• marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                19
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

                Good thing protestors in the US and UK don’t get arrested on flimsy charges or crippled or murdered by cops blob-no-thoughts

    • Dinodicchellathicc@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll take that over believing pig shit memes are reasonable discourse any day.

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not talking about the inherent limitations of social science, I’m responding to your absurd attitude that somehow formal education makes your ideas inherently superior/above critique, and I named a specific example of theoretical failure of orthodox economics as an example of the entire project being basically woo. Lots of aristotelean scholastics wrote the dumbest shit imaginable about physics for a thousand years, and their thought was funded, reproduced, and taught as authoritative by formal education the entire time; progress was only made when criticism came from outside the academy and overcame it. Much like then, our contemporary “Political Science” and “Economics” departments are nearly completely captured by a dead-end ideology/research project, but still have the support of the ruling class so they keep cranking along misinforming more and more students every year. You claiming advanced understanding of the matter is the equivalent of an Aristotelean physicist or Lamarkian biologist sticking their nose up and saying learning outside of the academy is somehow less than their own. That’s worse than just being wrong, it’s wrong and using elitism to refuse to recognize it. The Black Panthers went into the poorest and least educated communities in America, and they taught people Marxist theory while they taught them to read. What do you think well to do Nixon Republicans had to say about their education? That’s where you stand right now looking down on folks engaging in education outside of the academy itself.

            Also, lots of Marxists are tired of dumb liberals reciting the same garbage authoritatively while never questioning basic undercurrents of their own ideological world view. So sorry they have reached a conclusion and don’t want to rehash baby’s first socialism with every shmuck who thinks their poli-sci degree makes them an expert.

              • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                27
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You’re still not getting it lol. Neoclassical economics is theoretically standing out way over a cliff and simply refusing to look down like Wiley coyote. Your appeal to mathematics is unintentionally hilarious, because it was physics envy and the chasing of mathematical models over real life evidence/coherent theory that led the field astray to begin with lmao. You can come up with all kinds of fancy models and as much mathematics as you like, but none of it matters if you’re basing it on incorrect axioms.

                “Functioning in the real world” - oh yeah for sure. Burning the environment down and cooking the biosphere while forever chemicals and microplastics permanently saturate the ecosystem. Liberal societies are “Functioning” in so far as they’re not actively failed states this very moment, but that is accomplished on the back of neo-imperialism, unequal exchange with the global south, and unresolvable contradictions inherent to neo-liberalism/capitalism. A car driving 80 mph towards a cliff is working, sure, but is that a desirable state of affairs?

                Also take a quick look around my guy. We’re not in a laboratory. I’m calling you an idiot on the internet. Not every conversation is the platonic ideal of scientific pursuit you nerd.

                  • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    22
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Hear that @[email protected]? 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.

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    21
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Idk, if it was so plainly “false” and “uneducated” then it seems like it shouldn’t be that hard to provide a refutation of, especially since these are criticisms that even several liberal economists have been making for decades, e.g. “assume a can-opener” discourse.

                    And he is talking about axioms, so you don’t even need to worry about correctly notating your fancylad mathematics.

              • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                ·
                1 year ago

                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).

                The case of Vietnam and China is well-explained in Chinese Marxist economic study and experience (not that you would know this), as Primary Stage Socialism. To explain this, it’s necessary to look at the history of these two countries. Before Vietnam emerged under modern socialist-orientation it was being pillaged by French then Japanese then French (again) colonialism; the French were overthrown by the Vietnamese, with France receiving support for some time from America until the U.S. decided they wanted the territory for themselves, where they bombed the country emerging just out of colonialism into oblivion, killing 1M+ for their resources until they were forced out, then employing sanctions and IMF pressure afterwards. This is clearly not an orthodox path of economic development and not conducive to a balanced test of economic competition that you’re implying. You of course know of China’s underdevelopment under semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism prior to socialist-orientation (with U.S. support for the KMT as the communists won the civil war).

                Now I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, but the Marxist analysis isn’t “state ownership is good at all times and private ownership is bad at all times”; first there’s the question of class orientation of the state, tearing apart this ridiculous “mixed economy” nonsense, which is really just a method of obscuring this fact and simplifying economics into a ratio of (private/”public”, with both metrics gaining new context under different orientations of the class dictatorship, especially the latter). You cannot simply fully nationalize a drastically underdeveloped economy (nor is this the traditional socialist/Marxist prescription, with Engels stating for instance in Principles of Communism, “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”

