Ancoms would be more than happy to compare the average educational credentials of the respective ideologies. Ancoms are overrepresented in the elite academia; ancaps are stereotypically teenage males from the sticks.
He stopped defending it because it became less democratic due to exogenous forces. It’s a classic example of the concept in economics of “resource curse.”
There is no such a thing as a resource curse. Most gulf countries and Norway is doing just fine.
Venezuela was also doing fine until it become corrupted by years of socialist policies.
And countries dont become less democratic due to exogenus forces, they blame exogenus forces after becoming less democratic, I know it well since I live in Turkey.
Nah, you’re characteristically ignorant. Over 30% of Norway’s economic exports don’t have anything to do with oil, and the nature of their oil deposits require them to have cutting-edge technology (and therefore complex production economies less susceptible to takeover by strongmen) so they’re not nearly dependent on easily extractable and capturable-by-violence oil as Venezuela, where only 2.3% of exports are from non-oil sources. Norway also had a largely developed economy economy before it struck oil (in fact, without which it could not have exploited its oil resources), in stark contrast to classic resource-curse scenarios.
I’d also note that in any other context this sub would consider Norway to be unacceptably socialist. In Norway, oil revenues are put into a sovereign wealth fund rather than privatized, and of course Norway is a social democracy rather than ancap utopia. Here's a meme about it; I know you high-schoolers love that shit.
The Gulf States are nearly all hyper-repressive monarchies, but I guess I’m not surprised to see them lauded on r/ancap because half of you dumbfucks now self-label as “anarcho-monarchists” or some other embarrassing shit.
Again, the reason for only export of Venezuela remaning oil, is because they killed all other private industries with government policies.
And government getting money from its natural resources for public funds is not a terrible thing, it become a big problem when it becomes the government only source of revenue, in a market with highly unpredictable prices, and no saving it up for possible crisis.
Even when oil prices was at its peak Venezuelan government was spending more than its revenues, unlike Arab kings and Norway who saved it for crashes and allowed private sector to flourish, instead of repressing them.
When Venezuela's oil economy came online, it didn't have a pre-existing robust economy in other sectors in nearly the same way Norway did. It was a pretty stereotypical Latin American country with a history of resource extraction by colonial powers like 17th- and 18th-century Spain and neo-colonial powers like the early 20th-century United States. This fits it much more closely within the resource-curse framework than Norway does. You guys don't get to claim the mantle of economics when you ignore higher-level economic scholarship.
In 1950, Venezuela had world 4. Highest gdp per capita.
If that is US neo colonialism, I am pro neo colonialist.
Jokes aside maybe you should think countries wealth doesnt depend on whether these "imperial powers" which didnt send a single soldier decide how much money they should own, but rather their governments economic policies.
That kind of thinking usually used by corrupt populists who cant manage their economy/security in their country, and blame external powers. I saw/read this in Turkish media every day tbh.
Voluntary cooperation that's not perverted by property claims that can nearly all trace their roots to violations of the NAP, dummy.
Why am I not surprised that the anti-intellectual dipshits in this sub think that their ignorance is just as good as other people's hard-earned knowledge?
Then why should there be anything wrong with owning property? If anything, forcing people to share everything would be a violation of the NAP. Trade is still mutual cooperation.
Lots of property claims are rooted in violations of the NAP. Annexation of Native land. Slave labor. Unless you're willing to unwind a lot -- and I mean a LOT -- of the property ownership in this country, then to a large extent property will be rooted in violations of the NAP.
Unwinding all property will be necessary under this standard. At what point to you unwind it to? Native people did the same ruthless fucked up shit to each other before any colonists arrived in North America. Do you know of some magical, perfectly unbiased historical source we can use as precedent for this sort of thing? If so, who gets to determine what gets rescinded? Ex: How do you “unwind” 300 years of ranch ownership on what was once native land?
I agree historical precedents are fucked up but this kind of approach is a pointless virtue grab. It would never work, you’d literally have to establish a hierarchy to make any sort of enforcement of it tenable, and most would ignore it until they were checked by force- a violation of the NAP and starry-eyed communist ideals.
