I forgot how ignorant and self-righteous Reddit liberals were. The ones I've seen are easily the loudest and dumbest people on this network of federated instances. They have their "conviction" and "is wrong" sliders completely maxed out.
Thank you so much for showing me that not every liberal I meet here will be ignorant and self-righteous. I can no longer say that has been the totality of my experience with them. I now have hope that my next encounter will be just as positive as this one was.
Go fucking fuck yourself you fucking piece of shit. Talking about other people's sOcIaL uNdeRsTandIng while you're fucking misgendering people AND JUSTIFYING IT AS IF YOU'RE A FUCKING VICTIM once you're called on it. You're rancid scum and I hope we get fucking defederated so we don't have to deal with filth like you.
I have to smash through the wall like Hbomberguy right now
Show
"DO YOU FUCK DUDES? AnomalousBit?"
Do you go around telling other people that you fuck dudes? What do other people assume you mean when you say that you fuck dudes?
You could have just been like "Yeah you're right, sorry I didn't mean to misgender you." but instead you doubled down on being a transphobic dickhead and literally proved my point about liberals being shitbags in the process.
No, it wouldn't be a problem if he said he fucked dudes. The implication though is that "dudes" is a gendered term. The complaint is that she was misgendered by someone who then doubled down on the misgendering. Her statement was not homophobic.
In my experience, sexual inferences are the fastest way to educate someone who doesn't see a word as being gendered, but I can see how what they said could be read as using gay sexual activity in a negative way to someone not reading this thread and skimmed over the rest of the text in that reply.
Playing dumb is used by bigots as a shield to continue their bigotry unimpeded. Not allowing any room for them to play dumb is the only way to reach those kind of people.
What they are conveying is that "dude" is clearly not a gender-neutral term, as a straight guy would agree that they "fuck people", weird as the phrasing is, but not that they "fuck dudes." It demonstrates that they themselves don't perceive the social understanding of the term "dude" as gender neutral, not that "fucking dudes" is bad. It could also be used to debate a lesbian by the same token.
Maybe if you lived in any of the countries you disparage all day long
Most of the users on Hexbear are American and a decent number of the remainder are Brits and Aussies. Our criticisms do not come from having never received the privilege of witnessing these countries being shit first-hand, as much as you might like to pretend it's only those dirty foreigners not understanding your national glory.
So the foreigner part is self-evident, and I think the "second-world", "potato vodka," etc. covers the "dirty" pretty plainly. I don't know why I'm even saying this, because basically what I'm doing is just teaching you to dogwhistle more effectively, but on the other hand this post is on lemmy, so hopefully I'm helping to point this out to other people so they will be more aware of these things when you and your ilk take your next crack at it.
I don't know a single trans person that views dude as a gender neutral term, the only people spouting that nonsense are transphobic cis dudes like you who make up excuses to misgender and harass us. Go die in a house fire, reactionary cissie shit.
Real talk from a very trans-supportive communist: is this universal? I definitely grew up in a conservative environment but definitely was under the impression that I and the trans people I am close to all thought dude was a term of endearment when used amongst friends, including women and enbys. I likely overuse the term from thinking I would be a skater after playing Tony hawk's pro skater and being into hiking/climbing/camping culture, but is this a universal thing among trans people you know?
Not defending the other person, libs very often hide behind the argument once called out, and I'd never call you "dude," or pretty much anyone not my direct friend, but I just wanna make sure I'm not hurting people unnecessarily without knowing it. Maybe it's the "being friends" part that makes the difference, and I hope so. Otherwise I got some trans-comrades to apologize to
Adding here after thinking more, I guess I usually use it to refer to a non-specific thing, like saying "ah dude, that's cool" and shit like that. Like saying "oh man." Is this related??? Need some help here lol
Real talk from a very trans-supportive communist: is this universal?
