What's so great about him?

He invented modern linguistics

He has asperger's you know? There are many fundamentals that Chomsky doesn't understand in regards to society, politics, economics and history.

Mainly, the difference between social democrats and classical liberals when it comes to elites.

Here is a video on David Horowitz's book, The Anti-Chomsky Reader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1tCXDvK7U

>>6159354
thanks Horowitz

>>6159360
not horowitz. I am a canadian who was a leftist chomskyite until I actually started reading books about US History, and law, and economics. I shouldnt have linked to David Horowitz.

Maybe Thomas Sowell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdBn7MUM3Yo

Or Richard Epstein and John Taylor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf3ULqOI-kY

>>6159370
whatever you say Horowitz

>>6159371
And what, sir, are the principles you and Chomsky share? Are you both truth seekers who took a wrong turn in the past, or do you both enviously hate liberty, equality under the law, and the happiness of others?

>>6159354
>>6159370
Wow, a bunch of conservatives denouncing the most prolific and influential contemporary leftist, how surprising

>>6159389
You're gonna have to define what you mean by conservative before this conversation can proceed.

>>6159387
Calm donw, Horowitz

>>6159387
>liberty
I hate that fucking word

>>6159408
Please tell me, what is you life's end, or 'purpose'. I would say that mine is to assure to the best of my ability the liberty of my future bloodline.
From there, you must ask how you can live freely in society, and secure this freedom for my children. An interventionist government very involved in your life will negatively affect the liberty of those it is taking from, and even those that it is trying to help.

Read The Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. Read John Adams' Revolutionary Writings and his Defense of the Constitution. Read Tocqueville's Of Democracy in America.
I'll tell you right now that Chomsky hasn't, nor have any lefties for that matter, read any of these texts fundamental to understanding our history.

>>6159442
Horowitz pls

>>6159410
I suppose you prefer submission?

>>6159442
>interventionist government
If only this was what Chomsky actually believed

>>6159442
>the liberty of my future bloodline.

You're a parody.

>>6159442
Are you seriously claiming that left-wingers haven't read the fucking federalist papers?

>>6159461
I'd prefer right-wingers didn't talk about freedom as if they were the only ones who cared about it.

Strawmen arguments are actually built into the libertarian rhetoric.

>>6159442
>unless you have indoctrinated yourself into my oppressive culture and regularly jerk off to John Trumbull, you shouldn't be allowed to point out that out that the United States supports terrorism
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

>>6159477
Then tell me how a more socialist society will create a more free society. I believe it has been experimentally proven many times that it is nothing but a tool for demagogues and power seekers. See FDR, see Mackenzie King in Canada, the Labor Party in the UK, among many others.

>>6159513
Chomsky is an anarchist, the libertarian version of socialism. See Spanish Catalonia.

>>6159513

Those people massively improved their societies in their key watershed moments, anyway. Gave an outlet for the working man's rage, and set in place institutions to make things a little better without violence.

Stop arguing about his politics.
Chomsky is a genius linguist, that's what makes him great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdUbIlwHRkY

Most people change their views as the facts change but Chomsky mono-manically and unquestionably sticks to the beliefs he developed as a teenager. The confidence and conviction he displays when espousing his beliefs is attractive to teenagers, especially ones who equate their identity with their political beliefs. Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Charles Manson are very similar in this regard. He is a boulder that you can depend on never moving.

>>6160488
piss off you dullard

>>6160488
Woeful argument

>>6159268

Nothing, he is the most overrated public intellectual of the modern era.

>>6159354

It's true.

For example Chomsky claims things like the NFL, NBA were created to distract the masses.

This is ridiculous and pompous. He doesn't understand the business of sports and totally ignores the history of the organizations yet has no trouble making outrageous statements.

He may have had something to say in his youth but now is irrelevant. One only has to look at who attends his speaking engagements, edgy high school students and the tinfoil hat brigade. His acolytes take everything he says definitively.

>>6159389

Wow, you must be trolling. You realize you are doing the exact same thing right?

>>6159564

Why do you think the dumbest kids in high school are also anarchists?

Chomsky should move to Somalia and really back up his claim.

>>6160461

It's debatable.

>>6160488

Wow this is so spot on. I'd like to see Chomsky admit for one time only where he was wrong. Instead he just doubles down.

>>6159268
Nothing.

He has never lost a political debate.

He pushed linguistics, somewhat irrelevant now, but he still furthered the 'science'.

If you have to ask what is so great about him, you are disconnected from modern political/social/leftist/linguistic thought. Learn more.

>>6160612

I think you must be in the 10thgrade

>>6159268
Nothing, he's an Islamic apologist.

>>6160612
Dershowitz made him look like a fool right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux4JU_sbB0

A true sperg and demagogue

>>6160577
>He doesn't understand the business of sports
How is this incompatible with his statement?

He's completely correct -- don't arbitarily defend things you like, just because you like them. I love sports, and I know they're a complete waste of time. Chomsky's point is that people devote so much time and energy to sport when it's not important in the grande scheme of things; people on sports shows on talk radio, he argues, engage in very complex analysis of pointless events -- if they could channel that intellect elsewhere, we'd all be better off.

I'm sure Chomsky would be fine with casual sports fandom, but most sports fans are not casuals -- they devote so much time and critical thinking into an ineffectual thing.

That was his point.

>>6160488
Weak as piss.

Comparing Chomsky to Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Charles Manson just undermines your argument. Try not to be so desperate to make a point that you show us all you're a glib, biased moron.

Also, you've a conceited assumption that "teenagers" like Chomsky, which is unfounded and unfalsifiable. He's very well respected in poli-sci, history, and sociological academia.

>>6159513
If you think corporatism, oligarchy, oligopoly, or monopoly is a model for society, keep on with your unfettered neoliberalism.

Adam Smith's writings have been twisted in ways you can't imagine, to the point that they're unrecognisable, but serve a purpose; like Stalinists did with Marx. If you'd actually read anything my Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc. you'd know this.

It's amazing how we think we're not living within a malignant ideology.

>>6159268
Father of modern linguistics, he has a sharp mind that isn't pigeon-holed, he makes well-researched arguments, and he's extremely accessible and honest.

>>6159354
>>6159370
>Horowitz
>Sowell
>I am a canadian who was a leftist chomskyite until I actually started reading books
Epic joke m8

>>6161382
>He doesn't understand the business of sports
>How is this incompatible with his statement?

His statement is that professional sports were created as a way to keep the masses from thinking about more important things, first of all there is no way to know what people think, so it is just an arrogant statement to begin with, but more importantly one only has to look at the history of the organization to know that there is not some conspiracy behind them. If a team is not profitable in a market the team moves, they don't say "wait, we need to keep these people indoctrinated".

His statement on pro sports is actually a good example of his lack of nuanced thinking on all other subjects.

>>6161409
>He's very well respected in poli-sci, history, and sociological academia.

Proof?

>>6160931

truly rekt.

>>6161437
>he has a sharp mind that isn't pigeon-holed

It's 2015 not 1960. Kek.

Nothing.

>>6161463
>but more importantly one only has to look at the history of the organization to know that there is not some conspiracy behind them. If a team is not profitable in a market the team moves, they don't say "wait, we need to keep these people indoctrinated".

Wow, never seen someone miss the point so much.

Way to give an argument about some machination within a system that's irrelevant to the overall criticism. He argues the very nature of professional, televised sports is diversionary.

Also, you seem to be very literal in your interpretation of things. People can subjugate or indoctrinate others without realising it -- Marx famously said "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es," which translates to "they do not know it, but they are doing it." You'd benefit from reading him.

>there is no way to know what people think.
This is a naive form of Antipositivism. Also, we can glean that people think a lot about certain things if they are in the public discourse a lot -- what other pointless events get such coverage in the nightly news, or in newspapers?

Christ, just admit you don't like the guy. I can't stand Milton Friedman, but I can admit he was intelligent and had some insights.

>>6160488
+Stefan Molyneux

Utopian ideologist that rely on paranoia and ego centric ideologies.

Worst of all though, is how people think you associate with one if you reject the other.

Chomsky is hated by good portion of the left.

