• MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]
    hexbear
    31
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • @gowan@reddthat.com
      hexbear
      1
      10 months ago

      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.

      • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]
        hexbear
        26
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • @gowan@reddthat.com
          hexbear
          1
          10 months ago

          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.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            hexbear
            20
            10 months ago

            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.

          • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]
            hexbear
            20
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

          • AcidSmiley [she/her]
            hexbear
            14
            10 months ago

            Come the fuck on, this has to be a bit. You can't be real you fucking dork.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]
              hexbear
              13
              10 months ago

              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.

            • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
              hexbear
              8
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

      • @robinn2
        hexbear
        23
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]
          hexbear
          19
          10 months ago

          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.

        • @gowan@reddthat.com
          hexbear
          1
          10 months ago

          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

            • @gowan@reddthat.com
              hexbear
              1
              10 months ago

              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.

              • @robinn2
                hexbear
                2
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                deleted by creator

                • @gowan@reddthat.com
                  hexbear
                  1
                  10 months ago

                  Im replying without the ability to place this in context as rn that button does not function fir me, so yes I believe I am confusing DPRK and PRC.

                  In Xi's case laws needed to be changed to give him the ability to run a third time. IMO moving towards a more authoritarian state is never going to result in a move towards socialism as it further entrenches power in an elite.

                  The fact is DPRK has a hereditary leadership and the state seems to work to perpetuate that. The fact that there were historical justifications made for Kim Il Sung to pass it to his son is meaningless. DPRK has electoral turnouts that almost assure that the results are fake and it is hard to see an authoritarian state whose leadership has been inherited along family lines as anything other than the autocratic monarchy it is.

                  • @robinn2
                    hexbear
                    3
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    deleted by creator

          • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
            hexbear
            11
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

          • @robinn2
            hexbear
            2
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            deleted by creator

      • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
        hexbear
        16
        10 months ago

        Why are you presuming liberals are dumb?

        There are several incredible replies to you in this thread that have completely gone unappreciated or over your head or both.

            • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]
              hexbear
              10
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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 curious-marx

              • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]
                hexbear
                6
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                For all of their bluster about "starting from a conclusion and working backwards" it's hilarious watching them start at the beginning with the conclusion that they know better than everyone else (with literally only an undergraduate politics and econ minor as proof) and never deviating or questioning that premise for a single moment throughout this entire thread with zero irony.

                There could not be a flimsier conclusion for someone to work backwards from. They are a happy puppy arrogantly discarding everything they encounter (and I really do mean everything) with complete confidence they are the biggest dog in the yard.