What are some good arguments against dialectical materialism?

There are no good arguments against it because this is how society has evolved.

Attached: historico-dialecticalmaterialism.jpg (621x397, 36K)

>not realising that the next step is anarcho capitalism
Come on lad. The current antagonism is between the leechers and the prime movers.

It's between the bankers and the rest of us.

Attached: buythefuckingcoin.png (600x510, 67K)

Capitalism is just capitalism m8, it's already anarchic. Capitalists just pay off governments to do their bidding anyway.

damn that chart explains all cultural evolution everywhere

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-02 at 7.45.42 PM.png (920x1270, 739K)

It's neither dialectical nor materialism as it is a mere pseudo-philosophy expoused by MLs and Maoists serving to legitimate a political ideology that appropriated Marx, who himself would have never agreed with it.

1. it's unfalsifiable
2. we have no reason to doubt the second law of thermodynamics meaning nature is degenerate not progressive

>bankers
>capitalists
Ever wonder why you blame abstract titles instead of the actual tribe of people predominantly occupying those positions, who are perpetuating an internationalist system that works in the interests of their rootless cosmopolitan nature?

1. falsifiability has been demonstrated to be insufficient
2. this is not how thermodynamics or philosophy of nature work

(I think dialectical materialism is absolute trash, but come on.)

>Marx himself was of Jewish descent, with both his maternal and paternal grandfathers having been rabbis.

1. it's a sufficient standard to claim to be scientific
2. dialectical materialism makes claims about nature which contradict all current observations, whenever someone tries to use dialectical materialism they always go full retard

marxists.org/archive/posadas/1968/06/flyingsaucers.html

It's a just-so story. It seems plausible and it's obviously true that conflict between classes drives development in some ways but it's not the only thing.

The main thing is how much do you value thought and ideas? For Marxists, all ideologies are just expressing the material interests of a class. So if you have a desire to think that ideas can be true, transcendental and can have value in themselves, you wouldn't want to see history the way DM sees it.

Capitalists have no race or creed or religion besides the incessant need to move capital and increase profits.

All the richest people in the world have the same interests, it doesn't matter if they are Jews or Japanese or WASPs.

>A distinctive feature of Marxist philosophy is the dialectical-materialist conception of truth as a process and result of cognition. In Anti-Dühring, we find a deep understanding of the relativity of objective truth, due to the development of knowledge—the progress that is constantly correcting seemingly final results, recognized truths, and even absolute truths that were thought to be indisputable. This concept of the relativity and historicity of the truth is contrasted with the antidialectical conception of absolute truth as the exhaustive knowledge of a subject, as the ultimate, eternal truth. However, the existence of a small number of eternal truths or the attainability of absolute truths is not denied, if the latter are understood as the totality of relative truths, and hence relative to their borders.
>The central point of this theory of truth is the relative opposition between truth and error, if the latter is understood not simply as a logical error, but as a meaningful mistake, which always has a place in scientific knowledge. “Truth and error,” wrote Engels, “like all logical categories, moving in opposite directions, have an absolute value only in an extremely limited area….” However, after stating this sound position Engels suddenly makes a rather dubious, to put it mildly, conclusion: “Therefore, truly scientific studies usually avoid such dogmatic-moralistic expressions as error and truth….” This conclusion, made in the context of his polemic with E. Dühring, is not consistent with the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.
>One of the most difficult problems of the theory of knowledge is the problem of the criteria of truth. Idealism constantly sought to identify the irrefutable aspect of truth in the process of cognition, and more than that, in the statements recognized as true. Thus, Descartes argued that true judgments differ by such clarity and distinction that any doubt of their truth is excluded. Critics of this view have justly argued that it then becomes necessary to define the criteria of clarity and distinction. This requirement in effect shows that the criteria of truth exist outside statements recognized as true. However, the need for such a formulation of the problem was not recognized by philosophers who continued to search for the criteria of truth in knowledge itself, in its content or logical form.
>Unlike the idealists, the materialists tried to solve this problem by analyzing the relation between judgments and external objects about which judgments are made. However, this potentially productive approach was never fully developed.