Chomsky took on behaviorists and they got BTFO

>>6161488
The ressentiment is strong in this one.

>>6161511
>Chomsky is hated by good portion of the left.
Yeah, the petty left more concerned with scoring points on how leftist they are, than actually enacting change.

Greece is a good example of what happens when leftists can put aside their differences and band together for the greater good. Zizek is scoring points for himself picking fights with Chomsky; it's an easy win for him, as he knows Chomsky is a modernist. I like Zizek, but so much of the stuff he says is completely unfalsifiable, and Chomsky is a modernist and believes, like Popper, in falsifiability.

>>6161531
The Zizek/Chomsky thing was pretty tepid and one-sided. Chomsky was pretty rough on Zizek but Zizek's comments on Chomsky were pretty passive.

>>6161531
>Greece is a good example of what happens when leftists can put aside their differences and band together for the greater good.


HAHA

Um, I don't know if you've seen Greece lately, might want to open up a paper.

>>6161531
>Yeah, the petty left more concerned with scoring points on how leftist they are, than actually enacting change.

Chomsky was truly rekt by Hitchens

File: Hitchens.jpg (247KB, 1127x914px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1127x914px

>>6161531
>Yeah, the petty left more concerned with scoring points on how leftist they are, than actually enacting change.
Or alternatively those that don't subscribe to utopian politics and conspiracy theories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBwpukN7Pf8

>>6161504
>He argues the very nature of professional, televised sports is diversionary.

It's called business, it's not a scheme like he claims.

I'm not taking it literally in my interpretation, he clearly has stated that pro sports were created as a diversion. Which is just not true.

>>6161504
>Marx famously said "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es," which translates to "they do not know it, but they are doing it." You'd benefit from reading him.

Marx was a depressed loner, wasting his days in the library, no one benefits from reading him.

>>6161504
>This is a naive form of Antipositivism. Also, we can glean that people think a lot about certain things if they are in the public discourse a lot -- what other pointless events get such coverage in the nightly news, or in newspapers?

Whatever way you have to justify your pomposity. Are you really claiming you know what people think?

>>6161552
>>6161555
>nü-atheists
>capable of wrecking
Those guys are the epitome of utopian and conspiracy theorists, especially "Nuke 'em all first, protect our karma-liquids" Harris.

>>6161555

rekt.

>>6161556
Is anyone really this naive? Also, start quoting to back up your claims.

>>6161571
>Those guys are the epitome of utopian and conspiracy theorists, especially "Nuke 'em all first, protect our karma-liquids" Harris.

Finally your tinfoil hat is uncovered, didn't take that long.

What's next Zionist occupation?

>>6161581
>Is anyone really this naive?

So you think pro sports are a creation used to distract the masses?

>>6161584
What

>>6161588
The pro sports leagues were created by capitalists to make money from people's appreciation of the games involved, which is why one cannot legally have Superb Owl parties or record Worlds Eries games without authorization from their prospective owners. Professional Sports, however, are heavily utilized by the state as propaganda and diversionary tools. This is Chomsky's claim, I believe, but feel free to produce a quote stating otherwise.

>>6159354
>being so buttblasted that you write an anti-author reader

File: 10blog-codepink533.jpg (56KB, 533x314px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 533x314px

>>6161571
>Those guys are the epitome of utopian
Utopian politics comes about from the promise of utopia from one pure ideological sect where there are no moral conflicts.

Absolute rejection of capitalism is utopian, because of its absolute nature. If it does not see any use for capitalism for its short comings, the alternative must have the quality of being both morally perfect and perfectly efficient. The same type of utopian ideologies of the AnCap crowd, where capitalism is both morally perfect and perfectly efficient.

>and conspiracy theorists
This is just stupid.


>"Nuke 'em all first, protect our karma-liquids" Harris.
>MUH BABY KILLERS

>>6161588
Watch "Manufacturing Consent" if you have the time. If you don't, just search "Chomsky sports" in Youtube.

>>6161704
>Utopian politics comes about from the promise of utopia from one pure ideological sect where there are no moral conflicts.
Exactly what the nü-atheists do.

>This is just stupid.
No, >MUH BABY KILLERS is just stupid.

>>6161720

I did in high school, it was horrendous.

>>6161629
>The pro sports leagues were created by capitalists to make money from people's appreciation of the games involved

No they weren't. They evolved. Pro football in the UK started in the 19th century. You shouldn't talk about things you don't know about, and neither should Chomsky.

>>6161629
>Professional Sports, however, are heavily utilized by the state as propaganda and diversionary tools.

Proof?

>>6161779
Here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjGcCI9ByWw

>>6161754
Snow day tomorrow?

>>6161789

How is that propaganda?

It's the President throwing out the first pitch.

>>6161779

>implying American sports haven't become the most naked worship of the military since nuremburg

Srs m8 - it's not normal to have soldiers everywhere and bombers flying overhead and some midshipman cunt coming out and singing at a sports event. It's not like that everywhere else.

>>6161732
>Exactly what the nü-atheists do.
I don't know what Nu atheist scapegoat you are referring to, but Chomsky views on religion are not much different than those of any prominently known atheist advocate. Furthermore, most of moderate left is still stuck with religious ideology.

>No, MUH BABY KILLERS is just stupid.
I agree, which why I think you are stupid.
>Nuke 'em all first, protect our karma-liquids
Literally MUH BABY KILLERS, bullshit.

>>6161815

So it's only American pro sports now that are diversionary?

I think if they were truly diversionary they would have nothing that reminded the fans of the military, or war etc.

File: 1260710343244.jpg (37KB, 370x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 370x300px

>>6161770
>No they weren't.
Right, every professional sports league was created as player owned not-profit organizations... oh, wait.

>>6161807
>>6161820
>>6161830
Jesus

>>6161830

>fudging the issue because you've backed yourself into a corner

It's not even my fight m8, so I'll just watch you writhe.

File: c2Jius3.gif (1MB, 458x296px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 458x296px

>>6161807
>It's the President throwing out the first pitch.
Sure, if you don't want to look at it on any other deeper level, that's all it is.

>>6161840
Hurt butt.

>>6161835

Actually this true, just look up the history of pro football in the UK, they started out as amateur athletic clubs that gradually became professional. Chomsky's theory is disconnected from reality.

>>6161853

What else is it? It was the first World Series post 9/11, The President showing that the country can move on, like a leader is supposed to, how better than to do it at the final game of America's past time?

Please tell me.

>>6161857
First of all, why do you keep mentioning the UK when the conversation was pretty clearly about the US? Second,
>they started out as amateur athletic clubs
>that gradually became professional
Do you understand there is a difference? Do you understand that literally no one said that all sports are diversionary? Do you understand that all professional sports leagues are privately owned for-profit businesses regardless if people did it for free before there were professional leagues?

>>6161871
Look at this article as just one of many examples:
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/24295806/

Important part at the end:
>The United States of America won that night and once again I was forever reminded that patriotism and baseball go hand in hand.

That wasn't a one-off sort of thought...many people figured the same thing. Moreover, it made lots of sports fans respect George Bush (regardless of their personal ideology) simply because she showed he could throw a strike.

File: tank man 5.jpg (80KB, 1097x689px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1097x689px

>>6161902
>she
he*

>>6161857

So because Manchester United started out as Accrington Stanley or whatever, you don't think that they can be used for diversionary tactics now, despite the fact that they're clearly run by massive international megacorporations for profit and to their own agendas?

You're the most tragically deluded kind of footy fan, all teary-eyed at the traditions, a slave to the history, and queueing every Saturday to spend half a week's wages indoctrinating your kids into the same fuzzy bullshit.

Even when it's not deliberately distracting, the edifice of professional sport is extremely useful to the ruling powers as it diverts and diffuses dissent and analysis, leaving the people to chatter about that penalty decision what a diabolical liberty and not that government decision what a diabolical liberty.

>And since chatter about sport gives the illusion of interest in sport, the notion of practicing sport becomes confused with that of talking sport; the chatterer thinks himself an athlete and is no longer aware that he doesn’t engage in sport. And similarly he isn’t aware that he could no longer engage in it, because the work he does, when he isn’t chattering, tires him and uses up both the physical energy and the time required for sports activities.

