Refuting Engels

[Anonymous No.21386174]

>Engels says that the subjugatation of women started since agricultural revolution which later brought the conception of monogamy and private property
>The subjugation of women didn’t start since the agricultural revolution and its consequences, but rather it started since the prehistoric era because evolutionary speaking, men were trained to beat down enemies and hunt animals and women were trained to be penetrated, to bear and take care for children
>Men were built as aggressors and thus capable to subjugate women to maintain their species
>However women were built as submisive and breedable people

In addition: Engels’s proposition is cringe tho because it based on slave morality and naive idealization. Peak gay philosophy i guess.

[Anonymous No.21386179]

>>21386174
So..we evolved to rape?

[Anonymous No.21386197]

>>21386174
>Engels’s proposition is cringe tho because it based on slave morality and naive idealization
no it's not, it's based on production as is every communist analysis, this is shown when he analyses the change in the family as capitalism emerged
>As regards the legal equality of husband and wife in marriage, the position is no better. The legal inequality of the two partners, bequeathed to us from earlier social conditions, is not the cause but the effect of the economic oppression of the woman. In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men. With the patriarchal family, and still more with the single monogamous family, a change came. Household management lost its public character. It no longer concerned society. It became a private service; the wife became the head servant, excluded from all participation in social production. Not until the coming of modern large-scale industry was the road to social production opened to her again – and then only to the proletarian wife. But it was opened in such a manner that, if she carries out her duties in the private service of her family, she remains excluded from public production and unable to earn; and if she wants to take part in public production and earn independently, she cannot carry out family duties. And the wife’s position in the factory is the position of women in all branches of business, right up to medicine and the law. The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

[Anonymous No.21386260]

>>21386174
Engels has evidence for his claims regarding the past. There's further detail on family structure in Mutual Aid's chapters on the human.

If anything Engels has been refuted with the discovery of non-war-like gender parity agricultural societies which don't appear to have class (dwelling size, dwelling disuse).

[Anonymous No.21386266]

>Engels
Clearly built for BBC

[Anonymous No.21386349]

>>21386197
No doubt, his historical analysis is coherent. It only lacks of evolutionary perspective and too much on moralizing.
However half truth is not truth and a knowledge is value free, so his proposition can’t be taken seriously.

>>21386260
His proposition is cherry-picking argument.

[Anonymous No.21386351]

>>21386179
Seems that way. Evolution selects for 1) willfulness and 2) coomer-dom, so it's not hard to see why literally every large institution, from military to monastery, eventually ends up with sexual assault numbers that are somehow still shocking to the public after the 8th time. But these same violent individuals need society to exist, so it can serve them, thus instead of outright murder in the streets, you get weird shit like a 10 step initiation into Tibetan Buddhism only to get drugged and raped by the abbot at the end lul

We wake up in a world as weird apes, half of us slaves in mind, body, or both, with a stronger half engaging in sadism and exploitation against the weaker half in order to self actualize. A curious state of affairs to say the least, and as somebody who was victimized by clergy it is hard to see a reason to care about anything but oneself. If everybody is just calculating and evil or weak and delusional depending on which half they are, why bother?

[Anonymous No.21386361]

>>21386351
This. Biological knowledge sets me free.

[Anonymous No.21386364]

>>21386349
>His proposition is cherry-picking argument.
Yeah, he's on much more stable grounds as a historian than as an anthropologist.

Human dimorphism is a predisposition, not a determinate. Matrilineal female selection human societies have existed. Many patriarchal societies actually contain hidden matriarch controllers. And historical evidence associates herding with class and gender hierarchy, rather than early grain agriculture.

So Engels made a c19 contribution which is still of use in field specification. There was a bloke who rode around on a beagle of similar use. Also British. Didn't polycule with working class English girls though.

[Anonymous No.21386374]

>>21386197
>it's based on production as is every communist analysis
Ie slave morality. Slaves do the producing.

[Anonymous No.21386378]

>>21386374
it's not about who does production but how production is done, there's nothing moral about this

[Anonymous No.21386386]

>>21386378
Focusing on production at all is slave morality.

[Anonymous No.21386402]

>>21386386
you're really just saying shit just for the sake of saying it

[Anonymous No.21386481]

>>21386386
necessities around producing the things necessary for the continued life of the species is what determines the set of social relations that the members of the species are organized into. so if you want to explain the social relations, focusing on production signifies not slave morality but simply not being retarded

[Anonymous No.21386838]

>>21386386
>banned phrases of 2022 going into the new year

[Anonymous No.21386854]

>>21386402
Nope.
>>21386481
>necessities around producing the things necessary for the continued life
Is only wholly relevant to the lowest (slaves) who are tied entirely to material circumstances.
>so if you want to explain the social relations
The social relations of slaves*

[Anonymous No.21386888]

>>21386854
no, not just slaves. everyone is tied entirely to material circumstances. the upper classes are only upper classes to the extent that the society is organized such that they can appropriate the surplus labour of the lower classes.

[Anonymous No.21387084]

>>21386174
The concept of primitive communism has been refuted again and again by empirical studies on existing hunter-gatherer societies, who are very much not equal, at all. What Engels proposed was literally just a Marxist rendition of the "noble savage" myth.

[Anonymous No.21387208]

>>21387084
no it hasn't. existing hunter-gatherer societies not being equal doesn't contradict the fact that primitive communist societies existed

[Anonymous No.21387305]

>>21386174
>illiterate with knowledge of neither evolution or anthropology commenting on either
Yawn

[Anonymous No.21387329]

>>21386174
>>21386197
>muh women's rights
Now I see why modern commies care so much about social issues. These faggots taught them, jesus. I thought Marx and Engels were purely concerned with the economy guess not but I wasn't gonna read their garbage.

[Anonymous No.21387342]

>reading Engels after Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

[Anonymous No.21387344]

>>21387329
> I thought Marx and Engels were purely concerned with the economy guess not but I wasn't gonna read their garbage.
social relations are determined by production so why wouldn't they look at gender relations?

[Anonymous No.21387362]

>>21387344
Their big war was the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie it makes little sense to go on a rant about the relationship between men and women because it will cause a split in the proletariat, the only people who care about your garbage ideology.

[Anonymous No.21387365]

>>21387362
women are also apart of class conflict, there are women proletariat and women bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.21387378]

>>21387344
>social relations are determined by production so why wouldn't they look at gender relations?

Marx and Engels regard gender relations only as an effect of capitalist production though. Once capitalistic society thrown up, exploitative gender relations vanished. But Uncle Ted sees this as counter-productive because economic material condition is determined by technique and feminists actually are in denial about human nature. According to him, to emancipate mankind and stop this madness of surrogate activity power process which being exercised by feminists, men need to rebel against technological society.

[Anonymous No.21387386]

>>21387365
yes which is why they are included in the rich vs poor conflict
making a second front of men vs women will divide only the proletariat
because the rich won't care about your philosophy that goes against them

[Anonymous No.21387388]

>>21387305
>Ad Hom
You can’t falsify anything though.

[Anonymous No.21387399]

I actually liked their class struggle of rich vs poor and agree that we should eat the rich.
But if it comes in the same package as feminism fuck this shit.
The original soibois and white knights.

[Anonymous No.21387402]

>>21387378
> Once capitalistic society thrown up, exploitative gender relations vanished
women are still thoroughly exploited in capitalist society, what're you talking about?
>>21387386
this isn't "opening a new front", explaining why social relations are the way they are isn't a divide

[Anonymous No.21387405]

>>21387399
both marx and engles had mistresses and cheated on their wives so i don't think they were white knights

[Anonymous No.21387412]

>>21387399
Btw Bob Black (post left anarchist) once wrote an essay about a socialist who desperately craved a pussy by pretending to be a feminist. Things haven’t really changed. Lol.

[Anonymous No.21387474]

>>21387362
your logic if completely backwards. explaining the relations between the sexes in bourgeois society will facilitate the unity between male and female proletarians, rather than splitting them. what splits them is rather leaving those relations unexplained, because then people tend to interpret features specific to class society as inherent features of the sexes, making antagonisms between the sexes seem irreconcilable. same applies to races and so on.
>>21387399
communists reject feminism in favor of communism

[Anonymous No.21387489]

>>21387474
>explaining the relations between the sexes in bourgeois society will facilitate the unity between male and female proletarians, rather than splitting them. what splits them is rather leaving those relations unexplained, because then people tend to interpret features specific to class society as inherent features of the sexes, making antagonisms between the sexes seem irreconcilable. same applies to races and so on.
Pol/tards will never be ready for this pill

[Anonymous No.21387510]

>>21386174
That is not what Engels wrote.
Did you read on the origin of family, private property? More likely the wikipedia article.
I cannot have a debate if your premises are wrong.

