Marx and engles weren’t the same person

Engels and Marx differed in a lot of ways and although I like Engles, he was responsible for a lot of bullshit in Marxism. In particular, I feel like Engels extending dialectics to the natural world rather than confining it to the social sphere like Marx did was the biggest meme in Marxism. Mao’s on contradiction is pure cancer and I think you can trace the cancer back to Engels.

Thoughts? Am I a brainlet ?

Other urls found in this thread:

You're going to need to expand on this, this sounds very, very wild.

Why so?

Could you elaborate on this?
I’m also pretty sure he wrote to Darwin and said that origin of species proves their materialist dialectics correct. I think appeals to nature are always massive memes.

I think Mao’s position in on contradiction is incredibly misleading. Dialectics isn’t just “see there are always things opposes to one another in nature and in policies and stuff.” It reads almost like a religious text

Explain this more in detail. You're being incredibly vague. How does Mao's essay "read like a religious text"?

i mean, its modernist ideological trash

How do you not see the material world dialectically! How is evolution not a great example of a dialectical processes impacting each other, and reproducing the real world? I don't think this is an appeal to nature, it is simply an example of "the dialectics in motion". An animal is impacted upon by its environment, the animal impacts its environment, impacts another animal, and in this process a new animal is made, and so on, and so on until you have a wholly different animal. How is this not dialectical materialism?

Appeals to nature like this rub me the wrong way. They seem to be transforming dialectics into a form of mysticism

So what? Mao's examples are correct, aren't they?

Because I think it’s crudely applying a theory of social development to nature. I understand your point but I think as a Marxist the one charge of Marxism that I think really sits wrong for me is that many Marxists attempt to apply Marxism to all facets of human existence.
On your point about evolution though, Stephen J Gould was actually accused of applying Marxism to evolution with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. Basically the idea is that the fossil record doesn’t actually show us a smooth transition between stages of life. The traditional Darwinist explanation was we just haven’t found them yet but we will. Punctuated equilibrium basically says that species evolve rather quickly (still hundreds of thousands of years but in terms of evolution quickly) when exposed to very strong environmental pressures.

What is crude about seeing nature as forces impacting on one another to create the real, material world we live in? More so, what is the alternative? I'll even take a further point, how is dialectical materialism not applicable to literally (literally) every facet of existence.
Cool story about evolution though. I'm not personally knowledgeable about it, but it is cool to learn

DiaMat can be easily proven through evolution and understanding nature. We know everything is in a constant state of flux, correct? And that everything is interconnected with everything else, correct? So, how is it incorrect to apply DiaMat through observing the natural world?

I see where you're going with this.

When will Name fags give up living.

I just feel like it’s rather vague to say things are connected and in flux. It strikes me as the sort of wide ranging assertions that can be made in pseudo science. I know because my girlfriend was into naturopathy when I met her and she said stuff like it’s “holistic.” Maybe you comrades can point me in the direction of more works about dialectical materialism, I’ll admit it’s probably my least understood element of Marxism.

If we're gonna be mad at attention whores for living then the landwhale Roo is the first who has to go

Why are modern Maoists almost universally retarded? I feel like in the 70s all the good Marxists were Maoists but today they’re like bottom of the barell

Evolution isn't homeopathy if that's what you're trying to get at. How else can you explain the interworkings of nature without using a dialectical framework?

The best thing Roo could do for internet Marxism is delete his channel, blog, Twitter, and the entirety of his online presence. He does far more to kill online agitation than promote it.

deleting twitter as a service is a win for leftist politics abroad tbh

You know, I knew when I posted that it could be seen as defending Anal Water, or Roo, and I should have immediately avoided that shame and clarified it. Let it be known that I will personally commit Roo and Anal Water as PTBP.

Perhaps I was being to general. Dialectical Materialism is a framework for viewing the world, not a diagnosis of causes for something, other than the broad sense. You can't justify something with "It's the dialectics in motion", for example. I really can't empathize with you seeing dialectics as pseudoscience. Science is just studying dialectics, really.
You want pdfs eh? I can personally vouch for Politzers piece but I haven't read m&ec. It is written by Lenin however, and the good boys at Marx recommended it.

*deleting all social media as a service


Person to be purged.

Thanks m8

Not him, but one more. It's mostly from a Hegelian viewpoint though.

He wrote some stuff that could be considered a proto-thesis for national liberation, which triggers the entire ultra brigade and gave life to the meme of "Engels was the first revisionist".

TBH every time I hear this I can't help but giggle.


This is becoming another one of those clichés that people parrot without checking the literature to see if it's true.

this in and of itself isn't mystical at all, he's simply stating that evolution is analogous to how dialectics works. I am skeptical of appeals to nature myself, but there's nothing inherently wrong with what you quoted, at least in as far as I understand evolution.

Actually, Marx also applied it to nature but stayed contradictional in its philosophical implications. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." is simply wrong. Consciousness does influence being, too. Through neurofeedback brain can be changed thanks to a metaphysical entity of the self. Through observation subatomic particles can be changed thanks to a metaphysical entity of the general law of nature. Engels anticipated partly the scope, Marx only reacted to in the biological circumstances.

It's only mystic because it isn't scientific established. Current research suggests its true (e.g. quantum mechanics and neuropsychology).

When Engels extend dialectics to the natural world it doesn't mean that nature is dialectic, it means that reality can be described in a lot of ways.

Also only bad marxists don't like Engels.

While theoretically (and scientifically – see Sartre's critique in Critique of Dialectical Reason) wrong, I get how this could have been a conscious ideological move on Mao's part: since naturalization is one of the archetypes of ideology, as a first step you could dialecticize the already naturalized totality (that devoured into itself the social) in order to bring out the repressed by letting its (dialectical) logic dominate.

nobody's going to mention that OP is obviously A.W.?

Well of course one might realize that Engels' biggest mistake was legitimizing the label of "Marxist."

That's a lot of words to write "free will".

How come? It's not exactly a new idea.




What makes you think so?

t. brainlet

Explain yourself, idealist.

OP pls

Anal Water has said himself he's not a materialist and called DiaMat a "garbage philosophy" in one of his videos.

No, it states that sometimes organisms go through bouts of intense selective pressure. For example, mass extinction events and the ensuing diversification to fill empty niches. A good example is the emergence of jawed fish and ensuing evolutionary arms races during the Silurian just after the Ordovician mass extinction. During other times a species might have a rather small selection differential between generations. It's still enough to result in speciation and divergence of forms, just not at the same rate.

Because in the 70's maoism was the new thing in the west and it made sense. To be a maoist now is like believing in plato's forms. It's not relevant anymore.

This is why I'd never call myself a Maoist even if I'm sympathetic to Mao. It's not like most countries have a thriving peasant class anyway.

Marx had very little "praxis" to base his theories on.

Engels was the first "Marxist"

Why do you have to ruin my fun? Why do you mods keep outing me for samefagging but no one else?

When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

How is Lysenkoism wrong if it's been proven through epigenetics?

This is such a weird thought to me. Even reading about it in highschool and thinking 'hah hah silly Soviets, they let ideology get in the way of science!' and now it turns out it was right all along? Fine, not perfect, but it was fresh science then.

IMAGINE where we'd be if Lysenkoism had become mainline science instead of being purged in turn during de-Stalinisation.

didn't lyskeno explicitly deny the existence of DNA/genes and doesn't epigenetics obviously rely on these concepts?

Marx = Allah

Engels = Muhammad