- Umberto Eco

>So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.

- George Orwell

>>6161943
I think we finally defeated them.

>>6161943
>>And since chatter about sport gives the illusion of interest in sport, the notion of practicing sport becomes confused with that of talking sport; the chatterer thinks himself an athlete and is no longer aware that he doesn’t engage in sport. And similarly he isn’t aware that he could no longer engage in it, because the work he does, when he isn’t chattering, tires him and uses up both the physical energy and the time required for sports activities.
>- Umberto Eco
>>So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.
>- George Orwell


Both of these are ignorant quotes. The Orwell one is especially odious.

Among The Thugs is far more insightful.

>>6161943
>>Even when it's not deliberately distracting, the edifice of professional sport is extremely useful to the ruling powers as it diverts and diffuses dissent and analysis, leaving the people to chatter about that penalty decision what a diabolical liberty and not that government decision what a diabolical liberty.

>the ruling powers

kek you live in even more of a fantasy land than the most teary eyed footy fan.

Just because you are only capable of one track thinking doesn't mean everyone else is.

Who's to say they don't talk about the penalty and the gov decision? You need to get down to the pitch more often mate.

>>6161902
>Moreover, it made lots of sports fans respect George Bush

The President deserves respect regardless of your personal ideology.

>>6162181

I think I found the stupidest person on /lit/

what should I do with him/it

>>6162181
>The President deserves respect

hurr durr

>>6162207

He does, just as any person does, you sociopath.

>>6162264

'Respect' is just another behavioral norm prescribed by the prevailing social order and the dominant modes of discourse

respect my fat cock, slaveboy

>>6162161

>muh unwarranted sense of superiority
>muh posturing
>muh utterly typical lack of textual support or argument

Fuck off.

>>6162285

>textual

fuck off shitposter

>>6162174
>Who's to say they don't talk about the penalty and the gov decision?

>You need to get down to the pitch more often mate.

Nice assumptions kid. I actually used to play semi-professional football.(Coalville Town, since you ask, come on you Ravens).

I also drink in pubs, talk to strangers and generally hang about because I am a garrulous fuck, and I know for a fact that the vast majority of people who can name the back four at Arsenal can't name three members of the cabinet, so don't come the cunt with me.

File: 2muchsnoop.png (75KB, 983x1013px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 983x1013px

>>6162289

10/10 response. Would upvote.

>Among The Thugs is far more insightful.
>I'm not going to prove it
>I prefer people to think I'm just another /lit/ idiot
>fuck off shiposter

>>6159268
>What's so great about him?
He was a Jew from a certified "good Jewish family".
Apart from that, nothing. His theories and his sloppy thinking have been disproven years ago.

(Talking about his crackpot linguistics theories, of course; who cares what he thinks about politics.)

>>6162275

How is grade 9 going?

>>6159288
Yeah, and then stagnated it

>muh competence
>muh I-language
>corpora are bad guize, you gotta pull results out of your ass instead

>>6159410
It is pretty fucking obsolete, obviously. Now, of course the only liberty to be had is economic,and that cannot be for everybody by the way things stand. In the future, as technology exponentially marches forward, the welfare state will win out. It is inevitable, and for the first in the history of mankind, true liberty will exist.

>>6159513
People with free money will enjoy freedom as no other society has enjoyed before. How could you even deny this is so? That's like saying people who go to buffets are the hungriest people there are. You see, ultimately this is what the government, etc want you to believe. You fools who buy the lies have been bamboozled. Open your minds, fools.

>>6159268
calls socialism state capitalism and claims the banned weed because poor people use it forgetting they banned alcohol and that poor people use alcohol to. I think he really is the alex jones of the left. He has sources but his interpretations or crazy sometimes.

>>6160577
>For example Chomsky claims things like the NFL, NBA were created to distract the masses.
Of course they are and I dont need Chomsky or whomever to point it out to me. It's painfully obvious that that and alcohol are meant to keep man from thinking and rebelling again their economic masters. Think about all the masses that make it a daily incident not to think. Then think about what fills their minds instead.

>>6161463
>first of all there is no way to know what people think
Lol, you're stupid if you don't know what people are thinking. Get on my level, peasant.

>>6161475
Well, we are talking about him, yo.

>>6161779
But you know, its just fucking obvious. I mean, fucking alcohol too.

>>6162174
But its funny to us that you don't see it. You're like a blind man describing the world around us, and we're jus sitting here, saying, "Oh, really," and giggling at your antics. That's how ridiculous you sound, lol.

>>6162264
On the contrary, he deserves less respect and a lot more scrutiny, and held to a higher standard.

>>6161830
Lol look at the pussy whos trying to change the subject

>>6161531
Why do you suddenly start talking about falsifiability as if it were more than a meme? You realize you probably don't have any falsifiable political opinions, right? And how is Zizek more of a modernist than Chomsky?

>>6162642
But then anything that wouldn't be some deep analysis of state affairs becomes some conspiracy.

some people think their subconscious has been programmed to control them and then they revolt by becoming furries. You have no masters and anyone can be your master some asshole form outside can come in here with a knife and order me around. Yes truth is constructed but what would you do construct a truthier truth.

>>6162635
freedom has been constrained by scarcity and consequences the left has decided to make metaphysics real in the physical world.

>>6161555
That isn't even a particularly excellent critique, intentionality is as arbitrary a way of assessing moral blameworthiness as body counts are.
Harris thinks the Middle-East should be completely glassed and says so whenever he has the chance, and he has the gall to put himself above Chomsky morally?
Chomsky is an atheistic Jew who plays an important role in American discourse by reminding us that we should have scruples and try to improve the ethical fabric of our nation. Harris is an atheistic Jew who doesn't care how many people America kills, as long as they're theists it's fine, and as long as theists are being murdered, things must be going well.

Sam Harris is a douchebag. So is Chomsky, but Chomsky knows it and turns it into something appealing. Harris is just smug.

>>6162731
I don't understand people like you. Everything the State does to control the population's emotions and opinions has to be a 'conspiracy?'

>>6162738
>the left has decided to make metaphysics real in the physical world.
Lolwut, is this about Marx's epistemology or are you actually stupid?

>>6162639

This, also everything is equal in is world view, also thinks humans have free will. I don't think he knows the word subtlety.

>>6162742
>Harris thinks the Middle-East should be completely glassed

Citation?

>>6162747
its not anything because their idea of world were freedom exists doesn't really exist except in the afterlife.

>>6162742
>Harris is an atheistic Jew who doesn't care how many people America kills, as long as they're theists it's fine, and as long as theists are being murdered, things must be going well.


What is an opinion.

>>6162744

I don't understand people like you that think everything is easily controlled and everything goes according to plan. Let me guess you think 9/11 is an inside job?

>>6162756
>The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
>>6162757
So you think the world is totally free as it is?

>>6162761
Actually that's what he says in most of his videos. Compared with Chomsky he looks particularly callous.

>>6162738
But scarcity is manufactured. It doesn't actually exist. In instances where it can be said to exist, it can be easily overcome with manpower and technology and capital all of which we have in abundance.

>>6162731
Does it matter whether it began as conspiracy or not? If it is being used as such, does it not become conspiracy? If it is known to be deleterious and pernicious to the advancement of society and for the profit of a few, and nothing is done about this, is it not conspiracy? If the events occur, does it even matter if it is conspiracy or not? It doesn't because the outcome is the same regardless.

>>6162793
>ZEITGEIST
You realize that it makes the argument that there limited resources so we need a central plan to preserve them and form this they somehow become endless.

No it can't scarcity is absolute. Technology cannot change that and capital is the thing thats scarce.

>>6162731
Yes, construct a truthier truth. What the fuck else are you supposed to do? Have you no morals, man? The opposite is anathema, to bow down to oppression. Christ, dude, lets have some fucking courage instead.

>>6162774

Might want brush up on your reading comprehension.

>>6162731
>But then anything that wouldn't be some deep analysis of state affairs becomes some conspiracy.
Of course not, there are degrees to things and sports, in themselves are not a bad thing. The opposite is true. They're great. But that doesn't mean you can't build a hierarchy of importance. You should. Everyone should. Every day, I make a conscious decision to prioritize every thing. The goddamn superbowl is very very low on my list. I look down on people who go apeshit during football season because it tells me at least one thing: That they for large swaths of time stop analyzing. I appreciate my brain and the world too much to do the same.

