it's a lifestyle

and economic relationships

like Libertarianism

"y-you've just never read kapital!"

Yes, the philosophy posits that men are shaped by their environment, which is readily observable, and will therefore react to the environment - specifically the relationship between men's objective needs and objects of those needs. But this is merely one part of Marxism, the explanation for why the world is as it is, why history develops as it does, and what can be expected from the future. The entire discourse on labour and its significance to man is outside this analysis.

You're ignoring the other half of the Equation with the statement about Environment and People

go on?

most of us ignore the soul of the person as well

People are not a blank slate, different groups of people will react to different environments in different ways such that they're predictible

@Bird Wizard marxists think feels don't reals

shhhiet

Yes, people who accumulated those differences due to their unique environments. Darwin literally proves the entire viewpoint. The individual differences in genes are selected for *by the environment.* It is the *environment* that moulds people.

*NO FEELZ ALLOWED TODAY*

Like jfc

darwin is a marxist confirmed

```Yes, people who accumulated those differences due to their unique environments. Darwin literally proves the entire viewpoint. The individual differences in genes are selected for by the environment. It is the environment that moulds people.```

over hundreds of thousands of years that is 😩

Not even that. Much, much shorter timespans

generational ones

provide evidence that supports your claim

example?

arguing genes and environmental effects is also materialistic

it took white people 50,000 years of divergent evolution to advance two standard deviations of IQ over Africans

If you place people in an extreme enough environment, this can select for new type of group in just couple of generations compared to the group as it was on arrival. Because those who cannot adopt to the extreme environment will be cast out. Lets for the sake of argument take Antarctica as the environment in question.

???????????????

u do understand what you're implying, you're implying a survival of the fittest

dumping someone on antartica to see if he's going to surivive

Yes I do. But this proves the environment as essential and primary to the individual or "muh people"

so if we took a bunch of gorillas and put them in antarctica and kept putting gorillas in antarctica they were rapidly evolve

that's not the argument

the argument is,

u'll needlessly kill people until u realize that dumping a guy with more hair has more chances

we have things that help overcome some the basic survival filters

we no longer live in a cave

that if you dump say, 2,000 people on Antarctica, some of them are people much better adapted to that kind of environment, say the Nenets people or the Greenlanders, and some others are like Namibians and Saudis, you won't probably have the latter group members present after two generations because they died out. You would, though, perhaps still have Nenets and Greenlanders

so the environment determines the composition of the group here

no way around it

Different Peoples react to Different Environments in Different Ways, Environment triggers those genes in you that are innate to you, but it can only trigger something that is innate to you.
Yes, there is genetic mutation, but it doesn't change things in radical ways over a few generations or you would see really high IQ Nogs in USA and South Africa on Average...

but you don't ..

^

"desert nogs die in snowland" wow what a boring and asinine point

people will die much sooner, before their ability to adapt kicks in