Watch out guys, he’s read things.
They love that tactic and treating it like it means something. Like a libertarian claiming to be experts in capitalism because they’ve read every work of fiction Ayn Rand ever published. And I’m like, it’s great you read and all bro. But do you understand. And inevitability they don’t.
Or they have read things but cannot place it in context eg The Communist Manifesto was a response to problems Marx and Engles saw in capitalism whereas Smith was responding to issues with mercantilism.
Well that and of the ultimate problem when it comes to things of sociology and economics. No matter how many books you’ve read or by who. Having read and commit those books to heart. Means you know nothing more than what the people in those books say. Whether or not we agree with what they say or hold it true. It doesn’t make it true or valuable in itself.
That most ideologies no matter how rational or logical they seem. Are often impractical due to the assumption of rationality and logical thinking.
Your post makes it seem like you think sociology and economics aren’t sciences. Economics in Marx’s time was certainly closer to philosophy but that hasn’t been the case since the 1960s.
The problem the Marxists who are not formally educated in philosophy or science face is that they don’t realize economics in the modern age isn’t concerned with the kinds of thinking Marx engaged in because it isn’t based on empiricism.
They aren’t. Not in the same sense of physics and chemistry for sure. That doesn’t mean that they are without value. It just means that they have no authority to predict anything. Empiricism and determinism are sort of the core of science. If you mix a set proportion of materials at a specific temperature you will always get the same products. An authoritarian a leninist and a Communist walk into a bar. And you’ll get as many different punchlines as there are people who attempt to answer it.
Nothing changed in 1960. Economics is still largely philosophy. With the hindsight those sort of things give we can often try to understand why things might have happened. Maybe even offer insight into something like it perhaps happening again. But certainly not predict it happening. One of the best indicators that economics is largely philosophy. Is the fact that for these last 50 years conservative in the United States to have babbled on incoherently about bullshit supply side economics.
Oh, so you’re one of those. You don’t know anything about modern economics or philosophy if you think the two are even remotely similar.
Seriously a question in modern economics would be “did the tax policy instituted by placeistan in 2008 positively or negatively impact school enrollment?” While a question in philosophy would be “is the tax policy instituted by Placeistan an ethical or nonethical policy?” Those aren’t the same and the only reason why you would think the subjects are similar is if you know nothing about either one.
Im willing to be you know little about what constitutes a science based on the ignorance you have displayed so far.
Prestidigitation is not part of science and it is weird that you think the inability to predict everything is somehow unique to social sciences.
Oh, so you’re one of those. Getting all pissy, unable to address what was said. Instead making accusations and strawmen.
Your example is just silly. That’s just asking someone to make an observation and personal interpretation. How would you justify that interpretation. How would you test that hypothesis? Is it repeatable? Wheres your control group. Economics fails/doesn’t adhere to basic scientific method. And isn’t SCIENCE. No disrespect econ major. It isn’t. It’s a social science. That’s a significant difference. Saying economics is a Science. Full stop. Is like saying your hatchback is a formula 1. Though if you can prove otherwise I’m willing to listen despite your rudeness
You can read as much Ayn Rand as you want with perfect understanding and you’re not really going to learn anything.
He knows the origin of the word “totalitarian” without looking it up. Because memorization is obviously the cornerstone of critical thinking
I love that pointing out that a fascist invented it is somehow a gotcha
I learned where it came from in high school. Is that checkmate?
unfortunately not since everything taught in high school is a lie. the only way to learn things is to read things after graduating (as long as they aren’t written by high school teachers or any other educated person)
the kind of places that say “Ukraine should be destroyed at all costs” and blame the “west” for Putin invading Ukraine and commiting genocide are now calling lemmy.world zionists, well that’s the least surprised I have ever been
It’s super hilarious considering the amount of anti-israel posts/comments I see all over. The nuance of being on the Palestinian side of the argument without openly supporting terrorism is lost on them.