>>6162804
>Update
Yes, obviously, resources are limited, but that's not the same kind of scarcity drives consumerism. The only scarcity that actually does exist is energy, and even that is being held back, purposely, as of it were a conspiracy, except that its happening right in front of our faces. Everything else, from plastics to food to houses, we have the resources to supply the world with. Or do we not?

>>6162810
He advocates a first strike against any nuclear Muslim state. I was exaggerating before but I'm not wrong.

>>6159268
his insight.

>>6162804
I mean, if you want to talk about absolutes....but that's not the real issue. The real issue is whether we have the capacity to stretch it out. I say we do. Clearly, we do. The infrastructure and the resources are there already. Then the issue is not whether we should or not. We should. The issue is why aren't we, and what mechanism is preventing this. It is here that the problem becomes a cultural one. How to convince people that this issue. And you know what mostly gets in the way? The simple, apparently magical, religious series of words...economics, capitalism, and then in a secondary fashion, yes, football and beer, all of which are ideas that fight against critical thinking.

>>6162819
No one has a problem with sports.
Millions of dollars are spent on professional sports every year to keep the masses happy. No one is saying sports are necessarily evil. You're an itiot.

>>6162845

Islam and western liberal democracy are not compatible.

>>6162845

You are wrong.

>>6162862
I agree. So does Harris, which was his point.
>>6162866
Really? Do you have an argument to back that up? I at least have a citation.

>>6162854
I am saying professional sports are necessarily evil. I have a problem with them. Chomsky has a problem with them. Other, earlier anons in this thread have a problem with them. And they're also like the quintessential symbol of a decadent society that unabashedly denigrates lower classes, and callously dismisses the poor and hungry, and then and this is besides the point, kind of, has the nerve to call itself Christian, so what lies at the heart of all of this is the willingness of its participants to shut its eyes to the truth of the economically enslaved world. And why? Because we are comfortable, and are afraid to lose that comfort. Maybe that's because we haven't earned this comfort. Maybe because they don't realize that comfort cannot be taken away. And all of these things are known, I guarantee it. If I can figure this out without Chomsky, without zeitgeist, the guys with the billions of dollars can too, and my only question of them that I posit us how do they justify their cavalier callousness, because somewhere in the forefront of their consciousness floats a set of ideas that justifies their belief that ultimately they deserve wealth more than others. Or what may be likely, that wealth breeds sociopathy

>>6162874

Come now. That's contextually evil at worst.

>>6162880
Evil is huge word, I agree. So how about irresponsible, callous, morally diminutive, purposely ignorant, sick in the head, a spirit torn asunder, madness. So really, what's the difference?

>>6162889

I'm kind of curious how professional sports is necessarily a spirit torn asunder.

>>6162880
I want to point out that I said sports are good, btw, and that what I applied your comment to was the fact of everything. But you are lax in your verbage; at best, it is contextually evil. At worse, there is a conspiracy afoot, yet anyone will admit, including yourself, that those at the top are doing every thing they can to, at the very least, keep their cycle going, and that's what the whole conversation is about. Q.E.D.

>>6162896
Like I said, not sports. The billionaire's moral dilemma, I posit, tears their souls to pieces.

>>6162827
>>6162853
What your implying doesn't need some giant one world state it would require nothing more than "freeish" trade. Every nation could make its own homes or plastics. Scarcity is not manufactured, poverty is a natural state we manufacture out of scarcity, Capitalists destroy scarcity. What gets in the way is Food Aid to Africa that put farmers out of business so people can't even feed themselves or foreign investors because they will exploit everyone yet they are good enough for us, among, tariffs taxes, state owned whatever and obstructive laws in general. Your idea is that everyone else is poor because the west is rich, which is most static pie thinking socialist garbage I have ever heard.

>>6162899
>>6162904

I somehow mistook the main body of your post for a massive tangent. My mistake.

>>6162911
I dont understand why you have to compartmentalize strategies into one world states or freeish trade. Frankly the first would work better than the second for what could africa really trade? Okay so they have those minerals but we bamboozle them out of those anyways, not paying the actual value of those minerals. The same goes with their oil but even then. So yeah, scarcity exists for them. They cannot build their own plastics or houses or anything. Even if they do have the resources, they're too corrupt and violent to do it. But we could do it. Build their homes, send them corn, hold their hands. But you know africa is a special case. I do know that Latin America is poorer because of the united states. I know that poor people within the united states are poorer because of the rich. This could be said of almost every country in the world except some of the socialist european countries, Nepal not a long time ago. And that's what I was talking about and this is so true that only brain washed 18 yo conservatives would argue otherwise with their trickle down voodoonomics, free trade is infallible, and "job creator" soundbytes, ... all of which are ridiculous, sophomoric arguments. And that's not socialist anything. I certainly dont mean it to be. It is merely an honest accounting of the economic state of the nation.

>>6162937

Why can't we go back to the good ol' days when our underclasses were easy to ignore?

>>6162943
Oh, you mean when they had manufacturing jobs and the real underclasses were immigrant farm laborers (whom we easily ignored)? No yeah, we took those away because fuck the blacks, then we gave them crack, and then we put them in prison S they couldn't bitch as much and then charged the taxpayer a shit ton so yet another honky could by divine right enjoy his new begotten wealth.

>>6162956

>we gave them crack

Do you often post on /x/ as well?

>>6162958
Meh?....Do you honestly believe a black dude came up with the idea to take cocaine and chemically change the molecule to create a faster uptake? Is that what you're trying to sell me? Cause that doesn't exactly sound probable either.

>>6162958
No, I've never been to /x/. /b/, yes. tv, sometimes but its been boring over there of late. I might check it out though. Yeah, I'm a cultural-social sleuth. Come at me.

>>6162970

It's just a crystallized freebase. It takes a high school understanding of chemistry to understand how it works, and not a lot more to figure out the process on your own. It's not exactly methamphetamine.

Beside the point, the 'we' thing strongly suggests conspiracy.

>>6162989
Oh no yeah, conspiracies are usually lagged at and dismissed. But considering afaik the mysterious origins of crack and considering what the CIA had been up to until this point, assassinations of world leaders, politics coups, puppet governments, literally strong arming other countries, would you really put that, crack introduction, past them? And its been a long time, but we were never taught how to freebase in chemistry and I took AP, and even had we done so who soul have known what effects it would have? Anywho, the probability that a low income student came up wit the idea vs. the probability that a professional came up with the idea are decidedly one sided

>>6163029
Considering that you haven't actually provided any evidence that the CIA introduced crack to cities or proven that it's impossible to make crack without federal funding, nothing seems particularly one-sided yet.

>>6163044
Except that the results fit a well known, well used social engineering tool. Applying Okkams razor, statistics analysis, lead me to conclude that things are being manufactured at city hall.

File: All you need.jpg (83KB, 640x765px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x765px

>>6163029

The process is so simple that end users often do it themselves. Not just any schlub could figure out how to do it themselves, but it wouldn't even take a professional chemist to figure it out (and a professional chemist could figure it out in minutes).

Not that I have to make a plausible case for the origins of crack. The official story makes perfect sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic

>>6161676
To be honest I think this is something we ought to do with a lot of philosophers. Would spark up a bit the Religion of Philosophy.

>>6163055

>Occam's razor suggests there's a far-reaching government conspiracy at play

Pro tip: Occam's Razor never ever ever suggests there's a far-reaching government conspiracy at play. In fact, this is pretty much the shit that Occam's Razor was created for.

>>6159389
>most
>who is Karl Marx

>>6163081

Not particularly prolific.

>>6163072
I know how to make crack. I'm not an idiot. There's a distinction between making crack and inventing crack. Anyone smart enough to invent it was 99% less likely to use drugs in the first place, so the initial maker wasn't a user.

>>6163083

Or contemporary, come to think of it.