For the other unread, who maybe want to start reading engels, it's the transition from the genos to the demos, which exploded the extended family unity.

[Anonymous No.21387521]

>>21387399
Marx wasn't against workers getting wealth from their labor.

[Anonymous No.21387532]

>>21387489
Poltards analyze the social relations of production as being something racial. They analyze Capitalism's ideology (superstructure), as being a jewish plot.

[Anonymous No.21387571]

>>21387532
Umm... what both of you call as capitalism is actually Keynesian mixed economy. Real capitalism has never been tried because post industrial revolution and post WWII conditions demanded social welfare. Real communism has never been tried tho...because the socialist stage (a part of dialectical materialism) already failed in Soviet, Cambodia, China, etc.

[Anonymous No.21387576]

>>21387571

[Anonymous No.21387578]

What are conjugal relations going to look like under socialism?
Proudhon, Engels and Sorel believed in monogamy during socialism.
Kollontai, Zetkin and other German communists believe in polyamory (and -gamy?) and Lenin made fun of them.
Trotsky said nothing during Lenin but complained about Stalin's family policy.
So, can anyone accurately predict what will happen or is it just vibes?

[Anonymous No.21387584]

>>21387578
A communist household would likely look very different to the households we see in bourgeois society. As Engels writes,
> In the old communistic household, which comprised many couples and their children, the task entrusted to the women of managing the household was as much a public and socially necessary industry as the procuring of food by the men
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm
In the case of modern communism, where the natural division of labour has been overcome, there is no reason to think that women would be forced to perform a disproportionate share of house work. This is a branch of social labour like any other. It would be transformed into a social concern, just as every form of labour would become directly social.

[Anonymous No.21387602]

>>21387584
>In the case of modern communism, where the natural division of labour has been overcome, there is no reason to think that women would be forced to perform a disproportionate share of house work. This is a branch of social labour like any other. It would be transformed into a social concern, just as every form of labour would become directly social.

This could be brought into reality only if capitalist production being eliminated once and for all... which is impossible because the revolt of the proletariat requires crisis and capitalism so far has been happily adaptive toward stressors.

Fukuyama and Taleb were right. Cope.

[Anonymous No.21387610]

>>21387602
>which is impossible because the revolt of the proletariat requires crisis and capitalism so far has been happily adaptive toward stressors.
there's literally a war in europe right now and we're on the cusp of an unprecedented recession which has been accompanied by a surge in working class organisation on a scale that has not been seen in decades.

and you accuse communists of coping?

[Anonymous No.21387687]

>>21387571
>Real capitalism has never been tried
Lmao you made me kek
>social welfare
Literally one of the biggest features of capitalism
>the socialist stage (a part of dialectical materialism) already failed in Soviet, Cambodia, China, etc.
Ah, ok, you have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.21387723]

>>21387687
>Ah, ok, you have no idea what you're talking about

Ah, okay, you are in denial and can’t refute anything + Cioran called your ideology as derivative form of christianity idealization tho.

Cope + seethe + dilate + have sex + touch grass.

Yes, i’m seething.

[Anonymous No.21387728]

>>21386174
Most modern feminists agree with your analysis. As soon as a distinction between conscious entities exists there is a struggle for dominance in which one if forced to work with nature to further the survival of the other. Engles for all his merits didn't really get Hegel.

[Anonymous No.21387752]

>>21387728
>Engles for all his merits didn't really get Hegel

Because Engels was gay moralist and used his half hearted historical Analysis to justify his slave morality tendency.

[Anonymous No.21387769]

>>21387584
That's horrifying. Increased social interdependence and reduced personal autonomy is always a negative. Can communism work? Maybe, but regardless I find the vision of communist "utopia" to be far worse than wageslaving.
>t. wageslave

[Anonymous No.21387779]

>>21387769
you genuinely have to be retarded to think wage labour is better than social labour

[Anonymous No.21387784]

>>21387779
It's a difference of values.

[Anonymous No.21387785]

>>21387752
Nietzsche took the master/slave moral dicotomy from Hegel's master slave dialectic. Both can be read into each other.

[Anonymous No.21387787]

>>21387784
who values spending most of their day labouring to make something you don't even own or benefit from?

[Anonymous No.21387790]

>>21386174
>Engels’s proposition is cringe

[Anonymous No.21387805]

>>21387084
>gommunism is... le equality!!
go away

[Anonymous No.21387807]

>>21387571
The shit you are talking about already existed during Marx and Engels time. It was called by them "bourgeois socialism".

[Anonymous No.21387810]

>>21387805
this

[Anonymous No.21387817]

>>21387807
I mean Keynesian mixed economy. Giving the proles some gibs so they can be maintained into the condition of wage workers.

[Anonymous No.21387818]

I will continue to lord over women, despite any changes to the division of labor, because my testicles work and my dad raised me right.

[Anonymous No.21387821]

>>21387818
you will not be romantically successful then

[Anonymous No.21387822]

>>21387787
I have a problem with socialization of the family and private life, and many other people do even if they cannot articulate it. Wageslaving is shit, but it's better (at least now) than the vision that you see as utopian and I see has horrible. The difference in values arises from the different ways that we see familial and private autonomy, and how much we value it. You may have some justification for how it might "increase freedom" or autonomy, (of course, the Marxian concept of freedom) but it's still at odds with the kind of independence that I value.
Obviously Marx was prophetic and whether I like it or not "communism" is inevitable insofar as in the future everything will be socialized. The capitalistic elite will turn children into products in the hands of the oligarchic state for the production of perfectly indoctrinated wageslaves, or communists will do the same but "for the people." Communism only offers a marginally better alternative to what will already happen under capitalism.

[Anonymous No.21387832]

>>21386174
>Engels says that the subjugatation of women started since agricultural revolution which later brought the conception of monogamy and private property
Monogamy exists because women can only get pregnant once at a time, it's nothing to do with muh patriarchal oppression. It's purely derived from biology and that fact that we evolved into big brains that require K-selection invested rearing of young.
Private property is the first mark of civilization and is required to get out of the cannibal savage stage. How about I rob that nice waistcoat off your back, Engels? What's that, it's *yours*? Sorry comrade, it's ours now

[Anonymous No.21387833]

>>21387822
>but it's still at odds with the kind of independence that I value
if the prospect of putting in a equal amount of work in taking care of the household is such a horrifying idea to you then i suggest that you should live alone

[Anonymous No.21387842]

>>21387602
>This could be brought into reality only if capitalist production being eliminated once and for all... which is impossible because the revolt of the proletariat requires crisis and capitalism so far has been happily adaptive toward stressors.
>Everything stays the same forever, what is the case now will be the case forever and ever and nothing will make it change

[Anonymous No.21387845]

>>21387821
Women will continue to want men, despite your commie theorizing

[Anonymous No.21387851]

>>21387845
women, people in general on average don't like to be with people that treat them like shit

[Anonymous No.21387852]

>>21387687
>Ah, ok, you have no idea what you're talking about

What are u talking about? Communist society is the last stage of dialectical materialism. This condition could be achieved only if every country became a socialist country (Seizing the means of production and eliminating class antagonism). Unfortunately it never came to reality.

[Anonymous No.21387854]

>>21386174
yeah Engels was working on the basis of since refuted anthropology of Lewis H. Morgan. Rule of thumb any claims Marx and Engels made about the time before primitive accumulation and enclosure should be treated with doubt because they didn't have access to primary sources and had to work with the less the stelar work of their time.

[Anonymous No.21387857]

>>21387833
My father, and his father before him, and his father before him, and so on down the family tree operated in an unequal fashion. There are plenty of women that don't want to work.
It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood your view, which might just be that husband and wife share housework; that would be fine. I was just assuming what I've heard from college students and other new-left marxists, the ideal that children will be raised communally and there will be no "husband" or "wife", just people having sex and creating kids. No, that's not an exaggeration. If the household is intact and there is no intrusion of the state into the family then it could be better than end-game capitalism.