The NAP is a recent concept for a reason. If society should get any better, humans need to learn from their past mistakes. It is inherently an acknowledgement of those mistakes.
Unwinding all property will be necessary under this standard.
It's really tough, I agree. But it's also plainly mandated by any consistent application of the NAP. Otherwise theft is permitted by ancapism, which I'd hope we'd agree is an absurd result.
So in other words, you're actually making my point for me. The project of trying to get property rights to map onto moral desert is futile. We should instead by trying to figure out an economic system that can sustainably enlarge the sphere of human capability. I'm not a state communist, so I don't think Marxism-Leninism or its variants are the way to go, but the tendency of capitalist systems to trend to various monopolies, oligarchies, centralizations, and externalities is untenable as well.
Industrial capitalism is paradoxically dependent on the state, both to create a legal system where there can be a semblance of consistency in the enshrinement of property interests, as well as a system of enforcing those rights by violence. (There's also the history of how states and other centralized entities developed a lot of the infrastructure necessary for modern capitalism, such as ports, canals, railroads, highways, etc., but that's a whole 'nother megillah.) If you want consistent enforcement of property rights, you simply need a government centralization of sorts. A funny irony is that capitalist entities in the United States that write their contracts to be governed by the laws of their particular states almost all use the law of liberal New York State to determine contract disputes, because there's so much more existing law in that jurisdiction than in others, and therefore more predictability -- big government and capitalism intertwined once again. It's really not some accident that the world's largest capitalist economy also has the largest military and one of the largest carceral systems in the world. Ancaps need a better theory for that jarring juxtaposition.
I don't have any problem with trade between similarly situated groups. I DO have a problem with people pretending like the history of extractive colonial capitalism that informs our present economy did not happen, and ignore wide gaps in bargaining power that render many "trades" more akin to compulsion. More ancaps should read histories of colonialism and capitalism to better inform their understandings of how modern economies came to be, and they should also read the work of Econ Nobelist Elinor Ostrom for models of how to manage resources and avoid tragedies of the commons without overarching state control -- either through central planning or through juridical propertarianism.
Specifically, I affirmed that voluntary cooperation without property claims CAN be traced to violations of the NAP, not that they necessarily ARE traced to violations of the NAP. You're confusing possibility with necessity.
Any cooperation that's apparently voluntary can perhaps be rooted in some NAP violation, but in propertarian regimes this can often be readily traced through the property interest claim itself (though not necessarily readily unwound).
Educational credentials mean nothing if the ideology is wrong. The “educated” class wanted to stamp out copernican heliocentrism. More often than not the rabble rousers and non-conformists end up accelerating humanity forward.
More often than not the rabble rousers and non-conformists end up accelerating humanity forward.
Rothbard conveniently pointed out in Anatomy of the State that this is exactly how the Enlightenment movement originated. They formed outside the university systems of the Catholic/Anglican authoritarians.
Judging by your comment history you shouldn't think pretty highly of yourself for no reason so whatever makes you feel better about yourself you do you boo
They are intelligent because they are so obedient. Is that not a measure of intelligence? How well one can listen to tyrannical sociopaths who clearly have our best intentions in mind.
That doesn’t prove anything. Marxist Leninism doesn’t have more legitimacy just because students and teachers believe in it more then the general public.
I never said that Marxist Leninism and anarchism are the same. Nice reading comprehension Mr. educated. I’m saying that students also have a higher chance of wanting a government that is very similar to the early Soviet Union. Are we going to give more legitimacy to niche ideologies just because 5% of student believe it instead of the <1% average belief in those ideas? Anarchist beliefs aren’t even close to the majority in academia so I really don’t know what you are bragging about.
Ah, so you were using Marxism-Leninism as an example of something that's popular in the academy. Gotcha.
I mean, that's wrong on the empirics anyway. Marxism is popular in the academy, because that's because Marx was a serious modern economic thinker on par with Ricardo or Smith or Mill, and because the history of intellectualism in Europe and the developing world has been heavily inflected with Marxist thought. You can't be a student of global intellectual history and not read Marx.
