gosh its almost like theres somebody who predicted this long ago and compiled it into a framework, a scientific framework if you will. Gosh what was his name, erm, charles was it? Charles Moxie?
Not this asshole again. They’re really trying to bill him as some prophet huh.
He says the problem with society is we let too many people get a college education.
Similar circumstances, says Turchin, can be found with the Populares of first century Rome who played to the masses and used their energy to attain office – “Very similar to Trump, who created a radical elite faction to get ahead.”
he is not only a data science dude but a rome nerd unforgivable stuff
He isn't even correct, lol, being the worst kind of rome nerd.
I too am data science people and I support your original comment
I read another article on this guy’s take a while ago.
I remember it being ok but not great. Stuff like “getting a degree used to be an elite-only activity and would confer certain privileges. But now there are more degrees than uses, causing unrest among people who would have been elites a few generations ago”.
Generally not wrong but not as compelling as I find Marxist analyses
"But the hard science of Turchin’s approach cannot explain all things. After the Great Depression in what some might call a negotiated settlement, elites negotiated a unionised settlement with the masses in a moment of enlightened self-interest."
yeah, things would be much better explained by Marxist analysis than "enlightened self-interest" eureka moments of Capital suddenly realizing they had to knock some of their shit off if they didn't want the guillotine. It was not benevolence, it was the outcome of the haves acquiescing to the growing social movement of the have-nots.
rests upon 10,000 years of historical data
Ok so its 100% garbage. That 'data' isn't standardised. If you put it into a database it's less than useless.
You think social unrest will get worse during the 20s? :nowai:
Also, why does the media always focus on the academics who switch to doing something outside their area of expertise? 90% of the time they end up doing it poorly.
I'm betting it's because those academics are the ones seeking mainstream book deals.
media always focus on the academics who switch to doing something outside their area of expertise
fascist Great Man theory of history
The kinda libs who make it in media would sooner delude themselves into believing the dung beetle theory of historical progression then admit Marx was right.
If you go to this guy’s website you’ll see that he learned Marxism in the USSR, rejected it, but has pretty much come back to it. Strangely this is not mentioned in the Guardian’s article. His analysis here is basically soft Marxism. It gets so close to mentioning the contradictions of capitalism.
has pretty much come back to it
these brain dead wreckers literally use historical materialism to claim Marxism is wrong
