Why do marxists tend to be into social construction theory rather than biological explanations...

Why do marxists tend to be into social construction theory rather than biological explanations? I personally don't find the critique of social construction theory by the right to be sufficient or logical.

Attached: 1526534008769.jpg (764x956, 107.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

brookings.edu/articles/early-childhood-development-the-promise-the-problem-and-the-path-forward/
denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Such as

Undialectical

Because "biological explanations" never add up. Its always "becauze muh dna" despite countless and countless exceptions to the ""rule"". Meanwhile explanations that position societal structure, cultural norms etc tend to be pretty much always correct, and do not have much exceptions.

IE because its not retarded

Gender being a social construct rather than something that is a result of biology.

outliers don't tend to be 'exceptions'. you are using that word generously to justify your own argument.

biology is racist n SHIIIET

Outliers only happen within statistics. Biological explanations always postulates "X group inherently is Y because of dna" ("And therefore we have to kill em all")

The last point was your own inference. Sexual mating strategy is amoral and men and women both have preferences. There are studies showing that women find mowing the lawn + fixing a car to be attractive whilst washing the dishes to be 'feminine'. You can't claim estrogen or testosterone are meaningless and don't have effect.

you know that soviets had to ban genetics because it went against social equality, right?

study biology a tiny bit, even entry level stuff, and you quickly figure that social equality is impossible
examples:
different continents have different diets and different climates
different evolutionary pressure pressures different people differently to develop different clothing, different tools, different shelters, different intellect

some people gotta plan for months to stay alive
some are warm all year round and just need to be aggressive to stay alive

A FEW FUCKING CENTURIES

Attached: 1364949020249.png (353x399, 212.46K)

Because you can demonstrate that gender is too environmentally flexible to be biological.

Gender, such as? Wearing dresses? Saying uuuh instead of ohhh during sex?

Ladies and gents, I present to you, Zig Forums

back to pol and only come back after educating yourself

Attached: 0eb653172849f2dee5b1102f7c6a798a1900e8f6ca8d3e65b3d4446668a2c06.jpg (628x534, 75.29K)

because biological science is itself constructed by society
now fight me.

No more baboons

OH BOY IT'S A RACE REALISM THREAD.

Attached: frederick_douglas_poor_whties_and_blacks_set_agaisnt_each_other.jpg (1487x549 302.97 KB, 304.64K)

some more

Attached: race realism debunked (1)

Thanks, comrade.

Attached: 15cda0e36546403207e119837e2bf229beea7b624df88eb806064ea9018cfcb7.png (338x429, 99K)

gould falsified his data set when he tried to prove the niggers don't have small brains

lol

Not understanding how this can't also be explained via culture. Unless you're implying that there's some biological root to aptitude with a car being sexually advantageous like the darkness of a lion's mane. The problem is that most of the explanations of cultural signifiers, such as your car example, are vague as hell, with plenty of exceptions towards these supposed fundamentals all around the world.
The Wodaabe are a famous example, who's male beauty standards are downright bizarre.

Beyond some very basic anatomical features, such as large breasts and hips or whatever (plenty of exception with this sort of thing too), there's very little hard science to reinforce the idea that our current crop of sexual symbols are somehow eternal or based in a fundamental, unchangeable truth. Rather than subject to the social milieu affected by material relations and sho on.

Attached: 1997_274-24_Gerewol.jpg (1672x1026, 591.98K)

Then Marxism really isn't for you. You still have deprogramming to do from your positivist right wing brainwashing.

what kind of retarded notion is that? social science is a subscience of biology. fuck off, stupid poltard.

if that is true, why are biological and social construct explanations mutually exclusive so often?

Yes, our biology is programmed to find modern appliances and concepts attractive. Soon they will find the lawn moving attraction gene.

How are they exclusive? Typically from what I heard we tend to be prone to certain things due to genetics and it's our environments that shape what our biology has laid down as a base.

because gender =/= sex? because the concept of what a "man" and a "woman" is varies from society and society? You really are a retard, hit the books dork

meme country

Some of us are analytic Marxists, aka "scientific socialists" user

But a fair deal of our problems in society are caused by capitalism. I'm not as extreme as the soviets who will argue that capitalism creates serial killers but it's a hopeful sentiment that a socialist society will have less problems than a capitalist one and this belief is rooted in the hypothesis that bad economic systems create bad societies create problems.

