/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

>>8603606
A political or economical ideology is not inherently or objectively anti-science unless the main stated goal is to destroy or abolish science.

What's more is that it wouldn't be hard to claim that any ideology X is anti-Y based on conjecture. Using such vague generalizations is sloppy thinking, Anon. Anyone with a will/desire to find ideology X guilty of being anti-Y will find ideology X of being anti-Y.

tl;dr: Shit thread, inherently and objectively.

>>8603645
>A political or economical ideology is not inherently or objectively anti-science unless the main stated goal is to destroy or abolish science.
Okay fine.
It's pseudoscience then.

>tl;dr: Shit thread, inherently and objectively.
Yes, let's defend a theory that denies evolution because they happen to be leftist.

How embarrassing for you.

>>8603606
Why would scientists waste their time criticising sociological theory, such as social conflict theory, which is what Marxism is. If you're trained in chemistry, you don't have the foundation of knowledge in politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, or economics to form a good critique.

scientists don't care about politics. we'd prefer to stay up in our ivory towers and occasionally ask those in charge for more money.

>>8603652
Marx didn't deny evolution, per his own statements.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_01_16-abs.htm

I'm not concerned about the politics, left or right. I'll take the science. How absolutely humiliating for you.

>>8603663
>Marx didn't deny evolution, per his own statements.
Of course he said he didn't, he was a compulsive liar that constantly contradicted himself.

His actual economic and social theories DID deny evolution and human instincts though.

Marxists believe all human behavior is the result of economic forces instead of instincts.

It's very unscientific bullshit.

>How absolutely humiliating for you.
Are you a marxist?
You seem to be projecting pretty hard.

>>8603666
>His actual economic and social theories DID deny evolution and human instincts though.

Marx never really made a theory, particularly an economic theory. All of his writing on economics is just a critique of David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Stop posting, you haven't even read Marx.

>>8603666
Kek

>"Of course he was denying evolution whilst also denying he denied evolution because he was a liar based off my own analysis!"

How am I the one projecting, lad? You're the one coming on the science board and meaninglessly posting about Marx. The OP isn't even about science, it's a vague question about the behavior and actions of scientists (who are not a monolith) and then a claim that either the ideology of Marxism or the false idea that science does not wholeheartedly reject a political ideology is 'unscientific'.

I am not a Marxist. I am not a Capitalist. I am not a Taoist, a Maoist, a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim. I am a man. I am not the one with an agenda; that would appear to be you.

>>8603667
>Marx never really made a theory, particularly an economic theory.

>marx never made and economic theory

>not it's YOU that haven't read marx

lol are you really this dumb?

Falsifiability is outdated, cuck!

>>8603672
>>"Of course he was denying evolution whilst also denying he denied evolution

Because he CONTRADICTED HIMSELF COUNTLESS TIMES

Do you know what the word contradiction means? Are you from /b/ or something?

His theory is based off the denialism of human instincts. Are you actually denying what dialectical materialism mean?

>You're the one coming on the science board and meaninglessly posting about Marx.
>DUYURRR HURRR WE SHOULDN'T MOCK HOMEOPATHY ON THE SCIENCE BOARD

Go back to /b/.

>and then a claim that either the ideology of Marxism or the false idea that science does not wholeheartedly reject a political ideology is 'unscientific'.
Holy shit dude, if the theory is based off the denial of science why wouldn't we reject it?

Do you think we shouldn't criticism religious fundamentalist forms of statism on the basis of their unscientific beliefs?

Why are you even on the science board if you're defending pseudoscience?

>>8603686
>Assuming someone is from /b/ because they don't agree with you

Lad, I can tell you're getting frustrated, but I am not going to force you to reply.

I cannot seem to find anything where Marx claimed all human nature, as you have claimed, is dictated by economical conditions. However, even if he had said something to similar effect with the exception of 'all' human behavior, he would be correct, as economic conditions do dictate human behavior in numerous ways. However, it appears as though you took that and made the conjecture that Marx was anti-science because you believed him to be anti-evolution because he said that behavior can be dictated by economic conditions, which it most certainly can be. As you can see, there are many gaps in this line of thinking. However, in doing so, you failed to look at evidence in which Marx claims support of evolution as correct and disregarded it by merely saying he is a liar.

>>8603695
>I cannot seem to find anything where Marx claimed all human nature, as you have claimed, is dictated by economical conditions.
Not him, but that's actually essentially what marxists believe.

Prove to me that Biological Instincts 'exist'.

>>8603713
>>Not him, but that's actually essentially what marxists believe.
i've seen it claimed for certain things like greed. but taking the greed example, where does the behavior of greed exist? in a society of scarcity. if we lived in a post scarcity environment, then it doesn't make sense for greed to exist, since there isn't any sort of extra incentive one would get from engaging in activities like hoarding or resource competition, and that they are logically contradictory to a post-scarcity environment. it's a weird twisted thinking i admit, but something like this could help one understand what the marxists are thinking.

>>8603725
>hold breath
>co2 threshold reached
>gasp for air


>hungry
>find food


>have a lot of children
>kill neighbors
>get aids
>apply for welfare

>>8603713
Mind telling me where Marx says that all human behavior is dictated by economic conditions? Even other later Marxists like Lenin, I'll take those too. I do think that you will have a hard time arguing that, unless what has been written incontrovertibly states something to the effect of "All human behavior is dictated by economic conditions" (with the word 'all' being emphasized, due to the fact that the statement that is asserted to be either essential to Marxism or claimed to have been made by Marx and his followers is largely true once it [the word 'all'] is omitted), Marxism and Marxists believe that economic conditions and economic conditions alone are the root of all human behavior. Even if something suspect is found, the context must be looked at to determine whether or not an out-of-context quotation makes it seem as though something was said that truly isn't being said.

This isn't about defending an ideology, it's about pointing out sloppy thinking. The whataboutism and childish shouting of "Go back to /b/!" is all a distraction.

>>8603676
Not an argument, kid.
Marx critiqued and inverted Smith and Ricardo, he didn't create a theory from first principles in relation to them, he just showed (according to him) the contradictions in the capitalist mode of production.
And yes, you haven't read Marx, it's very clear from your idiot posts.

