Trust me, saying all of history is composed of two groups of people is a gross oversimplification based on a philosophical (not scientific) root, that clearly is made to enforce that “us Vs them” mentality
Please engage with even one of the many sources I have kindly provided for you. You will be better for it. I would recommend the videos, they’re not very long, and the explanation manages to be thorough yet concise and understandable.
Also, Marx and Engels were bourgeois themselves. They knew and were fine with the knowledge that, if an “us and them” mentality were to emerge out of revokution, the two of them would be in the “them”.
They weren’t running for office. They weren’t leading a movement. They were just theorising based on the material conditions. There was no need for them to try appeals to group mentality.
Trust me, saying all of history is composed of two groups of people is a gross oversimplification based on a philosophical (not scientific) root, that clearly is made to enforce that “us Vs them” mentality
And that is a gross oversimplification of historical and dialectical materialism.
https://youtu.be/ZXwWWiI3E1A?si=xp4hWf-jtJpxTN5W
https://youtu.be/nZXaZHe901w?si=vG3rwmkmoG0pG5wl
Pretty sure the core is just “Us Vs them AKA the oppressed Vs the oppressors”
Please engage with even one of the many sources I have kindly provided for you. You will be better for it. I would recommend the videos, they’re not very long, and the explanation manages to be thorough yet concise and understandable.
Also, Marx and Engels were bourgeois themselves. They knew and were fine with the knowledge that, if an “us and them” mentality were to emerge out of revokution, the two of them would be in the “them”.
They weren’t running for office. They weren’t leading a movement. They were just theorising based on the material conditions. There was no need for them to try appeals to group mentality.
“they weren’t leading a movement” sure lol
Are there some marches they led that I’m unaware of? Governments they personally organised against?
It is and was a scientific theory, not a moral position. It is based on material facts about social and historical reality.
Please, I urge you to actually read anything that I sent to you. I’m starting to suspect you’re trolling and not interested in any discussion.
Again, it has nothing to do with science
Dispute its axioms for me, then. Refute dialectical materialism, or historical materialism, as unscientific.
Sorry, but conveniently dividing ALL of history in “these people exploit and these people are exploited” doesn’t sound axiomatic at all.
Whatever, your tankie mind seems brainwashed to the core and you won’t be able to see beyond an infalible image of Prophet Marx