Yes, but just getting a little group to do terrorism is counterproductive. What we need to do is support a ton of people with collective mechanisms so they will support “our” principled party that can lead them to victory over the bourgeois state.

Yeah, idk about the nazi stuff. Wasn’t Freud a Jew? Anyway, I know some people here have hot takes against MBTI, but I think it’s a little overblown. I realize that if I want to look into the Marxist take on psychoanalysis I should look at Althusser.

Bro, we talked about this. Think of organization of people like organizing a workspace or document. It makes it easier to get stuff done. Think of “an organization” as in a charity or group for self governance. Organization for communism means bringing people together, directing resources to provide for them, and using mass mobilization to win power. The goal is to create a government in waiting like the Soviets that can take over.

I do it every day, maybe it’s an OCD thing. I want to live by stoic virtues and revolutionary morality. Everyday I write in my journal and reflect on if I’m living up to my standards. Did I do anything regrettable, cowardly, liberal (in mao’s sense), and so on. Then I resolve to act differently in the future and live how I want to in the moment. It works.

Idk, I’m not an expert, just giving some basic explanation for the relation of Social Democracy and Communism.

Social Democracy is what all the socialists called themselves. Then in WWI the SocDems betrayed the international proletariat and supported their own states’ armies, so Lenin switched to calling his people communists like Marx intended. Also the German SPD used to be one of the more progressive parties, but they were revisionist and the principled communists split and led a revolution, but were defeated by the SPD making way for Hitler.

Idk, it really makes it sound like there’s an outside anti-thesis that comes in to oppose and already in-itself thesis.

I think I agree. You shouldn’t necessarily be looking for the Fichtean thesis and antithesis or whatever in every single situation. Just recognize that there are contradictions and interconnections and change is a necessity.

It’s not that the universe has the idea of dialectics built in, it’s that things are processes with contradictions. Dialectics is the view that recognizes this truth.

I think you are interpreting me as saying gravity is itself a process. I do not mean that, just that gravity describes the contradictions that effect the way movement occurs.

I’m not an expert on the topic, but I listened to this, and someone who works in agriculture elaborated how China uses some of his discoveries today. How Lysenko was the guy that got people planting potato eyes instead of the whole potato etc.

Even if gravity is a fixed law, it is still dialectical. All things must change doesn’t mean that the fact that all things change changes. Idk.

The Dialectical Biologist is pretty great, but keep in mind it’s a little outdated, and they didn’t know Lysenko was vindicated.

The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion of the marxists that Marx’s theory is an objective truth is that by following the path of Marxist theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth without ever exhausting it; but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies.

-Lenin

Carmen Sandiego

Capital is filled with dialectics. For Lenin and Mao it’s clear if you read their works that it was ingrained in their ideology, they just generally talked so the average worker could understand. If you don’t like podcasts read the aforementioned authors and Anti-Duhring by Engels. In addition The Dialectical Biologist.

Yes you need to learn about science from scientists, but it’s not wrong to see dialectics in science. Like others, you are mistaking historical for dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism is Marx and Engels’ scientific world outlook, historical materialism is that theory applied to the social sphere - social science.

Sure dialectics isn’t going to make a mathematical discovery, but it’s a very helpful worldview. A metaphysician sees the world as compartmentalized, binary, and static. This is what led to the errors of mechanism and other errors of thinking long ago and today. In Lenin’s Materialism and Imperio-Criticism he observes the latest discoveries of physics around electrons and shows how that does not invalidate materialism as his idealist opponents said, but shows the error of metaphysics, and that science is moving toward dialectics unconsciously, and it would help them to know it consciously. In science it is true that all things change, have antagonistic parts, must die, and are connected.

You’re mixing up dialectical and historical materialism. Dialectics is an effective outlook for interpreting science. Engels didn’t think he knew everything about science, but he saw trends in its progression.

the world isn’t having enough babies

I thought it was overpopulated. What happened guys? Love naive liberal understandings of the world.

The unity of opposites in all things in the kernel of dialectics.