But ignoring this, **you need biological determinism to fully describe human action so that you can justify your politics**. You claim that 'classes are inevitable', which is part of a more general claim that there is no universality between people that can concretely exist, hence you go on to say that there will always be irreconcilable differences between people and there will always be the need to enforce sustained compromises using the sort of violent means that only a state can provide. Your 'ethnic' take on 'Communism' requires this biological determinism and reductionism to be justified in any way beyond being something temporary.

***You seem to misunderstand that biological models don't ultimately give a shit about human thought, motivations and philosophies even if they try to explain their developments in some way.***

**For example, it is possible to understand movements like anti-racism to a great extent through a biological lens, but not the theory which stands behind anti-racism.**

***If we are able to control biology, then there is no ultimate need for ethnic separation. My focus is not on the fact that human bodies and brains are controlled by biological structures and processes such as genes and hormonal secretions, but on the fact that we are able to cultivate and control these.***

```As for the other clauses, they are still genetic workings (again you got this from the wiki ) just because you have polygentics that influances other genetics doesnt makes it less determinsim.
The wiki that you got your argument from is simply using teh "we dont know how these biological aspacts work" As biological reduction isnt a thing..
Which is a falacy because that argument rests on biological determinism being effected by more then on alle.
Try to steal argumentation that actauly hold up bruh :smile:```

The 'we don't know' argument doesn't appear in the Wikipedia page *once*.

Regardless, it was not my argument either! The argument is that human action is not entirely determined and caused by biological processes, and that the true determining processes are *us* - i.e. this is something that can only be understood through psychoanalysis and through looking at the specific forms of human incompetence which exist rather than an inevitable limitation that's anything more than a tautological or false proposition.

Bringing up 'multiple genes' therefore does nothing to damage the claim that biological models cannot account for human action.

```loll that backpeddal```

Prove it! 'Genetic heritage' does not prove biological determinism and reductionism.

```wheer did i say that the enviorment is 100% created by biological aspects? Implying again, and you are wrong as i never said that it was soley caused by genetics, is weather caused by genetics? is the shining of teh sun caused by genetics? pls dont be so silly as you m,ake it to easy
```

First, 'biology' is not just about genetics, so you're moving the goalposts.

Secondly, *you said biology creates the environment*, __but you did not give any other factors that also did this__.

**Nevertheless, it could still leave human action and subjectivity out of the picture...**

That's twice that you've just moved the goalposts.

*What you're saying now is much more true, but it dodges the point again, because we don't need to talk about human subjectivity in order to model how biological entities interact with things like sunlight and wind - but we must do this with human actions because we need to account for our own actions too.*

**I want you to prove that human action doesn't affect the 'environment'.**

```"You kept saying that biology is the sole cause of human action,"
I never said this
Even more so becauise i know what human actaully means
and if you are following your biology you are not human :smile:```

Which means that human action is caused by something else as well. My position is that human action *can and often does cause and determine itself*.

Furthermore, if you work with this notion that if I'm following my biology I'm not human, then that means that your politics doesn't have to exist at all. If *other* determining factors require biological factors to stop controlling people so much, then what prevents them from bypassing familiar biological structures?

**Capital does this all the time! Big Pharma corporations have built hulking empires out of the need to use drugs to stay productive and superficially happy.**

```You keep using these words and terms you dont know the meaning of
Read samual Johnsons works```

Dr Johnson was writing centuries ago, and the definitions of various things like 'gender' and 'race' have themselves changed in academic literature.

Reading his works alone will not do me any good. Nor would going to a bunch of unspecialised dictionaries, for that matter.

```If you change the fgense you do this by adding different ones, this is stil biological determinism
?The amount of chemicals you can pump in to someone are limited, this limit is set by the existing biological structure.
You claim that i have amnesia because you dont remeber all the things you keep dodging```

Again: what determined the decision to decide that? And what social structures determined and influenced this?

```i brought in that wiki as you wree unable to keep state and government seperate, i clearyfied your wrong assumtions.
Remeber that misunderstanding you had was caused because you did not know the pam meme of they are the same picture :smile:
```

***Except I was keeping them separate right from the start.***

This is just distracting us from the fact that Obama was never real

You acknowledged that I literally put a whopping great divide between the two.

***Your argument was in fact that they were 'mostly the same'.***

In fact, your argument was that governments are examples of states - which was a terminological quirk which didn't capture the essence of what I was saying and the Marxist take on how 'states' are actually more specific things than 'governments'. ***That was my focus all along and you went and used your own to dodge that.***

__***You brought in that page to say that I was using the terms wrong when not only did the Wikipedia pages fail to back up your assertion there, but the whole exercise ignored the actual distinctions that I was making between the terms which I was using to argue that your understanding of Communism is not only false but is an expression of third-positionist politics.***__

```Lol, the observer effect ? you are claiming that your biologic nature chages in a substancial way because of the observer effect?
we are not talking quantum mechanics here you know :smile:```

Straw man. I didn't say that the biological model changed.

Nor did I say that *the biology itself* changed. I said that not only would the old biological model be unfit for the purpose of wholly describing human action, but that no biological model could account for this change. What's more, one is always ahead of one's understandings of oneself, so there is no way that one can describe themselves to be wholly determined by anything besides themselves at a present moment.

***It's about one's inability to escape the picture of the world that they're talking about, not about any quantum observer effect.***

(Ignore the line of hyphens, they're not disappearing on my end.) It's nothing to do with an external thing towards which we have no relation changing with our observation. It's about trying to keep up with ourselves. As subjects, we think, therefore we change. *This includes you.*

```What makes you think that kratom is bad ? Are you aware your body has natural receptors for alkaloids ?
```