>>8603695
>Lad, I can tell you're getting frustrated
Heh you're angry defense of marxism in the fact of logic seems to upset you.
>I cannot seem to find anything where Marx claimed all human nature, as you have claimed, is dictated by economical conditions.
Lol dude it's literally the BASIS of dialectical materialism. They believe the capitalist mode of production is what defines all human behavior and needs to be changed to a socialist mode of production then a communist one.

This is exactly what they believe. Are you actually denying this?

>he would be correct, as economic conditions do dictate human behavior in numerous ways.
So does anything else. The economy does not change human instincts no matter how much you marxist teenagers whine about it.

You should probably kill yourself, you're a creationist.

>>8603725
>Prove to me that Biological Instincts 'exist'.
Please leave /sci/.

>>8603732
>in a society of scarcity. if we lived in a post scarcity environment, then it doesn't make sense for greed to exist
Yes, if we magically lived in a post scarcity society. We don't though.
and greed would still exist in this society, but it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is now

>engaging in activities like hoarding
You mean savings? The lifeblood of the economy?

Anyone who loves science should treat marxists the same way we treat fundamentalist christians.

These people are insane cultists that want violence.

>>8603741
>Mind telling me where Marx says that all human behavior is dictated by economic conditions?

You're embarrassing. I literally googled for two seconds and pulled this up.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/economic-determinism-and-karl-marx-definition-history.html

Marxists DO believe in this.

In fact when arguing with marxists online this is the MAIN thing they bring up.

Why do you keep denying this?

>>8603743
>Not an argument, kid.
You didn't have an argument in the first place, I was simply mocking your utter lack of an argument.

>Marx critiqued and inverted Smith and Ricardo, he didn't create a theory from first principles in relation to them, he just showed (according to him) the contradictions in the capitalist mode of production.
Yes and not only was he horribly wrong, he also created a THEORY.

Are you a marxist or something, you seem pretty determined to defend it?

>you haven't read Marx,
This is what EVERY SINGLE marxist teenager says when you criticize their childish ideology.

Marxists actually believe that creating a massive authoritarian state, this state will be able to socially engineer humanity and then will magically "wither away".

How fucking retarded is that?

>>8603754
I'm not angry, lad. And the Marxists seem to disagree with your definition.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm

Also, now you're shifting the conversation away from behavior which is influenced by economics, instincts, as well as many other social and biological factors, and now saying, in your own words "The economy does not change human instincts...", when originally the conversation was about human behavior and whether or not Marxism is anti-science due to the OP and subsequent posts in which an individual or individuals understanding Marxism as being anti-evolution because someone, with no primary source, has been claiming that the idea that ALL human behavior is dictated by economic conditions is a tenet of Marxism.

>>8603777
Once again, you still won't give me the quote where the founders of Marxism claim that ALL human behavior is dictated by economic conditions. That is, after all, the crux of this problem, as once 'all' is removed, there is nothing incorrect about that statement.

I'd just like to point out that nowhere in any of the links posted has anything said that Marxism believes humans don't have instincts

>>8603783
>And the Marxists seem to disagree with your definition.

>posts a glossary from a marxist website with no context
What are you even trying to say?

Marx literally believed in economic determinism and laws of history.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/economic-determinism-and-karl-marx-definition-history.html

In fact laws of history is a marxist thing.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history
>The Marxist theory of historical materialism sees human society as fundamentally determined at any given time by the material conditions—in other words, the relationships which people have with each other in order to fulfill basic needs such as feeding, clothing, and housing themselves and their families.
It's like you can't even grasp marxism 101.

>Also, now you're shifting the conversation away from behavior which is influenced by economics, instincts, as well as many other social and biological factors, and now saying, in your own words "The economy does not change human instincts..."
You mean I'm DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT AT HAND? It's literally what we are discussing I am not shifting the conversation whatsoever. Can you not read?

>when originally the conversation was about human behavior
Yes, the conversation and thread was about marxists denying human instincts and instead believing all human behavior was the result of economic forces. Which marxists DO BELIEVE.

>with no primary source, has been claiming that the idea that ALL human behavior is dictated by economic conditions is a tenet of Marxism.
I already provided plenty of links showing this.

I can't believe I'm even arguing this with you. It's like you're saying Muslims don't believe in allah.

Why are you defending an evil ideology that murdered millions of people?

>>8603792
>"economic forces and only economic forces shape human societies"

>b-b-but marx said humans have evolutionary instincts that define them

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Anyone with a functioning brain realizes that marxism is retarded pseudoscience.

It's quite a shame that universities have been infiltrated by marxists and cultural marxists that deny science.

>>8603806
R. E. K. T.
E.
K.
T.

>>8603761
>>Yes, if we magically lived in a post scarcity society. We don't though.
yes that is true, but im playing a thought experiment to show how the idea of greed and its ever present existence in human nature changes when we put the idea in the context of a scarcity and a post-scarcity environment.

>You mean savings? The lifeblood of the economy?
All of that and the likes. Those sorts of activities logically do not make sense in a hypothetical post scarcity environment.

>>8603806
>No context

It has the phrase you used defined, and it's different, meaning that the Marxists themselves do not define it the way you claimed Marxists defines it.

Second, economic conditions fundamentally have an impact on behavior. To say that it doesn't is objectively false. Nowhere have you proved that Marxism does not believe that biological beings do not have instincts. Plus, if you were actually thinking, you'd realize that instincts are about survival in a world where resources are finite, you know, an economy of resources. I thought that I might be going back and forth with someone that understood that, but now I believe I see what you are doing. Haha, guys, Marx thinks you get thirsty because of economic conditions! Lol! He's so wrong! He's probably anti-science
Also
>Saging the thread in an attempt to let it slide
>Virtue signalling

Are you the boogeyman you are trying to warn me about?

>>8603782
>creating a massive authoritarian state
I get the impression that they're closer to the anarchists and for abolishing the state, but maybe I misread that.

>>8603817
>yes that is true, but im playing a thought experiment to show how the idea of greed and its ever present existence in human nature changes when we put the idea in the context of a scarcity and a post-scarcity environment.
Yes, but as I said. Living in a post-scarcity environment won't eliminate greed.