>>6163079
Occams razor states that the easiest solution is the most likely, not to be confused with the simplest solution, however

>>6163055
>Except that the results fit a well known, well used social engineering tool.
All the same, you don't have evidence. You're starting from the assumption that your theory is true without actual evidence, which is bad practice under all circumstances.
>Applying Okkams [sic] razor, statistics analysis, lead me to conclude that things are being manufactured at city hall.
Actually, Occam's razor probably wouldn't support the idea that a covert government agency is responsible for poor black people in inner cities getting addicted to drugs. It seems like living in conditions of poverty that persist and intensify over time would probably make people more likely to do crack, and it seems like this explanation is simpler than or as simple as the one you're simply assuming is correct. You can blame the government if you want but without evidence you're probably going to have a hard time convincing anyone, and if you actually want to do something about the inner city's drug problem you might want to consider the possibility that your conclusions are based on theories, but not facts.

>>6163095
No, you've got that backwards. The simplest explanation is most likely. You're an idiot.
Also, how would the CIA being responsible for crack be 'easier' than any of the countless alternative possibilities?

>>6163099
Also, what statistics have you analyzed?

>>6163099
>You're starting from the assumption that your theory is true without actual evidence,
It's called induction and is a sound logical manner of proof.
Blah, blah, the truth is we'll never know and if I could enact change I'd be some sort of something I'm not. Good night

>>6163113

An analysis of how many posts one makes before the people they're arguing with get bored and leave. We're about to hit critical mass here.

>>6163106
There's a diff between simplest and seemingly simplest. Often, the simplest is not actually the simplest because at first glance one does not have all the accessible information

>>6163116
>It's called induction and is a sound logical manner of proof.
It doesn't really seem like induction, it seems like you want to believe a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you don't have good reasons to believe this.
>>6163118
>There's a diff between simplest and seemingly simplest
What does that have to do with anything?
>Often, the simplest is not actually the simplest because at first glance one does not have all the accessible information
So what information don't we have access to?

>>6159268
>What's so great about him?
nothing. he's a hack. he doesn't even trust science

>>6163072

I've got like half a gramme of coke knocking around somewhere that I can't use because of nose problems, do I really just need some baking soda to make some crack? How much crack would I get?

I've never actually had crack.

>>6160461
Great vid
Interviewer gets instarekt after every question

>>6161382
Sports provide emotional catharsis. It's as useless as art.

>>6161567
>Are you really claiming you know what people think?
Way to miss the point again. Nowhere did I say that.

>>6161560
>Marx was a depressed loner, wasting his days in the library, no one benefits from reading him.
>You are a depressed loner wasting your days on 4chan, no one benefits from reading you.
I love the pathetic lack of self-awareness here. Only a moron would dismiss Marx, regardless of your politics.

Marx's writings has been used in a Machiavellian manner to game the system which was not his intent; the system gamers convinced the rest of us not to read Marx as they knew it could be used to see through their antics. As it stands, Marx, Ricardo, and Smith's writings have been used deleteriously by the unscrupulous.

>>6160598
>>6160488
Here you go:
http://youtu.be/_HfEKKkaTdk?t=36m18s

>>6163123
You know, and neither can I prove that's the case, so wtf are you yelling at me about?!?! But don't turn around and say that corporations didn't take manufacturing jobs away, called it economics, screwed every one out of a functioning economy, and got away with it with terms like GDP, free trade, etc. And here I am 30 years later, hoping to find a job, even though something like <25% of the population remains incarcerated.

>>6163580
>You know, and neither can I prove that's the case, so wtf are you yelling at me about?!?!
Your stupidity. As a history student, I'm literally offended by the quality of your reasoning and argentation.
But don't turn around and say that corporations didn't take manufacturing jobs away, called it economics, screwed every one out of a functioning economy, and got away with it with terms like GDP, free trade, etc.
They did that, yeah, but I know that because I've seen numbers about job losses, read some Marx, and I've got a basic understanding of what neoliberalism is. Having seen data and analyzed information, I can arrive at a conclusion that I'm willing to change if my evidence and argumentation are proven to be faulty.
You, on the other hand, want the CIA to be behind crack. Your reasoning? Black people aren't good enough at chemistry to make crack, so it must have been the government.
You're an idiot. Your punctuation, spelling, and grammar are terrible. You don't deserve an Internet connection.

File: Classy Paulie Blassie.png (127KB, 331x337px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 331x337px

>>6163592
>As a history student, I'm literally offended by the quality of your reasoning and argentation.
This is like the beginning of the Navy Seal meme.

Way to sound conceited right of the bat, anon.

I'm not the guy you were responding to, by the way, I just can't stand arrogance. You criticise his punctuation, spelling, and grammar but use the word "literally" in a redundant manner, spell "argumentation" wrong, use "yeah" mid-sentence, use the passive voice everywhere.

Try to keep a cool head and not set yourself up as some empirical authority -- then it will be harder to tear you to pieces.

>>6162275
Remember kids, Ideology is everything.

>>6160461

>realize that 4chan speak constitutes a unique written dialect
>one with often dramatically different grammatical conventions than Standard English
>tfw

>>6163613

What's so bad about passive voice? My teachers told me throughout primary school to avoid it, but they never made it clear why this was at all necessary.

>>6164350
It's less concise and looks more wishy-washy and non-committal.

I'm guilty of using it all the time--and it has its place, of course--however, if you're writing papers for college in most things, you'd be better served using the active voice.

Also, you get people trying to sound smart and refined by using a convoluted, affected, glibly wistful style of passive voice.

>>6164405
More here:
http://www.projectsharetexas.org/resource/activepassive-voice-more-complex-tenses-english-i-reading?

>>6163592
You can't use my blithe comments about crack and the CIA against me, lol, because I'm as serious about that as I am the 911 truthers. While I concede that the hypotheses are valid, it doesn't necessarily make them true. And frankly by the time we had started the crack cia convo, the real issue had already been resolved and I was just lolligagging around. So if you want to take those comments seriously by all means go right ahead but I will point out that I said drug users couldn't figure it out. I never said black people.
And the truth is whether conspiracy or not drugs and entertainment do keep the masses from rioting, and frankly so does incarceration, and that was my point. That and that the CIA is on fact capable and willing to pull some kind of shit like that. You disagree? Really? After all they've done to topple governments and strong arm other nations. But to do it to us, that's beyond their wheelhouse? I dont fucking think so, yo.

>>6163592
And I'm on fucking mobile, yo, so there's typos (because of the little screens and all), and there are all the idiot autocorrect decisions that I dont catch, so piss off about that.

>>6164405

That was more-or-less the argument I was given, and I'm still unconvinced, except on the pragmatic grounds that professors love to mark you down for passive voice, therefore passive voice is bad. Maybe I just don't get it, but I see it as a heuristic often blindly adhered to in the name of good style, and one that is questionably necessary in the first place.

File: fat controller laughed.jpg (37KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x400px

>>6164425

>While I concede that the hypotheses are valid, it doesn't necessarily make them true.

lovin every laugh

>>6164444
>except on the pragmatic grounds that professors love to mark you down for passive voice, therefore passive voice is bad.
I agree that it's silly in some instances and is arbitary. I was annoyed at first when professors kept calling me out on it, but then I implemented the active voice and it tightened up my writing and made it clearer.

Obviously, it's not advisable for fiction writing -- you use a variety of voices there.

There is a certain amount of subjectivity as to what consitutes god style, yes, but clarity is the most important thing for me, and anything that helps me make my argument in a clear, unconvoluted way, is great.

As with anything else, don't just dismiss it out of hand; you should learn how to write in the style and then you can choose to use it or not to use it. You need to familiarise yourself with all styles of writing, if only to avoid them.

>>6164444
The brain (the readers') assimilates clear, direct statements easier than wordy, cluttered, qualified, self-effacing statements with ambiguous truthiness, so the issue is more about making it easier for the reader to read rather than the writer's ability to communicate. It's a service, really.

File: 1371271790622.png (119KB, 217x230px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 217x230px

>>6164425
>>6163592
You two are a pair of fucking morons.

>>6160931
>Dershowitz
>the guy who lost a debate against Finkelstein and then later on made up some shit about Finkelstein's parents being nazi collaborators, and then tried to make Finkelstein lose his job as a lecturer

That kike deserves death I mean it

>>6164450
What, are they not ideas worth looking into? Or do you just swallow the party line, hook, line, and sinker? Critical thinking, I haz it.

