Funny I would say the sane about the Marxists here most of whom seem to only be educated through social media/forums and most of whom seem to have no formal education in sociology/anthropology/and most especially economics. The number of times where it becomes clear that a Marxist is arguing from a conclusion is too high to be ignored.
Watch out people we got an econ 101 grad amongst us, if we're not careful he'll pull out his Mas Colell textbook and start babbling about maximizing utility curves and general equilibrium
Nah you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ. I have talked to many people who seem to have no formal education in the listed fields and refer back to things like breadtube as a valid source.
I can't speak fir your education but I have chatted with someone who claimed to be a Marxist who was convinced that DPRK is a communist state rather than a hereditary autocracy. Not ever Marxist is educated and some are bad at reasoning.
you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ
Not even trying to dunk, just realize that this is not impressive, and certainly not authoritative. When someone questions your expertise the two acceptable responses are:
Yes, I am an actual expert, with extensive schooling and/or relevant work experience.
I'm not claiming to be an expert, but here's where I'm getting my information, where are you getting yours?
They said I have 101. I have a greater understanding then that which is what Im replying to. Im not pretending to be an expert and frankly I don't know why you would think that.
We know where they are getting the information from the problematic people Im talking about do not understand their sources and frequently decide that Marx was right and avoid learning when he was wrong ir when we have gained a clearer understanding.
For fucks sake some seem to think Marxism ended with Marx
Just giving you a second chance to answer the simplest possible question about Marx. I'm guessing you didn't see the notification the first time given you've been active after it was posted, and you could very easily demonstrate your knowledge of Marxism.
You know, cause otherwise people are going to think you were lying about learning about Marxism.
You are going to have to ask me "the simplest question about Marx"again because the button that should link me to the context isn't working right now. I definitely missed it the last time.
Nah you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ. I have talked to many people who seem to have no formal education in the listed fields and refer back to things like breadtube as a valid source.
So the two most "priesthood class of capital" useless degrees lol.
Read Capital, the economics you've learned still haven't grappled with it successfully.
Edit: you claim to have read Marx. Please, tell me how automation connects to the tendency of the rate of profit to drop according to Marx. It's one of the core parts of his analysis so it should be easy to remember.
This is extra funny because explaining how neoclassical economics is a religion rather than any form of scientific or even material system is a common criticism made by Anthropologists.
But anthropology doesn't have the nice graphics and the math that doesn't really have any empirical data behind it, anthropology isn't a real science unlike neoclassical economics!
The DPRK is socialist and not a hereditary autocracy. It has been the consistent direction of the head of the executive branch to diffuse authority to other offices, but nearly everything you have ever heard about this country was a lie.
It literally has handed power down from father to son twice. That is a hereditary system. As the citizens cannot advocate for a change in leaders, a change in direction of the party or an entirely new political system they are authoritarian.
I didn't do that. I explained how the top authority has been handed from father to son in a single family and then demonstrated how they are authoritarian. You might be able to be authoritarian and socialist but you cannot have a hereditary power structure and attempt anything looking like socialism.
Just because you don't like facts doesn't change them. If that was possible communism would have been achieved multiple times
It literally has handed power down from father to son twice.
It has had sons win elections and then hold the office twice. We can call it dynastic in a sense similar to US political dynasties, but that's different from being literally hereditary.
As the citizens cannot advocate for a change in leaders, a change in direction of the party or an entirely new political system
Do you have a source for that claim because I have only seen the opposite from elections experts. The fact that almost every single person votes is of course a MASSIVE red flag.
He's got a MINOR in economics! And he's here to tell us all about how beautiful and elegant the math is. You can't really appreciate it unless you step into the rarified air surrounding an econometrics professor, you would understand if you ever tried it.
Bro I'm completing a dissertation in political economy and I hate myself for it. The world is an easy place if you assume the gospel drivel spewed in orthodox econ departments is all there is. How about you go read up on the Cambridge Capital debate and then tell me how robust a "science" economics is. While you're at it eat a crayon, maybe you'll shit out a more intelligent comment next time.