>>8603820
>It has the phrase you used defined, and it's different, meaning that the Marxists themselves do not define it the way you claimed Marxists defines it.
They define it exactly as I had said it.
You want more proof.
>However, in the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach (1845), Marx criticizes the traditional conception of "human nature" as "species" which incarnates itself in each individual, instead arguing that the conception of human nature is formed by the totality of "social relations". Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation.

>Second, economic conditions fundamentally have an impact on behavior.
No shit they can have an impact on human behavior. Nobody is denying this.

We're only calling you religious fundamentalists retarded for thinking ALL human behavior is the result of economic forces and the "mode of production".

It's entirely unscientific and denies the very basics of human evolution and instincts.

Embarrassing.

>To say that it doesn't is objectively false.
Lol I NEVER said that.

>Nowhere have you proved that Marxism does not believe that biological beings do not have instincts
Except the countless quotes and websites I keep posting, but keep going.

>Marx thinks you get thirsty because of economic conditions
Marx claims basic biological functions like needing water food and sleep are biological. Everything else is based on economic forces.

>>Saging the thread in an attempt to let it slide
I was about to ask how you know I'm saging, but I forgot this is one of the slowest boards.

>>8603824
>I get the impression that they're closer to the anarchists and for abolishing the state
For some delusional reason marxists believe that the massive authoritarian state that controls almost all aspects of human life will somehow magically "wither away" once they've socially engineered everyone.

It's pretty fucking stupid.

>>8603820
Why are you even defending marxism in the first place?

>>8603837
>>Yes, but as I said. Living in a post-scarcity environment won't eliminate greed.
I would like to know how. Maybe intangible things like power or control people will covet, but it could be argued that the power of those abstract things come from monopolizing some other resource people need but lack, which circles back to the the things I just said.

>>8603843
>I would like to know how.
You live in post scarcity and you're playing monopoly with your friends.

Greed.

>>8603837
"Marx claims basic biological functions like needing water food and sleep are biological. Everything else is based on economic forces"

And Marx is essentially correct.

"Except the countless quotes and websites I keep posting, but keep going"

They give a definition of a term that within its definition mentions nothing about instincts.

wtf I'm a Marxist now. Thanks OP and friends.

>Why doesn't the scientific community criticize marxism for it's anti-scientific theories more?

It does. As with all political idioligies its received its fair share of scrutiny.

The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that the entire scientific community is one person. Its not. Scientists are rarely overly opinionated on subjects outside their remit.

>>8603848
Fucking this.

>>8603739
None of that is evidence of 'biological instincts' 'existing'. Rather, it is simply an observation of a pattern of actions which seemingly occur in high probability.

>>8603847
>And Marx is essentially correct.
Are you honestly serious right now?

Why are you even on the science board if you're going to believe such pseudoscience?

The fact humans find things cute is because of capitalism and not a hard wired instinct?

Damn anon I feel sorry for you.

>wtf I'm a Marxist now.
Good, continue being a creationist. You should join the westboro baptist church while you're at it.

>>8603839
>Everyone that points out sloppy thinking on the part of someone that is attacking X must therefore be defending X

Good job!

>mfw there are literal evolution denialists on /sci/ right now

>>8603855
No, non-marxist defends marx that hard bro.

>>8603839
you seem to be under the impression that all marxists want a soviet style state and that anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists don't exist.

>>8603645
>tl;dr: Shit thread, inherently and objectively.

Agreed, sage

>>8603866
>you seem to be under the impression that all marxists want a soviet style state
No I'm not.
Most marxists are actually in favor of a soviet style state.

Classical marxism though demanded a violent revolution and a socialist state which would eventually turn into communism.

>>8603867
t. angry leftist defending pseudoscience

>>8603861
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
>In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

Try to learn how to separate personal feelings for a topic from your understanding of it. You'll learn to understand the other people you disagree with a lot more.

>>8603871
The guy I'm agreeing with literally admitted he believes in instinct denialism though.

Marx's theories are unfalsifiable. He makes predictions that are clearly meant for only a few generations after him, his predictions blow but his followers will stick by them. Since no time restriction was made, maybe the socialist revolution will work in the year 2500 (protip: it won't). Hilarious when you think about how obsessed he was with putting the "scientific" label in his version of socialism.

>>8603876
Falsifiability is a meme.

Please stop pushing it, thanks.

>>8603854
So far all you've done is

1. Prove that Marx is right about economic factors influencing behavior
2. Saying I'm defending pseudoscience (when I'll I'm doing is attacking the sloppy thinking of OP and friends)
3. Hurling out childish remarks

What part of "Marx is anti-science because I claim he's an evolution denier based off of a definition of a term that doesn't mean what I mean it means because I incorrectly understood it to mean that Marx doesn't believe in biological instincts except I had to walk that part back because as it turns out Marx both wrote about his support of evolution and because economic conditions, or the condition of resources and their allocation, do in fact influence behavior and our instincts because our instincts exist as a biological survival tool in a world where resources are finite"

>>8603861
And why is that? I'm not defending Marxism. I'm not advocating for the abolition of capital and the state. All I've done is point out that OP and friends are criticizing the scientific community (which is not one person) for not doing something that they wish they would do based on their own and incorrect understanding that Marxism is anti-science through a convoluted and flawed mental-gymnastics routine that somehow leads from "Economic conditions have an impact on behavior" to "Marx is anti-science" via "Marx incorrectly believes instincts are a product of economic conditions" which, as it turns out, is quite correct as resource availability largely drives our instincts.

>>8603876
He was using his contemporary understanding of "science", as in a formal systematic study of some particular topic. You'll find that many others before his time used the word science similarly.

>>8603876
>Marx's theories are unfalsifiable. He makes predictions that are clearly meant for only a few generations after him, his predictions blow but his followers will stick by them. Since no time restriction was made, maybe the socialist revolution will work in the year 2500 (protip: it won't). Hilarious when you think about how obsessed he was with putting the "scientific" label in his version of socialism.
This.

>>8603882
and they were wrong.

