought of changed economic facts but as the finally achieved correct understanding of actual conditions subsisting always and everywhere – in fact if Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced free trade instead of getting mixed up in the crusades we should have been spared five hundred years of misery and stupidity.

This side of the matter, which I can only indicate here, we have all, I think, neglected more than it deserves.

Materialistically, the limousine liberal is the exact embodiment of the bourgeoisie and an inverted false consciousness.

They aren’t the embodiment, they are the bourgeoisie. And so is the billionaire in a mansion on a ranch listening to Rush. You seem to think we would regard a material classification as something other than it is because they’re with at a bourgeoisie party you don’t like.

We regard them all as needing to be liquidated.

Academicians wearing $100 boots and new, deliberately torn clothes pretending they're proles crawling on their bellies towards revolution but in actuality they're sipping soy lattes, doing drugs and going to orgies.

Oh man, you make academics sound so much more awesome than it is. 80% or academics are part time, and an increasing amount of the women are being forced to go into sex work while the rest of us clean toilets and work it restaurants.

But you are talking about the 20%, or in other times and places in which this wasn’t the case.

But nobody has ever claimed that academics were not part of a bourgeois superstructure of society. Again, this seems like some kind of ideology pushed down your throat that we would dispute this. On the contrary.

The issue here is what to do with the information. Your Maoists and some others might well ignore it and go on. Your Leninist would say that the educated are important to work against their own class and aid in the emancipation of the proletariat:

We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.[2] The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.

[MrCredo]

The premise of the post answers itself.

Marxism is a form of analysis, a way to look at the world and draw conclusions from it.

In a sense, you could say that Marx and Engels were v1

Kautsky, DeLeon, and Ebert were 2.0

Connolly and Lenin were 3.0

Trotsky and Stalin were various 3.5 patches

Mao was 4.0

And on from there...

It’s an imperfect way to look at it, but it does demonstrate at each level a similar process and analysis for a different world and environment.

So is there a modern interpretation of dialectic materialism?

Why yes, yes there is. Many, in fact.

Well, it's true. The teachings of Marx and Engels that the development of his followers. If you stretch the filament, it is clearly seen that the most successful were Marxism-Leninism and its sequel Stalinism-Maoism that is now the ideology of China. So if you combine the "new economic policy" of Lenin with the state Corporation of Stalin, it turns out it is a successful product, as is done in modern China "one country-two systems".

The people of the country invests in state-owned banks and they are under the patronage of the state, the risk of bankruptcy of the state is minimal.
Private sector and foreign companies are in the "sandbox" living according to the laws of the market economy of capitalism. All permanent economic crisis is raging in this sandbox without affecting the foundations of the state. While governments of the capitalist countries dampen the crisis trillions of dollars rescuing banks and corporations, the hybrid system of China makes investment in major projects, providing jobs and orders in his country and the capitalist countries.

It turns out you need teaching with a conditional name of "Marxism 5.0", which takes into account the industrial revolution 4.0 Link Klaus Schwab Link , what is happening at the present time. You have to understand that the proletariat was added to the undefined class "the precariat" by Guy Standing (the Precariat: the new dangerous class Link) and the digital world, IT technologies.

P/S The operating system of the economy and foreign trade is on a fast SSD disk, state corporations and banks to HDD slow. The party of Communists-memory, the Politburo-the Central processor. If it is to draw an analogy with the computer.

[Hong Wu]

So TIG, if you agree with me that Trumpism is similar to a working class revolution, why is it you're always against Trump and can be found attacking America's working class in every thread?

[The Immortal Goon]

Well, it's true. The teachings of Marx and Engels that the development of his followers. If you stretch the filament, it is clearly seen that the most successful were Marxism-Leninism and its sequel Stalinism-Maoism that is now the ideology of China. So if you combine the "new economic policy" of Lenin with the state Corporation of Stalin, it turns out it is a successful product, as is done in modern China "one country-two systems".

Though I don't agree with every Chinese policy, I for instance think it's balanced too much to the capitalist market, one cannot disagree with the results.

I also think there's something to be said for the combination of things. If, for instance, there was a development of fusion power, it is difficult to imagine the capitalist powers putting it in place. Who would bother paying for limitless clean power to be distributed for everyone?