First why do you think that you or only Marxists are aware of the limitations of social sciences? If you really do have a background in the subject surely you remember this is frequently discussed or it least it was in my programs.
Second if you do have a degree or are pursuing one then you aren't the person Im talking about. Im talking about the person who-reads Marx and maybe Kropotkin and decides things ended there.
For someone attacking my intelligence/education, which you know nothing of, you are making a ton of unsupported statements. Hypocrisy isn't a good look
I'm not talking about the inherent limitations of social science, I'm responding to your absurd attitude that somehow formal education makes your ideas inherently superior/above critique, and I named a specific example of theoretical failure of orthodox economics as an example of the entire project being basically woo. Lots of aristotelean scholastics wrote the dumbest shit imaginable about physics for a thousand years, and their thought was funded, reproduced, and taught as authoritative by formal education the entire time; progress was only made when criticism came from outside the academy and overcame it. Much like then, our contemporary "Political Science" and "Economics" departments are nearly completely captured by a dead-end ideology/research project, but still have the support of the ruling class so they keep cranking along misinforming more and more students every year. You claiming advanced understanding of the matter is the equivalent of an Aristotelean physicist or Lamarkian biologist sticking their nose up and saying learning outside of the academy is somehow less than their own. That's worse than just being wrong, it's wrong and using elitism to refuse to recognize it. The Black Panthers went into the poorest and least educated communities in America, and they taught people Marxist theory while they taught them to read. What do you think well to do Nixon Republicans had to say about their education? That's where you stand right now looking down on folks engaging in education outside of the academy itself.
Also, lots of Marxists are tired of dumb liberals reciting the same garbage authoritatively while never questioning basic undercurrents of their own ideological world view. So sorry they have reached a conclusion and don't want to rehash baby's first socialism with every shmuck who thinks their poli-sci degree makes them an expert.
My point is that some subjects, like modern economics, are best taught in academic situations because of how complex they are. There is simply too much higher level math in neoclassical economics to learn on your own unless you are a math wiz.
Why are you presuming liberals are dumb? Liberal societies are functioning in the real world while the most successful attempts at socialism are those that moved towards hybrid economies (Vietnam and China).
Arguing from a conclusion means you have decided what is correct and then seek proof to demonstrate that which is the opposite of how scientific reasoning works. You should probably be familiar with that term if you are not.
You're still not getting it lol. Neoclassical economics is theoretically standing out way over a cliff and simply refusing to look down like Wiley coyote. Your appeal to mathematics is unintentionally hilarious, because it was physics envy and the chasing of mathematical models over real life evidence/coherent theory that led the field astray to begin with lmao. You can come up with all kinds of fancy models and as much mathematics as you like, but none of it matters if you're basing it on incorrect axioms.
"Functioning in the real world" - oh yeah for sure. Burning the environment down and cooking the biosphere while forever chemicals and microplastics permanently saturate the ecosystem. Liberal societies are "Functioning" in so far as they're not actively failed states this very moment, but that is accomplished on the back of neo-imperialism, unequal exchange with the global south, and unresolvable contradictions inherent to neo-liberalism/capitalism. A car driving 80 mph towards a cliff is working, sure, but is that a desirable state of affairs?
Also take a quick look around my guy. We're not in a laboratory. I'm calling you an idiot on the internet. Not every conversation is the platonic ideal of scientific pursuit you nerd.
And Im trying to remain a better class of person than you because you have demonstrated nothing other than that you are the exact type of uneducated person Im talking about. Your incapability to reason civilly or rationally will not help you even in the most utopian Marxist society.
Idk, if it was so plainly "false" and "uneducated" then it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to provide a refutation of, especially since these are criticisms that even several liberal economists have been making for decades, e.g. "assume a can-opener" discourse.
And he is talking about axioms, so you don't even need to worry about correctly notating your fancylad mathematics.
Hear that @Civility@hexbear.net? I've been a bad boy! Come frown at me for hurting the widdle wiberals feelings. He was just using elitism to disparage his interlocutors and maintain a worldview that harms people every day! Why did I have to go and be so uncivil! Whoa is me.