My understanding is that this hails back to Hobbes versus Rousseau. Biological explanations are seen as the domain of the reactionary Hobbes who argued that man was inescapably brutal, domineering and violent and the best we could hope for was to channel those impulses in such a way as to control the worst of them. Rousseau, the leftist, argued that humanity was inherently good and was taught to be evil, ergo society could be whatever we wished.

I'm sure someone will be along to inform me, quite rightly, that I'm an utter pleb and have no understanding of this topic. Should drag the discourse up from the level of shitposting so far.

here's the thing about Hobbes and Russeau. The latter was right, the former was not.
My biggest problem with this sort of "genetic extremism" (don't know a better way to put it) is that you reduce yourself to nothing but your DNA. People who say shit like "black people cause more crime beacause they have criminal genes" are essentially arguing that every single thing you do was pre-determined by your DNA, and you have no fucking controll over your god damned actions. Is that not incredibly fucking dumb if you think about it? The fact that you aren't even a concious being, just a robot programmed to eat and fuck?

Lysenko was an overreaction to genocidal social darwinists in the west.

Imagine actually saying this and still coming to the conclusion that it's all muh genes.

no no you don't understand we evolved to fix cars

He didn't falsify it, he had an error in his reanalysis due to his calculations and because he didn't have direct access to the same skulls that Morton examined. Furthermore, the study was about skull size, not brain size, you fuckwit. And even if it was, brain size does not correlate with intelligence; if it did, how come Sperm Whales aren't the dominant species? Dumbfuck.

Attached: Portal back to pol.png (800x480, 197.58K)

brain size is a good proxy for intelligence when proportionally everything else is the same

Proof?

literally the entirety of human evolution for the last three million years revolved around changes in cranial capacity and morphology while everything else pretty much the same…

So about those Sperm Whales being smarter than humans due to larger brains, huh? At least we know how small your brain is, brainlet. Lol. Go back to >>>Zig Forums with the rest of your imbecilic kind.

Brain surface area is what matters you retard, and there isn't going to be a huge enough difference in brain surface area between races if there is one at all

do you understand what this post means, shit for brains?

reread it, then reread it again, chucklefuck

brain size does matter when all other proportions are equal. but niggers not only have smaller brains they also have less denser and less convoluted brains. so they're doubly inferior. deal with it.

you nerds really need to off yourselves

Attached: hmm.png (399x374, 361.59K)

Because we're not retarded

sigh

Naturalistic fallacy often gets used to justify oppressive social relationships. Why do the british rule over the indians? Clearly its the natural biological order, the white british are the biologically superior race. Why do the rich rule over and poor workers? Clearly its the natural biological order and those with higher Autism Levels and superior biology end up in positions of authority. The critique of these sorts of arguments tends to be that no these social structures are not just the 'natural order' but a result of specific social and historical circumstance. The claims that their social positions are 'natural' and 'biological' are nothing more than an excuse which often conceals the naked force used to maintain their so called 'natural' social position.

So there is a long history on the left of critiquing biological claims about social relationships from back in the days of eugenics. The pendulum has maybe swung too far in some cases, denying obvious and true biological differences. But critics of social-constructionsts should realize that the social critiques were a response to the very real and very murderous excesses of a biological-determinist ideology in the 20th century. Eugenics was a thing. Many social-constructionist ideas are correct.

Attached: 1428417557383.jpg (599x800, 76.83K)

Nobody supposes that we're contending with the very basic genetic or cognitive developments, just that the common psychological perception of these theses are characterized by ideological compulsion, rather than some static cognitive segmentation. Make no mistake, the postulations of biological determinists are not even scientistic, much less scientific, and represent the most specious and debilitating impositions of a certain body politic upon the medium and process of science

pretty sure that every society has a divide between vagina-havers and penis-havers and that this division is the foundation for "gender"

inb4 "0.05% of society has deformed genitals and 3% of society's gay so male/female are spooks"

Sure but what it means to be a man or a woman in society varies wildly by culture.

