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.
The only scientific part of Marx’s “theory” is the part where he says it is, nothing more than that.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
That’s nothing but gross oversimplifications of events that have little to nothing to do with science
Read first, then judge.
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