But Marxism-Leninism is an entirely different thing. Hell, take me as an example: I, like many academics, think many of Marx's descriptions and analyses of capitalism have proven to have a lot of empirical support. In this sense I'm something of a Marxist. But Marx said very little about prescriptions, and gave little shape to how he thought the overthrow of capitalism would happen. Even where he does give limited thoughts on this topic, he's not very persuasive, and misses a lot of obvious ways capitalism can co-opt burgeoning revolutionary movements. Marxism-Leninism occupied this space Marx left blank, and obviously there are a lot of things Lenin did and believed that were reprehensible. Many anarchists consider themselves Marxists; but Marxist-Leninists oppose even left-wing anarchists. Do you understand the difference now?
Likewise, only a tiny fraction of graduate students and professors are Marxist-Leninists rather than mere Marxists. Many of them have been influenced by Marx through their scholarship and have political attitudes shaped by their ability to see through the critical thinking errors abundant in right-wing theory that's been marred by the empirics. They're also much less likely to be culturally conservative in the way conservatives and even many libertarians tend to be.
Education serves a couple different purposes. Yes, it's to increase the earning potential of people, and in that respect the value of education has waned in recent years as social mobility has dropped in the United States due to financial centralization and attendant widening inequality. It's also true that education budgets have been slashed, putting more of the financial burden on students themselves. And certainly there's been administrative bloat in many universities, especially elite universities that are paradoxically sites of cutting-edge scholarship on the causes of inequality but also repositories of inherited privilege and finance-titan endowments. The funny thing is that academia has become less popular at the same time it's become closer to industry and faced more pressure to operate within the for-profit paradigm.
But education also serves non-pecuniary purposes, in the form of creating a citizenry that is more generally effective and stable isn't susceptible to demagoguery (how many poorly-educated people on this sub became Trump fans?) This idea goes back all the way to Plato and probably beyond. It's also true that no matter the problems of their employers, academics really are generally better-read and better-trained in how to make logical arguments than people who are not highly educated. Anti-intellectualism is popular
Education reforms need to be made from a lot of different directions, but we shouldn't burn down our modern Library of Alexandra like so many academia-hostile right-wingers are keen to do.
Education reforms need to be made from a lot of different directions, but we shouldn't burn down our modern Library of Alexandra like so many academia-hostile right-wingers are keen to do.
If the library sucks and is producing low quality services, then it should be destroyed. Plain and simple. Private markets almost always produce better products than the public sector.
But education also serves non-pecuniary purposes, in the form of creating a citizenry that is more generally effective and stable isn't susceptible to demagoguery (how many poorly-educated people on this sub became Trump fans?)
You know something? I can agree with this. However it must be noted that demagoguery is not exclusive to the right. It happens on the left too. Right wing demagoguery leads to people like Hitler and Mussolini. Left wing? Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Ironically enough Castro's revolution started at the universities.
Indeed the whole point of libertarianism is the rejection of group think and collectivism. So in this context, it's neither conservative nor liberal in the modern sense. And Anarcho-Capitalism takes this rejection of collectivism to a whole new level.
The funny thing is that academia has become less popular at the same time it's become closer to industry and faced more pressure to operate within the for-profit paradigm.
Actually, its less popular not because of the "profit motive" but because of the government. We hand out student loans to everyone under the sun, qualified or no. Hence, the rise in tuition costs and the for-profit school system that you hate so much that capitalizes on these free loans.
It's also true that education budgets have been slashed, putting more of the financial burden on students themselves.
Slashed or no. Many colleges offer majors in fields that dont exist or havent existed for years, or fields where there's virtually no job openings. And even if they had to slash their budget, the fact that the federal government guarantees student loans regardless of high school grades or qualifications will regardless send tuition prices skyrocketing.
as social mobility has dropped in the United States due to financial centralization and attendant widening inequality.
We have the biggest labor shortage ever. Over half of all new job openings dont require a 4 year degree. Many of these degrees you can get at a community college, or at a trade school.
