/edu/ - Education

>internal contradictions are nothing more but external factors from past events
Well, if that's the case then why differentiate between internal and external factors at all if effectively only the external exists?

If rather you or he meant internal factors produce little to no change and external factors always produce the most change then this is not a dialectical view. As Engels said, motion is produced by internal contradictions. Capitalism's path of development was predestined by its own internal contradictions, and capitalism arose out of the internal contradictions of feudalism. External forces can have a significant impact, but that is rather accidental change in comparison to change necessarily brought about by the internal constitution of capitalism itself.

>but without the internal factors being deterministic, there would be no change, no?
If the internal factors were indeterministic there could still be change.

Reading Mao by itself is a waste of time but you chose his dumbest book. Mao's concept of primary and secondary contradictions is probably the most retarded thing to ever slip it's way into 'Marxist' canon. On Contradiction is awfully stupid, he unironically thinks 'contradiction' = literally any two opposite things. Then his braindead followers cope it away by saying 'it was written for peasants', which is a really dumb way to defend blatantly incorrect theories, lol.

Lenin also wrote for peasants and workers and no one has to defend him on this basis. It just seems more implicit racism that Chinese people are too stupid. The entire trope of 'the great leader enlightening the dumb workers and peasants' is embarrassingly racist. That supposed communists not only accept but defend this implication is a reflection of how far Marxism (well, 'Marxism') has degenerated.

>>21653

Yeah, I guess mainly Hegel & Feuerbach are important for the Marxist canon.

>>21654
You don't need philosophy to understand marxism.

>>21655
You do.

>>21656
Maybe you do; I certainly don't.

>>21657
Marxism is in great parts philosophical. If you think you understand Marxism without philosophy then you probably have a misconception of Marxism.

>>21650
I'd not focus on whether internal or external contradictions are more important in general (part of dialectical materialism is the rejection of universal logic - no need to generalize things this abstract), instead it's important to just know that both internal and external contradictions exist, and both may spur development. For dynamic systems that are self-moving, internal may play a larger role. For a rock - what internal contradictions are impelling it to change? Another important piece is also Mao's idea that external contradictions only work via internal contradictions. (I think this can probably be justified scientifically, but some people are very against finding dialectical principles like this in nature. It's important imo to not just apply abstract philosophical logic in a blanket way unless its proven to apply to a reasonable large number of domains. Else we just turn Mao into Sun-Tzu). As far as primary and secondary contradictions, I think of it practically (I don't think it holds any real strength as a concept otherwise; i think these things are able to be shown empirically but not beforehand, at least in social issues), like sudoku. In sudoku there are lots of 'contradictions', but usually you'll be pulling at one thread and that lets you pull at another, and so on, until the whole puzzle is solved. I think this relates best to practice, though, and not theory.

>>21658
>a-ha, but thinking about things is in fact philosophy!
This is just the kind of bullshit that phil grads pull when stemlords criticize philosophy but I repeat, you do not need to know philosophy, much less garbage like Hegel, to understand marxism which is at its core just an in-depth analysis of capitalism.

>>21662
First of all, I am also a STEMlord. I majored in computer science and work in biotechnology now. Still, I realized philosophy is indespendible and you won't even grasp that until you've educated yourself.

>>a-ha, but thinking about things is in fact philosophy!
Not my point. Marxism is in itself philosophical and its distinct analysis of capitalism is founded on critiques against and an advancement from other philosophies, that currently still dominate Western society in which people (including you) have been socialized into. You likely operate under fallacious philsophical reasoning as instilled by the primitive philosophy of this society. That you don't like capitalism and prefer socialism doesn't mean much. The fallacious philosophical underpinnings of your thought misconceive of whatever you believe Marxism and socialism is and that will show once you are confronted with concrete matters. You have *some* conception of what Marx's analysis means and you have *some* reason to support it, that doesn't mean the former reflects the real thing or that you are able to replicate his method of analysis once you stand on your own.

>>21652
>>21660
Thanks for the answers, guys.