>>8603881
>1. Prove that Marx is right about economic factors influencing behavior
I've constantly proved YOU and marx wrong this entire thread and now you're back for more punishment?
You don't even believe in human instincts. WHY ARE YOU ON THE SCIENCE BOARD?

>What part of "Marx is anti-science because I claim he's an evolution denier based off of a definition of a term that doesn't mean what I mean it means because I incorrectly understood it to mean that Marx doesn't believe in biological instincts except I had to walk that part back because as it turns out Marx both wrote about his support of evolution and because economic conditions, or the condition of resources and their allocation, do in fact influence behavior and our instincts because our instincts exist as a biological survival tool in a world where resources are finite"

Uh? Care to complete this run-on sentence? lol

>>8603881
>I claim he's an evolution denier
He is.
If you only accept part of evolution and not the entire thing, you are an evolution denialist. Christfags do the same thing.

>based off of a definition of a term that doesn't mean what I mean it means
Wrong lol

>because I incorrectly understood it to mean that Marx doesn't believe in biological instincts
He literally stated this.
I don't know how I can drill this into your head even more.

Literally all of the marxists on the internet CONSTANTLY say this. You're denying basic economic determinism is a thing marxists believe, when it is.
Holy shit contain your autism.

>>8603885
>>and they were wrong.
They weren't wrong so much as the understanding of the word became more exclusive.

Marxism is a religion, OP. Their faithful are all over university, that's why.

>there are ACTUALLY people that deny human instincts on this board

>>8603885
No, man, why are you talking about Marx on the science board?

Like I was trying to say where I accidentally dropped part of my sentence (which I appologize for), what part of your messed up chain of logic actually makes sense to you?

Also, you're going back to the "MUH HUMAN INSTINCTS!", when we've already established that Marx believed in biological instincts like needing to sleep and eat and drink. However, you now seem to be denying the fact that resource scarcity, an aspect of economics, contributes to human instincts.

>>8603891
>understanding of the word evolved
There are countless marxists today that still believe in this despite our modern words.

You're STILL wrong.

>>8603848
This you autists. What is political science.

>>8603894
>Still samefagging

There's a post counter. It hasn't gone up in over ten posts. It's only gone up by five new posters since around the 20 post mark.

Are you lads new to 4chan? Did you forget how post counts work? Did you forget that announcing your sages can get you banned?

>>8603896
resource scarcity is a fact of human life, not an aspect of economics.

>>8603902
*Poster counter

>>8603899
>>There are countless marxists today that still believe in this despite our modern words.
wouldn't say that this is limited to marxists. You'll hear people say "the science of X", or that mathematics is a science, or computer science, even though they don't fit with our current understanding of science dealing with empiricism and empirical falsification

>>8603894
>>there are ACTUALLY people that deny human instincts on this board

>instead of debating I will false-flag as someone else!!!


Retard

>>8603904
Economics - the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

Guess what? Allocating finite resources is a part of economics.

>>8603896
>No, man, why are you talking about Marx on the science board?
>why are you talking about an ideology that claims to be scientific on the science board

So we call talk about it and dismiss it as pseudoscience? There are other pseudoscience threads. Cry more.

>when we've already established that Marx believed in biological instincts
Why do I have to repeat myself to you.
HOLY SHIT just GOOGLE THIS SHIT YOURSELF

I already fucking destroyed you on this. Marx believed only the most basic of human instincts existed(eating, sleeping, drinking water) and everything else was determined by the mode of production.

Can you even DEFINE the word mode of production?

You FUCKING CAN'T. You know nothing about marxism.

>However, you now seem to be denying the fact that resource scarcity, an aspect of economics, contributes to human instincts.
LOL WHAT THE FUCK
Resource scarcity contributes to human BEHAVIOR, not human instincts.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Are you actually saying economic conditions change the hard wired instincts in your brain?

WHAT THE FUCK
I'm literally laughing irl right now. What the fuck are you even saying?

>>8603910
>Implying you didn't just make a double false-flag

>>8603902
>there are actually autists ITT RIGHT NOW that are upset that people are calling them out on denying human instincts

The scientific community is laughing at you.
Go be a creationist somewhere else.

>samefag
So what? lol

>>8603910
I already debated.

The other guy lost.

Do you ALSO deny human instincts?

The fuck are you doing on the science board?

>>8603913
I never claimed Marxism was scientific, OP claimed it was anti-science. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what's going on here.

Based off your caps-lock rage and your need to exclaim how hard you are chuckling, I imagine you are doing anything but laughing.

>>8603917
>if you deny biological 'instincts' you are a creationist

What is it like being retard?

I have already asked you and you have given no reply.

Prove to me that biological instinct exist.

>>8603911
scarcity exists both in virtue of the fact that resources are finite and the fact that human desire in infinite. You seem to be under the impression that it is something contingent that could be solved by the economy. No, it's a fact of life.

>>8603920
Why are you on the science board if you can't understand that economics determine instincts?

>>8603920
MAYBE YOU SHOULD LEAVE THE SCIENCE BOARD, RETARD.


SCIENCE IS ABOUT DEBATE, NOT ABOUT FORMING AXIOMS, THERE ARE NO AXIOMS IN SCIENCE RETARD, ONLY THINGS WE BELIEVE TO SEEMINGLY OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS AND FORM A CONTINUITY, A UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.


GO BACK TO RIBBIT.

Why doesn't the right wing want to ban socialistic institutions like the military?

>>8603925
Economy isn't man-made. It exists in nature. Lesser animals and humans have instincts that are fundamentally based on this economy. The fact is that this economy has an impact on instincts.

>>8603929
seems like hume is coming up this half hour. its time to call it a night

>>8603921
>I never claimed Marxism was scientific
Marxists do.

>Based off your caps-lock
>HE'S YELLING AT ME IN CAPS LOCK

>>8603923
>I only believe in 1/3rd of the theory of evolution
Yes, you're a creationist.
>Prove to me that biological instinct exist.
Holy shit go back to /lit/ I can't believe you people even exist.

>>8603934
>haha i got btfo, ill just go to bed

Sounds about right :^)

>>8603926
>Why are you on the science board if you can't understand that economics determine instincts?