The tankies don’t seem to be able to realize normal, rational people, don’t like groups who intentionally hit civilian soft targets. Russia launching missiles at hospitals and schools wasn’t an issue for them, Hamas killing children and blowing up music festivals not an issue for them…
Well if those Eastern European nations would stop reacting to Russian imperialism by expressing a desire to join NATO then Russia wouldn’t feel so threatened by NATO’s expansion, so really it’s the countries that Russia is invading’s fault they were invaded. /s
“Palestine will be free within a month” my ass. Currently I’m worried the Kahanites will get the genocide they always wanted before the civil society gets its head out of its collective ass and disposes of the current government.
Yeah :(
we are one of the tamest instances when it comes to banning people and deleting comments/posts.
Uh huh.
Bet you don’t even know where the [word] totalitarian comes from or who coined it without looking it up.
Adolf literally Hitler could’ve coined the term, and that wouldn’t change a goddamn thing for how it is used to accurately condemn a genocidal dictatorship. Do you… do you think projection decides what’s real? Like if someone’s the first person to make an accusation, any form of “no you” is false?
we retain our perfect track record of not blocking real instances
Well yeah, your stated agenda is to shit up other conversations. You’re part of a harassment campaign echo-chamber halfway down the gradient from lemmy.ml’s erudite atrocity apologia to hexbear’s openly enforced tankie hugbox.
They have no idea what projection is. To them it’s just a word you use to describe people with opinions you don’t like.
we don’t ban good-faith posters.
What a crock. I was banned for having a discussion about how the “russia is de-nazifying Ukraine” is swallowing Russian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. White supremacy is a problem everywhere, but to use it as an excuse for what’s happening is a lie.
Ban.
I recommend you make an account on a third-party instance that federates with us, like ml or ee until they also defederate from us because we have principles
But .ml is literally the “Marxist-Lenininst” instance, why do they automatically expect conflicts with them as well? Some of these people have a persecution complex.
Well, tankies are pretty good at eating their own, even when they agree on 99% of stuff.
Also, tankies don’t know Marx from their own asshole, if they had any damn sense they’d be able to tell that the USSR wasn’t communist because it never moved past the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ phase if it can be said to have even started in the first place. Stalin took over and never had any intention of letting that happen, Khrushchev did in fairness try to fix some of the damage done which makes some sense because he actually fought in the Russian Civil War as a Bolshevik, but Brezhnev killed all that
Communists historically are the primary cause of death of communists.
How about because they’re not actually particularly Marxist-Leninist, but simply red flavored fascists and everyone with two neurons to rub together can see that?
Not to no true scotsman this shit, but does anyone self-identify as “Leninist” who isn’t a Stalinist?
Marxist is a pretty tame word, all things considered. Marxism is a pretty broad tent that fits a lot of people. But I don’t think I have ever interacted with a self-described “Leninist” that wasn’t authoritarian and against civil rights. This coming from a guy who regularly quotes Lenin.
I love the comment “they will wipe the floor with people”. It seems most of their debate techniques revolve around not understanding the definition of common terms like “authoritarian” and then deciding they are correct.
I love it when they tell me economic theory is wrong as a way to win an argument. You see only communist economic theory from the one book they read, written by some maoist farmer that was summarized in a lemmygrad post they read while taking a shit, is correct.
I strongly believe we need to employ more socialist and communist ideas into Western society/economics. That’s not kosher with them though. We have be lead by a dictator who starves millions of people to death or it’s not real communism enough.
Bet they don’t even know what a Kibbutz is when they heard of them being attacked.
It’s not about political ideology it’s about being right and always be afraid of an angry person who “knows they’re right”.
always be afraid of an angry person who “knows they’re right”.
I can’t fake being afraid of them but I’ll happily feel sorry for them.
I prefer my debates about economic theory to exclude Maoism, yeah. I did enjoy Unlearning what macroeconomics 101 taught me, though.
In the west basic economics focuses far, far to much on creating the most “value” without enough focus on why or who benefits. Macro 101 pushes a ton of comparative advantage free trade shit without any thought for exploitation and impacts. That crap is what got us Walmart and Amazon filling landfills with cheap plastic poor quality products who made a handful of people billions.
