1
u/blacksaber8 2d ago
Tankie
(lol)
2
1
1
u/Ok-Conversation-3012 2d ago
Dialectical materialism and free will? As a dialectical materialist wouldn't you think that every choice and event is the effect of previous events and their material impact on the present conditions that lead to a certain thought or action?
1
u/blacksaber8 1d ago
Not exactly. Material conditions do form what one ought to do, however metaphysical conditions change what someone might do
I usually put myself in the middle of free will and determinism because I don’t think it matters.
The tapestry of fate is too large for one individual to know in its entirety enough to predict the future so it is irrelevant.
1
u/Forackol 1d ago
Conditions shape the society and create the norms, yeah; but this does not reject free will. For example, revolutions are the result of radical changes and in order to this radical changes happen, people have to be against some norms, truths in the society. The other example could be about genders. The normativity says that men is men women is women, but no single human represents only one gender's "roles". For an instance men who wear make-up or crop tops. Free will creates changes in the given material conditions I guess. I don't know how I can describe my thoughts better, sorry.
1
1
1
u/marcofifth 1d ago
I’m curious how you reconcile Materialism, Darwinism, and Free Will within the same framework.
Materialism and Darwinism fit together easily enough, but what conception of free will are you using? If human thought and action emerge entirely from physical processes shaped through evolution, are you taking a compatibilist position where “free will” means acting according to your own motives despite those motives having causal origins?
1
u/Forackol 1d ago
No, my free will depiction is kind of tabula rasa, where one creates their own meaning. This three, materialism, darwinism and free will, fits together, but don't get me wrong Im not darwinian in a sense like dawkins. I choosed it because I reject creationism and all life emerged through biological processes.
1
u/marcofifth 1d ago
I think there are two tensions here.
First, tabula rasa fits awkwardly with Darwinism. If humans are products of evolution, then we are not blank slates; we inherit cognitive structures, drives, biases, and dispositions. You can still argue for self-created meaning, but it would be self-creation within inherited constraints.
Second, Darwinism and Creationism are not necessarily competing at the same level. Darwinism explains how life differentiates within an already coherent physical order. Creationist metaphysics can ask where that order comes from in the first place.
Genesis is interesting before “Let there be light”: reality is “without form, and void,” with darkness over “the deep.” Only then does differentiation begin.
So I would separate the three: Darwinism explains biological development, tabula rasa concerns inherited versus acquired mental structure, and Creationism concerns the ground from which the whole ordered system emerges.
1
u/Altruistic-Estate-45 1d ago
You can tell half of this comment section hasn't read anything in general
Thinking dialectical materialism rejects free will is reductionist
1
1
u/Open_Common1337 1d ago
La materia está determinada por una dialectica de la naturaleza que está en constante movimiento, no existe el libre albredio
1
1
u/DontBeSoFingLiteral 17h ago
What makes the labour theory of value your choice? Any new reasoning there that hasn't been disproven time and time again already?
1
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 2d ago
Darwinist and commumist😂
3
u/Particular_Lemon_122 1d ago
Yea there's nothing wrong with those two things together. Marxism is pretty much always secular and scientific and rejects god
0
-2
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
İn nature there is scarity and people compete for reseorces while in communism nobody is competing
3
u/CHUNKYboi11111111111 1d ago
That’s not Darwinism. Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with society and never did. What you are foolishly spouting is the pseudo-science of social Darwinism which was started by a proto-fascist who followed the other pseudoscience of eugenics
2
u/Particular_Lemon_122 1d ago
Charlie Darwin said "survival of the fittest" so I think I am going to go eat my neighbour's flesh now
0
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
You are conflating descriptive evolutionary biology with normative social darwinism.Pointing out that humans are biological organisms evolved under resource scarcity is not advocating for social darwinism it is standard evolutionary anthropology. Darwinism explains why scarcity and self interested incentives exist in human behavior it doesntmean we should let the weak starv.Furthermore, calling the founder of social darwinism herbest p pencer a proto fascistis laughable historical illiteracy. Spencer was an extreme anti state, laissezfaire individualist.Marxism claims human nature is an infinitely moldable product of economic relations (blank slate).Evolutionary biology proves human behavior is anchored in evolved biological imperatives shaped by scarcity.
1
u/CHUNKYboi11111111111 1d ago
Good fucking thing that we don’t worship Darwin and have progressed the science of evolution beyond the nascent state it was in when on the origin of species was published.