Classic liberal. When confronted with arguments you don't understand or have a retort to, you pearl clutch and complain about tone.
Nah, Libs are like this everywhere. The self righteousness, the aggressive ignorance, the near absolutely inability to recognize their own limitations, the incuriousness. I think it's mostly a consequence of living in a hegemonic cultural and media environment where they never encounter any meaningful challenges to their world view. Liberalism is all they know, and the only thing outside of it that they even casually encounter is fascism through the lens of Lib media venues, so they're just completely unprepared to critique their own beliefs or situation.
I will have you know that I majored in political science and have a minor in economics. I have achieved the apex of knowledge on both subjects, thank you very much.
Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.
You do not know what I do and do not know. I am aware that the theoretical path to communism is not the same for all but China keeps moving further away from ANY path to socialism or communism. Heck they really doubled down on authoritarianism when they allowed Xi to permanently hold office. Is a dictatorial state run for privately profit a path to socialism? Oh shit no it isn't
No because he was elected. If he got the office right after TDR held it as the first POTUS and then it was passed to another Roosevelt then yes I would think he's a dictator.
Im unaware of ANYONE claiming DPRK has fair elections. If you have a valid source that makes this claim I would love to see it because on the surface they are clearly fraudulent.
He's pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It's incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can't be safe for the human body.
I STILL WANT MY MAN'S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.
"It is important, for the record, to recognize that key participants in the debate openly admitted their mistakes. Samuelson's seventh edition of Economics was purged of errors. Levhari and Samuelson published a paper which began, 'We wish to make it clear for the record that the nonreswitching theorem associated with us is definitely false. We are grateful to Dr. Pasinetti...' (Levhari and Samuelson 1966). Leland Yeager and I jointly published a note acknowledging his earlier error and attempting to resolve the conflict between our theoretical perspectives. (Burmeister and Yeager, 1978).
However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, 'declared victory': Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss 'capital' as if it were a well-defined concept — which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the 'rational expectations revolution' and in virtually all econometric work."
(Burmeister 2000)
Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree
but if someone thinks economics ends with Marx then that's the person Im talking about.
Find me one classical Marxist on the entire website. Virtually no one thinks this among Marxists, hence why they are mostly Marxist-Leninists. The second name isn't appended just because we like the guy.
Might be worth reading his critiques and expansions of Marx so that it can be appended for the sake of representing a theoretical difference from classical Marxism.
You might be surprised how many times discussions with the group Im talking about think all econ ends with Marx or sometimes Kropotkin. Im not talking about people who are actually well read on Marxist ideologies.
How does that work? He critiques other economists. There's no reason to claim he is where it starts and Im fairly sure he would disagree with that claim.
I was speaking of modern economics. Marx brought together all the correct analysis from different economists, yes, but Marx is better because he made something coherent out of it. The majority of many others opinions at the time were very infantile, as you can see with the critique of utopian socialism. Starting an economics class, one should read the correct and well established analysis before picking through the bones of bad economists with one or two good points marx used. Theres a reason he's one of the most cited people in history.
Or some of us might have multiple sociology degrees and/or are in academia. But I'm sure if they wrote comments about Marx (or Weber or Gramsci or Veblen etc) you'd just assume they got it from wikipedia anyway. Though I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. It's not like it makes a difference whether someone read primary texts online or overpaid at the college bookstore. It's the same information. The fact that anyone has a desire to learn, better themselves, and then try to use that knowledge is admirable and a service to society at large. More people should try it.
Im not talking about people who are educated with degrees taught by experts. Im talking about the person who only learns about this stuff through places like facebook, tiktok, youtube and to a lesser extent reddit (one of the major mods on the econ subs, /u/robthorpe, is a Marxist).
The problem with learning from forums is as a novice you have no way of telling that the person running the forum has any idea what they are talking about.
I think some subjects are better learned when you have actual experts to turn to and you might not have that on say the facebook group you ran across.
For example there's a reply here from someone complaining that modern economics still hasn't answered everything from Kapital which ignores that modern economics and economics of Marx's time are very different in methodology and focus.