>>6164486
>Hates someone
>Thinks they deserve death
Ah, basement dwellers.

>>6164485
Maybe, but I'm the cute one. :D

>>6162874
>the willingness of its participants to shut its eyes to the truth of the economically enslaved world

occupy bro

>>6164496
>ad hominem
Lol

>>6164486

I don't know anything about the people you're referring to, but it's odd to call someone a kike for slandering a man I can only assume is also Jewish.

Obligatory "He's good in linguistics but he's awful in politics" parroted /lit/ post.

>>6162889

confirmed for always last picked in gym class.

>>6160931
Chomsky made that little lying rat squirm, the whole debate was Chomsky and Dershowitz saying two contradictory facts and imploring the audiences to check the sources. Any non-lazy listener would have found that Chomsky was telling the truth.

>>6164486
He didn't just lose a debate to Finkelstein, Finkelstein exposed his book as a work of lies and plagiarism.

>>6162937
>Okay so they have those minerals but we bamboozle them out of those anyways, not paying the actual value of those minerals.

kek You aren't really up to date.

1st of all it's China buying the majority of African resources.

2. It's not the 1800's, don't imply Africans are stupid, the business leaders/politicians in Africa know the value of their resources, and are paid accordingly. They do not share these profits with the populace. They just tell the people they are being plundered by the west.

>>6162937
>I do know that Latin America is poorer because of the united states.

It definitely couldn't be due to self enriching, inept politicians could it?

>>6164528
I dont even know why I'm still in this thread, but what I was referring to (and I am by no means an expert on Africa) is that we are using their minerals for our electronics which makes them a really high commodity and as such are not being paid their actual value. Or maybe they are. Fuck. But all I hear about of Africa is how corrupt and violent they are. I dont believe anyone is inherently stupid, although I do believe large swaths of people can have lesser morals because the overarching culture they belong to is morally bankrupt.

>>6164535
It's definitely both though. 1995, Mexico is an excellent example of that particular case but whereas Salinas de Gotari made off with hundreds of millions, NAFTA remains punishing Mexican industry.

>>6164504
What a desperate attempt to try and claw back some self-respect.

You're a hyperbolic little prat. Live with it.

>>6163613
>Implying I've been torn to pieces
>Implying the other guy isn't a retard
>Implying I care if I come off as an asshole here
I keep a cool head when I'm discussing this kind of thing with my peers. Here, I purposely shit my pants.
There's nothing wrong with the passive voice, believe it or not.
Yeah, I use yeah mid sentence, yeah, is that an issue?
>It's less concise and looks more wishy-washy and non-committal.
It has its uses. When you want to talk about how something is influenced by other things, for instance

>>6164425
>but I will point out that I said drug users couldn't figure it out. I never said black people.
You meant 'black people,' don't pretend otherwise.
>And the truth is whether conspiracy or not drugs and entertainment do keep the masses from rioting, and frankly so does incarceration, and that was my point.
I don't understand this sentence. You seem illiterate. I'm also on a mobile so that isn't really an excuse.
>You disagree? Really?
No, I'm just saying g you haven't supplied Amy evidence.

>>6160559
disregarded opinion.

>>6164609

There's no need to dignify an opinion that the owner doesn't bother to support. It's different taste at best, and noise at worst.

Jesus Christ, the state of modern leftism.

Capitalism isn't a cabal of evil white people in suits sitting around a circular table with a holographic globe in the middle going "and how are we going to dupe the working classes today?"

I exaggerate what's going on in this thread a little, but not by much. It's a crude take on ruling class ideology that reads intentionality (and often, by extension, morality) into an extremely decentralized society, that transforms ideology into crude economism and looks at crass "material interest" as the source of capitalism's contradictions.

Go back to basics. Read the Manifesto again or something. I recommend the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, too. Chapter on the Trinity Formula in Vol. 3 of Capital is pretty tight.

Sports aren't an intentional diversion from capitalism any more than giggling at a random TV commercial is. It's an enjoyable activity that, like plenty of other things, gets commodified because it can make money.

The SI's concept of the spectacle is often read in the crude way that sees any behavior outside of "critique" (used, unfailingly, in a way that means "I point at things I don't like") as reactionary. It's not. It's just shit that happens. It's epiphenomenal.

It's also a fucking idealist, voluntarist position you got going on there, fucking utopians.

>>6164632

tl;dr: Bread and circuses don't make a lot of sense in a capitalist society.

>>6164647
Yeah, that works.

>>6159268
I like Chomsky on most things, but on Islam he's totally lost, just like most contemporary liberals and leftists the world over.

>>6164598
>>Implying I've been torn to pieces
Yes, I implied it. Well observed.
>>Implying the other guy isn't a retard
You both are.
>>Implying I care if I come off as an asshole here
I wasn't asking for decorum -- I don't care if people are being assholes. Being conceited about your supposed intellect and "mastery" of grammar, when you make a lot of mistakes yourself, is just kind of pathetic. It's fun to take smug pricks down.
>I keep a cool head when I'm discussing this kind of thing with my peers. Here, I purposely shit my pants.
Wow, well done. You realise how pathetic it is to let people rile you up on a message board? Also, "peers" is just a pretentious term outside of a work or college environment.
>There's nothing wrong with the passive voice, believe it or not.
Never said there was -- it's just strange how forceful you're trying to sound while using the passive voice.
>Yeah, I use yeah mid sentence, yeah, is that an issue?
Yeah, it makes you sound like you don't know how to construct, yeah, a sentence, yeah. If you're pausing to gather you thoughts, mid-sentence, don't type "yeah" like a fucking moron -- just wait, think, and continue typing. I don't want to read something as if it's coming out of the mouth of a West-Coast pothead.
>>It's less concise and looks more wishy-washy and non-committal.
>It has its uses. When you want to talk about how something is influenced by other things, for instance
As I said to another guy, the passive voice has its uses. In your case, you would have been served better with the active voice and you would have made your pomposity sparkle on the page.

>>6164632
>Capitalism isn't a cabal of evil white people in suits sitting around a circular table with a holographic globe in the middle going "and how are we going to dupe the working classes today?"

Christ. This old one.

As I said earlier in the thread, Marx famously said "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es," which translates to "they do not know it, but they are doing it." You'd benefit from reading him. People don't need to be aware of their classism, racism, sexism, pathology, etc. to actually partake in these things.

I think you have a simplistic worldview.

>>6164877
>You both are
Hey, why am I retarded?

>>6164944
Just read back over your comments. I conflated yours with someone else. While you lost your head, you're not a retard.

Sorry about that. The other guy is too conceited to ever actually debate anything with anyone.

Point me to all your comments in this thread. It gets a little chaotic further up the chain.

>>6164608
>You meant 'black people,' don't pretend otherwise.
But I specifically said drug users. Seriously, go up and check. But you know I'm right about everything. I dont know why your panties are all up in a bunch. Oh sure, you're such a cool headed guy, lol. You remind me of that little red headed kid from American Pie. You're just all wound up about nothing, even after agreeing with half if not most of things I've said, you weirdo, you.

>>6164632
if you're responding to people ITT, then fine. I haven't read the thread but you're an idiot for being drawn in.

But if you're commenting on politics in general then you're just an generally idiot.

The whole point of critiquing the capitalist system is because it's SYSTEMATIC. IN other words, it's to do with STRUCTURE not AGENCY.

Agency is the power of individuals. That would be your cabal of oppressive white men, complaints against which comprise your straw man of modern leftism.

Structure is the system of social relations between us - the state, the law and social convention. it's the political system through which we live and the economic system through which we trade.

The system is flawed in so far as it favours big over small. Big firms hog funding and hold unfair influence through lobbyists. they have advantage of expertise and man power to pursue their 'tax savings'. Similarly big states have clout to control smaller states.

Your issue isn't with leftism but with the direction of modern (italicized) leftism

>>6159268
He's babby's first introduction to leftist politics.

He's a good first step for many, but you've got to leave the crib one day.

Also, as far as philosophy goes, he's just a scientismist.