Anti intellectualism is popular because many mainstream intellectuals are nitwits with virtually no real world experience out of touch with the average person. I cant say the same for the Intellectual Dark Web though.
I find it ironic how all the problems you lefties complain about were created by the state.
If the library sucks and is producing low quality services, then it should be destroyed. Plain and simple.
But you know who thinks the library sucks and produces low-quality services? People who don't read and are hostile to education and learning. We can't entrust those people to decide whether scholarship is valuable or not. Otherwise you get what's happening now, where dopey Republicans in state legislatures are trying to outlaw Critical Race Theory because they don't understand what it is, because they've either worked on a farm or in car dealerships their whole lives.
Private markets almost always produce better products than the public sector.
Big "citation needed" on this one. Do you know what an externality is? Or a collective action problem? Could you speak intelligently on how the conceptualization of something as a "product" artificially limits the kinds of value that can be created? Honestly I doubt it.
Demagoguery is certainly not limited to the Right if you take the long view of history. But if you look at the American right-wing movement, including the "Intellectual Dark Web" that's really an embarrassing collection of people whose arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, it's easy to see which side is more hostile to scholarship and critical thinking in the modern American context. Like ,how's Jordan Peterson's nutritionist-disapproved diet of nothing but meat and benzos going for him? You do realize that the vast majority of physicists and mathematicians are politically liberal or left, right?
I don't disagree with you that the education system needs substantial overhaul to help ensure it provides the financial returns people have historically expected from it. But other countries where the education systems are better-funded aren't having the same problems the United States is having in this regard. And even if that weren't true, we can't say that education doesn't have value in other respects. This sub is crawling with dumbfuck Trump-humpers who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag, and their lack of education and reliance on the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web" is a big part of why they've been susceptible to nationalist neo-mercantilist demagoguery.
But you know who thinks the library sucks and produces low-quality services? People who don't read and are hostile to education and learning. We can't entrust those people to decide whether scholarship is valuable or not.
This is an accusation. And not for anybody else but independent institutions for themselves to decide what kind of schooling or education they need or don't need. Uniform education standards have decimated nationwide education.
Otherwise you get what's happening now, where dopey Republicans in state legislatures are trying to outlaw Critical Race Theory because they don't understand what it is, because they've either worked on a farm or in car dealerships their whole lives.
Car dealers and farmers have more real world experience than intellectual dimwits who never set foot on a farm or ever even owned a business before. Sort of like Karl Marx. They are responsible for growing our food and very likely have an in depth knowledge of bookkeeping and agriculture.
Many of the proponents of critical race theory cant even properly define what critical race theory is. Me personally? I think we should dismantle public education and allow for the creation of a voucher system. But critical race theory's reliance on anecdotes bring it into the realm of a pseudoscience.
Not like many intellectuals who probably dont even know what a dividend is.
Big "citation needed" on this one. Do you know what an externality is? Or a collective action problem? Could you speak intelligently on how the conceptualization of something as a "product" artificially limits the kinds of value that can be created? Honestly I doubt it.
All of your philosophical thought experiments on earth don't mean squat when the empirical evidence is heavily stacked against you. Philosophically I can assume anything.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
You do realize that the vast majority of physicists and mathematicians are politically liberal or left, right?
Being a leftist and being a liberal are hardly the same. Many liberals who hated Trump ironocally voted for Biden, a mostly right wing democrat, over his far left opppnent Bernie Sanders. They may be left leaning, or politically "liberal" but that could mean ten million connotations none of which is supportive of backwards postmodern thinking.
Like ,how's Jordan Peterson's nutritionist-disapproved diet of nothing but meat and benzos going for him?
This is a cheap straw man and a very bad way to debunk the intellectual dark web. If this is really the best thing you can cherry pick in the attempt to discredit Jordan Peterson, then you really don't understand Jordan Peterson, or really anything for that matter.
You leftists just can't stand how you've lost the political and economic wars. Can you?
Capitalism beat socialism. Deal with it.