Why does no one ever suggest that culture influences genes and genes influence culture instead of splerging on it being 90 per cent one thing? Every time people have this discussion there is a complete lack of nuance (I gue because people want an answer that will back up their worldview)

studies of black kids adopted by upper class whites show they still perform worse in all intellectual endeavors than whites
same for twin studies (one black twin gets raised by black family, another one by upper white family)
same with testing rich black kids

adoption studies and twin studies easily prove its genetics over culture, not even to mention the studies were carried out by left leaning professors who wanted to disprove genetics (lol)

deal with it retards, and also read the bell curve
individuals gravitate around racial means, you can have two black geniuses and their kid will still gravitate towards their racial mean
stop pretending to read books and actually read a book or two about genetics, about geography, about why humans even needed any intellect in the first place
basically they didnt need all that much of it in africa, which is why it never got developed in africa

solar radiation damages cells, this causes all sorts of mutations
geography selects 'good' mutations and kills 'bad' ones (good and bad here being different over time and over different geography)
creatures evolve

so there, stop being race creationists, you are like those creationist retards that want to explain everything away by saying "god created everything" but with race, "race doesnt exist and is equal" while genes, cell duplication, solar radiation, geography, all sorts of shit is telling you that are wrong

and so leftists will permanently keep creating inferior societies to those societies that actually read books and use eugenics to their advantage
eugenics worked on racing horses
eugenics worked in agriculture to create all the crops
eugenics worked everywhere everytime it was tried
leftists are primitive lunatics and have no place on modern political scene

But that doesn't prove anything? They're still in the culture that advantages racial majorities over racial minorities.

Why did you take the time out of your day to write such an abysmal and egregiously wrong post?

"social construct" isn't Marxist language, it's post-structuralist language and has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxists are generally structuralists.

The reason Marxists emphasize social conditioning in human development is because Marxists rightfully understand humans and their society to be in a dialectic, that is to say, they define one another by exclusion/contradiction (humans are not society, yet there is no human without society and no society without humans).

This philosophy of internal/external relations is the basis of the Marxist theory of history, which is called historical materialism. People in feudal times had different familial organizations because the mode of production was different. Society was organized in a different way and people acted differently.

Things that seemed natural such as God, the King and tradition were cast aside when capitalist development called for the mobility of people, flexibility of contracts and legal systems allowing easy investment and reinvestment.

The racial theory conceals the class basis of social antagonisms; race isn't a dialectical category and isn't part of historical development, rather we see it as a part of bourgeois society. Racial theories seem naturalistic to you, but in reality the modern concept of race was only introduced in the 1600s/1700s, around the time when mass-scale slavetrading became a dominant feature of capitalist exchange.

If racial hierarchies seem natural to you, it's for the same reason that fucking little boys seemed natural to Athenians and wearing stupid powdered wigs seemed natural to the l'ancien regime. The whole point is to make you think about things other than who appropriates the fruits of social production.

saged because youre racist

Then there is the pre-natal care that those adopted black kids had that was shit.

brookings.edu/articles/early-childhood-development-the-promise-the-problem-and-the-path-forward/

No "race" was bred for a specific purpose. Whites are not actively bred by an outside force similar to how we bred dogs and other domesticated animals. Also wolves are not dumber than dogs, even dogs we specifically bred to be intelligent.

This.

i mean someone explain to me why dont they just "culture" horses into racing faster instead of paying quarter million dollars to the retired winning mares to breed more fast horses
or how agri'culture' is quite literally all about genetics and you just keep planting seeds from a bigger plant over and over while throwing seeds of a smaller plant into trash/fertilizer mixture

why is this even controvertial? you know what is coming out of the oven before it is baked, because you know the ingredients
sorry for bad english but you get what im saying
people do not develop magically, life forms are not magically created, or created equally at all
you take genome (its when its still a tiny blob, just a few cells, susceptible to solar radiation)
you let solar radiation mutate it into whatever the fuck miniscule different genome from the parents
you let geography help/prevent it from reproducing

you do this shit over and over and over and over
a whole bunch of years you get these similar but most certainly not equal genomes going around everywhere

what the fuck do you think genetic engineering is???????
people can now finally access genome and change it themselves with human tools instead of waiting millions of years for solar radiation to eventually mutate a desirable one

horses dont have culture

Congratulations on confirming yourself utterly unworthy of my attention.