[Anonymous No.21387858]

>>21387571
it is a mixed economy, mixed between features of a petty-bourgeois ideal of capitalism you have in your head and necessary features of actual real world capitalism that you dislike and reject as non-capitalist by virtue of them not aligning with your imagined ideal of capitalism.
the welfare state is not external to capitalism but a necessary part of it at a certain point of its development.
in capitalism, the reserve army of labour must always be sustained to serve as a pool of labour-power for times of increased demand for it and to keep the wages of the employed in check. the welfare state only makes the process of sustaining the reserve army more reliable and more economical. it represents only a more perfect expression of the needs of capital, not an external imposition on it.
>the socialist stage (a part of dialectical materialism) already failed in Soviet, Cambodia, China, etc.
none of them ever got there. you're confusing an early stage of capitalism in a form characteristic of the XX century, where state power is mobilized to forcefully remove obstacles to the accumulation of capital, with the first stage of communism where state power is mobilized to forcefully break the process of accumulation of capital.
>>21387602
yes, thankfully for the bourgeoisie capital has managed to overcome crisis and war and currently everyone is living happily ever after

[Anonymous No.21387867]

>>21387851
>commanding/leading=treating like shit
Bully victim mentality, I hope you get over your resentment.

[Anonymous No.21387874]

>>21387571
>>21387858
>the first stage of communism where state power is mobilized to forcefully break the process of accumulation of capital.
*the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat. the first stage of communism comes after

[Anonymous No.21387887]

>>21387857
>My father, and his father before him, and his father before him, and so on down the family tree operated in an unequal fashion
congrats on discovering gender relations in bourgeoisie society
> There are plenty of women that don't want to work
people that don't put effort into their household usually don't have a household for long
> It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood your view, which might just be that husband and wife share housework; that would be fine. I was just assuming what I've heard from college students and other new-left marxists, the ideal that children will be raised communally and there will be no "husband" or "wife", just people having sex and creating kids. No, that's not an exaggeration. If the household is intact and there is no intrusion of the state into the family then it could be better than end-game capitalism.
i don't understand how i could have been misinterpreted, i was pretty clear here >>21387584
>>21387867
you said that even when the division of labour is abolished you will still try to cling onto archaic gender relations by force, you're not andrew tate, you're not the top G

[Anonymous No.21387902]

>>21387887
>This is a branch of social labour like any other. It would be transformed into a social concern, just as every form of labour would become directly social.
Is enough to imply the same form of communal child rearing as communal work.

[Anonymous No.21387910]

>>21387902
what do you mean by "communal child rearing"

[Anonymous No.21387921]

>>21387902
>This is a branch of social labour like any other. It would be transformed into a social concern, just as every form of labour would become directly social.
>Is enough to imply the same form of communal child rearing as communal work.

This. Is. Not. Prehistoric. Condition. I would feel lazy to take care of children and everyone would do the same. The material condition has changed. A willingness to live in a communist society without state apparratus without money without bank is retarded beyond belief.

No, i love capitalism and goyslop.

[Anonymous No.21387939]

>>21387910
Anything that
>reduces the autonomy of the family
>culturally or socially reinforces polygamy
>enforces a system which places care of children in the hands of the community rather than family
>>21387921
>This. Is. Not. Prehistoric. Condition.
Don't care. I view this form as ideal. I do not care whatever rationalization someone comes up with for how it's LE BASED PROLETARIAT FAMILY OF 500 WORKERS.

[Anonymous No.21387945]

>>21387939
i have literally said nothing about polygamy, everything i have been talking about is related to labour an production.
>enforces a system which places care of children in the hands of the community rather than family
for most people that community is family

[Anonymous No.21387960]

>>21387610
*nothing happens*

[Anonymous No.21387963]

>>21387939
>Ideal

Cioran was right. Commies crave a collective heaven in the future (like a kind of salvation). You dedicate your life for an ideology that has been failed multiple times instead of enjoying a life to the fullest. Not really life affirming in Nietzschean way but Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.21387978]

>>21387945
Marxists today consider the institution of marriage or monogamy to be unequal and another form of division of the proletariat. It would necessarily have to go to ensure proper class awareness.
That's why you see so many marxists and bourgeoisie pseudo-marxists advocating for the dissolution of the nuclear family and for "free love." That's just frankly disgusting.

>You dedicate your life for an ideology that has been failed multiple times instead of enjoying a life to the fullest. Not really life affirming in Nietzschean way but Good luck with that.
If you mean marxists, sure. If by "ideology that has failed multiple times" you mean "what I'm suggesting," then no, because I don't think it has failed multiple times if it's been satisfactory.

[Anonymous No.21387987]

>>21387821
Read Kollontai.
Fulfilling your desires under communism will be like drinking a glass of water.

[Anonymous No.21387995]

>>21387978
>Marxists today consider the institution of marriage or monogamy to be unequal and another form of division of the proletariat
because those relationships are unequal in capitalist society. Men generally spend more hours in paid work than women. Women are often forced to seek employment by the meagreness of their partner's wage. But since they are trying to earn a mere increment on top of their partner's wage, an additional sum to secure the family's survival, they don't need to be as picky with their choice of employment as men - they take up part-time, poorly remunerated jobs. Men, by contrast, need to earn enough to function as the primary 'breadwinner' so that their wives can look after the household. Women are also paid less for the same work because, with their tendency to get pregnant and/or take time off to raise their children, they are a riskier business proposition. Suffice it to say this situation is not the case everywhere, but a generalisation.

This places women in a very unenviable position. They must shoulder the 'double burden' of housework (including childrearing) and wage-work, whereas men can focus more exclusively on their jobs. The role of women as childrearers has largely been inherited from previous modes of production; exactly why women ended up in this position is a question to be investigated historically, something which Engels attempts in The Origin of the Family. Capital found, at first, an industrial workforce consisting largely of men - but it soon drew women and even children into its maelstrom.

Communists do not care about the sexual preferences of people, but it is clear that once the division of labour has been abolished, the family and gender relations will change significantly.

i think you're looking for a communists take on sexual activity, a take you won't get because any communist actually worth their salt doesn't give a shit

[Anonymous No.21388037]

>>21387995
>i think you're looking for a communists take on sexual activity, a take you won't get because any communist actually worth their salt doesn't give a shit
I'm talking about the family. Socializing care of children is disgusting. The entire concept of socialization is disgusting and merely "better" than what capitalism is evolving into.
Socialized care of children is a soft enforcement of polygamy as it provides a competitive advantage to those who push their children off onto the collective. You see this as a good thing and utopian, but I value familial ties and tribalistic tendencies over "the collective."

[Anonymous No.21388051]

>>21388037
care of children is usually done by family, socialisation of labour means that labour is directed to what is socially necessary and to what each individual is capable of doing and incapable of doing. thus housework would be fairly done by those who live there. socialisation of labour does not mean you just interact with more people

[Anonymous No.21388053]

>>21387995
>>21388037
The competitive advantage is especially seen in the American welfare state, where those with little sense of responsibility reproduce with rapidly with many people and push care of the progeny they cannot even hope to manage on the government, tax payers, and foster care system.

[Anonymous No.21388183]

>>21387832
Stupid post from someone who hasn't read Engels.
In the primitive Gens, children were taking care of by the extended family (Gens). So no, it's doesn't come from muh Biology.
Muh biology is shit when it come to explain the customs of human. Such human group is polygamous, other is monogamous. Such group practize homosexuality openly (greeks). In some other, it is view as a great taboo. Muh biology is pretty useless compared to social relations in order to understand human behaviors.

[Anonymous No.21388263]

>>21388037
>but I value familial ties and tribalistic tendencies over "the collective."
Imagine thinking you are something else than a prole. Even if you are petty bourgeois, you existence comes to an end at last, subjected by inevitable proletarization. Only the financial aristocracy will survive in the end, representing pure, undiluted Capitalism in it's final form, along with the proletariat, awaking to class consciousness.
You petty bourgeois will soon disappear, along with your retarded counter revolutionary reactionarism.