There is truly no more retarded a perspective than this one, take note. It's a product of rhetorical jewing and the naively abstract mind of the European, but it's totally delusional, blaming an abstract class as if they act in the interests of that class instead of along the deeply rooted lines of their tribal interests and according to the nature embedded in them and molded for millennia. It's the same type of retard that blames nonliving entities like "capitalism." It's just too stupid a premise to even entertain seriously, blaming things humans control. Everything stems from and reflects the nature of the people making decisions, which they do according to their racial interests and that reflect their biological proclivities. Anyone who blames "capitalism" or "capitalists" might as well be saying he believes in Santa Claus, that's how stupid this notion is.

The entire world is owned by this stupid notion that you say is akin to believing in Santa Claus.

So it doesn't matter what kind of ideological pit you dig yourself into, material self-interest is the only thing that is truly real, and for a person who owns more moneyed property than you have cells in your body, the continuation of that wealth is the only thing they care about.

If the world was as you say, a world where people care more about racial classification than they care about money and wealth, why isn't every single capitalist a raging National Socialist?

Because it doesn't serve their interest, and it never will.

What is this from?

You're clearly not very intelligent so half your post is nonsensical. Europeans are individualistic and may see things in those terms, where the world is just a bunch of individuals doing their thing, but the jews running our global capitalist system are tribal. They don't view the world in those terms. They don't think like that. They don't think like you.

>If the world was as you say, a world where people care more about racial classification than they care about money and wealth, why isn't every single capitalist a raging National Socialist?
>not every single capitalist is a nazi
>therefore all capitalists everywhere are basically the same
olympic gold for mental gymnastics right here

>not every single capitalist is a nazi
>therefore all capitalists everywhere are basically the same

Several capitalists I know of are basically leftists. Which essentially means they are class traitors.

But guess what, it doesn't matter, because MOST capitalists aren't leftists. If they were, the world would look a lot different.

>but the jews running our global capitalist system are tribal. They don't view the world in those terms. They don't think like that. They don't think like you.

You're just wrong about that, I'm sorry to tell you. Even if there was a bunch of capitalist Jews who were willing to give up their economic position for tribalism's sake, there's a horde of capitalist Jews that aren't.

You contradict .

>capitalist Jews
They're just jews, buddy. And you are the one who is wrong here. Jews are the most tribal people on earth. The only ideology they believe in is the one they have been brainwashed with for centuries that tells them they are chosen to rule the world and enslave the goyim. The jewish porn industry and jewish media is happy to lose money as long as it keeps people like you passive and ignorant. It's not about money to them, and they don't think in individualistic terms like you do. It's purely tribal with kikes

Not really, because as a general rule capitalists do indeed have the same interests. That doesn't mean there doesn't exist some eccentric capitalist who is secretly a Commie.

The question is whether the world looks like it's populated by capitalists who are secretly Communists, and the answer is no.

Decentralization into freely associated independent societies trading privately.

Okay, so explain the difference between Karl Marx and Milton Friedman.

The first one of those was a secular Jew who created Marxist Communism in opposition to capitalism, and had nothing but contempt for his own religion and people. The second guy was a free market libertarian who practiced Judaism privately, and never wavered a second in his entire life defending free market capitalism and individual rights. Both are Jews, and both had political opinions that can arguably be described as polar opposites in every single way.

And yet you expect me to believe they secretly believed the same kind of racist religious ideology.

There is no such thing as a "capitalist." Everyone is a capitalist. And different groups use, acquire, and maintain capital in ways that reflect their nature. You have to take it out of this delusional abstraction where vastly different people with vastly differentm backgrounds and interests work toward the same interests and are part of some abstract class, and apply logic to the world that actually exists in an environment where groups compete for resources. That's how nature works, not on some abstract plane. Jews are an alien people competing for resources in your land and they have brainwashed you into defending them and using this silly abstract logic.

You aren't listening. Jews are not ideological like you. They are jews first and differ in their approach to jewing you. You need to stop getting caught in the abstract ideological systems they have created like Marxism, libertarianism, and capitalism and spend more time understanding how evolutionary pressures creates differences in groups, and then you can start understanding how jews think, and how their thinking differs from your own.

