Marx’s specific model is not fully explanatory, no, I would agree with that. But I don’t get why you’re painting this as an attack on dialectical materialism, because dialectical materialism is not a model of history. If you supplemented Marx’s model, improved upon it and added more detail, this would still be within the framework of dialectical materialism, or else it’s not worth taking seriously. You would still need to stick to a material analysis, and it’s impossible to speak on things without categorizing them, so you would still need to introduce labels for categories to talk about, i.e. “classes,” and those would still need to be rooted in material reality.
I have seen many analyses that were fairly interesting that were not explicit to Marx. For example, I recall one author argued that people who engage largely in domestic work, such as stay-at-home wives, don’t entirely have the same relations to production as those who work under an employer, and so they should be treated as their own class, meaning the differences in their labor and their interests deserve their own analysis, and they further argued that the “domestic economy” in general deserves much more study, since most Marxian texts only tend to focus on the wage labor economy, and older ones with the peasant economy, part of this being due to the fact that domestic labor isn’t paid and therefore tends to not be tracked.
Maybe you agree with it, maybe you don’t, but I did think it was interesting thing to consider. They were arguing precisely what you siad: in factor of “extra complications and nuances” rather than just ignoring domestic work or lumping domestic laborers into the same category as wage laborers and thus treating them as “the same,” which misses the nuance between them. But, they weren’t just simply arguing for extra complications a nuances for their own sake, but arguing for it to improve upon and construct a more detailed material analysis.
That is just one example I recall prominently from the top of my head, but it’s meant to illustrate a simple point. I will take your “extra complications and nuances” as something worthy of consideration if, and only if, it is still following a dialectical materialist analysis. There are tons of authors, like Bernardo Kastrup, who tries to introduce “extra complications and nuances” into physics, but his complications are all idealist mumbo jumbo incoherent voodoo nonsense, so he’s not worth taking seriously.
Additions to physics, as well as additions to historical materialist analysis, should not be idealist nonsense and should still be compatible with dialectical materialism in nature or they are not worth considering.
Marx’s specific model is not fully explanatory, no, I would agree with that. But I don’t get why you’re painting this as an attack on dialectical materialism, because dialectical materialism is not a model of history. If you supplemented Marx’s model, improved upon it and added more detail, this would still be within the framework of dialectical materialism, or else it’s not worth taking seriously. You would still need to stick to a material analysis, and it’s impossible to speak on things without categorizing them, so you would still need to introduce labels for categories to talk about, i.e. “classes,” and those would still need to be rooted in material reality.
I have seen many analyses that were fairly interesting that were not explicit to Marx. For example, I recall one author argued that people who engage largely in domestic work, such as stay-at-home wives, don’t entirely have the same relations to production as those who work under an employer, and so they should be treated as their own class, meaning the differences in their labor and their interests deserve their own analysis, and they further argued that the “domestic economy” in general deserves much more study, since most Marxian texts only tend to focus on the wage labor economy, and older ones with the peasant economy, part of this being due to the fact that domestic labor isn’t paid and therefore tends to not be tracked.
Maybe you agree with it, maybe you don’t, but I did think it was interesting thing to consider. They were arguing precisely what you siad: in factor of “extra complications and nuances” rather than just ignoring domestic work or lumping domestic laborers into the same category as wage laborers and thus treating them as “the same,” which misses the nuance between them. But, they weren’t just simply arguing for extra complications a nuances for their own sake, but arguing for it to improve upon and construct a more detailed material analysis.
That is just one example I recall prominently from the top of my head, but it’s meant to illustrate a simple point. I will take your “extra complications and nuances” as something worthy of consideration if, and only if, it is still following a dialectical materialist analysis. There are tons of authors, like Bernardo Kastrup, who tries to introduce “extra complications and nuances” into physics, but his complications are all idealist mumbo jumbo incoherent voodoo nonsense, so he’s not worth taking seriously.
Additions to physics, as well as additions to historical materialist analysis, should not be idealist nonsense and should still be compatible with dialectical materialism in nature or they are not worth considering.