this is basic religious fundamentalist thinking
thinking that humans are somehow magically created, instead of humans being just regular animals like all other regular things
enlightenment taught is centuries ago that all regular rules of nature also apply to humans
humans arent magical exceptions, there's no magical god of equality who created us different than the rest of nature

catch up dumb commies, you are a few centuries behind
no wonder that starvation ideology caught up in the rural illiterate hellscape
pretty sure even bible thumpers are ahead of das kapital thumpers these days

Attached: 1526585880327.jpg (817x443, 52.41K)

I'm waiting for those scientific studies, faggot. So come on, let's see em…

a truly prestigious bar, that is.

Because constructivism is correct. Constructivism, contrary to common belief, does acknowledge biology; it just doesn't see it as the most important factor to how we've historically developed our identities and society at large. Constructivism says that, as a social species that is also dependent on our environment, we ought to consider how social interaction and the environment have shaped us. If you are insecure and need a biological field that's entirely dedicated to this notion, research epigenetics.

when you start to honestly and fundamentally look into equality, why does it exist or even why should it exist, you come up empty
axioms of social equality do not exist
humans are profoundly unequal
tabula rasa is the most thoroughly debunked theory in all of social science

this is why capitalists win over communists when it comes to horse racing
same goes for societies

lysenkoist race or genetics denying retards can only gather small refuse of jealous and bitter losers to their cause, which can not compete
that's modern leftism today, people who cant create any wealth and just toothlessly want to redistribute it
good thing 90% of leftists grows out of it

successful people do not need you and your movement is doomed to obese furries or weird hair color college dropouts who study decoy/cash grab worthless degrees

Everyone knows furries are reactionary. You can't push them onto us. They're literal Nazis.

Read a book, brainlet. Marx used the term.

Speaking of which, anyone got any good anti-rhodesia memes?

Generally speaking, "nature vs nurture" is a false dichotomy that has long since been outmoded by disciplines like epigenetics. Communist theory is fully compatible with modern science.

In the context of things like gender, Marxists just don't fucking care because these matters are only meaningful in the context of bourgeois liberal culture politics.

Communism has nothing to do with blank slate theory, natural inequality between people is irrelevant to us: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. You would know this if you actually tried reading about topics you pretend to know about.
In fact, tabula rasa claims are par for the course in capitalist dogma, in much of the Western world. The idea is that because people are perfectly equal, everyone is on equal footing and exploitation does not exist.

I try not to think about that trash

Strange you keep engaging in the same behavior knowing I won't talk to you, then.

Show me one culture that had an army of female frontline soldiers.

to each according to his need is operationally impossible, it is a buzzword, it is a fantasy, it is something that you cant create

we have less and less arable land, 50 years worth of nuclear fuel, and we may have even peaked oil
thinking that there's enough for every goat fucking illiterate jihadi, career welfare net takers, africans who make 20 kids even tho they cant fucking feed 1, there is nothing scientific in this hope for a magic savior that magic god of equality is going to send

you are much better off with an ideology of personal responsibility, self reliance, self defense, profitability, strength, survival, exploitation

we are more likely to end up with a cannibalism situation than a magic infinite wealth out the ass utopia nonsense
and you are better off being prepared for worst than wasting your days hoping for the best

Rojava.

What is this supposed to prove?

Well yeah, I want them because I want to troll on 4chan's Zig Forums board with them, plus on a discord I'm on where the occasional Rhodesia meme is posted and I want to bite back, even if a little, with some anti-rhodesia memes

yes you are, as long as you're the one who gets his way and isn't on the wrong side of the gun

If it the idea of being a man or women varies widly by culture, then you would expect to see some cultures with a dominantly female army. If that isnt the case the claim is most likley wrong.