It is not difficult to imagine the Chinese jumping on the concept, however.

So TIG, if you agree with me that Trumpism is similar to a working class revolution, why is it you're always against Trump and can be found attacking America's working class in every thread?

I'm not sure what in my post wasn't clear. I'll try to write the same thing.

Marxism is form of analysis

The working class, like every class, is driven by material conditions; ideology is ultimately a manifestation of material condition. This does not make every ideology lead back to the emancipation of the proletariat. In fact, more often than not, as a result of material conditions, ideology is used to perpetuate the system which created it.

Sometimes, people under sway of ideology do things not good for people as whole. This include voting for anyone endorsed by dictatorship of bourgeoisie--Democrat or Republican.

Trump not a special snowflake.

[Victoribus Spolia]

ideology is ultimately a manifestation of material condition.

This epitomizes the error of Marxism. Perfectly.

[The Immortal Goon]

This epitomizes the error of Marxism. Perfectly.

If it is an error to say that ideology reflects the material world, then I would ask why Ancient Greeks did not get into arguments about solving stagflation with praxiology or a positivist outlook?

Why didnt the Lakota practice fiat capitalism before the arrival or the Europeans?

Why did the Romans have nothing to say about universal human rights for their slaves?

Certainly the answer is that how they contexualized their existance, their ideologies, were dependent upon the world that they live in.

This cannot be a controversial thing to assume...

[Victoribus Spolia]

This cannot be a controversial thing to assume...

Its certainty not controversial, but it is fallacious.

Assert1: European markets did not mass import silk and and spikenard until after the Crusades.
Assert2: Europeans as consequence of certain actions (the Crusades), made changes to their material exchanges (the Importation of said goods).
Conclusion: Therefore the Crusades were fought for the purpose of material exchanges.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

If it is an error to say that ideology reflects the material world, then I would ask why Ancient Greeks did not get into arguments about solving stagflation with praxiology or a positivist outlook?

Why didnt the Lakota practice fiat capitalism before the arrival or the Europeans?

Why did the Romans have nothing to say about universal human rights for their slaves?

These examples beg the question, you assume that only a material explanation can obtain in observed correlations such as these.

It could be easily argued, in every single instance you mention, that the ideological construction of these societies prevented them from implementing such systems and may have even made them incomprehensible or abhorrent.

Lets inverse the questions:

Why did the Lakota worship the natural world in relation to the non-implementation of a fiat currency?

How are universal rights compatible with Roman stoicism or rural polytheism?

Material gain is nothing but the spoils resulting from the observed consequences of human expansive energy, and the maintenance thereof. The manner in which such is done is made to conform to varying interests and to varying degrees of success based on social vitality, values, technological conditions, brilliance, or lack thereof.

Nothing more, nothing less.

To assert that material conditions, as historically observed, are the determiner of ideological presuppositions based on observed correlations or sequence is a fallacy, to assert such as an axiom is fideism.

[The Immortal Goon]

Its certainty not controversial, but it is fallacious...
These examples beg the question, you assume that only a material explanation can obtain in observed correlations such as these.

It is the most likely scenario. How often did you chat about the internet before there was an internet? That doesn't mean people didn't have the idea of being able to use a picture phone, or send information via air and wires, but people also had the idea of us flying around in jetpacks.

The internet is full of ideas that did not become reality.

To assert that material conditions, as historically observed, are the determiner of ideological presuppositions based on observed correlations or sequence is a fallacy, to assert such as an axiom is fideism.

This all being said, as when we first ran across each other, this is going to have to be something we simply disagree with. It is a fundamental difference in world outlook and there is nothing to be done about this.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It is the most likely scenario. How often did you chat about the internet before there was an internet? That doesn't mean people didn't have the idea of being able to use a picture phone, or send information via air and wires, but people also had the idea of us flying around in jetpacks.

The internet is full of ideas that did not become reality.