Marxists are hardly alone in arguing from a conclusion. That pretty much describes all of economics and most of political science. Liberal economics in particular could easily be retitled Just So Stories, With Jargon.
That's simply not true and strongly suggests that you either did not understand who I am talking about or ypu have no education in the field.
Im talking about the people who come to Marxism by deciding it is correct and then seek to only pursue information or sources that back Marxism rather than learning about the various flaws that absolutely exist in Marxism as they do in any ideologically driven perspective. If you actually study econ you should have some grasp on the flaws of a system in broad terms.
The fact that you are assigning an ideology to neoclassical economists strongly suggests you have no formal education in the field. Most economists abandoned the idea of "schools" in the 1960s.
You really need to look into the concept of cultural hegemony. Your ignorance as you speak with authority is embarrassing but it isnt an innate quality you have and can be corrected.
You see, the Political Scientist major brainpan is maladapted to reflection, and quite simply incapable of grasping such remarkable and sophisticated concepts like "Hegemony."
Funny I would say the sane about the Marxists here most of whom seem to only be educated through social media/forums and most of whom seem to have no formal education in sociology/anthropology/and most especially economics. The number of times where it becomes clear that a Marxist is arguing from a conclusion is too high to be ignored.
Watch out people we got an econ 101 grad amongst us, if we're not careful he'll pull out his Mas Colell textbook and start babbling about maximizing utility curves and general equilibrium
Nah you have someone with a political science degree and a minor in econ. I have talked to many people who seem to have no formal education in the listed fields and refer back to things like breadtube as a valid source.
I can't speak fir your education but I have chatted with someone who claimed to be a Marxist who was convinced that DPRK is a communist state rather than a hereditary autocracy. Not ever Marxist is educated and some are bad at reasoning.
Imagine boasting about having a degree in modern-day phrenology.
You see, this graph shows the Slavic brainpan cannot comprehend liberal institutions ....
I wish people would just lead with this shit so we'd know to ignore them.
Not even trying to dunk, just realize that this is not impressive, and certainly not authoritative. When someone questions your expertise the two acceptable responses are:
They said I have 101. I have a greater understanding then that which is what Im replying to. Im not pretending to be an expert and frankly I don't know why you would think that.
We know where they are getting the information from the problematic people Im talking about do not understand their sources and frequently decide that Marx was right and avoid learning when he was wrong ir when we have gained a clearer understanding.
For fucks sake some seem to think Marxism ended with Marx
You claim to know something about Marx, ok let's test that knowledge of yours with the simplest possible question
According to Marx what are the sources of capitalist profit?
Andddd they're gone lol
lmao I expected as much, like a fart in the wind they're gone
@gowan@reddthat.com
Just giving you a second chance to answer the simplest possible question about Marx. I'm guessing you didn't see the notification the first time given you've been active after it was posted, and you could very easily demonstrate your knowledge of Marxism.
You know, cause otherwise people are going to think you were lying about learning about Marxism.
You are going to have to ask me "the simplest question about Marx"again because the button that should link me to the context isn't working right now. I definitely missed it the last time.
I thought that was too easy, so bonus question
Edit: as of edit it's been 8 hours, with this users last activity being 3 hours ago.
So the two most "priesthood class of capital" useless degrees lol.
Read Capital, the economics you've learned still haven't grappled with it successfully.
Edit: you claim to have read Marx. Please, tell me how automation connects to the tendency of the rate of profit to drop according to Marx. It's one of the core parts of his analysis so it should be easy to remember.
This is extra funny because explaining how neoclassical economics is a religion rather than any form of scientific or even material system is a common criticism made by Anthropologists.
But anthropology doesn't have the nice graphics and the math that doesn't really have any empirical data behind it, anthropology isn't a real science unlike neoclassical economics!
Hey, we can draw! Some of us can draw real good!
dude almost everything told about the DPRK is pulled out of some right winger's ass
The DPRK is socialist and not a hereditary autocracy. It has been the consistent direction of the head of the executive branch to diffuse authority to other offices, but nearly everything you have ever heard about this country was a lie.