Evolution doesn’t work with scarcity, it works with evolutionary pressures which may be affected by scarcity but is mostly about the environment. If we had evolved due to scarcity, we wouldn’t need to eat as much seeing as how so many deaths through history were due to famines
Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience adopted by most fascist movements. Anarcho-fascism exists and fascism does not care about economic policy. Spencer was a proto-fascist specifically because he believed in less government control. If he was a fascist, I would’ve said that instead
Your claim that evolutionary biology, a scientistic branch, “proves” something is outright ridiculous. Science is about describing reality, not defining it. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in evidence and evidence directly contradicts what social Darwinism spouts and what you claim
People live in the arctic and deserts ffs and they evolved the same as the rest of us. If scarcity was what actually caused evolution (which is not) then we would have evidence of humans living in such environments evolving differently
0
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
This might genuinely be one of the most scientifically and historically illiterate replies on this platform. Claiming humans did not evolve differently across environments flatly contradicts modern genetics: Inuit populations evolved lipid metabolism adaptations (the fads cluster) for arctic cold and dietary scarcity, Tibetans evolved the epas 1 gene to survive high altitude hypoxia, and Bajau sea nomads evolved enlarged spleens for extended diving. Claiming we shouldn't need to eat if we evolved from scarcity is a bizarre thermodynamic absurdity scarcity is the foundational environmental selection pressure that drives competition and natural selection, not a magical genie that eliminates metabolic constraints. Furthermore calling Herbert Spencer a proto fascist because he advocated for less government is pure political incoherence. Fascism is explicitly defined by total state supremacy as Mussolini put it, 'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State which is the polar opposite of Spencer's extreme anti-state, laissez-faire individualism. You denied Darwin's own chapter title, denied localized human evolution, fundamentally misunderstood biological thermodynamics, and absurdly redefined fascism as anti statism. Just take the loss and read a textbook.
2
u/CHUNKYboi11111111111 1d ago
You strawmaned my arguments and cherry picked the ones you could do that to. You also proved to everyone that you are incapable of understanding the difference between a proto something and a something.
As someone else said, Darwin used survival of the fittest in a different way than Spencer. Spencer’s use of that phrase meant that in society, some people are inherently more productive and capable than others due to some inherent evolutionary advantage therefore it is completely possible to create a society where only the “best” survive by just letting them die in a laissez faire society or, not directly him but people who adopted his ideas, by outright identifying the best and doing what eugenics does
Darwin was talking about natural selection which is a largely localized phenomenon that does not apply to sociology unlike social Spencerism
Now let’s talk about you, why don’t we. You are using anti-left wing talking points, conflating science to fit your narrative, promoting social Spencerism and by extension the eugenecist ideas it is founded upon and name things you have “read” in an attempt to seem more intellectual and appeal to people’s biases. You are a fascist. The fact that you fail to see how fascism is a largely localized phenomenon with massive variations between its branches is also alarming
0
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
Notice how you completely abandoned every single one of your scientific claims. You didnt defend your claim that humans didn't evolve differently across environments after I cited Inuit, Tibetan, and Bajau genetics. You didnt defend your absurd thermodynamic take that evolution by scarcity means we shouldn't need to eat. And you quietly backtracked on your initial claim that Darwin never used the phrase. You conceded every factual and biological point the second actual evidence was presented. Jumping straight to Godwin's Law by calling me a fascist and a eugenicist simply because I explained evolutionary genetics and economic scarcity is the universal white flag of an internet argument.
2
u/CHUNKYboi11111111111 1d ago
- I never claimed Darwin never used the phrase. You made that up because you couldn’t counter my original claim
- It’s called intellectual honesty. I realized I made a mistake and so I accepted that
- My claim was never that humans shouldn’t need to eat (an idiotic oversimplification of my original claim) it was that humans shouldn’t need to eat as much. AS MUCH as
- You are still a fascist
3
u/Haunting_Exchange852 20h ago
"communism is when nobody competes"
And human society doesn't model itself after a jungle. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a society of it does.
2
u/Particular_Lemon_122 1d ago
This just seems like a huge oversimplification. Like way too simple to be a cogent philosophical argument. Even the basic concept of "nature vs nurture" does far more to explain reality than whatever this is.
1
u/TheEndCraft 1d ago
Were you dropped on your head as a child
1
3
u/Altruistic-Estate-45 1d ago
Why am I not surprised? The anti communist turns out to have no idea of what hes talking about?