MacroEcon 101 is about how markets work pretty much exclusively and understand how these thing happen and the influences that go with them. MacroEcon 102 is about how government intervention is a good thing due to things such as negative externalities or the Free Rider problem. MacroEcon 103 is dependent on where you are and can consist of saying hey the individuals will inform themselves so we should give all power to a “benevolent” dictator.
There’s no reason to bring any more of Marx into neoclassical economics than has already been taken. The stuff we left out was the invalid stuff
I disagree. The principals of Marxism employed aren’t done well enough and most changes I would like to see in society would be more Marxist than neoclassical.
The “heavily progressive income tax” that used to be a staple ont he American economy has been eroded to a shell of what it was for example. That needs to be restored to its former glory. I wish that’s what they meant when they say make America great again… Workers having more equity/stake in companies could solve a lot of our current end stage capitalism bullshit. Marx believed in abolishing inheritance, which I think would help a ton with the rampant nepotism bullshit we suffer from. At least some type of cap and regulating all the ways the wealthy circumvent inheritance taxes. Oddly enough Smith, the “invisible hand” free market god of the right wing also believed in abolishing inheritance.
This is tangential to your point, but every time I see an implication that Smith had anything in common with a modern conservative I feel the need to point out that not only did he not believe in inheritance as you said; he also believed in social welfare programs like public education, and anything else that the market would predictably not be able to handle. In his time healthcare was only starting to get to the point of realizing that cowpox was a useful innoculation for chickenpox, but I have no doubt he would believe in socialized healthcare in a modern context.
Smiths free market was never supposed to be this free:
Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.’
Wealth of Nations, V:I.b, p.709-710
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.’
Wealth of Nations, V:I.b, p.715
‘Corn is a necessary, silver is only a superfluity.’
Wealth of Nations, I:XI.e, p.210
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition … is … the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.’
Theory of Moral Sentiments, I:III, p.61
‘It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxurious and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people that ought ever to be taxed.’
Wealth of Nations, V:II.h, p.888
‘The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the publick expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.’
Wealth of Nations, V:II.e, p.842
As with everything from an intellictual, the Republicans took Smith and held it up to a fun house mirror when selecting the parts they liked. Reagan was the real inflection point for them on economic theory. They called Raegons economic platform “voodoo economics” in the primaries. It never made any sense, never had any grounding in reality. Yet now is their accepted platform.
Smith is supposedly their north star and they contradict his theory continually and ignore all the parts they don’t like. In college reading Smith I was shocked at how much I agreed with him. There are so many things in his theories that would make free market capitalism more practical that we don’t employ.
Marx was wrong about a bunch if stuff most importantly is he was 100% incorrect about the labor theory of value. Why should economics incorporate ideas that are without question not correct?
Every economist had ideas that don’t work in practice. It’s not a reason to discount all of their work and theory.
Im not saying discount all their theory though. Neoclassical economics took the stuff that works from guys like Marx and Smith and dropped the stuff that was incorrect.
Suggesting we should bring more of Marx back in would mean adopting more of the stuff we know is invalid or incorrect in Marx’s case.
I guess that interpretation is valid if you think neoclassical economics is successful and working.
“Heh, adjusts glasses, every day before you’ve even gotten out of bed I’ve already cited 15 separate state owned Chinese and Russian media sources along with several random communist blogs to prove that western liberal thing is bad and terribly authoritarian government thing is good, you never even stood a chance bud”
most of their debate techniques revolve around not understanding the definition of common terms like “authoritarian”
Or “debate”.
If you come to a discussion with an attitude of “I’m going to wipe that floor with you” you’re doing it wrong. That is not conducive to an exchange in ideas.
So hilarious that their concept of education seems to include highschools and independent research. That’s it.
I guess if you coast through hichschool to the point that you come away thinking “They didn’t teach me anything!”, independent research would be the highest form of education possible. You’d also probably be a huge narcissist, but that’s a different, stickier wicket entirely.
To be fair many people do come out of high school thinking they know “the truth” about the world. They really don’t, and it will require individual research (whether that’s while working on your PhD on Russian history or something else) to learn everything there is to know. There’s always more to learn, and many educational things purposefully leave out context or misconstrue information.
That said, anyone talking about the USSR in the modern day is fucking stupid. This person seems to not realize the USSR doesn’t exist anymore. I surely don’t trust their opinion on the subject.