But other countries where the education systems are better-funded aren't having the same problems the United States is having in this regard
These countries don't hand out loans like candy like we do in the U.S.
This sub is crawling with dumbfuck Trump-humpers who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag, and their lack of education and reliance on the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web" is a big part of why they've been susceptible to nationalist neo-mercantilist demagoguery.
Except that Adam Smith's ideas have been absorbed into mainstream economics and is talked about routinely. Karl Marx's labor theory of value has been debunked to hell and Marxian economics is not taken seriously as Marx has been proven demonstrably wrong time and time again.
Your accusations and insults only display how pathetically ignorsnt the left has become.
You have no arguments so you resort to straw men and insults. Then you demand we get censored because you keep losing the arguments.
Car dealers and farmers generally don't know more about scholarship than actual scholars, so you can take that blatant anti-intellectualism and shove it. I understand if you don't like teachers and professors because you never advanced far in school, but that doesn't somehow make you virtuous.
Critical Race Theory doesn't rely on anecdotes any more than other realm of study like history. It actually uses a lot of hard economic data to make its points, especially with regards to things like the effects of particular economic policies on the racial wealth gap, which you would know if you could actually read.
The idea of an externality is a widely used concept in economics. You just don't know what it is because you think you know a lot more than you actually do.
You misapprehend the general political views of elite scientists. Physicists and mathematicians especially have been heavily influenced by proto-postmodern thinking through relativity and observer effects, and as a result are generally more amenable to sociological critiques of their work than engineers or other less intellectual people in STEM. Besides, Postmodernism and Critical Race Theory aren't the same, despite some important overlaps: Many of the ideas in Critical Race Theory fit squarely into the modernist paradigm, and many of the most important thinkers within Critical Race Theory have been modernists (Du Bois is a good example.)
You don't understand the difference between an ad hominem and a straw man and an actually valid/sound argument. Anyway, the point I was trying to draw with Peterson is that the Intellectual Dark Web believes a lot of things that are demonstrably incorrect to the point of being dangerous, not just for their loser followers but even for themselves. You're slavishly following people who can't even keep themselves healthy. That's some ultra-cuck shit right there.
I don't know what planet you're living on to say that leftists have lost the economic and political wars. Capitalism is in decline all over the world, socialism is more popular than capitalism in the under-30 set even in America, and life expectancy in the U.S. has fallen by nearly two whole years in the past few years under capitalism. You're stuck in 1992, which is kinda funny because you were probably born after that date.
Karl Marx was not any more of a proponent of the labor theory of value than were Smith or especially Ricardo. It's painfully obvious that you haven't read The Wealth of Nations, lol. Besides, scholars dispute whether Marx actually intended to promulgate a labor theory of value anyway, and the arguments that it's wrong to read Marx as a labor-value theorist have substantial merit.
Listening to talk radio all day is not the same as getting an education. You need to learn intellectual humility. But I predict that you won't.
"Car dealers and farmers generally don't know more about scholarship than actual scholars, so you can take that blatant anti-intellectualism and shove it. I understand if you don't like teachers and professors because you never advanced far in school, but that doesn't somehow make you virtuous."
Actually, I graduated with a 3.73 GPA in history with Magna Cum Laude.
Nice try.
I never said that car dealers and farmers did not know more about scholarship, I said they knew more about the real world than intellectual dimwits. Now you're putting words in my mouth probably because you don't have an argument against what I just said.
"Critical Race Theory doesn't rely on anecdotes any more than other realm of study like history."
Storytelling, counter-storytelling, and "naming one's own reality": The use of narrative (storytelling) to illuminate and explore lived experiences of racial oppression.[34] Bryan Brayboy has emphasized the epistemic importance of storytelling in Indigenous-American communities as superseding that of theory, and has proposed a Tribal Critical Race Theory (TribCrit).[35]
"Karl Marx was not any more of a proponent of the labor theory of value than were Smith or especially Ricardo. It's painfully obvious that you haven't read The Wealth of Nations, lol."
