Those of u doing the social sciences... u a marxist yet?

political economy major
ardently far right

I never was. I skipped it and went right for the logical conclusion of anarchism. (Logical for a crazy freedom loving former rightwing Christian 'murrican, that is)
Bakunin was absolutely right. Communism is just another authoritarianism. An ideology of followers. A natural progression for Catholics and lapsed Catholics.
I haven't much against them besides that.

lol left-anarchism is just liberal statism taken to 1984 levels. basically SJW paradise. no thanks

My homosexuality precedes my interests in civics.

>End the post office. amiritelol

When and if the world bends towards anarchism, the rightwing will consist of ancaps insisting money and the classism, racism and statism that it brings is all good. They'll point to the collectives that build and invent, and the elected regional councils that organize and sneer. Eventually they'll all fall back on anarcho-primitivism and be the barnacles of society. Marginalized and out of power. A paradise of sorts.
>[N]o thanks
Return to the Earth

the capitalism which austrian economics worships literally invented liberalism and 'SJW's, you fucking idiot.

gr8 thread
lots of literature

It's the daily shitposting thread.

I love Noam Chomsky

That was a wrong turn brought on by marxism and the state, I'm for restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property.

MGTOW? I was an ancap once upon a time and I don't know what that means.

We're discussing authors, cartoon-boy.

Veeky Forums is soaking in memes and trolls, so all conversations will be interrupted with nonsense. You know that.

I do urban studies

It brought me out of marxism and lead me into post-marxism and various Right srains of thought

Men Going Their Own Way.

No but I used marxist approachs in some of my papers and will probably continue to do so in the future. When you go beyond reading wikipedia, you lose the need to a label of clear cut principles and you start to enjoy using different points of view to understand stuff. There is no marxist or liberalist or anarcho-capitalist to me, only people who are useless and people who could be but make the effort to build solid explanations for social events.

so just men

>social
>science

Of course. He's a Trump supporting "ethnocentrist" from /pol/ (Or just a troll playing the part of course)

I agree with Marxists that capitalism is a Weltanschauung, and that material factors structure and solidify it. I don't like that even the smart, lucid ones seem like naive altruists who don't want to consider any other factors, or that anything is important aside from vulgar socialism.

But I really don't like the other 99.999% of them, who are just retard Trotskyists roleplaying by wearing different hats.

Marxism is dead. There are like a handful of Marx-ishly inclined scholar dudes who are just altruists with a specific hate-on for wage slavery as an institution, and then there are billions of fat roleplayers who border on Scientology levels of cultlike behaviour.

>There are like a handful of Marx-ishly inclined scholar dudes who are just altruists with a specific hate-on for wage slavery as an institution,
There's a lot to hate in slavery. What are your views, that it's impossible? Any resistance is futile since you know Marxism is dead? Are you in your sixties?
>and then there are billions of fat roleplayers who border on Scientology levels of cultlike behaviour.
Like I've said, they're followers. It's a tendency in people. But I think their children can be brought up different.

>uneducated
>Opinionated

Psychology major here. Social sciences apply the scientific method and are young sciences. The fact that experimental parameters are harder to control and statistical methods can be twisted to match any pretense does not change that.

ayncraps are the furrys of the political world

>But I think their children can be brought up different.
Hopefully they won't have any

>I want future humanity to be of a darker complexion

Uhmm, okay.

The next generation should be made-to-order in a lab and educated to meet the needs of management you prole scum.

hey bruh, sound like you need a little Anarchism in your life. It's like Marxist without the authoritarian shizzle and it was successful in Spain until it was crushed by combined forces of Franco, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

>implying anarcho-primitivism isn't the ultimate redpill
Take your name off you cringey fuck. You've been one of the worst nameshitters on /lgbt/ and that's saying quite a lot.

>social sciences

kek "sciences"

Marxism is a cancer. This is something society learns through experience, and then a generation dies, and then students think its a good idea.

I wish more economic students read literature and more soft science students made an attempt to base themselves in reality. They're capable of it. But when you're taught to be creative, your ideas sometimes aren't bound by constraints that ACTUALLY exist, like human fallibility and the fact bread lines suck cock.

>Basing your economic beliefs on a fictional novel
sounds pretty silly 2bh

Dis desu senpai

Wow. That was ages ago. I'm sure you've been a terrible user too.
>redpill
I'd be all for the edgy fucks who want to live in caves or log cabin, whichever they'll allow themselves, but most of us will keep reaching for the stars. I just hope we'd all get along most of the time.

Goodnight again

youtube.com/watch?v=az7L-VffHBo

communalism master race reporting in

> being this delusional

I would call myself a socialist in the sense of economist; however, i would see myself as very far right when it comes to "social" issues themselves.

read into this however you want...

>marx: the is the natural past and future development of human civilization
>everyone after: hey, lets unnaturally speed it along

Sci fi trope. Guy knows the future, tries to make it happem, results in changing future.

> (OP)
>Marxism is a cancer. This is something society learns through experience, and then a generation dies, and then students think its a good idea.