I'm sorry, but no. Capitalists are a social class of people that own the means of production that workers use. This shit isn't a "delusional abstraction", this is literally a factual part of modern economics, there's a group of people that own capital goods; factories, machines, houses etc etc, and they employ workers to use and rent these things for a wage.

This is elementary economics, and this fact about capitalism doesn't go away simply because you want the true struggle to be a race war instead of a class war.

Sounds like you're projecting attributes onto the Jews that you believe yourself.

>le jooz
go back

You have gone too far. It is time to stop.

Attached: 63c.png (1126x1900, 3.3M)

You are totally deluded. That's simply not how nature works or has ever worked. You are claiming that two groups (or all groups since "capitalism" to you always functions the same no matter who is in charge) that formed in completely different environments under completely different circumstances are now one group with the same interests. This is nonsense. That's just not how the world, nature or people work.

Kys faggot. stop indulging /pol/tards

Not an argument.

Never posted there

It's a totalizing pseudoscientific ideology that results in Lysenkoism and other disastrous policies. Here's a quote from Vladimir Fock in the preface of his 1961 work "The Theory of Space, Time, and Gravitation":
>The philosophical side of our views on the theory of space, time and gravitation was formed under the influence of the philosophy of dialectical materialism, in particular, under the influence of Lenin's materialism and empirical criticism.
What does it actually have to say about general relativity? Absolutely nothing, it was just the politically correct Party Line.

books.google.com/books?id=8R9tAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=at one phase in his career Marx did verge on developing a systematic&source=bl&ots=UKRCxukWX_&sig=ACfU3U2ZgrNMgHftbyCRzZxCSFuADGLXhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpr_rrgOXgAhVLLKwKHXEcDSYQ6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=at one phase in his career Marx did verge on developing a systematic&f=false

Rests upon the labor theory of value which is no good and works within a Smithian framework which is no good.

>The philosophical side of our views on the theory of space, time and gravitation was formed under the influence of the philosophy of egalitarianism, in particular, under the influence of American intersectionality and decolonization.
Soon.

>That's just not how the world, nature or people work.

source: just trust me on this one bro

Source: the entire corpus of the field of biology.

you mean anthropology btw retard

No, I didn't. But all fields of science backup this understanding of group difference and disparate behavior. What nothing can back up is the absurd notion that global neoliberal capitalism is an autonomous entity run by some fictitious modern people known as "capitalists," and not the internationalist jewish clique that has firm control of all the institutions that determine the results of capitalism.

Stop thinking in abstract terms and apply logic and data to better understand reality.

I know a lot of poor Jews who aren't benefiting from this tribal thing at all.

there are none. give in and become a marxist-leninist

Doubt it. But even if you do, those little jews will always defend the big jews, and especially if a goy like you is involved. That is an expression of tribalism that far exceeds the existence of any related function in individualistic whites, who attack their own and defend jews regularly. That is not reciprocated because we are completely different groups that evolved under different circumstances and view the world and our own identities differently, and this effects how we run organizations, such as those that determine the results of a capitalist economy, but everything else as well.

is a classless society possible in america? i can't see middle class americans ever giving up their suburban home ideals built on the backs of the mexicans, blacks, and chinese. there is no way white boys will give up their air conditioned offices without mass shooting a kindergarten class

are you even American?... mexicans and blacks are net dependents. blacks have vast swaths of government jobs created just to employ and pacify them if they aren't already in jail. Huge numbers of mexicans have multiple social security cards that they use to commit welfare fraud, skirt taxes frequently, and involve themselves in drug trafficking. the US isn't built on the back of Mexicans.