[Anonymous No.21388306]

>>21388263
Of course, but communism will dissolve everything worth fighting for anyway.
I don't think that life is made better or more meaningful if everyone is as poor as I am. I don't think it's made better or more meaningful if I have to work less to feed and house myself. It is made less meaningful when humans are reduced to elements of a societal machine, whether that be commune or capitalist workforce.

[Anonymous No.21388438]

>>21386174
Engels is coal.

[Anonymous No.21388562]

>>21388183
Don't argue with bots or people who don't read. Use the report system.

[Anonymous No.21389141]

>Subjugation
Women cook the food, which prior to electricity was a labor intensive activity, and men hunt or grow the food, which prior to electricity was an insanely labor intensive activity that would often leave everyone involved dead or starving.

This arrangement has been going on for about 300,000 years.

[Anonymous No.21389390]

>>21389141
>This arrangement has been going on for about 300,000 years.
Women tend to hunt and gather food, hunting the primary sources of protein in the form of small mammals.

Men tend to hunt medium and large sized mammals, resulting is massive bbqs.

Some food processes like mass whale stranding or net fish hunting are more mixed gender whole of society activities.

Stop making up stuff about pre-herding pre-agricultural people. Reality is far more interesting than your fantasy.

[Anonymous No.21389821]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.21389861]

>>21389390
>Women tend to hunt and gather food, hunting the primary sources of protein in the form of small mammals.

>Men tend to hunt medium and large sized mammals, resulting is massive bbqs.
Sure you refuted that anon on the topic of prehistoric division of labour. However you don’t refute the biological distinction between the two genders that affected the gender relations. This “women tend to hunt smaller mammals” and “men tend to hunt medium and large mammals” shows how men have superior predicate.

>Fantasy
Yes, communist society post proletariat dictatorship is repulsive fantasy (although communist tends to deny this by saying it is the last stage of dialectical materialism which deterministic and scientific).

[Anonymous No.21391171]

>>21386197
Spbp

[Anonymous No.21391194]

>>21386888
>everyone is tied entirely to material circumstances
Only the slaves. The upper classes are independent and able to determine themselves because they are not tied to material necessity like slaves are.
>. the upper classes are only upper classes to the extent that
The upper classes are the upper class because they are intellectually, biologically, etc., superior to the lower classes, hence why it appears (key word) as a relationship of exploitation. Because the superior always instrumentalize the inferior. Hence the etymology of "aristocrat": "best men" (optimates), "the beautiful", "the truthful", etc.

[Anonymous No.21391294]

>>21391194
>they are not tied to material necessity like slaves are
yes they are, their very existence as upper class is completely tied to it. you can be an athletic superhuman with 150 iq, but if you're propertyless, you're in the bottom class. you can also be a retarded cripple who inherited a fortune and has 1000 slaves working for you. this is the real world. what you're saying is some kitschy make-believe. it makes me embarrassed for your sake when I consider the possibility that you aren't trolling.

[Anonymous No.21391304]

>>21389390
I knew it. Grilling IS the manliest activity

[Anonymous No.21391310]

>>21391294
Why are higher caste indians more intellegent than lower caste ones?
It is the same thing here, just because a minority of the upper class (at least a healthy upper class, all things wither and degenerate with time of course) is inferior to the average lower class does not refute the concept that the higher class is (on average) supperior

[Anonymous No.21391319]

>>21391294
True but still capitalistic society is the most effective way to distribute resources and enhance wealth and make women equal to men due to a notion that productivity is everything regardless of the gender, thus its existence is justified.

This is the end of history. There is no alternative.

[Anonymous No.21391326]

>>21391294
>you can be an athletic superhuman with 150 iq, but if you're propertyless
This would very rarely happen in reality. You're attempting to use rare exceptions to disprove the general rule. This is not intellectually honest, nor particularly applicable to the point made even if we assume it is a valid objection.
> this is the real world.
It is a hypothetical world you just invented in order to try to make a (failed) point.

> their very existence as upper class is completely tied to it.
You completely missed the point. The fact that they have the most property and wealth means exactly the opposite of what you think it means: It means they are NOT dependent upon it (because they have ample already), and are freed from its dominating influence, unlike slaves, who are deficient in wealth and property. A slave, due to his own intrinsic ineptitude, would have to spend his entire life, if even given the opportunity, just to increase his wealth to a comparable level, and when he does so, he would then be forced to spend all of his remaining time just trying to cling to it (which we see happening in reality after the downfall of the true upper classes after 1789). The aristocrat simply takes what he is naturally in possession of, and expends minimal effort in retaining it, in fact he even delegates its management to the servile who specialize in the management of property, while he focuses himself on more important matters.

[Anonymous No.21391367]

>>21386174
>gay philosophy
Philosophy is already the gay science.

[Anonymous No.21391374]

>>21387388
You can't prove any of your arguments, so hey

[Anonymous No.21391423]

>>21391374
>Reading comprehension issue

[Anonymous No.21391486]

>>21391310
>does not refute the concept that the higher class is (on average) supperior
but it does confirm the concept that being upper class is also a relation with regards to material production
>>21391319
>capitalistic society is the most effective way to distribute resources and enhance wealth
it's the most effective if we take the measure of effectiveness to be accumulation of capital. but that's just a tautology
>>21391326
>This would very rarely happen in reality.
this is beside the point. if it can happen at all, that means class consists of one's position within the relations of production, not of intelligence or whatever else. if it were truly a matter of intelligence etc., then there would be a NECESSARY connection between intelligence etc. and class. but my examples show that there isn't.
the only such connection that exists is subordinate to economic facts. for example, higher intelligence might make it easier for you to enter a profession that lets you amass property and make you upper class. but this just proves my point that the basis here is property, or in other words the position within the productive arrangements of society.
>You're attempting to use rare exceptions to disprove the general rule.
no, I have used it to disprove a necessary connection, which is a valid point. whereas you insinuate that I'm denying that there's a contingent connection, which I don't.
>It is a hypothetical world
no, it's the real world. class is determined by commanded property, and in bourgeois society there's no necessary connection between any personal features of an individual and the titles to property they own, only contingent connections that are subordinate to the basic economic fact. simple as that
>It means they are NOT dependent upon it (because they have ample already),
so they're not dependent upon it to the extent they have a lot of it. in other words, their independence with regard to property is dependent on them having a lot of property. which means they are very much dependent on it after all. if you refute yourself so perfectly on your own, why do I even bother replying?

[Anonymous No.21391515]

The commies absolutely BTFO'd the non-readers ITT

[Anonymous No.21391910]

>>21388306
Yet Huterrites communities are communist, the needs of everybody are taken care of by the community, and they are organized around monogamous families.
>Of course, but communism will dissolve everything worth fighting for anyway.
That is what Capitalism is currently doing. But since you have zero class consciousness, you are projecting Capitalism wrongdoing into communism. I don't think there will necessarily be one way to live into post Capitalism classless mode of production. You could have a onetime wife, if you love eachother, or you could have endless sexpartners. In Capitalism, people don't even have a choice, since wage labor is endless atomization. Not even of family relation, but friendship as well.

[Anonymous No.21391954]

>>21391319
>This is the end of history. There is no alternative.
This man, has never heard of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, combined with market saturation.

[Anonymous No.21392158]

>>21386351
I disagree, I think evolution more averse to rape, otherwise we would be more similar to apes who do not care about anything other than fucking, regarding things like personality and intelligence null. In a way, the family protects the woman from this part of the world, the cruelty of other men, so the woman meets a good man to pass on the family genes. There would be no selective procces otherwise. The fact that rape is more common in these institutions just proves that there are less structurees to protects women in those places(other woman, family, good men), rather than a pure instictual need of men to rape women whenever.

Everybody isn't like how you say. Even though humans are self-preserving, we have an instinctual need to form groups, and help each other to achieve our goals. The sadism and complete and utter weakness exists in out society, yet humanity has still strived for social groupings where its members empathize and look out for each other, neither in a sadist nor in a weak manner.