>hey guys the only reason you think that baby is cute and don't want to kill and eat it is because you live under capitalism

holy fuck

>>8603936
>>I only believe in 1/3rd of the theory of evolution

Where did I say that?

You think evolution requires instincts :^)?

Define 'instinct'

>>8603936
Except Marx believes humans have instincts.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xnVKCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=marx+instincts&source=bl&ots=Z_zH5v8tIE&sig=fAylmYiewIIMcw-6jU3guSTKCkA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq_eSvhcTRAhVS6GMKHYFYCVoQ6AEILDAD#v=onepage&q=marx%20instincts&f=false

>>8603940
>hey guys, the only reason you think the baby is cute and don't want to kill is because of a collection of matter in the form of atoms interacting with one another

holy fuck AHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>8603929
>being this mad over being btfo
why?

>>8603947
le anime reply


LMAO, right on time

>>8603937
Well actually, before I do that. I need to put words in other people's mouths and knocking down self-made strawmen. Still got quite a bit of shitposting to save face.

>>8603946
>hey guys I'm going to not have an argument at all and be really mad about it

>>8603913

You seem like the type of person that might have multiple voices in your head.

You are accusing the person that you are arguing with of saying things that they did not say. Then you make fun of them for saying the things they didn't say (that you made up). You might as well be having a make believe conversation with yourself.

To me, I just see a giant thread of garbage. This is not a scientific conversation.

It's just a bunch of random opinions vomited out to get attention.

>>8603951
The post beforehand literally posted an argument in the exact same form.

If you are that poster, kill yourself.

>>8603946
>>hey guys, the only reason you think the baby is cute and don't want to kill is because of a collection of matter in the form of atoms interacting with one another
It's like you didn't even try to refute anything he said.

I agree with him. Do you not realize your entire concept of thinking things are cute is because you evolved that way? Pretty incredible some people will outright deny this.

>>8603950
So, basically what all the people shitting on Marx have been doing by calling everyone they don't agree with Marxists, creationists, and Christians?

>>8603949
>no argument
>still angry

>still denies evolution

>>8603954
The I actually had a fucking point.
You actually think the only reason people think things are cute is because they live under capitalism?
How fucking stupid and unscientific is that?

You didn't even have an argument you just strung a bunch of random words together.

You should probably just close the tab.

>>8603958
>is because you evolved that way?

Prove it, retard.

Your form of causality is very shaky, I hope you realise that. I suggest you stop watching YouTube videos and gain a proper knowledge of the methodology behind psychology studies and the history of epistemological thought and scientific method.

If you think what you just said is a definitive fact, you ought to kill yourself.

>>8603963
>You actually think the only reason people think things are cute is because they live under capitalism?

I never made the Economics argument.

There are multiple posters here, idiot. Not everyone is the same.

>>8603958
No one here is denying that, though. The only issue is that even though Marx wrote about the existence of instincts, OP and friends have decided that Marx doesn't believe in instincts (which he wrote about existing) and therefore didn't believe in evolution (which he also wrote about and supported) and is therefore anti-science. It's not hard to see who is on the losing side.

>>8603953
>You are accusing the person that you are arguing with of saying things that they did not say.
Wrong.

But keep believing that with no evidence.

>This is not a scientific conversation.
Because you're denying science.

>>8603964
>Prove it, retard.
>PROVE SOMETHING ALL FUCKING SCIENTISTS BELIEVE

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

HOLY SHIT ARE YOU ACTUALLY THIS RETARDED?

I can't BELIEVE I ACTUALLY have to do this.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/why-are-animals-cute/
https://people.rit.edu/jtsgsh/PAPERS/oncuteness.pdf
http://news.psu.edu/story/141179/2005/11/21/research/probing-question-why-are-babies-cute
nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/06/cute-babies-have-an-evolutionary-advantage-in-life.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260535/
http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2013/08/26/the-science-of-cuteness/
https://www.quora.com/Is-cuteness-an-evolutionarily-advantageous-trait
http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/babies-cute-explained.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness


We need to ban people like you from this board.

>>8603972
>The only issue is that even though Marx wrote about the existence of instincts

Who gives a fuck? This is just some stupid bullshit economics.

They all just talk out of their ass. It's not science. This is garbage.

>>8603966
Okay, do you deny cuteness comes from our evolution?

>>8603972
>No one here is denying that, though.
Like 2 posts literally fucking denied that.

see:
>>8603926
>>8603964

>>8603974
That isn't proof that it *is* that way for *that* reason, idiot.

That is simply correlation.

>>8603944
We've already established marx believes people have basic instincts like needing food, water and sleep. He believed every else was economically constructed.

Yes, yes he did believe this.

>>8603972
>The only issue is that even though Marx wrote about the existence of instincts
We've already established marx believes people have basic instincts like needing food, water and sleep. He believed every else was economically constructed.
Even MARXISTS repeatedly say this. Have you ever debated a marxist?

>and therefore didn't believe in evolution
If you only believe in 1/3rd of evolution(like christians do).
You don't believe in evolution.

>It's not hard to see who is on the losing side.
Yes, the people ITT that literally deny humans have instincts.
Incredible.

>>8603974
>speculation and interpretation = fact

KILL YOURSELF.

>>8603975
Exactly, and when I called them out, they took it personally and started calling everyone that didn't agree a Marxist.

There are a couple of shitposters here, though. One who is asking someone to prove instincts exist, and someone that keeps making >I can't believe X visit this board posts.

>>8603979
The "Prove it" post is one of the shitposts I am talking about, and the fact that some Anon is still replying to him is pretty funny tbthwyf. The other post isn't saying that instincts don't exist, either.

>>8603983
>99% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
>THIS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PROVEN

>99% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
>THIS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PROVEN

You seem to be exhibiting the human instinct of anger right now.

Oh wait, I guess that doesn't exist and only happens because we live under capitalism. Hmmmm.....

>>8603987
>evolution and human instincts is just speculation

I can't even fucking believe you people are on the science board.

Why? WHY ARE YOU HERE?

You actually believe cuteness is a social construct?

WHY?

It's like you don't even accept the human brain exists.

>>8603985
>Marx only believes in part of evolution

Sure thing, bud. Are you going to tell me he didn't believe in aspects of evolution that were't even being talked about during his time?