>wants classless society built on some form of cohesive solidarity
>instead, promotes disorderly ideologies that fragment the population into competing identity groups
>blames capitalism and neoliberalism for this, calls /pol/ conspiracy theorists for giving the above state of affairs the name "cultural marxism"

Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture by Marvin Harris. He actually is heavily indebted to Marx but absolutely eviscerates all the bullshit.

again from harris

Attached: harris_cultural_materialism_p145.jpg (565x703, 264K)

He's complaining about how society always has "winners" and "losers" and the only way to stop it is for a radical change to occur. That is a dumb view. Capitalism may not be a good system but it's still the best system. A society can't function without winners and losers, the best thing to do is aim for a world with as many winners as possible. Human nature just doesn't allow for perfect equality.

Pretty silly to believe that was ever really the intention knowing what we do about jews these days

>promotes disorderly ideologies that fragment the population into competing identity groups

This is literally what Marx called bourgeoise nationalism, and something he and all Marxists are against.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_nationalism

The only based anti idpol marxists are a handful of extremely online autists and self hating trannies from leftypol all politics is identity politics. Humans are a tribal species. Notice how much leftists speak on cultural issues vs economic issues. My tribe is the west, your tribe is globohomo neolib intersectional managerial therapeuthic state leviathan.

How is it not a good system? Hurt feelings are not a legitimate reason.

Perhaps you should start viewing those supposed leftists as exactly that; middle class leftists within the "acceptable" paradigm.

You know, sort of like how Democrats are "supposed" to be left-wing, but are secretly owned by corporations and support regime change wars and neo-liberal politics as much as Republicans do.

>the best thing to do is aim for a world with as many winners as possible.

The thing is this is just as unrealistic of a goal as equality it's just not obvious at first
It's a textbook example of a half measure that works short term (and by short I mean at least a few hundred years) but long term only creates more problems and complications

If nature was degenerative, it wouldn't be constantly increasing in order. The second law is bunk, as all living matter demonstrates. Leave it to psueds to try to comprehend all nature without first understanding their sensuous faculties.

Underrated post
Notice how the hypothetical negation in this text that Harris, in error, makes plural is now happening in reality

Attached: 1551127363787-984950031.png (844x634, 536K)

>it wouldn't be constantly increasing in order
but it's not
>comprehend all nature without first understanding their sensuous faculties
you're just sampling to small of a region

Define nature

Attached: 1551389440017675894488.png (637x504, 553K)

based schizo

What's up with this demonization of Lysenko? He's unironically correct that it's not just genes that impact hereditary. In fact, if you read his works you'll see that he painstakingly explains that he does not deny cytology nor genetics and that it's simply an incomplete model. The relentless propaganda is so transparent and basic when you have knowledge of biology 101 and read the actual primary sources.

It's absolute monarchism dude, the individual is restored on the monarch

Rather imperialism is the form society takes after that as it's the spirit of the people trying to universalize

But when Communist parties take power they just revert back into a slaveholder society.

The dialetic is a process of continuous
appropriation by the spirit

quotes?
I skimmed a primary source and he does seem to promote straight Lamarckism and condemn the Mendelian chromosome theory as "reactionary idealist metaphysics".

Didn't the soviet union operate whereby the state assumed the role of the capitalist and workers had a level of control over what occupation they had.

Agrobiology by Trofim Lysenko

Attached: DSC_0497.jpg (5333x3000, 1.42M)

you should

>getting butthurt about whites being called out for their bourgeois dependency

we got the president the white working class wanted and he's doing everything the neocons and apartheid israeli government wants. the whites have shown themselves unwilling to ever have the capacity to join the revolution against the capitalist masters. no need to get butthurt over the facts

its amazing how you manage to have a 9 year old's understanding of Marx as a (I assume) fully grown adult

I would like to think that this is not a transcription from a speech and he actually just wrote "(Loud and prolonged applause)" after his own text.

No, they just threw millions of people into gulags which they managed so inefficiently they turned into money pits.

>In the post-Darwinian period the overwhelming majority of biologists--far from further developing Darwin's teaching--did all they could to debase Darwinism, to smother its scientific foundation. The most glaring manifestation of such debasement of Darwinism is to be found in the teachings of Weismann, Mendel, and Morgan, the founders of modern reactionary genetics.
>"Gene" mutations, according to the theory of Mendelism-Morganism, appear fortuitously. Chromosome mutations are also fortuitous. Due to this, the direction of the process of mutation is also fortuitous. Proceeding from these invented fortuities, the Morganists base their experiments too on a fortuitous choice of substances that might act as mutation factors, believing that they are thereby acting on their postulated hereditary substance, which is just a figment of their imagination, and hoping to obtain fortuitously what may by chance prove to be of use.