I find it to be at least extremely common, both in English-speaking spaces online and in German-speaking trans communities online and IRL (i'm German). Ultimately it's a matter of preference, there will be trans people who disagree, but there definitely are a lot of us who take offense. Same goes for terms like guy and especially for bro / bruh etc., or for German terms like Typ or Alter (in this context roughly comparable to guy or dude) which are generally at least masc-leaning. I'd definitely take offense to all of these, but sure, there are exceptions.
Still, these are exceptions, and more importantly, what we see here is a perfect example of how not to deal with such a situation: When somebody calls you out on misgendering, the only sensible response is to edit the post in question and to apologize. If you do that, it's normally no big deal, everybody moves on with their day. And it takes a few seconds to edit a post and a few more to reply "sorry, i've edited this" while it can quickly take hours to start an argument over this. Yet i see over and over again that liberals in particular are incapable of showing that amount of basic human decency. Instead, they have to assert their privilege to define what we're allowed to find offensive, talk down to us and act as if they're the one ones who've been hurt because we've called their feeling of superiority and infallibility into doubt by saying they've made a mistake. That's where it gets transphobic even if the misgendering was unintentional, that's where it gets patronizing as well.
Fully agree with the description. Fuck that lib. Keep tearing them apart til they apologize and edit.
In Dutch-speaking communities i still hear the American phrases a lot, but the equivalents in dutch rarely. But in international groups oriented towards my hobbies, dude is still used a good bit. But I'll just stay alert, just wanted to hear a bit more from a trans-comrade who most definitely would speak frankly to me (I understand that in-person call-outs can sometimes be difficult for such "small" things). Gonna only use it as a phrase of exclamation among friends that know me well I think and continue checking up regularly on my comrades.
Just to be clear, i'm not saying "don't say dude", the term in itself is perfectly fine. Just saying it's not unusual at all that trans people find it not to be gender neutral and particularly that the response in that case shouldn't be to start an argument where you assert a right to label trans people in ways that have clearly and already hurt them. It's the latter that made me go from "oof, that person should edit this post" to "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds".
Generally considering that "dude" is a somewhat masculine word, so using it to refer to someone with she/her pronouns in her username (implying that she doesn't want to be referred to with male terms) without knowing if they're okay with that word just makes you look like a piece of shit.
Look, you started hot in this thread but tired after a few comments. They adjusted, you didn't, and you got rocked; it happens. Hit the showers and we'll get after it early tomorrow with some film.
It's not my government, and neither is Russia, but you aren't fooling anyone by disparaging someone by identifying them as living in China (or Russia, since the EU recently decided again that it's Not White Enough).
Your comments elsewhere say the quiet part a little louder, like the bit about "potato vodka". Do you think I've never seen a motte-and-bailey argument before? It's clear what you mean when you use a term like "second world" as a pejorative.
I mean, America is also majority white. If you made quips about curry when discussing someone that you allege to be stationed in India, I think you can tell that that would be called racist. Same if you talked about a Chinese national eating rice noodles or dumplings or take your pick. You are adding in elements of racial coding that are unnecessary and it doesn't look like an accident.
i'm sure there has to be a better option in your society than grinding it out in a shitty troll farm.
Sadly, no. Here in the United States of America, there is no opportunity for those outside the ruling class. Hence I spend my days posting away in hexbear.net's volunteer troll farm.
Oh man can you imagine modern commie blocks with modern materials being built in cities instead the same dogshit five over ones? Owning a commie block with your commie neighbors, getting together and deciding to paint whatever, or knock some walls out and make an indoor community garden...
Do you think a troll farm would really spend that much time talking to itself? Are you so arrogant that you believe they'd do that level of kabuki theater in order to impress you?
In what way is making a kinda-funny Marxism joke indicative of being a bot? The previous comment to mine references Dialectics, because the convo is just "A, B, sassy A, sassy B. I merely tied in Historical Materialism, Marx's grand Dialectical theory, to overplay the goofy small back and forth.
Are you sure you're not a bot? Do you have free will?
Okay just... there's no such thing as 'self' projecting. It's just projecting. That's redundant.