[Anonymous No.21392403]

>>21388037
>Socializing care of children is disgusting ... You see this as a good thing and utopian, but I value familial ties and tribalistic tendencies over "the collective."
Isn't a tribe a little collective though? It seems more collectivist than the bourgeois family structure which is more atomized. But that kinda tribal structure was largely destroyed by the capitalist mode of production.

https://youtu.be/pat2c33sbog

[Anonymous No.21392493]

>>21391486
>if it can happen at all, that means class consists of one's position within the relations of production, not of intelligence or whatever else.
I was just reminded of this novel from last year about the transition from communist Albania to capitalism from someone who lived there and went throug hit, and is critical of both the totalitarian Hoxhaist society (which was a lot like North Korea) and also liberalism and capitalism. One interesting thing about it is that author said that the communist regime was much more competitive than capitalism in fact, it was ultra-competitive in comparison to capitalism, but it was through education like getting really good grades at school, or learning multiple languages, because that was the main asset in a system in which money wasn't a factor in your success in that system. Of course the curriculum was highly proscribed in highly "ideological" ways but they did value it.

But one thing she said happened is that the communist regime made everybody complicit in it, so the victims of the regime were also perpetrators and vice-versa, so there wasn't anyone in particular to "blame" for the repression. Even the people who made out in the best in the 90s were former communists who turned into capitalists. There were a lot of secret police guys who were sheltering dissidents, and dissidents were who spies. So when people rejected that for democratic freedoms of expression and association (which she thinks are good), they rejected everything about socialism and Marxism because that was the only way they could cope with what had happened, you attack ideas rather than the people who were all complicit, and that led to extreme hostility to everything that smacks of Marxism, socialism, or communism and all these ideas that have been part of the discourse of propaganda of the communist regime. Therefore, the democratic freedoms also became bound up in "economic freedoms" which is liberalism and privatizing everything and free markets, which produces a whole new group of victims, which is what happened when the main pro-capitalist party that took part bankrupted the country in a giant pyramid scheme which took the shine off and resulted in a civil war. She teaches Marxism now.

[Anonymous No.21392629]

>>21392493
Reminder that not even the USSR called themselves "communist". Talk with people who were behind the iron curtain before 1991. They never say they were into communism, but socialism.

[Anonymous No.21392838]

>>21392493
>One interesting thing about it is that author said that the communist regime was much more competitive than capitalism in fact
because it *was* capitalism. there was no communist Albania or socialist Albania. in socialism there's no money and no social division of labour

[Anonymous No.21392846]

>>21392838
No matter how many time we repeat this, these retards will never get it. Typical denial. See, they like their little Shitler so much.

[Anonymous No.21392854]

I mean even some normies are starting to realize that Shitler was some shady elite puppet. Internet nazis now lagging behind normies.

[Anonymous No.21393437]

>>21392158
there are many species that literally reproduce exclusively via coersive mating

[Anonymous No.21393672]

>>21393437
cool, those species arent human retard.

[Anonymous No.21393702]

>>21386361
Free to what? Rape women? All this guy did was say a shitty generalization based on his specific circumstance.

[Anonymous No.21393878]

>>21393702
No, you are spinning my words here. I meant it as free from naive aspiration. I see the world as it is, not the way i want it to be.

Expecting monogamy family and “exploitation of women” will be vanished simply by implementing communism is banal wishful thinking.

Remember... the success of proletariat dictatorship = pre-condition for communist society to exist. Too bad it never won.

[Anonymous No.21393963]

>>21386174
>reading theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncFMyY7Ci4

[Anonymous No.21393970]

>>21392838
>>21392846
t. Didn’t read Marx

In socialism there are still money and division of labour because the state still exist as a machine to combat reactionary (example: China under Mao). You were thinking about the last stage of dialectical materialism a.k.a universal communism.

Fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.21394000]

>>21392158
>Good man = simp
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.21394012]

>>21386174
>If I don't get to impulsively and deceptively decide who reproduces without any responsibility, I'm le hecking oppressed!
Roasties needed to be put into place, then decadent bourgeois filth came up with utopian fever dreams, equally worthless simps supported them and now we're here.

[Anonymous No.21394200]

>>21393970
socialism and communism refer to the same thing, and in either phase of socialism there are no commodities, no division of labour, no money and no state. The only difference between socialism and communism is that the former is a acceptable term in bourgeoisie society that many liberals misuse and twist in order to fit their own liberal definition of it which is exactly what you just did.
>Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, [See Robert Owen and François Fourier] both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

[Anonymous No.21394323]

>>21394000
So you're saying that if I see a woman getting raped in front of me, and I sit there and watch like a cuck, that would actually make me very chad and not a simp? Fucking retarded faggot. Protecting those we love is part of being a man, something that your slave cuck mind can't seem to comprehend.

[Anonymous No.21394343]

>>21393878
What words? You barely said anything. Next time, if you don't want to be fucking misinterpreted, write more than 3 fucking words.

[Anonymous No.21394353]

>>21393878
Don't be a fucking rapist. Simple.

[Anonymous No.21394484]

>>21394353
>Strawman fallacy

[Anonymous No.21394660]

>>21394484
True, nevertheless my argument still stands.

[Anonymous No.21394686]

>>21394660
>Being this desperate to win

[Anonymous No.21394759]

>>21394686
>being desperate to suck my cock

[Anonymous No.21394897]

>>21394759
>wants to fuck a man's mouth instead of raping a woman

literally who asked

[Anonymous No.21394958]

>>21394897
nobody, just pointing out the fact that youre a faggot with a purpose of ostracization.

[Anonymous No.21395022]

>>21387939
Listen faggot, I don't think you understand. Marx/Engels are not suggesting this change in family relations will be enforced by laws or a state or anything like that. They are saying that the family units will naturally mold themselves in reaction to their environment (material conditions) and they will, as they have time and time again throughout history. Cope and seethe.

Do you think the nuclear family of the 50s was anything other than a result of the material conditions of post WW2 society? Then you are wrong. Do you think the increase of single moms and families where both parents are working is anything other than a reaction to today's material conditions? Then you are wrong. And thus, in a future society where the natural vision of labor between man and woman disappears, so to will the division of labor within the family.

[Anonymous No.21395038]

>>21387978
>Has to go
No. It just will. Your fundemental misunderstanding of Marxism is that you believe these changes are being enforced, rather than being an inevitability created by shifting material conditions propelling society into a peculiar direction.

[Anonymous No.21395044]

>>21387978
The institution of marriage (i.e) subjugation of a woman by her man will be abolished 2nd hand as the material conditions which causes the woman to be reliant on a man disappear.

[Anonymous No.21395053]

>>21386197
>>21386260
The fact that this horse shit is STILL being pushed a century after you fucks all (without exception) pushed for the acceptance of man as unblessed purely chemical product of evolution, born from blood and rape and genocide is proof beyond proof thay fucking NONE of you have ANYTHING interesting to say about the human condition or politics period.
The leftist project is a dead fucking end
And with its death will likely die “western civilization” (or whatever the fuck is left of it at this point)
It’s a cointoss as to whether or not whites survive the coming crisis or not
But the ONE solace in all this is that ALL of you slimey, dishonest self refuting fucks WILL (again, WITHOUT ESCEPTION) DIE on the hill of your own idealistic bullshit. Utterly unable to adapt to the new world of shortages and crisis manifesting as supply chains snap, pandemics rage and the planet heats
Finally
Finally
FINALLY
Humanity will se the last of you lying CUNTS once and for all

[Anonymous No.21395098]

>>21395053
such cool rhetoric

[Anonymous No.21395110]

>>21386351
>thus instead of outright murder in the streets, you get weird shit like a 10 step initiation into Tibetan Buddhism only to get drugged and raped by the abbot at the end lul
lul

[Anonymous No.21395131]

>>21387329
Spoken like a fucking idiot. I don't want to hear any imbeciles comment on political science or economics until they have read significant works or at least understand the theories of Adam Smith, Plato, Marx and Engels, John Locke, Kropotkin, Hobbes, Keynes and Rosseau at a minimum.

[Anonymous No.21395159]

>>21395053
I'm sorry but you are a schizophrenic. No one wants to hear your political commentary.

[Anonymous No.21395187]

>>21395131
Plato is the only one worth reading out of all of them (and not for economics), Keynes might be worthwhile for a rudimentary or preliminary insight into modern empirical economics. Otherwise you're better off reading modern economists like Mankiw.

[Anonymous No.21395196]

>>21395187
But than there would be no need for his commentary. I don't want to hear their opinions on empirical economics which can be figured with graphs and by reading such economicists. I should rephrase that comment; I meant that I don't want to hear his commentary on political science or sociology without reading or understanding those thinkers. Also I would add Proudhon.