That appears to be the case actually.

lol you're such a loser

I agree Jews make up a lot of the rich and powerful, the problem is they aren't the only ones, ex. race traitors who also hold some power and use it to betray their own race. The irony is that no one looks at Israel, those people do not live free from the diseases, the oppressive systems of capitalism or anything else that is subjected onto the rest of the world, Israel has foreigners in it, the same doctors, the same banks, the same salesmen and women of all professions pushing their product onto the consumer, regardless of the effect, to turn a profit. Those who could potentially overturn the system or at least hurt those in positions of power are - like all the others with similar traits (warriors) from different races - end up in the enforcer roles: police, soldier, etc. and die - unknowingly - for the very people responsible for destroying their respective race, nation, people, family, friends, and the world in general. Only taking out the Jews leaves us with the rich and powerful of the rest of the races, it is the anti-social (narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, etc.) and the rich and powerful who are beyond self-control, addicted to acquiring more wealth, more power, who need to be destroyed. But in all honesty, who talks about this? Who honestly and sincerely considers planning out a forceful retaliation to the people in power? Everything from every angle, religion, ideology, political party or affiliation talks about "spreading awareness" and how bad, evil, dumb, wrong, racist, traitorous, cucked, sexist, etc. their ideological opposites but equally oppressed citizens or non citizens are, the "protests" in the US and elsewhere are just people standing in areas and chanting for a duration of time before they leave empty handed, the enemies of all these people just have to close the blinds, cover their ears, turn up the TV, send out the cops or security guards or military or goons or counter protestors etc. and the people are disposed of, but they don't even have to do that - they just have to wait and the crowd will dispose of itself due to the blessing of all oppressors: peaceful protests, the newest drug for the masses. Sometimes they don't even have to worry about physical protesters, soon it'll all take place virtually, exclusively on social media, or here on the boards of this braindead shithole, where people like any other place talk endlessly about their views while doing nothing to actualize them. There is no difference between the ideologies in practice, the workers/people believe in them but no one else does, the leaders of every movement as insincere as the book publishing talking heads that inevitably rise up in any movement, the eternal communicator, all words no action, and there never will be. No one will ever do anything, those that have the potential will be led astray, the rest will post on social media or peacefully protest, exclusively fighting other protestors about which group of rich/powerful are bad.

>Capitalism may not be a good system but it's still the best system.

The best system for who exactly? Are you a poor third world shitter who keeps getting fucked over by western lead coups? Are you living paycheck to paycheck? Are you one hospital visit away from bankruptcy?

You do know the majority of profits being made world wide are not by producing material goods, but by selling financial products? That means the master class is making its money simply by shifting 0s and 1s from one account to another. If you're not born into money, you are a slave.

America has a gulag system today desu, it's not unique to the soviet economic system.

if whites have this immutable trait, like it's in their genome or something, how do you propose to get rid of something like that?

>But when Communist parties take power they just revert back into a slaveholder society.

That's true. Which should tell you a lot about the people who proclaim themselves to be Communists.

Notice that the United States claims to be the paragon of liberty and individual rights in the world, and yet it has a military base on Cuba where it tortures people.

Why would I ever feel the need to refute a form of Victorian era unilinear cultural evolutionism? Are there still people who advocate this theory or something? It's so transparently a product of the misunderstandings of its time that even considering it feels like an anachronism. You might as well ask me to refute the luminiferous aether or animal magnetism or something.

It's paradoxical. Large scale dialectics are inherently metaphysical. Calling them material won't change that. He tried to mix two different language games that couldn't be mixed.

American prisons are profitable.