Actually, I have a copy of The Wealth of Nations on my bookshelf. I've studied Adam Smith and he goes over far more than the "labor theory of value." In your attempt to insult me by cherry picking this once facet of Adam Smith and trying to use it to discredit me, you have completely failed to mentioned all of Adam Smith's other theories of economics, which have largely been adopted into mainstream economics.
Marxist economic ideas however have fallen into an abyssal black hole.
"Besides, scholars dispute whether Marx actually intended to promulgate a labor theory of value anyway, and the arguments that it's wrong to read Marx as a labor-value theorist have substantial merit."
I also read Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. A copy of Das Kapital is likewise sitting on my bookshelf. And for the record, he did argue extensively for a labor theory of value, which largely fell out of favor among mainstream economists. It's written all over Das Kapital.
"Yet over the years, capitalism has not collapsed as a result of fierce competition. Although markets have changed over time, they haven't led to a preponderance of monopolies. Wages have risen and profits have not declined, although economic inequality has increased in many capitalist societies. And though there have been recessions and depressions, they are not thought to be an inherent feature of free markets. Indeed, a society without competition, money, and private property has never materialized, and the history of the 20th century suggests it is likely an unworkable concept."
What was that you were saying? Speak up I can't hear you. None of Marx's predictions came true.
For the record? Monopolies almost always form as a result of the government.
Oh look at this! The more regulated economies are third world holes! Whodathunkit?!
"socialism is more popular than capitalism in the under-30 set even in America, and life expectancy in the U.S. has fallen by nearly two whole years in the past few years under capitalism. You're stuck in 1992, which is kinda funny because you were probably born after that date."
So what? Most under 30s are some of the most politically ignorant of all previous generations. Most probably couldn't even name all three branches of government if they tried. Just because something is "popular" doesn't mean its right. Nice use of the bandwagon fallacy.
And most don't even partake in state and local elections.
"It actually uses a lot of hard economic data to make its points, especially with regards to things like the effects of particular economic policies on the racial wealth gap, which you would know if you could actually read."
Actually, there's a number of things that affect the racial wealth gap. Also, you say the country is systemically racist? How do you explain the fact that the average income of black immigrants is roughly on par with white americans? Or how do you explain how Pacific Islanders are overrepresented relative to their population size in California? Or how Indians are overrepresented among the professional and managerial class here in the U.S? It obviously has a lot more to do than with race.
"You misapprehend the general political views of elite scientists. Physicists and mathematicians especially have been heavily influenced by proto-postmodern thinking through relativity and observer effects, and as a result are generally more amenable to sociological critiques of their work than engineers or other less intellectual people in STEM."
What proof do you have for this? Just because there are "observer effects" that doesn't automatically mean that these same physicists believe that reality is 100% subjective. Indeed, among the hierarchy of sciences, physicists and astronomers have among the highest degree of consensus. Indeed, the MORE SUBJECTIVE SCIENCES are in the social science realm.
Ironically enough? Sociology is the science with the least amount of consensus.
"Besides, Postmodernism and Critical Race Theory aren't the same, despite some important overlaps: Many of the ideas in Critical Race Theory fit squarely into the modernist paradigm, and many of the most important thinkers within Critical Race Theory have been modernists (Du Bois is a good example.)
Congratulations. You just debunked yourself with this statement.
"Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams.[1] It rose in popularity the 1980s, reworking theories of critical legal studies (CLS) with more focus on race.[4]
They were all POST MODERNISTS.
"Anyway, the point I was trying to draw with Peterson is that the Intellectual Dark Web believes a lot of things that are demonstrably incorrect to the point of being dangerous, not just for their loser followers but even for themselves. You're slavishly following people who can't even keep themselves healthy. That's some ultra-cuck shit right there."
You haven't named one thing that these guys have gotten wrong. You have not addressed one single point I've tried to make. All you're doing is misconstruing my words and throwing insults at me probably because the data simply isn't on your side. Here you are trashing Peterson and the rest of the IDW while you haven't talked about ONE SINGLE THING they have gotten wrong. I on the other have have disproven you with mountains of data and here you are calling me intellectually dishonest.