                Scientific socialism is specifically the approach that states that different scales of production demand different and mirrored relations of production which then determine the social relations of that society. Separate forms and scales of production demand the supremacy of separate emerging and progressive classes (just as feudalism nurtured and birthed the early bourgeoise to overthrow it, so that same bourgeoisie will eventually nurture its own successor, the proletariat, by virtue of the socialization of production and the decay of the capitalist mode of production). Primary Stage Socialism is specifically a new concept created by Deng Xiaoping to flesh out an understanding of the development of socialism on an underdeveloped platform. The basic explanation is that in developed countries there will be large-scale capitalist production, then revolution, then advanced socialism, whereas in artificially underdeveloped countries there will be revolution, then the development of large-scale capitalist production, then advanced socialism. The common enemy of imperialism nullifies the singular revolutionary character of the national bourgeoisie and, with the masses gaining new understanding from this experience, the dictatorship of the proletariat (typically headed by the proletariat with a mass base of the peasantry, as in China’s PDD). The objective under this new governance is to “modernize” the forces of production (by utilizing foreign investment, the patriotic national bourgeoisie, and market relations) so that they may correspond to this progressive class leadership and under this progressive class leadership as well as build the framework for socialist relations of production (directly state owned economy is still dominant in China). This isn’t some smashing rebuttal of socialism, nor is this “total/vs. mixed economy” nonsense anything other than a false dichotomy. These nations assumed this theory and practice because it is the correct approach (and not in the revisionist sense of abandoning Marxism-Leninism), and this notion of failure of socialism is a complete misunderstanding.

                As for liberalism, it works for the bourgeoisie, is the ultimate ideology of the bourgeoisie undercutting all obstacles of outdated social (and economic thought to an extent) thought that hinders the bourgeoisie while uplifting this group and maintaining their select privileges. The vast majority of those ascribing to “liberalism” as an ideology do not belong to the select privileged group for which the ideology is oriented, and are defending demonstrably incorrect incorrect ideas with relation to the “second” and third world and upholding the pretexts of the dominant class not as a matter of sly infiltration but genuine mistaken belief (and the person you were replying to never stated that all people who uphold liberalism are genuinely confused or dumb, but that they had been arguing with those who are (talking incorrectly and against their ultimate interests). The misnomer of liberal societies “functioning” lies in the fact that “functioning” is seen as a blind metric (success/failure) rather than a relative idea (with certain modes functioning for certain groups, usually for those by which they were designed and carried out). China has been growing at a much faster rate than “liberal societies”, and is doing so without engaging in imperialism and massacring millions of people for regional influence and natural resources. Your entire critique is useless.

                • MemesAreTheory [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  20
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.

                  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    There really isn’t any democratic argument for term limits.

                    “Oh but it will consolidate power”

                    Do you think the voters are too uneducated to factor that into their voting patterns?

                    “You can’t trust the masses like that!”

                    Sounds kinda anti-democratic doesn’t it.

                  • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You do not know what I do and do not know.

                    I know that you misunderstood the comment on liberalism (which I corrected), I know that your understanding of “socialism vs. mixed economy” is fundamentally nonsense, of course you didn’t bother to respond to any of this.

                    To respond to this new comment, China is under PSS, which means that the incorrect policy of over-nationalization was corrected and the country was opened up; prior to the centennial goal of developed socialism (2049/2050, precursor to communism), the purpose of state planning is to expand the productive forces to prepare for the elimination of private property. This is where you find a path seemingly “away from” socialism, but its purpose is specifically complex and not observable as such. I’m unsure how you ascertained this trend, and since you provide no examples, there’s nothing to respond to. Read this thoroughly sourced essay (and this as well) on China’s economy disproving your assertion, if you have any specific grievances not addressed then list them and I can respond.

                    As for “authoritarianism”, the National People’s Congress (which elects the president) is composed of delegates elected by the people. Xi could hold office for a long time, but his terms are five years long after which the president is elected again (and the NPC can depose him at any time by popular vote in the case of emergency). What you’re referring to is a decision by the NPC to remove term limits (whose purpose in this case is only undemocratic and limiting of the people’s will), so that a president could extend beyond the prior decided two-term limit if voted for a third (which in the first place is only a decision to correct the discrepancy between CPC gensec and president). Is this authoritarianism? As for “dictatorial state” (your only evidence is not indicative of this), the central government and CPC have majority support according to Harvard with lower majority support as well in local governments because of infrastructure and public enrichment programs. The CPC comprises of 10% of the eligible population and is a mass party which is not run for “privately profit [sic]” here’s another article on the class character of the people’s gov..

              • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m a biologist, but my college offered a few humanities courses, so I took an introductory course in economics.

                The maths was fine; it was mostly linear equations and differentiation. But the priors seemed to defy all logic and common sense. It was like a physicist assuming that there was no friction. The impression I got was that economists put too much effort into mathematical rigour and too little into empirical verification.

                Now there are biologists who study animal societies and their ‘economic systems’. But they care more for experiments than for theory, and this seems to me to be the more reasonable approach.

      • ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • anachronist@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The number of times where it becomes clear that a Marxist is arguing from a conclusion is too high to be ignored.

        That’s just how Marxism is, he claimed that our course of economic history is the only way it could have gone with a single data point then concluded that the current system (in 1850) would imminently collapse.

        I don’t know why anyone lends credence to his theories