>Hello guuuys, here is my opinion as a mother

Also a trope among Christian wingnuts - "we must act to hasten the building of the third temple, so that the end times can begin, etc."

He's lucky he's not in the UK right now, they'd send him to the antisemitic camps

no one wants to read into your views fuccboi

so...you're boring Veeky Forums user #543539248

>ancap ethnocentrist

Pick one

>ethnocentrist mgtow

Pick one

Either your a tribalist or a libertarian, but not both. Applying the non agression principle and mprality within the context of a group, can lead to prosperity and cohesion, but universalist ideas are absurd and self destructive. Mgtow are betas who can't control their women. Women are a necessary and valuable part of any group, contributing labor, children, and helping keep tensions between members. They are not men and do not see the world as men do, and are bad at assessing threats and dealing with violence, but that does not make them stupid or worthless, they have simply evolved differently than we have and play a very different role within society; you just can't confuse what that role is because putting women in charge of defense or resource management is disastrous.

Marxists are unemployed spoiled children.

I've never met a manual laborer who believed in collectivist economics.

Once you've worked a fucking job and supported yourself you realize how liberating the free market is and how absurdly wealthy even the poorest among us are.

>I've never met a manual laborer who believed in collectivist economics
You've not met that many manual labourers then.

The plumber that comes over to fix your mother's/wife's/gf's leaky gusset doesn't count. They're petit bourgeois if anything.

It was nearly successful in Russia too.

fountain head and atlas shrugged are garbage. i didnt say anything about them. i said marxism is cancer.

das kapital is good. read it, faggots. he's right about capitalism. but MY GOD the alternative is so much worse.

the communist manifesto is a seductive piece of fiction.

Since this is a literature I recommend you read "The Use of Knowledge in Society" It's about the price system.

When you faggots begin to realize how complicated of a task it is survey all available resources and the sum of all human desire, and then create a bureaucracy that is capable of processing that information and distributing those resources while minimizing corruption and rent-seeking, you will see how delusional Marxism really is.

>it's hard to distribute resources
>therefore, let's give it all to the rich people!

or what is your solution here?

>I've never met a manual laborer who believed in collectivist economics.
>collectivist economics

There's no alternative to "collectivist economics" today. All modern economies (self proclaimed "socialist" or "capitalist") are either bank centred or stock-market centred. Financial institutions today claim to efficiently direct societies savings towards their optimal investment pursuits but that's debatable.

There has always existed a set of institutions designed to maximize the wealth and power of certain groups at the expense of others.

Marxism has just become the last refugee of the bourgeois in crisis.

Hayek isn't that convincing to me. His arguments made a lot of sense in the 30s before modern information technology existed but are dated nowadays. If markets are so efficient why do corporations even exist to plan everything? Why isn't everything just subcontracted? Why are we dependent upon even more financial planners nowadays? Markets are horribly inefficient at most things.

Try reading some anti-price system stuff like Veblen's The Engineers and the Price System
socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/Engineers.pdf

>let's give it all to the rich people!

I'm going to assume you live in the western hemisphere, north atlantic.

Now, I want you to expand your point of view a sphere larger than you seem to be right now. You have a computer. You probably have a roof over your head. You probably ate a meal today, you probably had more than one. You probably used some silverware, and you probably had an artificial light above your head.

NOW, if you did even half of those things, you are now in the top ~10% richest of all living human beings. This evil western capitalist system that has had 300 or so years to develop in your region has made you the top 1% of homo sapiens to ever exist.

Marxist books are so devoid of math and idealogical they put horse blinders on the reader.

So yes, there is horrendous income inequality. Is unchecked capitalism a horrible thing? yes insofar that it creates anti-competitive practices. Things like trust-busting is a must. Arresting corporate leaders for insider-trading, rent-seeking practices is a must. FUCK ME, even Bernie Sanders type socialism has its merits on a normative basis!

Again, I'll say MARXISM is a cancer. it is not a solution.

Veblen is a good read too.
>If markets are so efficient why do corporations even exist to plan everything?
Economy of scale. They're not "planning" things as much as they are just a super large subcontractor who is benefitting from creating/selling/researching things in bulk

>Why isn't everything just subcontracted?
It pretty much is. Every product you've ever bought had dozens of companies involved in its creation.
>Why are we dependent upon even more financial planners nowadays?
what do you mean by that? Also, im inclined to agree with you because I think finance has the most problems of any sector.

>Markets are horribly inefficient at most things.
I'm begging everyone in this thread to make observations. Marxism is completely reliant upon a disproportionate emphasis on emotional appeals to the grievances of the oppressed. That's okay. There is normative merit to it. Maybe it would be better to live in the woods in communal psuedo tribes. But I think marxism has enough of a history that its self-evidently cancerous.

In what sense? Which specific approach? Probably not.

sheesh easy on the word avalanche, mr. wordsmith

>ethnoseparatist MGTOW

How is that compatible? Unless you intend to perpetuate your ethnicity through artificial wombs.

Bakunin is a retard.