And nothing they said is untrue. What kind of self flagellation is required to just say a type of political person is bad? Do you need permission from a conservative to talk shit about their faults?
In fairness dumb liberals have a hegemonic control of media, government, culture, and public opinion in the US and most of the EU, with the exception being almost entirely fascists.
I hate to quote a fascist beast like Patton, but; " "They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards."
We don't have to go looking for liberal ignorance, violence, cowardice, and foolishness. It's everywhere in every direction.
Not only can 2 things be bad but 2 things can be different degrees of bad.
I'd rather live in a country where I can openly criticize those in power without risk to my personal well-being and have the possibility for pushing my government towards positive ends.
Yeah there's some risk associated with protesting in the US but at least I don't have to worry about the going to the gulag or a tiananmen square situation.
I mean, I should have known you'd regurgitate the propaganda, but it's always a disappointment anyway. Such a stupid response, too. That's basically a non-sequitur. For one, there being two evils does not necessitate siding with the lesser. You can acknowledge there are no good guys, and instead pick the position most likely to lead to the least amount of suffering over all. That is and will always be peace, but you blood thirsty natoids just can't imagine that. Your response is also dumb as hell given that modern Russia is a capitalist state, not the USSR lmao. Bringing up Gulags is a bit like bringing up slave plantations in the USA.... except the USSR is actually completely dissolved so its even less relevant. For the record, the US still legally permits slavery in the instance of criminal conviction. Say, sure would be wild if the US disproportionately policed and convicted black and brown people, wouldn't it? That'd seem like a loophole legitimizing slavery over time! But that's just whatabouttism so feel free to ignore it like a good little natoid. You're grossly ignorant regarding tiananmen square as well, but I won't bother citing anything since you'll just dismiss it out of hand.
Instead, I'll ask what are your thoughts on the repression of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Ireland Independence, French Yellow Vests/Public Benefits/Police Racism, and so on and so forth in "Free" and "Democratic" countries? What about the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world, largely filled with black and brown people subjected to forced labor while in prison? What would happen if your "protest" did more than carry signs in publicly designated and permitted areas? Wouldn't you be beaten, arrested, and convicted under the fullest extent of the law? So sorry that you're so cucked you can't imagine doing more than asking your leaders nicely for change and politely going home when they say no, but real protest is certainly illegal in "Free" Western countries, and if you ever actually engaged in it you'd see exactly how brutal those governments can be.
Principled communists aren't unapologetic supporters of every single thing socialist countries do/have done, but we take issue with the nakedly hypocritical framing from Western powers. The atomic unit of propaganda is emphasis. You ignorantly reduce entire foreign countries to a single word/event while myopically ignoring the conditions before and after, but hem and haw and whine about nuance and procedure and the necessity of the barbarity around us every day... When you're not ignoring it outright that is. That's what makes you a useful idiot to our own system of oppression. It's an embarrassment.
Snowden, Assange, manning, dozens of maimed protestors and the largest prison system in the world would like a word with you after seeing what you just posted here.
I swear to god I'll buy sync premium if they give the ability to sort by controversial. This is the stupidest more redditesque thread I've run into and i don't want to miss anymore.
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.
I believe participation is mandatory, like in Australia, and given the travel limitations (the part of a percent that doesn't vote are usually people traveling), it makes sense that it would be so high. Of course, since we have a wonderful freedom of speech in this country where the rich are free to buy media companies and promote the stories they want to promote, the idea of actually investigating the elections for a purpose other than vilification is hardly going to creep into search engine results. Here's a compilation of sources that attempt to explore it from that angle:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I'm learning, and I'm content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.
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
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.
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."
I forgot how ignorant and self-righteous Reddit liberals were. The ones I've seen are easily the loudest and dumbest people on this network of federated instances. They have their "conviction" and "is wrong" sliders completely maxed out.