[Anonymous No.21395548]

>>21393970
>t. Didn’t read Marx
>In socialism there are still money and division of labour
then I'm sure you can back this up with a quote from Marx. good luck

[Anonymous No.21396183]

>>21393970
No you didn't read Marx.
In Marx, in Critique of the Gotha program, you have two communism. Lower stage communism, and higher stage of communism.
Even in lower stage communism, money and wage labor are abolished, and replaced with labor vouchers. From each according to his contribution.
USSR is not Marxian. But State Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.21396187]

>>21389390
>Women tend to hunt and gather food, hunting the primary sources of protein in the form of small mammals.
>Men tend to hunt medium and large sized mammals, resulting is massive bbqs

You, uhh, contradicted yourself there my retarded friend.

[Anonymous No.21396229]

Yeah, I’m sure women were much more powerful in pastoralist and hunter-gatherer societies. The women probably made great ranchers and hunters…

Marx and Engels start to make sense only when you accept that they weren’t writing factually correct things so much as lying about it to get what they wanted.

[Anonymous No.21396266]

>>21396229
>For the Iroquois, farming was traditionally women's work and the entire process of planting, maintaining, harvesting and cooking was done by women.
>The chief of a clan can be removed at any time by a council of the women elders of that clan. The chief's sister has historically been responsible for nominating his successor. The clan mothers, the elder women of each clan, are highly respected
>Historically women have held the dwellings, horses and farmed land, and a woman's property before marriage has stayed in her possession without being mixed with that of her husband.

[Anonymous No.21396395]

>>21395187
Dude. Nobody wants to hear your underated opinion on x thinker when you've never read x thinker.

[Anonymous No.21396402]

>>21396266
Yes, and would you mind detailing how long this arrangement has been going on as well as how many other cultures around the world do it the same way. Oh, and while you're at it a breakdown of this tribes military and economic power would be great!

[Anonymous No.21396510]

>>21396402
I'm not your servant, I won't write a general essay for you. it's just common knowledge that early societies were more gender-egalitarian than later class societies.

[Anonymous No.21396518]

>>21387084
>The concept of primitive communism has been refuted again and again
Uh huh. While I trust you're a neutral voice of intense anthropological study and know you're word is good for it, for the other doubters could you maybe provide the evidence, prof?

[Anonymous No.21396583]

>>21396510
>Gender egalitarian
You mean segregated. You're saying the opposite of what's true. If you'd ever been to a primitive country you'd know that. If you'd ever read the literature in this topic, you'd also know that.

As it stands I have no idea what sort of retarded feminist dribble you've regurgitated.

[Anonymous No.21396590]

>>21396583
not that anon but
>If you'd ever been to a primitive country you'd know that
the primitive nations engels referenced in the origin of the family do not exist anymore, every nation on earth is developed and has completely embraced capitalism with the least developed nations sporting more production than the great powers of europe during marxs time

[Anonymous No.21396601]

Bumperino.

[Anonymous No.21396618]

>>21396590
They don't exist anymore because they gave women a modicum of power in political matters. The same reason most western cultures are already below replacement rates.

Every successful culture, say, catholicism, Roman's, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. are patriarchal. The jews are the most patriarchal culture that has ever existed, if you knew anything about their actual culture. Which you don't.

[Anonymous No.21396622]

>>21396618
you're a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.21396807]

>>21396622
And you should finish high-school.

[Anonymous No.21396811]

>>21396807
>They don't exist anymore because they gave women a modicum of power in political matters. The same reason most western cultures are already below replacement rates.
cute

[Anonymous No.21396830]

>>21396811
Do you have another theory you'd like to share with the class?

[Anonymous No.21396844]

>>21396830
the same one marx and engels put forth, that the way society if organised is based on production, that the relations between members of society is based on their class and their relation to the means of production instead of interpreting those relations as being inherent features of gender, race, religion, etc, the kind of retard shit you're peddling

[Anonymous No.21396878]

>>21396844
You don't think race, intelligence, or culture has anything to do with it? Boiling it down to class is fabulously reductive.

What about language, for example? How can we communicate our disperate social conditions without a shared linguistic frame of reference? What about cortical volume? Niggers are virtually Incapable of functioning outside of very tightly choreographed social contexts that have been conducted by whites/jews/asiatics.

[Anonymous No.21396882]

>>21396878
> Niggers are virtually Incapable of functioning outside of very tightly choreographed social contexts that have been conducted by whites/jews/asiatics.
lmao

[Anonymous No.21396884]

>>21396844
Oh, wait, lmao, I almost forgot ... man, I've been out of college so long I forgot how to argue with young communists. This is very nostalgic.

Define "class".

[Anonymous No.21396887]

>>21396882
By functioning I mean "not eating each other and shoving chicken organs up their assholes for magical purposes."

[Anonymous No.21396888]

>>21396884
ones relation to the means of production

[Anonymous No.21396895]

>>21396887
i'm not gonna waste time trying to convince someone that the sky isn't purple, go shit up this or that thread and go on with your day

[Anonymous No.21396901]

>>21396888
Define means of production

*farts*

I'm taking you seriously, I've just also watched countless teenagers make these arguments.

Oh, how do you propose to solve the problem of the pereto distribution?

[Anonymous No.21396909]

God, in my decades of shitting on commies I would love it if just ONE of them had the balls to define means of production.

They all start to sweat right at that point. Very disappointing. I mean, zizeks definition is pretty good. It's wrong, but still pretty good.

[Anonymous No.21396917]

>>21396901
>Define means of production
physical means by which society produces and reproducers their existence
> how do you propose to solve the problem of the pereto distribution?
the Pareto distribution is nonsensical

one critique of Pareto, just like other neoclassical economists, is that they claim their findings to be positivistic in nature while obscuring the normative aspects of their writing.

even supposing that Pareto's 80/20 rule, to give an example, is something that has recurred throughout history and continues to the present day, his assertion that such a distribution is "in the nature of man" does not logically follow. Yet his principles have been used time and time again by his successors to justify capitalist production.

in summary, it is more pertinent to consider economists like Pareto as ideologues rather than as scientists genuinely trying to understand Capitalism (Pareto's personal beliefs were similar to later fascists such as Mussolini, so take that as you will).

[Anonymous No.21396955]

>>21396917
>one critique of Pareto, just like other neoclassical economists, is that they claim their findings to be positivistic in nature while obscuring the normative aspects of their writing
That makes no sense.

I'm not being dismissive, what you've written here literally doesn't make sense. His equations describe a tendency for data taken from specific contexts to trend in a specific pattern. There's nothing nominal about it, nor is there anything positivistic about it. The term you're looking for is "predictive".

>even supposing that Pareto's 80/20 rule, to give an example, is something that has recurred throughout history and continues to the present day, his assertion that such a distribution is "in the nature of man" does not logically follow. Yet his principles have been used time and time again by his successors to justify capitalist production.
Well, it depends entirely what you and he mean by nature. He was actually fairly incorrect here, it has nothing to do with the nature of man and has everything to do with the physical properties of reality itself. The same equations can be used to describe the probability densities of distributions of gas in vacuums.

>(Pareto's personal beliefs were similar to later fascists such as Mussolini, so take that as you will).
I'm a scientist and logician so I don't really give a shit about people's political opinions.

[Anonymous No.21396992]

To the audience, this is the part where the commies brain usually starts to spaz out (they have a hard time thinking non-mathemarically, so any math that disputes their personal opinions on a subject, those being drawn via pure deduction, require that the progenitor of said math be attacked personally).

>I don't like peretos math
>Therefore he was a FASCIST
ITS FASCIST MATH!

LMAO, I love commies.

[Anonymous No.21397004]

>>21396955
>His equations describe a tendency for data taken from specific contexts to trend in a specific pattern. There's nothing nominal about it, nor is there anything positivistic about it. The term you're looking for is "predictive".
it's entirely positivist which is why it comes up so frequently in regards to economists trying to justify capitalist production

If science draws its conclusions from experience from the outset, then this idea is at best superfluous. Why should one, after having developed a theory, go back to the very experience from which one set out? This is even less a procedure through which theories would be able to be tested: wrong conclusions are drawn from the very same experience as right ones. So how are you then to distinguish between the two by "testing them against experience"? To assess these conclusions, it's necessary to examine them, not some experience imagined to lie outside of them. If one lacks experience, acquaintance with one's object, then accumulating it is a pre-scientific endeavour.
> The same equations can be used to describe the probability densities of distributions of gas in vacuums.
how quaint
>I'm a scientist and logician so I don't really give a shit about people's political opinions.
how convenient to be ignorant of a economists politics and affiliations when the theories and research that economist created are used so frequently to justify the existence of the political institutions and mode of production he was in line with

also for a "scientist and logician" you sure are a memefag, is this common in your field or are you just uniquely autistic and comedically bankrupt?

