Most of the classical economists of the 18th-19th century would today be called socialists or Social Democrats...

>kys
>right wing
>le epic trololo nigger video

off to reddit you go

>that gif

wtf am I watching

>doesn't even know what goes on reddit
you belong there, they love social justice agreeable opinions

It's irrelevant, socialism is the flat earth theory of economics.

How so?

says illiterati like Mises and Hayek

See: youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4
See:
youtube.com/watch?v=oiZIsP7Ttqw

Austrian economics is also the flat earth theory of economics.
Basically everyone in the field thinks it's some strange joke that for some god forsaken reason is still around.

Veeky Forums in a nutshell

>Basically everyone in the field thinks it's some strange joke that for some god forsaken reason is still around.

[citation needed]

...

You want a citation for the fact that neoclassical economics is vastly dominant over every single other economic theory...?

Feminism is largely dominant over pretty much all social sciences, does that make it right?

Feminism isn't a description of morality, it's a political stance.

*reality

The simple statement "women are oppressed because X structural reasons" is very clearly a description.

Politics is literally just ethics in practice.

The calculation problem was put to bed by Kantorovich long ago. The problem was that computers had not advanced to a sufficient level to implement it across the USSR.

This is ridiculous. Technology wasn't the problem with the economy in the USSR. That's just tankie propaganda.

Pic related is a large factor why people give up and go to the right or become literal stalinists. There has always been a class-based Marxist left, but it has been marginalized for decades in favour of New Left-inspired social liberalism presenting itself as the only revolutionary force.

>This reconceptualization of the revolutionary project has served to reinforce a tendency that has come from other directions as well: the displacement of the working class from the centre of Marxist theory and practice. Whether that displacement has been determined by the exigencies of the power struggle, by despair in the face of a non-revolutionary working class in the West, or simply by conservative and anti-democratic impulses, the search for revolutionary surrogates has been a hallmark of contemporary socialism. Whatever the reasons for this tendency and whether or not it is accompanied by an explicit reformulation of Marxism and its whole conception of the revolutionary process, to dislodge the working class is necessarily to redefine the socialist project, both its means and its ends.
>Revolutionary socialism has traditionally placed the working class and its struggles at the heart of social transformation and the building of socialism, not simply as an act of faith but as a conclusion based upon a comprehensive analysis of social relations and power. In the first place, this conclusion is based on the historical/materialist principle which places the relations of production at the centre of social life and regards their exploitative character as the root of social and political oppression. The proposition that the working class is potentially the revolutionary class is not some metaphysical abstraction but an extension of these materialist principles, suggesting that, given the centrality of production and exploitation in human social life, and given the particular nature of production and exploitation in capitalist society, certain other propositions follow: 1) the working class is the social group with the most direct objective interest in bringing about the transition to socialism; 2) the working class, as the direct object of the most fundamental and determinative – though certainly not the only – form of oppression, and the one class whose interests do not rest on the oppression of other classes, can create the conditions for liberating all human beings in the struggle to liberate itself; 3) given the fundamental and ultimately unresolvable opposition between exploiting and exploited classes which lies at the heart of the structure of oppression, class struggle must be the principal motor of this emancipatory transformation; and 4) the working class is the one social force that has a strategic social power sufficient to permit its development into a revolutionary force.
/ Ellen Meiksins Wood, Retreat From Class

I no longer consider myself left, but I did for a long time. When the left stopped talking about class and economics, and started talking about manspreading and the arbitrariness of gender, I lost all respect for them tbqh.

You are strawmanning them.

The genuine Marxist perspective has always been that struggles of specific groups (race, gender, sexuality) obviously exist but are conditioned by and secondary to the struggle in the material relations of production. Even if you can make some change in the expression of social norms, these always come at a price to the working class and can be easily reversed in times of economic crises. Without an organized labour movement to connect the separate spheres of struggle into a coherent whole, they become inert.
Additionally, to put yourself in a position where the welfare of identities are seen as diametrically opposed to the welfare of working people and are even explicitly allied to agents of corporate power, is a dangerous position. I'm afraid we haven't seen its full effects yet.

That's not a clear description though.

>/r/the_donald
kys

Gay porn.