It literally has handed power down from father to son twice. That is a hereditary system. As the citizens cannot advocate for a change in leaders, a change in direction of the party or an entirely new political system they are authoritarian.
DPRK is a hereditary autocracy.
I don't think just repeating your statement over and over can manifest it into reality, but good on you for trying
I didn't do that. I explained how the top authority has been handed from father to son in a single family and then demonstrated how they are authoritarian. You might be able to be authoritarian and socialist but you cannot have a hereditary power structure and attempt anything looking like socialism.
Just because you don't like facts doesn't change them. If that was possible communism would have been achieved multiple times
It has had sons win elections and then hold the office twice. We can call it dynastic in a sense similar to US political dynasties, but that's different from being literally hereditary.
Citation needed
Are you suggesting they had a free and fair election? Let's not be that stupid.
Their elections have been observed many times by different external bodies and are an example of consensus democracy.
Do you have a source for that claim because I have only seen the opposite from elections experts. The fact that almost every single person votes is of course a MASSIVE red flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWxn4mrNJxQ
He's got a MINOR in economics! And he's here to tell us all about how beautiful and elegant the math is. You can't really appreciate it unless you step into the rarified air surrounding an econometrics professor, you would understand if you ever tried it.
poli sci is literally nothing. I have a background in social and hard science, from either point of view it's bullshit.
The only field more embarrassing than PoliSci is arguably EvoPsych, with the caveat that most academics don't consider EvoPscyh to be a real field.
Oh man I would never admit that unforced.
Bro I'm completing a dissertation in political economy and I hate myself for it. The world is an easy place if you assume the gospel drivel spewed in orthodox econ departments is all there is. How about you go read up on the Cambridge Capital debate and then tell me how robust a "science" economics is. While you're at it eat a crayon, maybe you'll shit out a more intelligent comment next time.
First why do you think that you or only Marxists are aware of the limitations of social sciences? If you really do have a background in the subject surely you remember this is frequently discussed or it least it was in my programs.
Second if you do have a degree or are pursuing one then you aren't the person Im talking about. Im talking about the person who-reads Marx and maybe Kropotkin and decides things ended there.
For someone attacking my intelligence/education, which you know nothing of, you are making a ton of unsupported statements. Hypocrisy isn't a good look
I'm not talking about the inherent limitations of social science, I'm responding to your absurd attitude that somehow formal education makes your ideas inherently superior/above critique, and I named a specific example of theoretical failure of orthodox economics as an example of the entire project being basically woo. Lots of aristotelean scholastics wrote the dumbest shit imaginable about physics for a thousand years, and their thought was funded, reproduced, and taught as authoritative by formal education the entire time; progress was only made when criticism came from outside the academy and overcame it. Much like then, our contemporary "Political Science" and "Economics" departments are nearly completely captured by a dead-end ideology/research project, but still have the support of the ruling class so they keep cranking along misinforming more and more students every year. You claiming advanced understanding of the matter is the equivalent of an Aristotelean physicist or Lamarkian biologist sticking their nose up and saying learning outside of the academy is somehow less than their own. That's worse than just being wrong, it's wrong and using elitism to refuse to recognize it. The Black Panthers went into the poorest and least educated communities in America, and they taught people Marxist theory while they taught them to read. What do you think well to do Nixon Republicans had to say about their education? That's where you stand right now looking down on folks engaging in education outside of the academy itself.
Also, lots of Marxists are tired of dumb liberals reciting the same garbage authoritatively while never questioning basic undercurrents of their own ideological world view. So sorry they have reached a conclusion and don't want to rehash baby's first socialism with every shmuck who thinks their poli-sci degree makes them an expert.
My point is that some subjects, like modern economics, are best taught in academic situations because of how complex they are. There is simply too much higher level math in neoclassical economics to learn on your own unless you are a math wiz.
Why are you presuming liberals are dumb? Liberal societies are functioning in the real world while the most successful attempts at socialism are those that moved towards hybrid economies (Vietnam and China).