[Anonymous No.21397009]

>>21396917
Also, bro, I'm being a bit of an asshole here but just keep in mind that Marx and Engel were writing their shit like 200 something years ago. The math back then was like, fucking gradeschool level. They were making guesses.

It was an admirable guess, but the reality is that communism as an economic arrangement is pretty much laid out in the old testament. Communism isn't progressive, it's as old as humanity itself.

[Anonymous No.21397023]

>>21397009
>Also, bro, I'm being a bit of an asshole here but just keep in mind that Marx and Engel were writing their shit like 200 something years ago. The math back then was like, fucking gradeschool level. They were making guesses.
capitalism has not fundamentally changed and if anything history has vindicated their findings especially right now in the midst of a surge in worker organisation as well as a war in europe
> the reality is that communism as an economic arrangement is pretty much laid out in the old testament. Communism isn't progressive, it's as old as humanity itself
you don't know what communism is

go actually read the shit you claim to be knowledgeable about and read marx instead of shitting up threads

[Anonymous No.21397036]

>>21397004
>it's entirely positivist which is why it comes up so frequently in regards to economists trying to justify capitalist production
You're making a false equivalence here. Just because people invoke it as a justification for capitalism doesn't mean anything other than the fact that people invoke it as a justification for capitalism.

Who cares? It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Math is an approximation to reality, not equivalent to it. If you don't like what the equations describe then you're free to disprove them. Mathematics is concerned solely with the positing of hypothetical conditions and the tracing of their consequences, whereas philosophy and logic deals with the essential structure of subjective reality. Very different approaches, metaphysically as well as pragmatically.

>If science draws its conclusions from experience from the outset, then this idea is at best superfluous. Why should one, after having developed a theory, go back to the very experience from which one set out? This is even less a procedure through which theories would be able to be tested: wrong conclusions are drawn from the very same experience as right ones. So how are you then to distinguish between the two by "testing them against experience"? To assess these conclusions, it's necessary to examine them, not some experience imagined to lie outside of them. If one lacks experience, acquaintance with one's object, then accumulating it is a pre-scientific endeavour.
I am literally an academic philosopher and I have no idea what you're saying here. Not being a jerk, I genuinely have no idea. And I find Hegel light reading. I think you're trying to distinguish between math and philosophy?

>also for a "scientist and logician" you sure are a memefag, is this common in your field or are you just uniquely autistic and comedically bankrupt
I've been here a long time and I'm pretty young for my level of knowledge. I was lucky, I stumbled across some very insightful logicians and mathematicians when younger.

[Anonymous No.21397057]

>>21397023
Well, look man, when you go out into the world you'll discover a couple of things very rapidly.

1. People radically differ in their intellectual abilities

2. People radically differ in their physical capabilities

3. People radically differ in their personality

4. People differ very, very largely in their attitudes towards evil and their personal beliefs about it.

5. People can become insane very easily.

This isn't capitalisms fault, and communism isn't the solution. How you deal with these facts will determine whether you contribute to the problem or help to alleviate it. Whether you accept these problems as facts will also determine whether you'll waste your life trying to solve some other, imaginary problems that exist as phantasms spawned of inept reasoning (like Marx did)

[Anonymous No.21397064]

>>21397036
> Just because people invoke it as a justification for capitalism doesn't mean anything other than the fact that people invoke it as a justification for capitalism.
>Who cares? It's descriptive, not prescriptive. Math is an approximation to reality, not equivalent to it
> subjective reality
>I find Hegel light reading
> I've been here a long time and I'm pretty young for my level of knowledge
lmao don't even know why i bothered

[Anonymous No.21397070]

>>21397064
How old are you and what are you studying? Take a run at Carl Jungs work, it'll help you understand Hegel when you eventually work your way round to him. Kants introduction to logic is difficult for a beginner but you should try and take a stab at studying it first.

Consider using the program obsidian to track your work, it's the best markdown text editor I've ever come across.

[Anonymous No.21397081]

Shows over folks, the kid ran out of brain steam.

He'll grow out of it. I can't imagine being an adult with the internet and not realizing how stupid communism is.

[Anonymous No.21397098]

>>21396183
Wait hold on a second I didn't realize this kid was writing stuff earlier in the thread.

>USSR is not Marxian. But State Capitalism
Wow, so the jews are responsible for capitalism? Those crafty motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.21397103]

>>21397070
i've read hegel and kant you pompous patronising cunt. in fact hegels critique of kant suits this discussion quite well
> Speaking honestly, however, the arguments which Kant offers for his thesis and antithesis are mere shams of demonstration. The thing to be proved is invariably implied in the assumption he starts from, and the speciousness of his proofs is only due to his prolix and apagogic mode of procedure
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_iv.htm
i listed those quotes here >>21397064 because they're such overconfident pompous crocks of shit that it actually made me regret interacting with you because of how futile any discussion can be, it's painfully obvious that you haven't read anything by marx yet feel comfortable speaking as if you're a authority on it, it's why i discarded the race realist here >>21396895 but unfortunately your retardation flew under my radar. your head is so far up your own ass that your nose has replaced your adams apple
>>21397098
that's not me you memefag

[Anonymous No.21397114]

>>21386174
women get bred to have children and they also have exponentially less testosterone and much more estrogen, which makes them lovely sexy creatures and mothers. and to think that they are "equal" to men is just dumb

[Anonymous No.21397121]

>>21397103
>in fact hegels critique of kant suits this discussion quite well
Bro I was just giving some general advice, out in the real world people don't autistically start rambling about completely unrelated squabbles between unrelated philosophers.

Also, see my prediction here >>21396992

So, here's my assertion ... communism, Marxism, is an incomplete theory based on faulty premises. That is to say, Marx and Engels were not dealing with adequately accurate approximations to reality. Their metaphysics were bad and the conclusions drawn from deductive inferences are therefore also wrong.

And you disagree with this? You believe that their axioms were the most accurate descriptions of the facts of reality that we have access to as a species, in so far as those facts pertain to the economics of human civilization? That fair to say?

[Anonymous No.21397206]

>>21397103
I see you're finally out of steam. Good chat, man. No hard feelings, when you're old enough to need money for a family and career you'll grow out of your communism.

Because there's a finite amount of power in the world and either you'll have it or someone else will.

[Anonymous No.21397210]

>>21397121
>out in the real world people don't autistically start rambling about completely unrelated squabbles between unrelated philosophers.
the purpose of that quote was to link back to the pareto distribution earlier since it as well posited its finding from the start thus making any result from the theorem superfluous. also don't claim to be a "scientist and logician" and then complain that the contents of a discussion isn't in laymans terms, christ you're a pseud
>Also, see my prediction here >>21396992
my critique of the pareto distribution isn't the math, it's the mode of investigation it employed which posited the finding from the outset as all positivist neoclassical economics does, thus it literally cannot represent reality accurately as it abandons any actual investigation into reality by assuming its finding from the start.
> Marxism, is an incomplete theory based on faulty premises. That is to say, Marx and Engels were not dealing with adequately accurate approximations to reality
marx spent decades in the libraries of london with the latest economic findings when writing capital, and actually read marx before you claim it is false rather than making grand vague dismissals that elude supposed faulty research that you for some reason cant specify
> Their metaphysics were bad and the conclusions drawn from deductive inferences are therefore also wrong.
marx's analysis of capital was done on how capital works on ideal average so this is literally false, it is not draw from one or two instances, it is a analysis of how capital functions on the aggregate based on reality
> You believe that their axioms were the most accurate descriptions of the facts of reality that we have access to as a species
as access to information increases the so do revelations, their ideas on pastoral societies fall a little flat based on recent findings in anthropology, yet they were the best and demystifying the relations within the capitalist mode of production

go read marx

[Anonymous No.21397211]

>>21396583
>If you'd ever been to a primitive country you'd know that.
there are no primitive countries
>If you'd ever read the literature in this topic, you'd also know that.
show me the literature then
>>21396618
>They don't exist anymore because they gave women a modicum of power in political matters.
no, they don't exist because with the development of productive forces those societies evolved into other forms, just as historical materialism describes
>Every successful culture, say, catholicism, Roman's, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. are patriarchal.
I literally said that later class societies were less egalitarian here >>21396583. thanks for listing examples that confirm my point.
>>21396909
you're just retarded. you're asking for a definition of something that's already sufficiently defined by its name. namely, they are the means by which humans produce and reproduce the things they consume to sustain their existence and their activity. what's so hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.21397244]

>>21397210
>the purpose of that quote was to link back to the pareto distribution earlier since it as well posited its finding from the start thus making any result from the theorem superfluous
No offense but are you Jewish?