Wow, I had no idea .world defederated the tankie instance. I’m guessing the terrorist simping was the final straw. Anyway, this guy seems to be deeply hurt by this decision.
If they wanted to defederate why wouldn’t they do it on their own? These people are fucking insane.
Big “I didn’t even want to win” energy from this post.
Why do all the crazy people think debates fix things?
Because eventually the sane people stop talking to them. And that means they forfeit the debate and the crazy person wins it be default.
Ahh yes, the Eric Cartman strategy.
Theyre insecure about their intelligence and theyre posturing.
When your entire strategy in an argument is to be disingenuous and dishonest as all hell, you ALWAYS feel like you win the arguments.
It can trick a person into thinking they are a good debater.
In other words, it’s easy to win a debate when you were only aiming to convince yourself.
Who were they performing for? Literally no one likes them, and it’s not like they’re winning anyone over with that little rant.
The point isn’t to make people communists - the point is to make them cynics. For that you don’t actually have to defend any particular ideological space, you just always be attacking whatever target is convenient.
“Parties are dumb anyway” says loser, after being booted from a party for being an insufferable twat.
This right here is why I love .world; and that grad OP is right about one thing: It is indeed reddit 2.0; the whole idea was to create an instance that takes everything that’s good about reddit and provides an alternative to that stupid site, where app-pocalypse refugees (including myself, who are mostly average joes) can come and create /c’s about normal, reddit-like things. Like c/nostupidquestions (which actually is tolerant of almost all types of questions unlike the original r/), Star wars fans of all three trilogies banding together under one banner, the national/regional news-and-nature c/‘s like c/Canada and c/pnw, a friendlier version of r/atheism, an antique memes nostalgia c/, and a few entirely new feel-good communities like c/lemmybewholesome.
And better still: I hear lemmy will soon get an update that lets you block instances in addition to c/‘s and users. Right now if you block one tankie sub, c/all will just show posts from like 3 more
Bet you dont even know the etymology of totalitarianism! Check mate, rational people!
we maintain our perfect track record of not blocking real instances
Seriously shocking to see free speech absolutism referenced by anyone on the left. Why torture yourself with garbage takes?
Oh. Just defends the USSR in the post. There isn’t anyone with a more trash take than that.
Tankies start with “USA bad no matter what” and/or “USSR good no matter what” and work backwards from there.
Circle theory is real
If you have realistic and normal leftist takes you don’t end up going “farther left” to soviet bootlicking. I think tankies are just too closed minded / dumb / lazy / impatient to see the incremental path towards socialism that other leftists seem to focus on.
Sometimes I wonder how much of it is right wing astroturf to make all progressives look crazy/stupid.
Don’t get me wrong, I know Tankies are very real. But just how many of these people actually believe this shit?
Oh, well look up Caleb Maupin. He was a big tankie figure online and even offline, and he had literally worked for RT News in the US and presumably had been in contact with / paid by Russia.
It’s not really “right wing” astroturfing, as you seem to mean it. there are well publicized social media influence operations run by rogue states, with the apparent goal of steering and polarizing political discourse the US and Europe. and you are falling for it.
I’m falling for it? In what way am I falling for it?
I took your comment to mean you believe it is actual right-wing (e.g. Republicans, etc) astroturfing, as opposed to state-sponsored trolls. But perhaps you think of those governments as right wing and that’s what you meant.
deleted by creator
So they’re the ones responsible for Trump and Maga and all that bullshit. Technically responsible for our modern right wing nutjob.
Shit, it doesn’t even have to be incremental. “We need to overthrow all bourgeois states NOW” may be a ridiculous take, but it, at least, is a product of idealism, unlike, say, the position of “It was actually really vital that the Soviet Union killed all those kulaks for having 100$ worth of property” that tankies have.
Oh. Just defends the USSR in the post. There isn’t anyone with a more trash take than that.
Oh, sweet summer child.
Defenders of the height of Mao’s power in China.
Supporters of Juche.
Even once saw someone simp for Pol Pot.
Once tankies hit rock bottom, they start mining.