>>6164894
>I think you have a simplistic worldview.

And I think you see bogeymen everywhere. If your point is that sports are political, yes, clearly they are, in the trivial way that existing in capitalism is. That does take a little bit of analysis, though, so sure. Do states act in their own interest and sometimes use sporting interests to advance a particular image of themselves? Yeah. Do capitalists make money from sports? You betcha. People acting in their own interests, how conspiratorial.

Reading conspiracy and evil into it not only betrays the Marxist tradition of analysis by transforming ideology, as the expression of material conditions, into empty platitudes.

Do you think you're a clever guy because you can look on all those plebs who watch sporting events and go "how tragically deluded! I must denounce the evils of the world and bring to their attention all the PURE IDEOLOGY they are duped by!"

Voluntarist hogwash. You must see demons everywhere.

>>6165013
What is your point? I'm clearly taking issue with the points made by the other poster who thinks people who enjoy things are poor, duped proles who can't match his superior intellect and critique.

>The system is flawed in so far as it favours big over small. Big firms hog funding and hold unfair influence through lobbyists. they have advantage of expertise and man power to pursue their 'tax savings'. Similarly big states have clout to control smaller states.
Look at this babby-tier liberalism. Betcha think shopping local is really sticking it to the man.

>>6164632
I just wanted to interject and recommend reading on philosophy of media or philosophy of technology. I'm enjoying Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society right now.

>>6165035
>how conspiratorial.
>Reading conspiracy and evil into it not only betrays the Marxist tradition of analysis by transforming ideology, as the expression of material conditions, into empty platitudes.

Nowhere have I said anything about conspiracies. That would imply some kind of formalised system, hidden from public view. The machinations of late capitalism and now neoliberalism are available for all to see -- if you think capitalism is a benevolent force, think again. There are billions of people around the world living in squalor so the rest of us can live well -- I know you don't think that's connected, or that it's the fault of those countries for getting themselves into their mess, but it's not; global neoliberalism is a form of neocolonialism -- companies come in to a country, gut it of its resources, and leave having not contributed to the country in a meaninful way. US hegemony assures they get the good end of the deal with trade agreements.

Wait, you probably think the idea of hegemony--one of the cornerstones of political science--is conspiratorial.

>Do you think you're a clever guy because you can look on all those plebs who watch sporting events and go "how tragically deluded! I must denounce the evils of the world and bring to their attention all the PURE IDEOLOGY they are duped by!"
No, again, you're creating a strawman. I said earlier that Chomksy noted that there was a serious amount of high intelligence being used in analying sports, which is lamentable as it could be directed towards other things. No one is arguing against pleasures in life -- we could live without music, art, high cuisine, sport etc. but who would want to? You've missed the point so hard it's laughable. Keep digging that hole, baby.

>Voluntarist hogwash. You must see demons everywhere.
And you deal in absolutes. You think the market self-regulates, self-interest is a good thing etc.. You need to remember, buddy, you live in the West -- we are the colonisers. We have it better than the people in the third world. You do not know suffering -- you don't have to live on pittence. Please tell me how moralistic Capitalism is, and how it's the "best" system. It's one step away from serfdom. If people actually regulated the system so it didn't turn into a series of oligopolies which has led to an oligarchy, then it might work; as it stands, there is an illusion of competition. A handful of people control over 80% of capital. The other 10% is there for the rest of us to play with, and to make us feel like the system works. Go ahead and point to one or two "self-made men" stories -- anecdotal evidence is always the forte of people like you.

Pathetic.

>>6165085
typo: I meant to type 90%, not 80%.

>>6165091
And I'm 100% keking. Should have known I was dealing with a PoCo.

Keep thinking I'm reactionary scum, mate. By most accounts we're on the same side.

Keep peddling your voluntarist swill crying about how everyone is deluded but you, though.

>>6165149
Keep telling me I'm conspiratorial without any evicence and refuting the idea of malevolent actors in society without showing any evidence or pointing to any examples.

>And I'm 100% keking.
Look Mom! I won 4chan. Kek. Lel. Dank memes.
>Should have known I was dealing with a PoCo.
Assumptions.
>Keep thinking I'm reactionary scum, mate.
I will if you say so.
>By most accounts we're on the same side.
All "accounts"? Have people written about us? It's "by all counts," you fucking brain donor.
>Keep peddling your voluntarist swill crying about how everyone is deluded but you, though.
Where do you get this crap from?
You just make assumption after assumption. I know you're probably on the autism spectrum, or have BPD or NPD, but don't take it out on me. Just admit you have a lot to learn -- you're the one being a pompous know-it-all on here. I'm just taking you down a peg as it's apparant you've got a lot of insecurities, probably as a result of NPD.

Also, way to not respond to any of my points. I must have hit a nerve. You have no responses to my arguments other than "I'm 100% keking."
It's apparant to all that you're not as smart as you think you are.

>>6165149
You just fall back on platitudes, mate. It's weak. At least engage the arguments.

>>6159268

Nothing. Like Zizek he sells the semi-educated class an outsized parody of himself, built on studies in which the result is known far, far in advance (the US = bad, the rich = bad, flavor of the month autocrat = good). Churning out simplified and predictable analysis for the masses certainly isn't something to admire, no matter how many disciples you create out of it.

File: chomsky quote1.jpg (119KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 620x413px

>>6162576
>I-language isn't a cornerstone of linguistics
So does language just float around in "culture" then?

>>6164954
Yikes, I'm about to be judged. I'll try to put these in order but I'm on mobile and that's probably going to be impossible, but here goes:
>>6162625
>>6162642
>>6162635
>>6162656
>>6162681
>>6162684
>>6162738
>>6162653
>>6162667
>>6162793
>>6162800
>>6162806
>>6162819
>>6162827
>>6162853
>>6162874
>>6162889
>>6162899
>>6162904
>>6162937
>>6162956
>>6162970
>>6162975
>>6163029
>>6163055
>>6163084
>>6163095
>>6163116
>>6163118
>>6163580
>>6164425
>>6164432
>>6164482
>>6164488
>>6164499
>>6164571
>>6164581
>>6164944
>>6164966

>>6164608
>I don't understand this sentence
So your defense is that you can't read English? Is it the three letter conjunctions that are giving you a problem? Is it the conversational tone? Is English not your first language? And were you, or were you not undergoing a hysterical episode at that moment?

> tfw studying linguistics on my own time

> go to my computer science class

> whole class was about regular expressions and chomsky hierarchies

good feel

>>6164632
>Capitalism isn't a cabal of evil white people in suits sitting around a circular table with a holographic globe in the middle
Lol, tfw there actually is a semi secret cabal of the richest people in the world meeting periodically in redwood forests of California. Then there's Alec, the g7s, etc, the world bank, imf, ... le open your eyes, yo.

File: 1423465514486.jpg (69KB, 680x449px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 680x449px

>>6165729

>>6165729
>tfw Bilderburgers
>tfw Bohemian Grove
>tfw Illuminati
>tfw freemasons

People don't realize how centralized and controlled things really are.

>>6164966
>But you know I'm right about everything.
Yes, I do, I just enjoy abusing people on 4chan.
>>6165707
You don't seem to know how to use the word 'whether,' is all.

>>6165740
Are you calling me a cigarette smoking, coffee drinker. I hate the fact that I used to be just that, twice in my life; once, because I was young and didn't know any better, and another time to cope with some pretty heavy duty stress. Never again.

>>6165772
>You don't seem to know how to use the word 'whether,' is all.
Nah, you're totally wrong there. It's perfectly used.

>>6165761
You only undermine your point listing the "Illuminati," et al. Just mention the tangible, like the Bilderberg Group, the World Economic Forum etc.

Also, the Marx adage stands (i.e. they know not what they do) -- people are greedy and have embraced rampant neoliberalism in the vain attempt to succeed. Read Hardt & Negri's Empire to understand the world we live in today, as well as any important work on Neoliberalism.

>>6165805
how to quit

>>6165831
>Negri

The height of idealist "Marxist" posturing.

>>6165838
Fine, if you won't go down that route, read Piketty. It's a fascinating read; well researched, structured and argued.