>>8603988
>The other post isn't saying that instincts don't exist
There are posters ITT saying instincts like cuteness don't exist.

>>8603996
Cuteness isn't an instinct, it's an attribute.

You don't eat your kid because you want your kid to survive and make more kids. Your kid is a resource. Your kid is part of the natural economy. Congratulations, you're a Marxist.

>>8603994
>Are you going to tell me he didn't believe in aspects of evolution that were't even being talked about during his time?
Human instincts were talked about during that time by darwin. They were just much more researched and accepted later in the 20th century.

Apparently not with science denialists on /sci/ though. Wow.

>>8603989
>>8603993
Learn how language works, retards.

I have never once stated global warming or Evolution isn't happening.

Look up a little thing called "strawman".

RETARDS.

There is a difference between fact and belief, retards. It is not a *FACT* that cuteness is an evolutionary advantage, it is a *BELIEF*.

This is not the same as Evolution where we are dealing with skeletal remains and DNA samples.

Read a book on the scientific method or fuck off back to Redddit!

>>8604000
And Marx believed that instincts existed.

>>8603998
>Cuteness isn't an instinct
Okay I mean't to say "the emotion you get when you find something cute".

I honestly though that was implied and I didn't have to clarify that. Too bad you're too stupid to understand common sense though.

>You don't eat your kid because you want your kid to survive and make more kids.
LOL Okay.

Why don't you eat other people's children? Why don't you eat cute animals?

Why do humans find things cute?

Are you even denying human beings have the emotion of finding things cute?

>Your kid is a resource. Your kid is part of the natural economy. Congratulations, you're a Marxist.
LMAO dude that's not even close to any marxist theory ever
You're just angrily shitposting at this time holy shit.

>>8604005
Why do I have to keep repeating this for you scientific illiterate shitstains.
Even MARXISTS constantly say this shit. We've already established marx believes people have basic instincts like needing food, water and sleep. He believed every else was economically constructed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature
>However, in the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach (1845), Marx criticizes the traditional conception of "human nature" as "species" which incarnates itself in each individual, instead arguing that the conception of human nature is formed by the totality of "social relations". Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation, with some aspects being biological.

This page is constantly dominated by marxist writers btw.

Why are you intentionally being this fucking retarded?

>Humans have instincts

Can you prove that such a thing as an 'instinct' exists within the human?

>Well, when we observe humans they act in such and such a way

Yes but that isn't evidence of X instinct existing, that is simply a description of the manner in which the human is acting

>But when you see a cute baby, you instinctually don't kill it


Your point contains within it the assumption that the instinct is what is stopping you but what is this 'instinct'?

>The instinct is the thing stopping you from killing the baby


So the 'instinct' is the act of not killing the baby and the act of not killing the baby is the 'instinct'?


>That is correct


Seems like you've gotten yourself into a bit of a paradox my STEM plebeian


>You are quite correct, good day

>>8604004
>There is a difference between fact and belief, retards. It is not a *FACT* that cuteness is an evolutionary advantage, it is a *BELIEF*.
HAHAHAHAHA
Alright lets go back to this.

The scientific consensus strongly disagrees with you wastes of life.

>99% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
>THIS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PROVEN

>99% OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
>THIS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S PROVEN

You're just so horribly wrong and there is countless scientific evidence PROVING YOU WRONG. Yet you still religiously cling to your delusions.

>>8604007
Because they are also resources. The point of humanity is to perpetuate itself. We find them cute and take care of them so they can make more and more babies. They are resources. Other humans are resources. The girly you impregnate is a resource to make more babies and part of the natural economy. A female dog is a resource to a male dog, and a male dog is a resource to a female dog, and their puppies are resources to them and the species, and the prey they collect are resources. The fact that you can't comprehend this tells me you are the one that you are the one that shouldn't be on the science board.

>>8604014
>Can you prove that such a thing as an 'instinct' exists within the human?
>This person literally exists in the world and posts on /sci/.

Why?

>>8604016
>The scientific consensus

Stopped reading right there.

The whole point about science is to question our pre-conceived notions and current ideas, not simply reiterate them.

Fucking Redditor. Go back to where you came from.

>>8604019
Not an argument

>>8604012
>the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation, with some aspects being biological

This is correct, though. You have biological instincts, and you can have social instincts, too. Both of which can be directly influenced by the modern economy, the natural economy, and so on. How can you not understand this?

>>8604025
>You have biological instincts, and you can have social instincts, too.

Explain the difference and how you came to that conclusion, buddy.

Go on, you've got 10 minutes.

>>8604014
>Can you prove that such a thing as an 'instinct' exists within the human?
I already posted a wall of links proving they do. Why do you deny the scientific consensus on evolution?

>Yes but that isn't evidence of X instinct existing, that is simply a description of the manner in which the human is acting
Yes and said human is behaving in accordance with his biological instinct.

>Your point contains within it the assumption that the instinct is what is stopping
Of course it is. 99.9% of humans feel things are "cute".
It's not a "social construct" the only other explanation is it's hard wired into our brain.

>So the 'instinct' is the act of not killing the baby
No it's not. It's the desire to not kill the baby.


>Seems like you've gotten yourself into a bit of a paradox my STEM plebeian
It's like you don't even care that you're horribly wrong.

Go listen to your foucault lectures and go back to /lit/ you drooling creationist.

>>8604030
>Yes and said human is behaving in accordance with his biological instinct.

Provide a differentiation between 'acting' and 'instinct'.


You've got 10 minutes.

>>8604024
>HUMANS DON'T HAVE INSTINCTS AND EVOLUTION ISN'T REAL MAAAAN
>BAWWWW NOT AN ARGUMENT

Please leave.

>>8604026
Are you asking me to prove instincts exist now?

>>8604030
>the only other explanation is it's hard wired into our brain.

Prove it.

Also, stop calling me a creationist, we're having a discussion and you are acting like a retarded New Atheist child.

>>8604034
Not an argument

>>8604035
Epic reading comprehension. Read the post again and try again.