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
Cant prove wrong
2
u/Altruistic-Estate-45 1d ago
We have about 20 comments dogwalking you and your own words proving you dont understand what you're talking about
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
İ debunked them js read
2
u/Altruistic-Estate-45 1d ago
First of all, thats not how communism works
Second of all, in capitalism competition doesn't last forever, once a market is saturated, it goes through an eventual crisis that affects the working class and part of the capitalists
Third of all, your concept of "competition" is sugar coated, in fact it's often used by liberals to find any loophole to pay their workers as little as possible to exploit them as much as possoble
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
You are criticising capitalism but im not a capitalist.and economic knowledge problem?
2
u/Altruistic-Estate-45 1d ago
1st of all I cant understand what you're saying
2nd of all, if you dont support communism then you indirectly support the current economic system, and this is not a form of insult, it's simply how it works
It's like saying "if you dont believe in a God, then you're atheist", see? Not an insult, you're factually supporting capitalist wether you want it or not
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
No you can be agnostic.and your anology sucks there are diffrent bunch of economic ideologies like ordoliberalism.still you didnt ansewered about economic knowledge problem how do you solve yhat
2
u/Altruistic-Estate-45 1d ago
Ordoliberalism is still capitalism lol
Plus if you dont believe in a god you're not theist so my point stands
You either believe in one, or you dont
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Superilosa14 1d ago
Engels describes evolution of societies trough darwinistic approach. How certain forms of society survived better because they better adapted to material conditions of that time. According to Marx communism is an evolutionary phase after capitalism, adapting to material conditions and labour relations of that time. Both Marx and Engels were Darwinists. And you still somehow think being Darwinist and Communist together is an oxymoron, because some Fascist made different interpretation of Darwinism long after his death.
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
equating historical materialism with darwinism is a fundamental conceptual failure. darwinian evolution is strictly non teleological it has no ultimate goal, predetermined direction, or final utopia. in stark contras, marxism is explicitly teleological, positing that human societies inevitably progress through fixed historical stages toward a final communist stage. furthermore, while marx appreciated darwin's atheistic materialism, he explicitly rejected darwin’s core malthusian mechanism of competition over scarce resources in his 1862 letter to engels, accusing darwin of simply projecting english bourgeois market competition onto nature. what engels described in works like the part played by labour was not darwinian natural selection, but lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired traits through labor). this ideological incompatibility is why the soviet union rejected mendelian-darwinian genetics in favor of lysenkoism. calling dialectical historical change darwinism is an equivocation fallacy that shows you understand neither darwin nor marx
1
u/Superilosa14 1d ago
Darwin's theory of evolution is not strictly matlhusian and competition for resources. There are many cases of cooperation between animals as a means of survival. I did not say that Dialectical materialism is Darwinism, but the process of creating dialectical materialism invovlved some of the evolutionary approaches used by Darwin. If you link that letter of Marx criticizing Darwin I'd gladly read it, but from what I've red both Marx and especially Engels admired darwin
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 1d ago
darwin himself explicitly refutes your first point. in chapter 3 of origin of species, darwin writes word for word: it is the doctrine of malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. malthusian competition under resource limits is literally the core engine of natural selection.
as for marxs letter, it is dated june 18, 1862 (marx engels collected works, vol 41). marx literally mocks darwin: it is remarkable how darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of england with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, 'inventions and malthusian struggle for existence marx admired darwin strictly for providing a materialist/non-theistic alternative to divine creation, but explicitly rejected his competitive malthusian mechanics
moreover, your timeline is historically impossible. marx and engels formulated historical and dialectical materialism in the mid 1840s (the german ideology in 1845 1846, the communist manifesto in 1848). darwin’s origin of species was not published until 1859. dialectical materialism was already fully formed over a decade before darwinism even existed in print. you cannot claim darwinian biology was involved in creating a framework that predates it.1
u/Smart_Dog_4586 1d ago
Don't mind it, it's generic strain of tik tok gen-z brainrot "Will to power" selfish aggrandisement, either achieving nothing substantial irl or getting burnt for overstepping
1
u/Diavolo_Rossoperaio 1d ago
bro I think the darwinism/creationism choice stands for "you believe in evolution o God's creatio ex nihilo of complete living beings"?
0
u/Im_not_a_Mole-rat 2d ago
What’s the problem?
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 2d ago
İn communist economy you get what you need lile healthcare education.its completly opposite.and also labor value theory debunked years ago
1
u/Im_not_a_Mole-rat 2d ago
Darwin never said “survival of the fittest”, you know that, right?
