• 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

    • gowan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Satanic_Mills [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        political science degree

        Imagine boasting about having a degree in modern-day phrenology.

        You see, this graph shows the Slavic brainpan cannot comprehend liberal institutions …

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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:

        1. Yes, I am an actual expert, with extensive schooling and/or relevant work experience.
        2. I’m not claiming to be an expert, but here’s where I’m getting my information, where are you getting yours?
        • gowan@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • @[email protected]

              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.

              • gowan@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  According to Marx what are the sources of capitalist profit?

                  I thought that was too easy, so bonus question

                  how does automation contribute to the tendency of rate of profit to fall according to Marx?

                  Edit: as of edit it’s been 8 hours, with this users last activity being 3 hours ago.

      • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

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

        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.

        • gowan@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            Citation needed

                • gowan@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.