>>8604021
>The whole point about science is to question our pre-conceived notions and current ideas, not simply reiterate them.
Okay then, the vast majority of scientists believe humans have instincts.
They believe this because of countless decades of scientific research into the manner and no viable alternatives popping up.

Meanwhile autist lefties like you decide science is evil and racist and you deny it.

You can deny science all you want it won't change the facts of reality.

Kill yourself /lit/ scum.

>>8604025
>This is correct, though.
It's not correct AT ALL.

How in the world can people believe this?

People are gay because they are socially constructed that way? People think things are cute because they are socially constructed that way? Other people want to start families because they are socially constructed that way?

This is highly unscientific to say the very least.

>and you can have social instincts
Those aren't instincts at all.

>Both of which can be directly influenced by the modern economy, the natural economy, and so on.
LOL DUDE
You're instincts can't be influenced by the modern economy.

That's like saying your liver can be influenced by the modern economy.

Your behaviors CAN be influenced by the modern economy to an extent, but your instincts are the dominant determining factor of human behavior.

Go read steve pinker you delusional leftist.

>>8604042
>Meanwhile autist lefties like you decide science is evil and racist and you deny it.
>You can deny science all you want it won't change the facts of reality.
>Kill yourself /lit/ scum.


Why do you reply in memes? Are you 12 years old? I am not left-wing nor do I hate science.

Serious question, are you 5 years old? Why do you keep strawmanning?

Fucking dork!

>>8604042
This is your brain on Positivism.

>>8604033
Instinct is the hard wiring inside your brain which tends to overrides any beliefs you may have. Acting is your brain(the same brain which contains this instincts and beliefs) firing synapses and using your muscles etc to effect the real world.

>>8604047
>Instinct is the hard wiring inside your brain which tends to overrides any beliefs you may have.

Provide an example of this occurring the brain and how you have come to 'read' this 'hard-wiring'.

I'll wait :^).

>>8604038
It wasn't an argument. I was just shocked that there exist people on this board that deny evolution.

Wow.

>>8604043
>I don't hate science.
Yes you do.

You also hate replying to the arguments I made in my post because they prove you wrong.

I literally posted countless links that prove your theory wrong yet all you can do is deny deny deny.

>baww you also made fun of me as well as having an argument so I won't even reply
Tough shit kid.

>>8604045
This is your brain on marxism.

Honest question though, if you hate reality and science so much why don't you go back to /lit/ to whine about surplus value and bourgeois sexuality with the other delusional shit eating children?

>>8604049
>Provide an example of this occurring the brain
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/why-are-animals-cute/
https://people.rit.edu/jtsgsh/PAPERS/oncuteness.pdf
http://news.psu.edu/story/141179/2005/11/21/research/probing-question-why-are-babies-cute
nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/06/cute-babies-have-an-evolutionary-advantage-in-life.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260535/
http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2013/08/26/the-science-of-cuteness/
https://www.quora.com/Is-cuteness-an-evolutionarily-advantageous-trait
http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/babies-cute-explained.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

:^)

>>8604052
No one is denying evolution, cuckold.

Not an argument.


>Tough shit kid.

Not an argument, dork.

>This is your brain on marxism.

Not an argument, dork.

>>8604049
>Provide an example of this occurring the brain and how you have come to 'read' this 'hard-wiring'.
Why is destroying you people so easy?

http://www.washington.edu/news/2010/11/29/neuroscience-of-instinct-how-animals-overcome-fear-to-obtain-food-2/

>>8604054
This is not an example of hard-wiring. Rather, this is an example of 'acting' which you apparently defined earlier.


Very interesting how you contradicted yourself in one thread.
Really makes ya think :^)

>>8604038
Well, since you are still being vague, I'll have to go off of what I understand your request means.

Instinct - an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli

So, an instinct is a behavior or a pattern of behavior. Well, turns out that certain patterns of behavior are formed by society.

>>8604042
Kek, "SO YOU THINK GAYS ARE SOCIALLY CONDITIONED?!?!?!"

No, that has nothing to do with that at all, and there's evidence to support homosexuality has to do with hormones and brain development.

Also, good reading comprehension, dude. I'm not saying that your instincts will be changed, rather they can be influenced. You may become more timid in the marketplace if your deals go bad in the past in the financial economy. In the economy of partnership, someone that has had a traumatic sexual experience might never want to have sex again, even though there is certainly an instinct that drives us. Biologically, contracting Rabies can lead to a fear of water so strong that the individual refuses to drink.

>>8604056
That isn't evidence of being able to read 'hard-wing', only evidence of actions surrounding such hard-wiring.

>>8604055
>skips over every argument that angers him and only focuses on the insults

>>8604057
>This is not an example of hard-wiring. Rather, this is an example of 'acting' which you apparently defined earlier.
Yes, read it again.

>Very interesting how you contradicted yourself in one thread.
Lol you don't even know how to read.

Do you go to college and proudly tell everyone in your biology class that you don't believe in evolution and human instincts? lmao

>>8604060
Not an argument.


You're very angry, maybe cool off, dork :^)

Get bullied at school today, can feel you sweating behind the screen, I can do this all night ;)

>>8604060
Wow, totally and utterly, NOT an argument.

>>8604058
>No, that has nothing to do with that at all, and there's evidence to support homosexuality has to do with hormones and brain development.
Oh, so now you're saying sexuality is instinctual? I thought instincts didn't exist?

>I'm not saying that your instincts will be changed, rather they can be influenced.
LOL INFLUENCED IS NOT CHANGED NOW?

Social and economic conditions will magically change the instincts in your brain? How? How is this even possible? Like how retarded would you have to be to believe something so unscientific? Everyone knows social and economic conditions can change the way humans behave, but to change their entire instincts?
LOL HOLY FUCK
Are you actually this dumb?

Show me PROOF of this happening.
Oh wait you have NONE.

>>8604059
>That isn't evidence of being able to read 'hard-wing', only evidence of actions surrounding such hard-wiring.
I showed you examples of this hard wiring occurring in the brain and you're outright denying science.

Here's another one that proves you creationists wrong.

https://www.spi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/PDF/WP44_Neuroscience_and_parental_behaviourx.pdf

>>8604066
Wow, again, simply NOT an argument.