Arguing from a conclusion means you have decided what is correct and then seek proof to demonstrate that which is the opposite of how scientific reasoning works. You should probably be familiar with that term if you are not.
You're still not getting it lol. Neoclassical economics is theoretically standing out way over a cliff and simply refusing to look down like Wiley coyote. Your appeal to mathematics is unintentionally hilarious, because it was physics envy and the chasing of mathematical models over real life evidence/coherent theory that led the field astray to begin with lmao. You can come up with all kinds of fancy models and as much mathematics as you like, but none of it matters if you're basing it on incorrect axioms.
"Functioning in the real world" - oh yeah for sure. Burning the environment down and cooking the biosphere while forever chemicals and microplastics permanently saturate the ecosystem. Liberal societies are "Functioning" in so far as they're not actively failed states this very moment, but that is accomplished on the back of neo-imperialism, unequal exchange with the global south, and unresolvable contradictions inherent to neo-liberalism/capitalism. A car driving 80 mph towards a cliff is working, sure, but is that a desirable state of affairs?
Also take a quick look around my guy. We're not in a laboratory. I'm calling you an idiot on the internet. Not every conversation is the platonic ideal of scientific pursuit you nerd.
And Im trying to remain a better class of person than you because you have demonstrated nothing other than that you are the exact type of uneducated person Im talking about. Your incapability to reason civilly or rationally will not help you even in the most utopian Marxist society.
Idk, if it was so plainly "false" and "uneducated" then it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to provide a refutation of, especially since these are criticisms that even several liberal economists have been making for decades, e.g. "assume a can-opener" discourse.
And he is talking about axioms, so you don't even need to worry about correctly notating your fancylad mathematics.
Hear that @Civility@hexbear.net? I've been a bad boy! Come frown at me for hurting the widdle wiberals feelings. He was just using elitism to disparage his interlocutors and maintain a worldview that harms people every day! Why did I have to go and be so uncivil! Whoa is me.
Classic liberal. When confronted with arguments you don't understand or have a retort to, you pearl clutch and complain about tone.
😤
I don' t know if I've told you this before, but I love this bit. Your commitment is unparalleled.
Come the fuck on, this has to be a bit. You can't be real you fucking dork.
Nah, Libs are like this everywhere. The self righteousness, the aggressive ignorance, the near absolutely inability to recognize their own limitations, the incuriousness. I think it's mostly a consequence of living in a hegemonic cultural and media environment where they never encounter any meaningful challenges to their world view. Liberalism is all they know, and the only thing outside of it that they even casually encounter is fascism through the lens of Lib media venues, so they're just completely unprepared to critique their own beliefs or situation.
They literally have more formal education than you
I will have you know that I majored in political science and have a minor in economics. I have achieved the apex of knowledge on both subjects, thank you very much.
deleted by creator
Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.
deleted by creator
You do not know what I do and do not know. I am aware that the theoretical path to communism is not the same for all but China keeps moving further away from ANY path to socialism or communism. Heck they really doubled down on authoritarianism when they allowed Xi to permanently hold office. Is a dictatorial state run for privately profit a path to socialism? Oh shit no it isn't
You probably think FDR was a dictator for winning a third and fourth election too.
No because he was elected. If he got the office right after TDR held it as the first POTUS and then it was passed to another Roosevelt then yes I would think he's a dictator.
Im unaware of ANYONE claiming DPRK has fair elections. If you have a valid source that makes this claim I would love to see it because on the surface they are clearly fraudulent.
There really isn't any democratic argument for term limits.
"Oh but it will consolidate power"
Do you think the voters are too uneducated to factor that into their voting patterns?
"You can't trust the masses like that!"
Sounds kinda anti-democratic doesn't it.
deleted by creator
There are several incredible replies to you in this thread that have completely gone unappreciated or over your head or both.
Or I ignored them because they are neither.
Neither what
He's pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It's incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can't be safe for the human body.
I STILL WANT MY MAN'S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.