Once again, this works both ways. historical correlations and predictions are made, with relative success, by a plethora of interpretive frameworks. The assertion of their truthfulness as causal (metaphysically necessary) is where one gets into fallacious territory, and only those that have an almost perfect rate of predictive power and pattern of establish correlatives can even be given the low-bar title of having discovered a "natural law." Newton did this once in science, for what, like 300 years?

This all being said, as when we first ran across each other, this is going to have to be something we simply disagree with. It is a fundamental difference in world outlook and there is nothing to be done about this.

I, of course, agree with this assessment and I cannot help but notice that our interaction always seems to end this way quite to the contrary of your usual interactions with other "right-wingers" here on PoFo. Why is that I wonder?

Are we building up to something in the future?

[Tainari88]

It is possible that under certain circumstances, the fight for peace will develop here and there in the struggle for socialism, but it will not be the modern peace movement and the movement for the overthrow of capitalism.

It is likely that the modern peace movement, as a movement for preserving peace, if successful, will lead to the prevention of this war, to the time it is deferred, temporarily save this world, to the resignation of militant government and replace it with another government that is prepared temporarily to keep the peace. It is a good thing. Even very well. But it's still not enough to destroy the inevitability of wars in General between the capitalist countries. Not enough because with all the success of the movement in defense of world imperialism, still remains, remains in force, therefore, remains in force as the inevitability of wars.

To eliminate the inevitability of wars is necessary to destroy imperialism. Link

Mr. Credo you got it exactly right. Destroying IMPERIALISM is the only way to end the wars. The only way. If you don't? You are doomed to this constant non stop greed and war for other people's, nation's or state's resources in human labor, material resources like minerals, foods, land, and access in the future to clean potable water, arable land, and clean air, that also is unfortunately a motive for future wars with so many places being polluted and contaminated beyond repair for the next hundreds of years. Wars are inevitable with the imperialistic thought processes and the military industrial complex that supports it.

I am for life. Not for death. So? Imperialism has to go!! It has to go!!

[The Immortal Goon]

I, of course, agree with this assessment and I cannot help but notice that our interaction always seems to end this way quite to the contrary of your usual interactions with other "right-wingers" here on PoFo. Why is that I wonder?

Are we building up to something in the future?

Because you don't claim that your argument is based upon any kind of material reality or otherwise self-evident. I cannot, nor do I particularly wish to, argue over something that cannot be quantified, measured, or understood. This is why I find arguing about religion not particularly interesting. I have nothing to add that nobody else does, so it's talking in constant circles and pretending to employ logic based upon something immeasurable. My mother prays to St. Anthony whenever she loses anything. I can make an argument that it makes her feel better, or maybe helps her focus, or anything else. But I don't know why she does it, I can't measure how much it helps her for whatever reason. So why debate it?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Because you don't claim that your argument is based upon any kind of material reality or otherwise self-evident.

This is a caricature.

That "materialism" as a metaphysical presupposition is valid, is not a quantifiable claim either (in point of fact) under such a ridiculous criteria. Its not an empirically verifiable claim that reality is a causally closed, mind-independent, and self-sustaining existence. That such can be evaluated by the laws of logic through discourse as to whether such propositions are true or false, emphatically, can be done.

Or is all this talk of logic too bourgeois for you?

This is why I find arguing about religion not particularly interesting. I have nothing to add that nobody else does, so it's talking in constant circles and pretending to employ logic based upon something immeasurable.

This claim is very interesting to me, "pretending to employ logic."

You either have used logic or you haven't, if a position is valid, its propositions can be demonstrated in a syllogism, with the conclusion following from the premises without fallacy or error. This can be established, it is not measured with a yard stick, but it is measured nonetheless. Whether you are "up to" the challenge is a completely different matter altogether.

My mother prays to St. Anthony whenever she loses anything. I can make an argument that it makes her feel better, or maybe helps her focus, or anything else. But I don't know why she does it, I can't measure how much it helps her for whatever reason. So why debate it?

Those are feelings and beliefs, that is not what I am advocating, but since your mind has been soaked in the folly of physicalism for so long you do not seem able to differentiate between a metaphysical position that makes claims and someone's mere "credo," "sentiments," and "prayer-habits."

Let me be clear on this, my position has specific claims that I can demonstrate by the laws of logic. Just as you would likely claim so for your so-called "system."