A lot of things commonly considered idpol are perfectly fine for Marxists to address, provided that they are addressed within a materialist framework. Race, for example, was elaborated upon skillfully by Frantz Fanon and and adopted by the Black Panthers as a platform from which to drive Marxist politics. Same thing could easily be done with gender, as Engels basically outlined a materialist framework for gender-based oppression in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. If you aren't able to adapt Marxist theory and apply it to your everyday life, you aren't doing it properly. In a socialist society, social oppression won't have any reason to exist because of the class nature of Marxism, but failing to understand these problems within capitalism just comes down to a lack of understanding.

I fail to see how you come to this conclusion.

r u an actual retard?

You're mad because you can't articulate something that is essential to your worldview. Why would having no female dominated armies disprove that what it means to be a man or woman varies widely by culture?

because it means the differences between men and women are biologically informed and universal and clearly do not vary from society to society at all

It means that women, generally speaking, have not been on the front line, historically. It doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't.

"no"

exactly
and i dont see any leftist organization building space guns anywhere
so why even hope that a leftist mass movement (that isnt even popular yet) will save you, you personally?

here's my silly little personal belief:
the world is going to shit because of the stuff above (fuel deficit, food deficit, unsustainable industrial and business practices everywhere)
there's a small group of individuals, pentagon types, people with 'space guns' (orbital artillery), unmanned radio silent nuke subs, all sorts of wonder weapons
once the situation is unsalvageable and mass conflict of all vs all for resources starts and we have cannibalism in the streets, these guys are basically going to win
having enough insight to operate peak development tech, THEY will carry on in a sustainable societies made possible by vastly depopulated Earth and very efficient tech with almost no waste

and when it comes to political goals for individuals, they are supposed to do their best effort while they still can and for example win a nobel in a hard science or something else that is actually useful for the pentagon types and earn a ticket on board
or prepare good enough for the cannibalism tier barbarity that is coming for all of us, and work on a good enough survival shelter of their own, which would probably include drones, computerized guns and sensors everywhere, maybe some other people, anti tank guns, missiles, all sorts of fun stuff

Attached: c8a23fb509ce267105df85fb8f563b263220b5b180d3657a8c92e75eb6ed9f53.jpg (640x960, 121.12K)

Capitalism is failing? Who knew!
"Communism" does not mean "the Aryan man works his ass off so niggers can have free stuff".
Marxism, and historical materialism in general, is not utopian.
All you have proven to us is that you do not know what you are talking about and refuse to learn more. You are spouting American popular culture.

did u miss the point of his arguments on purpose or are you actually that single minded

The modern notion of "gender" is separate from falsely materialist spooks like race, which is relatively easy to address. It is largely the domain of the postmodernists and their confusing bullshit.

I understood the point of his arguments, they are just retarded and irrelevant to actual leftist theory.

okay

Islam went into the prisons to recruit and indoctrinate.
Feminism went after beta male orbiters (allies) and unattractive females in post secondary.
Both are under Marxist operations right now, hence the social constructions to lure the weakest of society (traps and pedos) and weaponize them against the blissful regulars in their busy bubbles and carpools.

Is it confusing to you because you haven't read any of their books and you don't know the science of gender and sex? I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I've been studying this stuff myself, and it's not at all confusing if you just read the material. I think someone like Judith Butler is incredibly good at explaining her theory of gender and sex, but the reason she's lacking is because she fails to acknowledge the material framework that would make her theory cohesive. It's amusing to read her work and notice this as well because she has actually studied Marx, but she is too reluctant to accept his theory to help herself.

I dont know much about its army or other militas in its region. From what ive read the PKK has the one of the largest amount of female combatans, but do you know the male to female ratio?

He outright described a major flaw of capitalism–its inherent need for infinite growth while resources are finite–a flaw that the far left wants to address, and he thinks we are somehow shocked by it, as if it is new to us. He literally does not understand our ideologies, plain and simple.

That's why postmodernism is confusing, it sounds tempting because the underlying implications of their assertions are never addressed. Without a basis in reality, it is basically intellectual masturbation.

most water left on the planet will be unfit to drink and there won't be enough of it to go around regardless of capitalism, communism, global salafism wherever that's his point you dolt

denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

Except we can literally drink sea water after a simple distillation process. It's just not a profitable solution.

you need a lot of power to desalinate salt water, what will power it when uranium and fossil fuels are tapped out

The fireball in the sky.