>cultural evolutionism
it has nothing to do with culture, that's the whole point of it

>Are there still people who advocate this theory or something?
Some hardcore Marxists still do and some others don't advocate directly for it but for the implications that come from it, like the whole late-stage-capitalism crowd who are convinced socialism is the inevitable next step in history.

This. Main Currents of Marx is one of the most important books of the last century

but they say the superstructure can override the base sometimes, though the details of this are never made clear

>but they say the superstructure can override the base sometimes

It can. Second wave feminism is a good example. It was something literally nobody in the establishment at that time considered a good idea, but then some capitalists came along and said "But it'll increase the labor force by 50%!".

And the rest is history.

>AmeriKKKa is built on the exploitation of Black and Mestizo bodies!
Well, actually, not really, they're net dependents on the State...
>Ok, but the government got bought out by Israelis and is attacking a Communist government in Venezuela! These white people don't want to implement Communism, and must be eradicated. It is historical necessity!
Ok, but that doesn't refute the point that blacks and mestizos are net dependents on the State... who do you think is paying taxes to care for said dependents.

Hegel’s master-slave dialectic made me stop being a Marxist altogether so . . .

Intersectional critical theorist detected.

Because it's literally proven wrong by history. The world has flip flopped between slavery being bad and good women being gifts or curses and societies being democracies tribes or monarchies throughout history.

Source?

Can someone explt this image to me? There's nothing logical about it and it's extremely contrived. Why doesn't classlessness come earlier? Why did those antagonisms create the systems they later created and not entirely different systems?

marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1940s/report.htm
Report presented to the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences and approved by the Central Committee.

Or you know, you can read Marx.

well, you sounds like a faggot using terminology like that so, id count that as an argument to stop your bullshit

Human society functions as a dialogue of violent exchanges between groups, and rather than a progressive exchange and advancement relative to material conditions of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, it is instead a feedback loop of violence and pacification caused by the proliferation of information technologies editing man's psychosocial relationship to the external world, eventually reaching a terminal velocity some overzealous relational beings supplanted by techno image-objects have brashly referred to as "the singularity," but is actually the condensation of man with the physical world of material externalities, the compounding of which is generally referred to as "capital."

Because a theory was made to fit current knowledge but it has no ability whatsoever to predict the future or even make explanations of cultures outside of the industrial West. See

It seems like you misunderstood Lysenko. He is defending Darwianism in that report.
>Even when Darwin's teaching first made its appearance, it became clear at once that its scientific, materialist core, its teaching concerning the evolution of living nature, was antagonistic to the idealism that reigned in biology.
Lysenko is basically trying to say that Mendelianism is introducing ideals (idealism) via claiming that only abstract information from genes on chromosomes are being transmitted. Your passage that you posted is Lysenko pointing out the logic fallacy that the Mendelianism use. Just because that the chromosomes got scrambled and the resulting traits change, does not mean it confirms the causation between the chromosome and genes.
I have no idea how you read that report and got the idea that he was promoting lamrackism when he is explicitly defending darwianism which is the diametrically opposite ideology of lamrackism.

>unironic lysenkoism on Yea Forums
marxism really is like crack for humanities students.

point out what lysenko got wrong then faggot.

Will this do?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-03 at 1.35.58 PM.png (2482x628, 514K)

>quoting wikipedia
t. brainlet
No wonder you can't understand Marx.

literal propaganda. lysenkoism is only becoming more and more vindicated as modern molecular biology are finding out that the truth is somewhere in middle between lamarackism and darwianism. mendelianism is obviously false- the model claims that unlinked recombination is not possible, yet any basic fruit fly experiment will show otherwise.

real life

>lysenkoism is only becoming more and more vindicated
please post a citation from some one who is not a communist.

How does symbiogenesis relate to Lysenko?

Attached: Vladimir Vernadski.jpg (400x260, 24K)

>As the new Current Biology article explains, Lysenko has enjoyed a renaissance in Russia over the past few years. Several books and papers praising his legacy have appeared, bolstered by what the article calls “a quirky coalition of Russian right-wingers, Stalinists, a few qualified scientists, and even the Orthodox Church.”
>theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia/548786/
The article is pretty much just propaganda trying to suppress lysenkoism. Why? I'm not sure.