I wouldn't exactly say that. They are one and the same. Both born from the French revolution.

wait

people on Veeky Forums are unironically communists?

lmao i thought this was supposed to be the smart board

>Who is Latour?

>But I think their children can be brought up different.

One of the main fault i find in Marxist-influenced social science is an exaggerated belief in the complete malleability of man.

The issue is that the forgery of data is rampant. To be fair, it has also become an issue in "hard" science due to the pressure to get published. This is compounded in social sciences by the tendency to falsify results so that they match one's ideology.

Marxism is a Christian sect so that's only natural.

>das kapital is good. read it, faggots. he's right about capitalism. but MY GOD the alternative is so much worse.

I kind of agree. People tend to conflate two very different things under the concept of Marxism. First the analysis of capitalism that Marx wrote. Second the (vague) proposals of Marx to replace it. Both analysis have nowhere near the same level of brilliance.

exactly. It continues what Ricardo was getting at, and adapted it to the industrial society. Das Kapital is pretty air tight because its a criticism of capitalism, not the introduction of marxism.

Marxism fell apart when the proletariat started having running water, sewage, electricity, and food, let alone motherfucking iphones.

>Economy of scale. They're not "planning" things as much as they are just a super large subcontractor who is benefitting from creating/selling/researching things in bulk
Corporations exist because markets are inefficient at actually coordinating everything. Corporations are the source of the creation and management (and all the unnecessary overhead expenses involved in all this) of the demand of products not individuals in a modern market society. Corporations aren't just meeting given demand but control the consciousness of the population, it's the worst form of collectivism that kills genuine individualism.

>It pretty much is. Every product you've ever bought had dozens of companies involved in its creation.
You don't understand how vertically integrated big business can get and the benefit of not being dependent on variable prices. Corporations don't want to rely upon subcontracting because it's more risky.

>what do you mean by that? Also, im inclined to agree with you because I think finance has the most problems of any sector.
Things are more planned then they have ever historically been. There's more planning/bureaucracy in America then the Soviet Union ever had. Bureaucracy (private/public) keeps on growing because of the demand/necessity of it in a market society with the growth of complexity.

I'm not a Marxist but highly critical of financial capitalism and markets in general being able to allocate resources towards the things that maintain the long run viability of a society. Society is slowly collapsing because no one is making the investments necessary to actually reproduce society. More wealth being generated is going towards paying dividends and foreign bondholders instead of investing in families or what is really the basis of society. People can understand why debt is bad because it's simple "common sense" but not more abstract issues like climate change and large scale populations movements which are a much bigger problem than "debt" which can just be written off the books.

Lmao you are right my fellow smart gentleman :) The freer the market the freer the people

corporations are not some separate entity of the market. their "planning" is encapsulated with the system of supply and demand just like any other agent of varying size. and if a vertically integrated company, for instance apple, starts manufactuering their own chips, instead of buying from qualcomm or something, they haven't removed themselves from the chip market, they have become a part of it.

as for solving the problems of our day (pop movement, climate change), if the sovereignty of consumers and the sum of individual choice is incapable of realizing these problems and finding a solution through competitive markets, does that justify a handful of ivory tower academics to make decisions contrary to the public will?

but yeah, that's some pretty intriguing stuff user. especially the controlled consciousness. everything you makes a lot of sense. and I agree with you, capitalism (private ownership of things) is not necessarily the most competitive or "right system".

>corporations are not some separate entity of the market. their "planning" is encapsulated with the system of supply and demand just like any other agent of varying size. and if a vertically integrated company, for instance apple, starts manufactuering their own chips, instead of buying from qualcomm or something, they haven't removed themselves from the chip market, they have become a part of it.

Vertical integration isn't even necessarily a bad thing. Its centralizing force can have a populist backlash but vertical integration is usually more efficient when it happens. All what I'm saying is subcontracting involves more risk and the more explicit control a corporation can grab up they will go for it because they don't want to be subject to unnecessary market forces.

Horizontal integration is what's usually more problematic and where dirty schemes go on to manipulate stocks and get something for noting.

>as for solving the problems of our day (pop movement, climate change), if the sovereignty of consumers and the sum of individual choice is incapable of realizing these problems and finding a solution through competitive markets, does that justify a handful of ivory tower academics to make decisions contrary to the public will?
People discount the future. Something is worth more today than it's worth tomorrow. Most people simply don't care what happens in 30 years. All I'm saying is there's 100% chance a society cannot reproduce itself for more than a couple generations if decisions are spread out and individualized so no individual is held responsible and the prime concern is decreasing costs.

why can't we ban butterfly forever?

75% of social psychology studies cannot be replicated according to the journal Science. I appreciate psychology's efforts to understand human behavior, but there needs to be significantly more focus on empirical results rather than abstract theories entirely reliant on confirmation rather than falsification. I can't trust psychologists.

You mean a neo marxist? i.e. followers of the frankfurt school..Marxism today is very different.
Look at Zizek the "communist". He is influenced by lacan...
Modern "communist" scholars have radically different ideas than the old marxist ideas to which this board still refers or uses as a scapegoat.