Removed by mod
You're right I haven't completely purged the liberal inside me and I hate myself for it being there still
spoiler
Removed by mod
Thank you so much for showing me that not every liberal I meet here will be ignorant and self-righteous. I can no longer say that has been the totality of my experience with them. I now have hope that my next encounter will be just as positive as this one was.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Does my username make me look like a dude to you? Why are liberals so fucking awful? It's only ever you. Nobody in the left does this.
Removed by mod
I live in the US and disparage it all day. That's productive.
Removed by mod
Go fucking fuck yourself you fucking piece of shit. Talking about other people's sOcIaL uNdeRsTandIng while you're fucking misgendering people AND JUSTIFYING IT AS IF YOU'RE A FUCKING VICTIM once you're called on it. You're rancid scum and I hope we get fucking defederated so we don't have to deal with filth like you.
My lack of social understanding? Gender neutral?
I have to smash through the wall like Hbomberguy right now
Do you go around telling other people that you fuck dudes? What do other people assume you mean when you say that you fuck dudes?
You could have just been like "Yeah you're right, sorry I didn't mean to misgender you." but instead you doubled down on being a transphobic dickhead and literally proved my point about liberals being shitbags in the process.
deleted by creator
No, it wouldn't be a problem if he said he fucked dudes. The implication though is that "dudes" is a gendered term. The complaint is that she was misgendered by someone who then doubled down on the misgendering. Her statement was not homophobic.
deleted by creator
The only argument she's making is that dudes is a gendered term, and him doubling down after the fact is bullshit
deleted by creator
In my experience, sexual inferences are the fastest way to educate someone who doesn't see a word as being gendered, but I can see how what they said could be read as using gay sexual activity in a negative way to someone not reading this thread and skimmed over the rest of the text in that reply.
Playing dumb is used by bigots as a shield to continue their bigotry unimpeded. Not allowing any room for them to play dumb is the only way to reach those kind of people.
deleted by creator
What she is saying is that she is not a dude
deleted by creator
What they are conveying is that "dude" is clearly not a gender-neutral term, as a straight guy would agree that they "fuck people", weird as the phrasing is, but not that they "fuck dudes." It demonstrates that they themselves don't perceive the social understanding of the term "dude" as gender neutral, not that "fucking dudes" is bad. It could also be used to debate a lesbian by the same token.
deleted by creator
Fair enough, have a good day 💚
She literally has her pronouns in her display name mf, it's not that hard
Removed by mod
https://youtu.be/h2TL0GHSue0
Most of the users on Hexbear are American and a decent number of the remainder are Brits and Aussies. Our criticisms do not come from having never received the privilege of witnessing these countries being shit first-hand, as much as you might like to pretend it's only those dirty foreigners not understanding your national glory.
Removed by mod
So the foreigner part is self-evident, and I think the "second-world", "potato vodka," etc. covers the "dirty" pretty plainly. I don't know why I'm even saying this, because basically what I'm doing is just teaching you to dogwhistle more effectively, but on the other hand this post is on lemmy, so hopefully I'm helping to point this out to other people so they will be more aware of these things when you and your ilk take your next crack at it.
Removed by mod
You also call them troll farmers, but the racial coding just keeps finding its way in somehow. Funny, that.
Yeah, we get it, you're a paranoid national chauvinist on top of being a transphobic asshole, that was already obvious.
I don't know a single trans person that views dude as a gender neutral term, the only people spouting that nonsense are transphobic cis dudes like you who make up excuses to misgender and harass us. Go die in a house fire, reactionary cissie shit.
Real talk from a very trans-supportive communist: is this universal? I definitely grew up in a conservative environment but definitely was under the impression that I and the trans people I am close to all thought dude was a term of endearment when used amongst friends, including women and enbys. I likely overuse the term from thinking I would be a skater after playing Tony hawk's pro skater and being into hiking/climbing/camping culture, but is this a universal thing among trans people you know?