(Burmeister 2000)
Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree
Waver and flounder and try to browbeat, why not drop your monocle into your glass while you're at it. You got nothing
Liberal thinks the shitty neoclassical economics taught in 99% of universities is economics itself. Imagine my surprise.
I was able to take classes in Marxist economics taught by Marxists.
Why would you be so arrogantly stupid to presume what I know when you haven't met me?
Lmao if you think anyone who mildly critiques capitalism is a marxist, I want to live in your world
Im not talking about critiques of capitalism. Im talking about uneducated "Marxists" whose criticisms are based on that lack of understanding.
There are educated Marxists whose critiques can have value but if someone thinks economics ends with Marx then that's the person Im talking about.
Find me one classical Marxist on the entire website. Virtually no one thinks this among Marxists, hence why they are mostly Marxist-Leninists. The second name isn't appended just because we like the guy.
Might be worth reading his critiques and expansions of Marx so that it can be appended for the sake of representing a theoretical difference from classical Marxism.
I was shitposting but I always need more bullying to read more theory
You might be surprised how many times discussions with the group Im talking about think all econ ends with Marx or sometimes Kropotkin. Im not talking about people who are actually well read on Marxist ideologies.
economics begins with marx
How does that work? He critiques other economists. There's no reason to claim he is where it starts and Im fairly sure he would disagree with that claim.
I was speaking of modern economics. Marx brought together all the correct analysis from different economists, yes, but Marx is better because he made something coherent out of it. The majority of many others opinions at the time were very infantile, as you can see with the critique of utopian socialism. Starting an economics class, one should read the correct and well established analysis before picking through the bones of bad economists with one or two good points marx used. Theres a reason he's one of the most cited people in history.
Ok if that's what you mean that is fair.
Slept through class, huh?
Or some of us might have multiple sociology degrees and/or are in academia. But I'm sure if they wrote comments about Marx (or Weber or Gramsci or Veblen etc) you'd just assume they got it from wikipedia anyway. Though I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. It's not like it makes a difference whether someone read primary texts online or overpaid at the college bookstore. It's the same information. The fact that anyone has a desire to learn, better themselves, and then try to use that knowledge is admirable and a service to society at large. More people should try it.
Im not talking about people who are educated with degrees taught by experts. Im talking about the person who only learns about this stuff through places like facebook, tiktok, youtube and to a lesser extent reddit (one of the major mods on the econ subs, /u/robthorpe, is a Marxist).
The problem with learning from forums is as a novice you have no way of telling that the person running the forum has any idea what they are talking about.
I think some subjects are better learned when you have actual experts to turn to and you might not have that on say the facebook group you ran across.
For example there's a reply here from someone complaining that modern economics still hasn't answered everything from Kapital which ignores that modern economics and economics of Marx's time are very different in methodology and focus.
Marxists are hardly alone in arguing from a conclusion. That pretty much describes all of economics and most of political science. Liberal economics in particular could easily be retitled Just So Stories, With Jargon.
That's simply not true and strongly suggests that you either did not understand who I am talking about or ypu have no education in the field.
Im talking about the people who come to Marxism by deciding it is correct and then seek to only pursue information or sources that back Marxism rather than learning about the various flaws that absolutely exist in Marxism as they do in any ideologically driven perspective. If you actually study econ you should have some grasp on the flaws of a system in broad terms.
Liberal economists do exactly the same thing and if you can't see it, it's the water you're swimming in.
The fact that you are assigning an ideology to neoclassical economists strongly suggests you have no formal education in the field. Most economists abandoned the idea of "schools" in the 1960s.
Fun fact: Everyone has an ideology. Just yelling "I abandon my ideology" doesn't change that. Go ask an anthropologist they'll explain it too you.
You really need to look into the concept of cultural hegemony. Your ignorance as you speak with authority is embarrassing but it isnt an innate quality you have and can be corrected.
You see, the Political Scientist major brainpan is maladapted to reflection, and quite simply incapable of grasping such remarkable and sophisticated concepts like "Hegemony."
Marxists are more aware of these flaws than you, lol. Learn what scientific socialism is and how it connects to developing and refining theory.