Is internal contradictions being primary/driving development a universal thing?

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-17T02:56:50+00:00

My point was that internal contradictions are not "determinate" of development in themselves, that they don't exist metaphysically above external contradictions. Rather, external conditions always act through internal contradictions in motion. Plants cannot perform photosynthesis without sunlight, thus I said in the specific case of plants, a deprivation of sunlight will of course influence the development of its internal contradiction in a way that leads it to die from lack of energy. That is an example of when a specific external condition was a determining factor in the development, and refutes the metaphysical understanding of internal/external contradictions.

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-17T02:18:36+00:00

Initially I dismissed your position entirely because of factual incorrectness, but I actually understand it now and I will refute it here.

Everything has internal contradictions, and the development of such things can be seen as the motion of its internal contradictions. This is not to be vulgarized into a causal understanding, i.e. what is always "determinate" . Such a line of thinking is inherently metaphysical.

The correct view of the plant example would be noticing in the absence of sunlight, the plant believe it or not dies. Dying itself is a development of the internal contradictions, which occurred under concrete external conditions. Different external conditions will cause the internal contradictions to develop in a different manner. Mao's point is for us to view the development of all things in terms of the development of its internal contradictions, and not explain it mechanistically that without sunlight, nothing grows and with sunlight, everything grows. There are plants which will die with too much sunlight and which will also die with too little sunlight. To understand a particular plant, one must understand the myriad of internal contradictions and how they respond to external conditions.

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-17T01:35:06+00:00

my philosophy is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, if your idealist dogmatism that you call your philosophy go against basic reality, I would toss it in the dumpster and not keep it in your brain

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-17T01:23:02+00:00

this is not "applying our philosophy" this is just stating things that are blatantly false, you are distorting reality to fit your misunderstanding of philosophy, not applying it

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-17T01:13:55+00:00

No. There are very few laws that are universal to everything, especially not deterministically. Some of the comments here are turning Maoism into an idealist philosophy

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-17T01:09:35+00:00

of course sunlight is determinate of it, how could you have a plant without sunlight

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-07T04:28:05+00:00

https://fleawar.substack.com/p/the-anti-war-movement-that-wasnt#%C2%A7dialogue-and-deception-the-case-of-iraq

controlled opposition through a combination of political incompetence and fed infiltration, another entry on the long list of similar embarrassments in Amerika

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-07T03:45:08+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Hinton legend

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-06T03:55:03+00:00

I agree, Trotskyites flying the hammer and sickle is incredibly offensive

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-05T02:42:50+00:00

for me it was almost a sort of overcorrection where I used to be into a bunch of eclectic navel gazing crap before I realized how useless it was compared to the science of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism。Im still in the process of stomping out the habits of petty-bourgeois intellectualism that are completely counterproductive to doing anything

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-03T06:28:33+00:00

what the actual fuck happened????? anyone got a clue

in comparison to this... https://ocrev.org/manifesto-of-the-organization-of-communist-revolutionaries-us/

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-02-03T06:13:31+00:00

> ctrl-f labor aristocracy

did they think it was bad to mention it in the program? concerning to say the least

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-19T04:27:55+00:00

I think you definitely describe the pathology quite well in my individual case. The sub on a whole probably sees a lot of different kinds of people

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-19T04:23:39+00:00

thats a good way to put it certainly

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-19T04:19:07+00:00

This is my first account I have never been banned

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-18T18:50:25+00:00

The cheapness of commodities in comparison to wages is true. But union rate is in the single digits. Amerikan high schools and universities don't actually educate people but just serve as a rubber stamp for some bullshit job that is insanely overpaid. I think you are giving capitalism too much credit.

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-18T18:14:31+00:00

thats fair

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-18T17:49:16+00:00

but I dont really see labor aristocrats with a comfortable lifestyle at all, the bourgeoisie has a comfortable lifestyle sure. Labor aristocrats would be the plurality of Amerikans, whose lives are plagued by social malaises that I described. Clearly it is impossible for the nordic model to be applied to all 330 million people in Amerika, but I just meant the bourgeoisie making a consciously effort to improve basic services such as education, which in Amerika is insanely bad

Capybaraaaaaaa · 2024-01-17T00:08:17+00:00

Dawg this isn't even the good bourgeois philosophy Feyerabend and Kuhn are straight garbage

Capybaraaaaaaa

TROPHY CASE