Historical materialism - Wikipedia
Marx and Weber: Critics of Capitalism | New Politics
Social anarchists have typically been much more interested in and sensitive to questions of space, place and environment (core concepts that I think most geographers would accept as central to their discipline). The Marxist tradition, on the whole, has been lamentably short on interest in such topics. It has also largely ignored urbanization and urban social movements, the production of space and uneven geographical developments (with some obvious exceptions such as Lefebvre and the Anglo-French International Journal of Urban and Regional Research that began in 1977, and in which Marxist sociologists played a prominent founding role). Only relatively recently (e.g. since the 1970s) has mainstream Marxism recognized environmental issues or urbanization and urban social movements as having fundamental significance within the contradictions of capital. Back in the 1960s, most orthodox Marxists regarded environmental issues as preoccupations of petite bourgeois romanticists (this was what infuriated Murray Bookchin who gave vent to his feelings in his widely circulated essay, “Listen, Marxist!”, from 1971’s Post- Scarcity Anarchism).
Marx and Weber: Critics of Capitalism, by ..
When I came onto the project in the late 1970s, also influentialfor me were Marxism and the ideological critique of romantic authorship sincethese theories assumed a historical materialist base. This philosophicalposition was much more credible to explain history and historical change. Italso fit with my biography as a working-class daughter who was a first-generationcollege student. Itmatched my political progressivism. Turning to an eclectic group of Marxisttheorists—Harry Braverman, Raymond Williams, Jean-Louis Comolli, John Ellis,Louis Althusser, and other analyses of modes of production—I looked for(and found) valuable explanations about how and why labor divided and constructedsystems of bureaucracy and work patterns to insure both the standardization anddifferentiation of an entertainment product. One of the points that I stressedwas that “what was occurring was not a result of a Zeitgeist orimmaterial forces. The sites of the distribution of these practices werematerial: labor, professional, and trade associations, advertising materials,handbooks, film reviews” (CHC, 89). Although I had not beenreading contemporaneous structural-functionalist production of culture literatureby Howard Becker, Paul DiMaggio, Paul Hirsch, Richard A. Peterson, and others,similar general issues permeated both sets of literature even if the theoreticalexplanations differed.