Not defending the other person, libs very often hide behind the argument once called out, and I'd never call you "dude," or pretty much anyone not my direct friend, but I just wanna make sure I'm not hurting people unnecessarily without knowing it. Maybe it's the "being friends" part that makes the difference, and I hope so. Otherwise I got some trans-comrades to apologize to
Adding here after thinking more, I guess I usually use it to refer to a non-specific thing, like saying "ah dude, that's cool" and shit like that. Like saying "oh man." Is this related??? Need some help here lol
I find it to be at least extremely common, both in English-speaking spaces online and in German-speaking trans communities online and IRL (i'm German). Ultimately it's a matter of preference, there will be trans people who disagree, but there definitely are a lot of us who take offense. Same goes for terms like guy and especially for bro / bruh etc., or for German terms like Typ or Alter (in this context roughly comparable to guy or dude) which are generally at least masc-leaning. I'd definitely take offense to all of these, but sure, there are exceptions.
Still, these are exceptions, and more importantly, what we see here is a perfect example of how not to deal with such a situation: When somebody calls you out on misgendering, the only sensible response is to edit the post in question and to apologize. If you do that, it's normally no big deal, everybody moves on with their day. And it takes a few seconds to edit a post and a few more to reply "sorry, i've edited this" while it can quickly take hours to start an argument over this. Yet i see over and over again that liberals in particular are incapable of showing that amount of basic human decency. Instead, they have to assert their privilege to define what we're allowed to find offensive, talk down to us and act as if they're the one ones who've been hurt because we've called their feeling of superiority and infallibility into doubt by saying they've made a mistake. That's where it gets transphobic even if the misgendering was unintentional, that's where it gets patronizing as well.
Fully agree with the description. Fuck that lib. Keep tearing them apart til they apologize and edit.
In Dutch-speaking communities i still hear the American phrases a lot, but the equivalents in dutch rarely. But in international groups oriented towards my hobbies, dude is still used a good bit. But I'll just stay alert, just wanted to hear a bit more from a trans-comrade who most definitely would speak frankly to me (I understand that in-person call-outs can sometimes be difficult for such "small" things). Gonna only use it as a phrase of exclamation among friends that know me well I think and continue checking up regularly on my comrades.
Just to be clear, i'm not saying "don't say dude", the term in itself is perfectly fine. Just saying it's not unusual at all that trans people find it not to be gender neutral and particularly that the response in that case shouldn't be to start an argument where you assert a right to label trans people in ways that have clearly and already hurt them. It's the latter that made me go from "oof, that person should edit this post" to "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds".
Removed by mod
Yeah, people weren't aware of transphobic language 14 years ago, i know that, i've lived through that time.
"Dude" can be gender neutral but given the context of it in your response it really fucking looks like a microaggression against her for being trans
Removed by mod
spoiler
Generally considering that "dude" is a somewhat masculine word, so using it to refer to someone with she/her pronouns in her username (implying that she doesn't want to be referred to with male terms) without knowing if they're okay with that word just makes you look like a piece of shit.
Look, you started hot in this thread but tired after a few comments. They adjusted, you didn't, and you got rocked; it happens. Hit the showers and we'll get after it early tomorrow with some film.
Removed by mod
dunk on a lib and a racist bleeds
He's a transphobe, too. They all are.
Removed by mod
Earlier in the same comment:
Removed by mod
It's not my government, and neither is Russia, but you aren't fooling anyone by disparaging someone by identifying them as living in China (or Russia, since the EU recently decided again that it's Not White Enough).
Removed by mod
Your comments elsewhere say the quiet part a little louder, like the bit about "potato vodka". Do you think I've never seen a motte-and-bailey argument before? It's clear what you mean when you use a term like "second world" as a pejorative.
Removed by mod
Gaslighting is when someone disagrees with you
Removed by mod
I mean, America is also majority white. If you made quips about curry when discussing someone that you allege to be stationed in India, I think you can tell that that would be called racist. Same if you talked about a Chinese national eating rice noodles or dumplings or take your pick. You are adding in elements of racial coding that are unnecessary and it doesn't look like an accident.
"Anyone who disagrees with me is being paid by China or Russia"
lol. lmao, even.