>my critique of the pareto distribution isn't the math, it's the mode of investigation it employed which posited the finding from the outset as all positivist neoclassical economics does, thus it literally cannot represent reality accurately as it abandons any actual investigation into reality by assuming its finding from the start
Well, I'm going to go ahead and deny your thesis because it's just straight up wrong. The dude just slapped some math together that represented a tendency in data sets taken from a given place.

>marx spent decades in the libraries of london with the latest economic findings when writing capital
Yeah, 200 something years ago. Retard. Maybe your math knowledge is 200 years old but mine ain't.

>marx's analysis of capital was done on how capital works on ideal average so this is literally false
Do you even know what metaphysics means?

Define metaphysics or I'm going back to playing elden ring.

[Anonymous No.21397279]

>>21397244
>No offense but are you Jewish?
What a scientific question

[Anonymous No.21397288]

>>21396583
>>21397211
>If you'd ever read the literature in this topic, you'd also know that.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-women-want-to-be-oppressed/
>In her 2009 book Mothers and Others anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy writes that “hunter-gatherers almost everywhere are known for being fiercely egalitarian and going to great lengths to downplay competition.”... A recent paper in Science corroborates Hrdy’s claim that hunter-gatherers displayed “sex egalitarianism.”...In his new book Behave, anthropologist Robert Sapolsky concurs that war “seems to have been rare until most humans abandoned the [nomadic hunter-gatherer] lifestyle.” Sapolsky also argues that culture might contribute more than biology to modern differences in male and female cognitive performance.

[Anonymous No.21397353]

>>21397288
>Sapolsky also argues that culture might contribute more than biology to modern differences in male and female cognitive performance
Uhuh, I'm sure that's why the correlation in IQ between identical twins is near 1 to fucking 1 and I suppose that the genetic distance between a typical German versus a typical Congolese African being greater than that between a chimp and gorilla has nothing to do with the fact the Germans were fucking around with jet aircraft in the 30s while the Congolese are still eating each other.

>Look, some nobody anthropologist political activists misinterpreted cultural modes!
God, deliver me from people who don't comprehend biology.

[Anonymous No.21397359]

>>21397279
Does it ever annoy you that smart people can tell you're a jew just from the t

[Anonymous No.21397361]

>>21397359
The arguments you make*

[Anonymous No.21397378]

>>21397359
I'm not Jewish, just the question alone is another example of how retarded this discussion has been. A pretentious memefag that plays games and shits up threads

[Anonymous No.21397382]

>>21397378
At least I actually know the difference between induction, deduction, and abduction.

Lmao

Define metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.21397383]

>>21397353
lmao @ comparing a pair of random people of same sex with a pair of identical twins. you're so interested in iq yet you've failed the basic iq test
>God, deliver me from people who don't comprehend biology.
a neuroendocrinology phd who's a professor at Stanford doesn't comprehend biology, but thankfully we have some whiny faggot on 4chan who does

[Anonymous No.21397393]

>>21397383
If they pulled their head out of their ass theyd realize they're outside of their field of expertise.

Ever hear of psychoanalysis? Econo-physics? Psychology?

You may as well get a neuro-geneticist or a fucking oral surgeon to make the observations for all the good it would make.

[Anonymous No.21397398]

>>21397383
You know what contributes most to cognitive performance? Access to food and water.

[Anonymous No.21397414]

>>21397393
>theyd realize they're outside of their field of expertise.
yes, the professor of neurology and biology at Stanford is outside of his field of expertise when talking about cognitive performance
give me your literature disproving sex egalitarianism in primitive societies instead of shifting the subject

[Anonymous No.21397416]

>>21386854
>Is only wholly relevant to the lowest (slaves) who are tied entirely to material circumstances
This is actually true. Whereas the now extinct burgeoise were all about frugality, anti wastefulness, and ethics, the proles have pretty much only ever thought about consumption. All prole literature boils down to consuming and resenting the fact that you can't consume more.

[Anonymous No.21397438]

>>21397416
>Whereas the now extinct burgeoise were all about frugality, anti wastefulness
no, they still exist, and as always they restrict their own consumption in order to maximize the accumulation of capital. and this operation creates an increased amount of commodities that then must be consumed. in fact so many of them, that they must be forced down people's throats through additional expense on advertising etc. some nice anti-materialism indeed

[Anonymous No.21397440]

>>21395022
>as they have time and time again throughout history. Cope and seethe.
This literally never happened. There is nothing indicating that material conditions dictate social relations and their nature any more than ideology itself and psychology. You people are retarded

[Anonymous No.21397441]

>>21397414
Absolutely, he's in the realm of psychoanalys when dealing with culture. Cognitive performance is a metric, not a quality of culture.

[Anonymous No.21397456]

>>21397438
>no, they still exist
Evidently not
https://carlsbad1819.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/why-post-liberalism-failed/

[Anonymous No.21397474]

>>21397441
psychoanalysis is a therapeutic techique that might or might not be better than just randomly talking to a thereapist. if you think you can apply it beyond that, you have no business discussing anything that even touches science.
>>21397440
if you seriously believe an economy made up 90% of sustenance agriculture corresponds to capitalist relations just as well as one with combined labour using heavy machinery and broad supply chains, then you're beyond help
>>21397456
yes they do. there's millions upon millions of small and medium capitalists that get stomach pain when they think of spending money for consumption when they could instead postpone that and instead invest it into their business and have 10% more of it in a year

[Anonymous No.21397490]

>>21397474
>psychoanalysis is a therapeutic techique that might or might not be better than just randomly talking to a thereapist

[Anonymous No.21397495]

>>21397490
jung is a charlatan. not even psychologists treat him seriously, and they aren't even proper scientists

[Anonymous No.21397520]

>>21397495
I bet your sex life is absolutely limp.

[Anonymous No.21397559]

>>21397495
I just realized you're a tranny.

[Anonymous No.21397570]

>>21392158
Sexual reproduction is the ultimate evolutionary end and driver, consensual or otherwise. But we’re not R-strategists, we have long gestation and maturation times, so the benefit of a monogamous and consensual (or at least tolerable) relationship is the presence of a man to act as caregiver, provider and defender, thereby increasing survival rate of offspring. A man who rapes a woman will have less success because the woman may not raise the child, the woman may be cast out or the child will not receive the same nurturing as from a two parent model.

Rape is prevalent in institutions because they can operate in a quasi-vacuum, insulated from normal mainstream and highly visible society. They are able to pursue their urges which are instinctual albeit immoral by our standards. If we were to attempt to do such things we would have to deal with other men and group defences and social consequences, but these big fish in small ponds are free to chase their desires and naturally degenerate into perverts. Textbook oversocialization combined with lack of social checks and balances.

[Anonymous No.21397594]

>>21397474
If you seriously think changes in family structure is determined by changes in farming methods then you are quite silly

[Anonymous No.21397601]

>>21397474
>there's millions upon millions of small and medium capitalists that get stomach pain when they think of spending money for consumption
That is not the sole thing that made the liberal burgeois what it was you autist. Try the link I sent

[Anonymous No.21397609]

>>21397495
Psycholpgists generally don't treat psychoanalysis seriously considering it's just astrology for leftists at this point

[Anonymous No.21398843]

>>21396187
Irregular massive bbqs aren’t the primary protein source. Cheers thanks for playing thank your mum for tonight’s rat on a stick.

She thanked me earlier for supplying her with proteins.