>>8604063
>>8604061
>mfw you constantly post scientific data, links and well thought out arguments defending what the scientific community already overwhelmingly agrees with due to the massive amount of scientific evidence surrounding it and 2 angry leftist autists on /sci/ angrily disagree with you.

Oh well, at least I know you people have something genetically wrong with you that limits your ability to question your own dogmatic belief system.

We all know religious people are more prone to this.

Oh wait
>HURR GENETICS DON'T DETERMINE HUMAN BEHAVIOR

>>8604068
>wow I can't totally believe you like posted all that evidence and science and stuff
>gohhd I can't wait for the socialist revolution so we can put you people in camp

This is why nobody takes you people seriously.

>>8604066
>Proof

Kek.

>You can't influence your instincts

So you're a primal being that can't control himself? How can you be that dumb? Your instincts aren't changing. Your influencing them, or, maybe I should say, your response to your instincts.

Holy shit
OP is literally a retard
But I'm amazed that this thread has been going on for this long

>>8604075
Congrats, welcome to the thread.

You're the first new poster in nearly 100 replies.

>>8604071
>>8604070
Wow, samefag.

Simply not, I repeat, NOT an argument.

>>8604082
lel truly a retard
or lifeless troll

Don't know which one is worse, but impressive nonetheless

>>8604097
Wow, he is still, I am quite amazed, no seriously, making...yes, that's right, NON-arguments.

>All these angry Anons calling people Christians and Marxists

Anyone else think they started out thinking they were right and can't handle the fact they're getting BTFO?

>>8604100
kek
tard

>>8604101
It's the STEMtard mindset. They can't handle the fact that literally every STEM field relies on non-existent axioms.

>>8604101
>someone else has joined the thread

Welcome to autism hell

>>8604103
kek what a retard

>>8604105
Not an argument.

>>8604119
T A R D
A
R
D

Alright, boys. You're fighting for the last word now. No one has changed anyone's mind, it would seem. You should probably go to bed or go get lunch or something.

>>8604123

>all this obsessive samefagging by OP

Mods?

Remember to REPORT.

>MARX, THE SOURCE OF THE METHOD OF PRESENT-DAY SCIENCE

>In the twentieth century, there have been rapidly developed new sciences worthy of being known today as the present-day science in connection with the advancement of atomic physics. As a result, the present-day science has displayed its new view of nature different from that of the modern science, and has developed a new methodology of its own. However, in terms of the history of thoughts, the present-day science, or more precisely the thought and method of today's science, stemmed not in our century but from the thought and method established by Marx early in the nineteenth century. Today, it is often said that social sciences are rather undeveloped compared with natural sciences. In fact, natural sciences in our days have produced such terrible weapons as A- and H- bombs, bacteria weapons, chemical gases and so on, thereby throwing mankind into serious crises. They claimed that the cause of human crises lies in the ill-balanced development between natural and social sciences. For example, the Science Council of japan recently began organising discussions about desirable measures for the well-balanced advancement of both natural 'and social sciences. It is well known that one of the characteristic aspects of today's natural sciences lies in the use of huge experimental instrumentations which need an enormous sum as well as the large scale collaboration of researching staffs, thus afterwards being called big science.

>>8604166

>Moreover, especially since we came into the twentieth century, it has appeared as an international trend of governmental policies, which have been giving too much importance to military researches, putting money only in natural sciences and, as a result, oppressing the study of social sciences on the other. Can we, however, say that the crises of mankind come from such an ill-balanced development between natural and social sciences, in accordance with the popular idea? I think this is not the case. Rather, the present-day science in a true sense was first established as a social science, already in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was Capital by Marx. This is indeed a science worthy of being called the present-day science. Behind Marx's Capital there lies the dialectic materialism or its view of human history, and Marx discovered a highly lawful structure of human society by commanding profound logic of dialectics. In the twentieth century, the invaluable significance of Capital has been recognised more and more. Namely, the socialistic revolution succeeded first in Russia followed by the revolutions of China and other nations after World War II. Thus, a number of socialistic-republics have been established and Marx's laws are being applied to their own lives. I know a famous scholar of economics who said that he made a better choice of non-conversion by witnessing recent dollar-crises, although many economists have come to conceive that Marxism turned to be out-dated in confronting a post-War prosperity of capitalistic regime of the United States. At any rate, it is hardly deniable that in giving real perspective for the future, what have really been the motive forces of revolutionising human history, there are books such as Marx's, Capital, Lenin's On Imperialism and Mao's On Practice and On Contradictions.

>>8603824
depends on the marxist

>>8603606

It is true that one of Marxs' fundamental errors is to identify labor, work, as THE end-all be-all category of human life, activity, endeavour, experience. He felt obliged to make this identification, so that his philosophical project would be in accord with certain other philosophy that he had read earlier in his life (I can hardly recall details of this, but I know that it is the case), while turning his new project in the direction of its real purpose: gommunism, worker's liberation, etc. Nevertheless Marx does periodically speak of sex, and of how then-existing capitalists are obliged to compensate their laborers some minimal amount to ensure the laborers' "continuance of existence" "propagation of their race", etc (have families, one of the central categories for which human beings continue to live).

Nevertheless, in order to emphasize labor in this way, Marx also felt obliged to speak less of sex, race, etc - this identity-politics whining was left to later generations, as any adult well knows.
This is why you get crap like "hurr human nature is a canard that doesn't exist", and so on-/because it for Marx is not /the/ fundamental category, or even one of them (labor, class). There is a historical tradition in leftism of either denying certain observable realities, or of (sometimes romantically and rhetorically, yet often literally) ascribing aspects of life and mental states of affairs, including unpleasant ones, to capitalism, as opposed to recognizing them for the prior-existing conditions that they really are. What makes this funnier is that tacit in Marxs' argumentation is the very realization of the type of more fundamental considerations (say, a sex drive, the family, and so on) that he would downplay in favor of continuing to discuss labor, capital, and class.

Karl Marx never even conceives of the sexual economy as being foundational of the "ordinary" economic one (it is), so far as I am aware, preferring instead class.

>>8603606
Hey OP, based on your posts in this thread, it might be a good idea not to reproduce. Just a suggestion from the rest of us.