Lysenkoism promote the ecological units of hereditary. Mitochondrial and chloroplastic endosymbiosis are solid piece of evidences vindicating the ecological units of heredity opposed to purely nucleotide-based units of heredity.

Attached: Screenshot_20190303-193933.png (1080x1920, 640K)

This thread was predictably disappointing. Very few people addressed dialectics or dialectical materialism and instead focused on attacking communism, which isn't what the thread was supposed to be about.

what a great quote that last line is

>Why? I'm not sure.
Probably because instituting Lysekoist agricultural ideas lead to the starvation of quite a few people. Burn me once, shame on you etc

i have no doubt that lysenkoist agronomy is a bad idea, but it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of genetics was prescient.

Actually, I take this back. Lysenko did nothing wrong. It was a drought that caused the famine.

fyi the mass famines happened before Lysekoism became official state ideology and was a consequence of forced collectivization... Lysenkoist agronomy wasn't the primary issue and wouldn't have had much of a negative or positive impact on yields really

Lysenko didn't have an understanding of genetics and his campaign directly lead to the suppression of real empirical research. Same thing happened in other fields like sociology where empirical research was cracked down on.

OP here
Yes I am a bit dissapointed. I couldn't check the thread this morning so I didn't have the opportunity to ask some questions. So here is one:

According to dialectical materialism, a hunter-gatherer society would become a sedentary one because they would NEED to find a better way to produce food for the whole group. Is this correct?
But couldn't it be said that those hunter-gatherer societies become sedentary just because an individual WANTED to invent agriculture because he had an idea, since Man naturally wants to know?

By the way, how can free will exist if dialectical materialism is real? If our consciousness is determined by our material condition, how can we ever hope to make choices that are truly our own?

Nobody have the "real" understanding of genetics. There is no 100% accurate model of heredity. Mendelian faggots deserve to be persecuted for propagating wrong model when it's so easily disproven.

Implying Hegelian dialectics are the exact same as dialectical materialism and then going one step further and saying you'd get memertarianism out of it.

Attached: 936.jpg (625x626, 33K)

Post modernists say it is wrong and they have cooler aesthetics than Marx so they're correct.

>According to dialectical materialism, a hunter-gatherer society would become a sedentary one because they would NEED to find a better way to produce food for the whole group. Is this correct?
>But couldn't it be said that those hunter-gatherer societies become sedentary just because an individual WANTED to invent agriculture because he had an idea, since Man naturally wants to know?
I am the fag that brought Harris into this. But I disagree with some of your suppositions here. Harris talks about this a lot actually. Human beings probably had a good idea about how plants worked before they settled down to become sedentary horti-/agriculturalists. Farming is a lot of work compared to hunting, though the payoff is better in the end. There are a lot of theories as to why the agricultural revolution happened way back when. One, that I tend to favor when I think about it, is that populations might have swelled due to hunting the huge game of the Pleistocene. A well coordinated group could have made quite a living will little effort (though much management) but hunting such creatures. Then as the Pleistocene megafauna died out, you have a large population who needs a lifeway to support themselves and here you have various cereals which you have been passively growing all along to supplement your diet to step in as the main calorie provider. I probably explained this fucked up and all retarded but I doubt agriculture happened because some unknown genius said 'hey hunting is gay check out what I can do with a hoe.'

What about cooperation between races and classes* (which I am somewhat skeptical by notion mainly because it seems such a structure is rather fluid, where people can by their ingenuity or incompetence transfer between these seemingly fluid classes instead of an expected rigid hierarchy like that of the Egyptians on what the word implies)? Conflict would just waste lives and potential energy whereas cooperation and optimism can instead use that potential energy and turn it into something actual, along with increasing it's value at the same time, no?

You mean "historical materialism", "dialectical materialism" is related to natural science instead of human society. When it comes to the historical emergence of agriculture as a way of life it's a process which took generations not some one act of an individual in one lifetime which would be impossible. It by definition has to be a process.
>The bearing of biological fitness in humans and crops upon the emergence and spread of agriculture
file.scirp.org/Html/1-8301953_30603.htm

Just because unrestrained choice doesn't exist doesn't mean "free will" doesn't just that everything has to occur under given conditions.