In my worldview, I deny physical causation, and the existence of mind-independent substance. I affirm the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Trinitarian Deity that is the basis for all perceptual reality by reason of necessity.

Your system supposes a mind-independent reality that acts according to its own inherent nature in patterns that you claim to describe with a "dialectic" which manifests itself in the natural world as well as with the history of human affairs.

Both our positions make claims about human nature, and extrapolate from this assumed nature, qualities that we then use as the basis for making predictions and prescriptions of a historical, sociological, and political nature.

The thing is, your position is irrational and cannot be substantiated. Mine can.

Whenever you are ready to have this conversation, I will be ready with my 21 year old Scotch and English Tobacco.

Until then.

Adieu.

[Crantag]

I have some thoughts on the idea of historical materialism, which I'll readily admit are somewhat shallow because I haven't studied the philosophy in a lot of depth, but do understand it from the standpoint of some implications on economics theory.

I find the logic of historical materialism to be somewhat infallible, but the application of the principles which follow necessarily extend only so far as this said-same recognition of the forces as existing.

Scientific analysis is deductive in process, and the utility of deduction is constrained when it comes to metaphysical analysis.

Yet, the ability to recognize the material basis of all existence properly equips one to take an objective lens to contemporaneous states of things. This is achieved by properly placing the present into dynamic paths and processes, related to the evolutionary character of societies.

I've never read a serious theorist who purports to practice inductive historical materialism, but such a thing is decidedly not Marxist.

[Tainari88]

I have some thoughts on the idea of historical materialism, which I'll readily admit are somewhat shallow because I haven't studied the philosophy in a lot of depth, but do understand it from the standpoint of some implications on economics theory.

I find the logic of historical materialism to be somewhat infallible, but the application of the principles which follow necessarily extend only so far as this said-same recognition of the forces as existing.

Scientific analysis is deductive in process, and the utility of deduction is constrained when it comes to metaphysical analysis.

Yet, the ability to recognize the material basis of all existence properly equips one to take an objective lens to contemporaneous states of things. This is achieved by properly placing the present into dynamic paths and processes, related to the evolutionary character of societies.

I've never read a serious theorist who purports to practice inductive historical materialism, but such a thing is decidedly not Marxist.

It is not Marxist in the least. In terms of economics we never are going to be talking or analyzing things via a religious perspective--though I do like to use "Worshiping the Golden Calf" which is biblical language. In capitalist societies money almost becomes like a religious worship when it should be just economics. That is it.

I like almost everything you write @Crantag .

[Victoribus Spolia]

I find the logic of historical materialism to be somewhat infallible,

You are correct, you are haven't studied philosophy in depth.

Scientific analysis is deductive in process

Making predictions based on past experiences is inductive not deductive. Thus, most science is inductive, with the exception of the hypothetico-deductive method (also known as the scientific method), which is technically fallacious anyway (affirming the consequent).

the utility of deduction is constrained when it comes to metaphysical analysis.

An absurd claim, deduction is metaphysical analysis par excellence.

the ability to recognize the material basis of all existence

A claim that itself must first be verified. Not merely assumed.

his is achieved by properly placing the present into dynamic paths and processes, related to the evolutionary character of societies.

Begging the question if materialism as a metaphysical position is not first established.

I've never read a serious theorist who purports to practice inductive historical materialism, but such a thing is decidedly not Marxist.

Depends on whether any Marxist claims are based on the observations of past events, which they clearly are in their assessment of historical events such as the evolution of feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism, etc, etc. This by definition is inductive (all inductive inferences are also fallacious if not merely descriptive btw; fallacy of composition), for one cannot infer from particular observances a definitive claim. Likewise, Marxism goes further to claim, as was claimed in this thread, that material conditions were the causal grounds of ideology, which is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc if making this claim based on past events or in making predictions from such, and the claim is fallacious, cum hoc ergo hoc, when inferring this conclusion from a description of present events. Because neither observed sequences or correlations can establish causation. Only logical necessity can do that, and nothing of the sort has been, or could be, provided for the claim that material conditions are the necessary grounds of idealogical commitments.

The claim is asinine and irrational.