I am SHOCKED to see xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism from a liberal anti-communist
Removed by mod
Hey buddy, you didn't reply to my earlier post about Guaido getting owned. Running away from your emotions won't make them go away. Cmon, let's sit down and have a chat about how you feel. Does that make you mad?
I always say that the second a liberal is criticised for being insensitive that they start sounding like a boomer Republican arguing on Facebook.
Thank you for proving that to the entire thread here.
You are one pathetic loser!
Removed by mod
We are the pigs with whom you wrestle in the mud
Removed by mod
Sadly, no. Here in the United States of America, there is no opportunity for those outside the ruling class. Hence I spend my days posting away in hexbear.net's volunteer troll farm.
Removed by mod
Here let me help you with some 20th century posting technology far in advance of your instance:
Removed by mod
You are driving yourself insane and it's equal parts sad and funny
Removed by mod
What do you see as the end result of convincing yourself that everyone here is a bot (or running bots, you go back and forth) and is out to get you?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
"Am I out of touch? No! It must be that these people are paid to know things!"
You're evidently paid on a per-comment basis tho
It's not about whether one wins or loses. It's about you losing.
Man i wish we all lived in commie blocks...
Oh man can you imagine modern commie blocks with modern materials being built in cities instead the same dogshit five over ones? Owning a commie block with your commie neighbors, getting together and deciding to paint whatever, or knock some walls out and make an indoor community garden...
How Guaido doing these days lmao Does it make you mad the "elected" president is never going to actually be president lol
Removed by mod
Your entire history on Lemmy is malding over Guaido getting BTFO. How mad does that make you feel? Don't be shy.
Lol this asshole is a Guaido truther?
Check their history. Langley is definitely not sending their best.
Removed by mod
Here's Guaido getting owned by randos Does that make you upset?
Do you think a troll farm would really spend that much time talking to itself? Are you so arrogant that you believe they'd do that level of kabuki theater in order to impress you?
Removed by mod
Gaslighting is when someone disagrees
Is there a base case or do the layers of irony go on to infinity?
Maybe this is just dialectics, although a little snarky
Truly the pinnacle of Historical Materialism.
Removed by mod
They were making a joke . . . ?
"Starting shit about obvious jokes" is like Stage 8 terminal malding
I pray for a swift and decisive end to their illness
In what way is making a kinda-funny Marxism joke indicative of being a bot? The previous comment to mine references Dialectics, because the convo is just "A, B, sassy A, sassy B. I merely tied in Historical Materialism, Marx's grand Dialectical theory, to overplay the goofy small back and forth.
Are you sure you're not a bot? Do you have free will?
Dialectics require sublation
Removed by mod
It was a joke actually, I'm not that invested in this thread lol
"communists are liberals"
Okay just... there's no such thing as 'self' projecting. It's just projecting. That's redundant.
And nothing they said is untrue. What kind of self flagellation is required to just say a type of political person is bad? Do you need permission from a conservative to talk shit about their faults?
Removed by mod
minors aren't allowed on this website.
deleted by creator
I feel like I just stumbled upon a self projection loop.
Removed by mod
📽
They are a hexbear user. All the content coming in from that instance is "DuMb LiBrUlS"
In fairness dumb liberals have a hegemonic control of media, government, culture, and public opinion in the US and most of the EU, with the exception being almost entirely fascists.
I hate to quote a fascist beast like Patton, but; " "They've got us surrounded again, the poor bastards."
We don't have to go looking for liberal ignorance, violence, cowardice, and foolishness. It's everywhere in every direction.
Woah there, you can't forget about the Russia/China apologia as well
Says the natoid lmao
Two things can actually be bad at once you know. Understanding geo politics doesn't mean support. The world isn't a marvel movie.
Not only can 2 things be bad but 2 things can be different degrees of bad.
I'd rather live in a country where I can openly criticize those in power without risk to my personal well-being and have the possibility for pushing my government towards positive ends.