Except Lysenko actually developed an entire objectively wrong, as wrong as Aristotelian physics, understanding of biology that was codified and became dogma and used in textbooks in the USSR till the 1960s.

I think I see what you are saying. Like how you can look at a patent from a modern gun, or even just a musket. It looks extremely complex, and it seems impossible that one man could have designed it, but then you realize that the design has dozens or hundreds of "ancestors" before it, becoming less and less complex as you go backwards all the way to the first prototype

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-03 at 3.16.53 PM.png (968x1364, 740K)

so, name 1 thing that lysenko gets wrong then. nobody have actually refuted his biology knowledge, and only used the anti-communist rhetoric to dismiss all of his ideas as a whole.

Nice methodological anarchism, my friend! Now tell them about how the sun is at the center of the solar system because Helios rode his chariot there.

I don't think you're doing yourself any favors, here.

This is the same line that orthodox Marxists have rolled with for the last 150 years to address any criticism made against them from outside of dialectics. There is no reason to believe negation is apodictic, and many reasons to believe that any predictions made by a dialectical methodology may only come to pass by coincidence.

Everyone misunderstood him, even the soviets. This is the ideal place to propagate lysenkoism.

Imagine equating epigenetics with Lamarckism.

Oh christ, please stop. This place is already enough of a case study on the failure of radical contrarianism.

You do realise that mitochondrial DNA is also heritable, right?

Dialectical Materialism was the official Soviet ideology from Stalin:
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
And adopted by the Communist International. Marxist historiography generally is referred to as historical materialism.

Imagine being dumb enough to promote either Lamarackism or darwianism.
That is the point dingus. It's not just the nucleotides. It's everything in the cell that gets merged during meiosis.

The fact that it's unfalsifiable drivel and no practical applications of it in governance have ever yielded successful outcomes. Read Kołakowski and Popper for more.

The logical conclusion of the hegelian dialectic is neoconservativism and the mass genocide of undemocratic non-white nations. It's what daddy Strauss would've wanted.

>It's not just the nucleotides. It's everything in the cell that gets merged during meiosis.
I don't even know where the fuck to begin with this.

I think it's just a Russian shill. Thankfully Putin's going to rangeban them from the rest of the internet soon.

Genetics turned out not to be a pseudoscience and that charged left Soviet biology in complete disarray devoid of serious empirical research. Lysenkoism was a regress from even Marx or Engels who didn't out of hand dismiss natural selection.

>no practical applications of it in governance have ever yielded successful outcomes
A shit ton of scientists during the 20th century were Marxists and would claim their well accepted discoveries were a consequence of their outlook.

>Strauss would've wanted
Strauss wasn't a Hegelian.

>A shit ton of scientists during the 20th century were Marxists and would claim their well accepted discoveries were a consequence of their outlook.
post quotes

I'm thinking of guys like J. B. S. Haldane

>A shit ton of scientists during the 20th century were Marxists and would claim their well accepted discoveries were a consequence of their outlook.
Many of which arrived at proper conclusions by coincidence, or were just outright wrong. A good example is Gould and Lewontin's misrepresentation of genetic loci for a particular ingroup population versus non-ingroup individuals.

>A shit ton of scientists during the 20th century were Marxists and would claim their well accepted discoveries were a consequence of their outlook.

Yeah and a shitton were batshit crazy warhawks who claim that their love of American capitalism prompted their success. Aka Teller, von Neumann, many others. I think his point is that Marxist (and socialist, broadly) politics have failed utterly in every single part of the world they have been implemented, even in resource-rich societies that were once wealthy and could have transitioned into post-capitalism

The logical conclusion of hegelian dialectics is people abusing the concept on this shitty thread to fantasize about being correct.

TFW ppl use logical as an argument in philosophy without refering to whose logic.

Attached: 1508255132712.png (1000x700, 101K)