I think material circumstances drive history and not ideas

>I think material circumstances drive history and not ideas

Why can't you post topics for discussion like a sane person?
You think this shitposting makes you seem smug and superior but the fact that you still think that only shows people how immature and tryhard you are.

t.materialist

>material circumstances don't affect ideas

>Starving poor people have instigated changes throughout history

>the russian revolution would have caught on if the peasants weren't starving

the peasants weren't the driving force. The actual revolution was driven by various well off bourgeois combined with foreigner support. Think of a chess board. Peasants were more like the pawns.

>the foreigners would of gotten the peasantry behind them if they weren't starving

Easily. Look at the American revolution for an example of that very thing happening.

>conflict of interests isn't part of the dialectical materialism pov
Let me guess. You are american.

Peasants did not support the Bolshevik coup. In fact, Lenin considered peasants to be among the reactionaries, because peasants tended to be very religious. The people who actually supported the bolsheviks were German agents, disgruntled soldiers, and urban industrial workers.

so if we had all the gold in the world, would time stop if we threw it all in the sea?

Name one revolution that didnt involve the population starving. You literally cant get people to really revolt unless they are going hungry, most people are just passive so long as their most basic biological need is satisfied.

Every Color Revolution known to man.

industrial revolution

>Name one revolution that didnt involve the population starving.

The American Revolution of 1776.
The Southern Insurrection of 1861.

I've been saying this for fucking years, thank you user

these are revolutions that involve nationalistic instincts of independence

So ideas? Also a flaw in your logic, revolution would coincide with famine and food shortage. Yet we've had far more of those in human history than we've had revolutions.

nationalistic herd instincts =/= political ideas
>Yet we've had far more of those in human history than we've had revolutions.
famine isn't a guarantee for political revolution, but peasant unrest is a basic requirement for it to be able to take place

There are some interests where yes, you can point to a materialist reason. The Civil Rights movement primarily happened because the south FINALLY mechanized and industrialized, and the black population decided to move from the rural south into the cities. Which caused a cultural clash as the cities weren't prepared for a massive influx of blacks moving in, and in the oncoming backlash blacks started demanding an end to segregation (since the reality is segregation didn't affect you too much in the rural areas).

>interests
Instances, I meant

>When the first response is /thread.

/thread

Harolds lookin good

>need slaves
>can no longer use slaves
>industrial revolution happens

>be industrialize
>enslave entire coutnry
>be USSR
makes one ponder

this is how you get replies tbf

This. It's a great redpill that all social changes are driven by the elites and grassroots movements either don't exist or they're unsuccessful and/or coopted by the elites. Whether it's Bolshevism, or the French revolution, or National Socialism, or Liberalism, it's always the elites being the driving force.

Bourgeoisie and feudal aristocrats are different people. Industrial revolution was fueled by the former.

Like 1% of the populace took part in the Russian Revolution, and a much smaller proportion took part in the October "Revolution". Although arguably a large part participated in the civil war, the peasants were for the most part hostile or at best indifferent and only took part due to pressganging or promises of looting the rich.

Literally any succesful revolution. Revolutions are mostly caused not by adverse change of economy, but either when people stop getting richer and fear slipping down into poverty, or when the middle class is excluded from the economic growth that the high class participates in.
That's like sociology 101.

1% of 125 million is 12.5 million. 12.5 million angry peasants is a lot of angry peasants

What arguments are there against materialism? Everything is just made up of necessary physical reactions.

Only a tiny, tiny fraction of population ever participates in a revolution.

%1 of 125 million is 1.25 million. 1.25 million angry peasants is a lot of angry peasants, and as pointed out, you never need a big fraction of the population to get a revolution going

You comprehend the world around you through ideas not materials.

>nationalism isn't an idea

it can be an idea but it rarely manifests as something intellectual outside of herd instincts of the people

>gets destroyed by barbarians

This. The mode of understanding is secondary to the act of understanding. You can say that we're just the necessary movement of chemicals or electrons or particles but this itself is a development from our human understanding.

>I post slowjak memes

You act in the physical world, within its limitations. Whatever ideas you have, they can only be realised to the extent the material circumstances allow. There is NO way around this. Even if we assume that ideas are what drive history, those ideas are either developed within the limitations mentioned above, or fail to be realised because of their impossibility.

>you need power to exercise it
no shit sherlock

Ideas ARE material circumstances.

Get on my level.