Yeah there's some risk associated with protesting in the US but at least I don't have to worry about the going to the gulag or a tiananmen square situation.
I mean, I should have known you'd regurgitate the propaganda, but it's always a disappointment anyway. Such a stupid response, too. That's basically a non-sequitur. For one, there being two evils does not necessitate siding with the lesser. You can acknowledge there are no good guys, and instead pick the position most likely to lead to the least amount of suffering over all. That is and will always be peace, but you blood thirsty natoids just can't imagine that. Your response is also dumb as hell given that modern Russia is a capitalist state, not the USSR lmao. Bringing up Gulags is a bit like bringing up slave plantations in the USA.... except the USSR is actually completely dissolved so its even less relevant. For the record, the US still legally permits slavery in the instance of criminal conviction. Say, sure would be wild if the US disproportionately policed and convicted black and brown people, wouldn't it? That'd seem like a loophole legitimizing slavery over time! But that's just whatabouttism so feel free to ignore it like a good little natoid. You're grossly ignorant regarding tiananmen square as well, but I won't bother citing anything since you'll just dismiss it out of hand.
Instead, I'll ask what are your thoughts on the repression of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, Ireland Independence, French Yellow Vests/Public Benefits/Police Racism, and so on and so forth in "Free" and "Democratic" countries? What about the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world, largely filled with black and brown people subjected to forced labor while in prison? What would happen if your "protest" did more than carry signs in publicly designated and permitted areas? Wouldn't you be beaten, arrested, and convicted under the fullest extent of the law? So sorry that you're so cucked you can't imagine doing more than asking your leaders nicely for change and politely going home when they say no, but real protest is certainly illegal in "Free" Western countries, and if you ever actually engaged in it you'd see exactly how brutal those governments can be.
Principled communists aren't unapologetic supporters of every single thing socialist countries do/have done, but we take issue with the nakedly hypocritical framing from Western powers. The atomic unit of propaganda is emphasis. You ignorantly reduce entire foreign countries to a single word/event while myopically ignoring the conditions before and after, but hem and haw and whine about nuance and procedure and the necessity of the barbarity around us every day... When you're not ignoring it outright that is. That's what makes you a useful idiot to our own system of oppression. It's an embarrassment.
deleted by creator
Good thing protestors in the US and UK don't get arrested on flimsy charges or crippled or murdered by cops
Snowden, Assange, manning, dozens of maimed protestors and the largest prison system in the world would like a word with you after seeing what you just posted here.
I swear to god I'll buy sync premium if they give the ability to sort by controversial. This is the stupidest more redditesque thread I've run into and i don't want to miss anymore.
Stop for the slop god
I'll take that over believing pig shit memes are reasonable discourse any day.
Make pig shit comments, get pig shit replies
I guess that's why it's so popular on hexbear. Thanks for clearing that up.
It does explain why you see it so much
spoiler
Axiom 1: one must first view ppb in order to post ppb.
Axiom 2: one must first make a ppb comment in order for someone to reply with ppb.
We were all libs once. Except me. I'm the one true socialist.
I defy you to find a use of that that wasn't preceded by something that deserves to literally be shit upon. I dare you.
Do you think that is intended as discourse? Or might it be intended as the opposite of that?
😤
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.
I believe participation is mandatory, like in Australia, and given the travel limitations (the part of a percent that doesn't vote are usually people traveling), it makes sense that it would be so high. Of course, since we have a wonderful freedom of speech in this country where the rich are free to buy media companies and promote the stories they want to promote, the idea of actually investigating the elections for a purpose other than vilification is hardly going to creep into search engine results. Here's a compilation of sources that attempt to explore it from that angle:
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md#is-the-dprk-a-fascist-monarchy
Archive of a dead link: https://archive.ph/aMJCI
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.
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.
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.
😤
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I'm learning, and I'm content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.
Thanks for your contributions.
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
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.
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.
Yes, although I apologize for not clarifying it in my first comment.
Thank you for being civil. It has been rare today here.
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.