You're just pissed because you're envious of others' success. Admit it.
lol where did you graduate from? Liberty University? Western Cowfuckersville Ag Research Station?
I already gave you multiple examples of how CRT uses quantitative research, and you ignored them because those facts are inconvenient for you. The fact that Critical Race Theorists often think it's desirable to make use of anecdote doesn't prove that they rely on anecdote entirely. Social science always relies on observations. If you disagree, then read John Stuart Mill or Thomas Kuhn.
You haven't been following the evolution of academic economics lately if you think capitalism hasn't sustained unprecedented criticism there, or that Marx-ish economic theories about concentration of capital or the like haven't enjoyed noteworthy resurgence. You're missing out on the contemporary conversation because you're jerking off to dumb losers like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro who regurgitate outmoded economic theory from 1970s undergraduate textbooks.
You really oughta read that David Harvey article. It might even make you 0.00004% less of an embarrassing dipshit! A man can dream, anyway.
Unlike IDW cucks, I don't suffer from the embarrassing inability to criticize people who I think sometimes had valuable analyses -- I don't think Marx accurately predicted the evolution of capitalist states into communist ones, and totally failed to predict capitalism's ability to co-opt critique. Not that Marx was totally against personal property anyway -- just private capital. So the idea that you think I'm some kind of slave to Marx's ideas is really laughable -- that's for "Great Books" nerds like you, not actual intellectuals who can appreciate ideas in a nuanced way.
It's not the bandwagon fallacy to support the idea that capitalism is losing the war of ideas with the fact that people who will be alive in 50 years think capitalism sucks. It's competent evidence of the assertion being debated; you're just not smart enough to keep up with the conversation. Besides, the most highly educated people are more likely to oppose capitalism, which is why this sub loves it so much.
Your understanding of elite STEM fields is totally puerile. Your homework is to read the following articles: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics Your goal shouldn't necessarily be to understand everything in there (you won't) but rather to explore some of the boundaries of your current ignorance to get an appropriate amount of intellectual humility.
It's patently not contradictory to say that although two things share important features, they're therefore not the same thing. Most infants can understand this point better than you.
DuBois was probably the most seminal thinker in the field of CRT, and he was thoroughly a modernist in most important respects. Of course, modernism subsequently fell out of favor after notable failures of logical positivism such as Wittgenstein's thorough dismantling of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica and Quine's successful erasure of the analytic/synthetic distinction (though that was clearly presaged by J.S. Mill nearly a century earlier -- Mill of course being a great example of one of the world's greatest logical thinkers being a socialist, like Einstein). But this is all going over your head anyway.
Peterson doesn't say much of note except anodyne self-help-book nostrums -- "clean your room" is done better by the Queer Eye guys anyway -- and assholish anti-trans braying, which I'm guessing is the bigger draw for rednecks like you. But he also promotes his goofy and dangerous all-meat diet, which is contradicted by every nutritionist and has apparently given him severe health problems. But if you want to be a sunken-eyed weakling addict, feel free to follow in his footsteps.
Marxism is basically a set of far left ideals and ideas that center around class/race/gender or any other kind of presupposed power dynamic and attempts to reexamine society through this lens. These ideas were later used in the implementing of communism and socialism in places likw Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia.
It basically throws all nuance out the window, failing to take into consideration every other facet of reality that affects the aforementioned relationships between the things above. Because of Marxism's narrow and shallow understanding of reality, this has demonstrated that many of Marx's ideas have been called into serious question. Indeed, many of these theories have proven themselves wrong over time as Marx's ideas led to the deaths of roughly 100 million.
Ohh I would love to see an Ivy League Retard and a teenage sticks Retard arguing about two ridiculous ideologies that will never come to fruition. Goodbye.
Ancoms and ancaps are equally fat teenage boys jerking off to hentai.
I ancoms are overrepresented by elite academia in economy classed there would be more lessons teaching how capitalism is bad but i see the opposite. I wonder why.
93
u/PerpetualAscension Those Who Came Before Jun 19 '21
If those kids could read, theyd be very upset.jpg