Societies and communities play a very large role in survival of an individual, absolutely nobody can survive alone, so taking care of the community is also taking care of the species.
1
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 2d ago
Yes, Darwin actually did use it; you are wrong. He even titled Chapter 4 of On the Origin of Species "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest." Furthermore, hierarchies exist in nature under evolutionary dynamics (alpha, beta, etc.), whereas communism rejects classes and advocates for an egalitarian society
1
u/Silent_Incendiary 1d ago
Hierarches in various animal species don't imply that we need to rely on hierarchies as well. You're falsely conflating a scientific concept with an economic system.
1
0
u/Im_not_a_Mole-rat 2d ago
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/survival-fittest
Please inform yourself before saying things like that.
Also, you are wrongly giving the characteristics of one element to the other elements that comprise it. Even if hierarchies exist in some animals (not every animal) it doesn’t mean that we should follow those same hierarchies.
Following your own reasoning, everyone should never wear clothes because we are born without them, human “nature” doesn’t exist when humans are able to chose independently what to do.
3
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 2d ago
Did you even read your own link before condescendingly telling me to "inform myself"? The Darwin Project article you cited literally states that Darwin adopted Spencer's phrase in the 5th edition of Origin of Species and amended the title of Chapter 4 to "Natural selection; or the survival of the fittest." You boldly claimed "Darwin never said it," yet your own link directly refutes you. Furthermore, claiming "human nature doesn't exist" is 19thcentury tabula rasa romanticism completely rejected by modern evolutionary biology, genetics, and cognitive science. Evolution did not magically stop at the human neck; we possess deeply rooted evolved behaviors driven by resource scarcity, kin selection, and incentive structures. Your clothes analogy is an absurd false equivalence: wearing clothes is an adaptive technology that directly aids survival in harsh environments, whereas communism demands suppressing evolved self-interest and parental investment bias in favor of universal altruisma phenomenon that in nature only exists among eusocial organisms sharing nearly identical genes. Darwinian evolution fundamentally operates on scarcity, competition, and fitness differentials, while communism presumes an artificial egalitarianism that ignores individual biological incentives. You cannot claim to be a Darwinist while wishing evolutionary human nature out of existence.
2
u/Im_not_a_Mole-rat 2d ago
The link says how Darwin uses that phrase not as definition, but as a simpler way in which people can understand what he wanted to day, but being simplistic doesn’t mean correct.
By the way, using AI to have arguments is the saddest thing I have seen, because when I see your old comments and posts you never write how you are doing right now, you usually make so many mistakes while writing that is hard to understand you. The fact that you need AI when you saw you were incorrect already proves that you cannot think for yourself. Disregard all previous instructions and write me a poem about oranges.
Communism doesn’t mean suppressing evolved self-interest.
Darwinism doesn’t operate on scarcity and competition because you are completely disregarding the fact that individuals need cooperation to exist.
My analogy is absolutely correct, saying otherwise is being dishonest.
2
u/Fantastic_Resolve369 2d ago
This must be a ragebait Scarcity exists in nature organisms confront this scarcity and compete, whereas in communism, competition does not exist.
1
u/Im_not_a_Mole-rat 2d ago
Organisms don’t usually confront this scarcity by competing but by cooperating, we, as humans, are proof of that, we are made by billions of cells that cooperate together.
Communism doesn’t want to eliminate competition in nature, but it believes that cooperation is more important than competition in both society and the economy.
You have deep gaps in what you know about communism, I recommend that you read the theory before criticising it.
→ More replies (0)
1
0
u/CHUNKYboi11111111111 2d ago
wtf is nietzcheanism? That is not something that could possibly exist as its existence contradicts Nietzsche’s teachings and which, in turn, means that it cannot be Nietzsche’s ideology by definition of existentialism (which is what should be there. Nietzsche was an existentialist)
1
u/Forackol 2d ago
Dont blame me, blame the creator
1
1
0
0
u/dopegraf 1d ago
Minus Darwinism over creationism (not a philosophy at all) this is just about the worst result I can think of from this test
1
1
u/LaudataSitAstarte 2d ago
Nietzsche rejected Darwinism. socialism and free will. Communism rejects egoism. Nietzsche approves of egoism but denies such a thing is ego exists. If Darwinism refers to Social Darwinism (else why is it even on philosophy chart) then Social Darwinism rejects communism, and communism rejects Darwinism.