>>6165850
Piketty's central thesis regarding the rate of return on capital is at odds with Marx's claim that, though one mustn't disregard countervailing tendencies, the rate of profit has a tendency to fall i.e. the rate of return on capital shrinks with capital investment. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a central Marxist thesis, with substantial work being done by Kliman and others in substantiating it empirically.

You only get to choose one.

>>6165850
So I'm the anon with that long list of posts. I was wondering if you could recommend some books for me on this general subject? Please? I have plenty of thoughts on this subject but they're not as formalized or as well-cited as yours, nor are they as well structured as yours but I had a bad night last night and I'm not at my best right now.

>>6165859
>You only get to choose one.
Way to reduce Marx down to one element.

Marx gave us a wealth of terms applicable to poli-sci, critical theory, sociology, historiography, economics etc.
He gave us concepts like "reification," "alienation," and warned us of the accumulation of capital, showed the machinations of capitalism though labour surpluss. I could go on. He also led to the neo-Marxists, who expanded on his work.

Piketty doesn't invalidate Marxism. Also, if I were a slavish follower of dogmatic Marxism, you'd rightfully criticse that. Dogmatism to some -ism is very unhealthy. Marx's theories should be explored and invalidated, if necessary. We don't need to hold onto old things, believeing them if they're false, as if he was infallible.

>>6165873
He's bad at what he purports to know.

Read Mattick Jr.

>>6165859
I don't think, w/o having done a ton of theoretical work on the subject, but I don't think those two theses are necessarily incompatible. You just need to take a sufficiently broad line of understanding on the question of countervailing tendencies.

>>6165893
Unlike you, the binarised "you only get to pick one" guy. Are you as dogmatic in everything?

>>6165873
Unlike that other guy, I wouldn't suggest reading just one viewpoint. Read a few, and see where you stand -- although, read critically, always keeping in mind what the author's intent was -- who is he writing to? Who benefits from this? What are the false assumptions here? Is this normative/utopian/fallacious in some way? etc.

Personally, I could give you a list of varied things I would read to understand the world today, but they would be dispirate.

Here's some:

Overviews of Max Weber and Georg Simmel's work -- you can just read their theories. No need to bog yourself in their work.
Overview of some Marxian theories.
The Fedralist Papers.
Payne's "Common Sense" (not because it's correct, or anything, but it's good to see the founding mythology of the US)
William Appleman Williams' "Empire as a Way of Life"
Snyder's "Imperial Temptations"
Some Ikenberry and Mearsheimer to get a Realist perspective on International Relations (they're Machiavellian hardliners, and I don't agree with them, but they need to be read in order to understand US Foreign Policy of the past Century).
Also, go to JSTOR and search for topics you're interested in.
Or see what academic books are available in a field you're interested in. Don't worry about trying to read everything -- it's better to read one thing closely, and to understand it, than to skim dozens of texts.

>>6165891
Strip away central Marxist analytical claims and what you get is a hodgepodge of nonsense. You're a voluntarist because you want to read Marx as a moral philosopher calling on people to realize the evils of capitalism, rather than what he was: a theorist attempting to understand capitalism and refute its central claims through the critique of political economy.

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is central to Marx's critique of political economy, because it is one of the key tenets of Marx's analytical claims: the tendency of capitalism towards crisis. Capital accumulation is a "problem" because, while capitalists are attempting to increase their own wealth, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall squeezes their rate of return on capital. This introduces a problem of realization--transforming invested variable and fixed capital into money capital.

If you've read Marx to any degree, you should be familiar with the general form of the circuit of capital, M - C - P - C' - M'. A part of M' must be reinvested into the production cycle, but if M is not available--because C' cannot be converted to money capital, perhaps, or reinvestment into the circuit of capital seems unprofitable--capitalist crisis occurs. Modern economics calls this the boom and bust cycle and blames animal spirits, real business cycle theorists consider it part of exogenous shocks. Marxist critique of political economy, via the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, locates the contradiction in the heart of capitalist logic. That's the dialectic at work.

You drop that, you drop the critique of political economy and the entire Marxist project that rests on it--including, of course, class struggle and communism as the real movement to abolish the present state of things. Oh, sure, you might be left with some fancy words like "reification" and "fetish", oooh, but unless you locate that in the analysis of capitalism and not mamby pamby "critical theory", that's not Marxism.

>>6165956
>You're a voluntarist
Is this your buzzword for the week, mate? You seem to be suffering from some kind of disorder where you repeat yourself a lot.

>>6165956
>You're a voluntarist because you want to read Marx as a moral philosopher calling on people to realize the evils of capitalism, rather than what he was: a theorist attempting to understand capitalism and refute its central claims through the critique of political economy.

He wasn't refuting Capitalism as a fucking academic exercise, mate. So, you're going to ignore Marx's emotive language like "the oppressed" etc.

Christ.

You're just on a tear to discredit a great body of work. If you can't see the worth in it, I can't help you, but I won't go into any more myopic argument with you where you wilfully ignore or disregard things that don't fit your argument. You use weasel words everywhere and you expect me to take any criticism you have of Marx's social theories seriously? Get real.

I think your batteries are leaking.

>>6165902
They're centrally opposed. Piketty attempts to refute the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as a general tendency in capitalism at length, claiming, as many others have before him, that technology is the magical key to increasing rates of return on capital c.f. Okishio.

Marx recognizes technology as a short term countervailing tendency, but that's the very dialectical reasoning he's using in his analysis of capital: it's the investment into technology in order to gain short-term profits over competitors that causes the rate of profit to fall because of increased investment costs.

>>6165982
I took it for granted you knew what that word meant from the start, but I guess not. It's from a long-running debate in Marxism regarding historical materialism and the extent to which people can influence historical events, particularly in advancing the class struggle, within the material conditions. You know, "men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please".

>>6166001
Looks like we got a utopian idealist spouting their unjustified metaphysics over here.

>>6166004
>I took it for granted you knew what that word meant from the start, but I guess not. It's from a long-running debate in Marxism regarding historical materialism and the extent to which people can influence historical events, particularly in advancing the class struggle, within the material conditions. You know, "men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please".
I know what it means. You just keep repeating and repeating it, as if saying it will make it more true about me. I think Marx had a word for that.... oh yeah, reification.

Also, your dismissal of Critical Theory as "mamby pamby" is subjective and irrelevant. I can tell you're a poli-sci know it all, falsification fetishist.

"You can have one or the other"

Your mind is binarised.

>>6166004
>Looks like we got a utopian idealist spouting their unjustified metaphysics over here.
Glib.

Critique it or just stop wasting my time. As I said here: >>6166024 I can tell you're a poli-sci know it all, falsification fetishist. Either that or an overbearing positivistic econonomist.

>>6166024
Looks like having contradictory ideas and refusing to reconcile them is in vogue with the left again.

Protip: I'm on the left, and a Marxist.

>as if saying it will make it more true about me.

It clearly is true.

>>6166032
>Protip: I'm on the left, and a Marxist.
Ah, so you are a dogmatist.

This is why you can't see anyone reconsiling things with Marxism. You're a literalist, who thinks texts are like holy scripture.

Good luck with your intransigence.

Linguistics

He's white and old

>>6166040
Pfft. Exegesis is not a priority of mine, but I know someone spouting bullshit claiming it's Marxism when I see it. I also see flimsy, contradictory ideas masquerading as "theory" when I see it.

>>6166057
>Exegesis is not a priority of mine
I was right: your batteries are leaking.

Ok so, you have no agency and seem to be against interpretation beyond your own and the evolution or Marxism.

>I also see flimsy, contradictory ideas masquerading as "theory" when I see it.
Give me examples. I may have presented some neo-Marxist theory alongside Marxist theory, but I am working from within modern Marxian though; we're not all slavish dogmatists insisting on positivistic, "empirical," or structuralist readings of Marx.

Please stop being so solipsistic and trying to force your flawed methodology onto others.

>>6166078
CORRECTED TYPOS: (I typed too quickly)
>Exegesis is not a priority of mine
I was right: your batteries are leaking.

Ok so, you have no agency and seem to be against interpretation beyond your own and against the evolution of Marxism.

>I also see flimsy, contradictory ideas masquerading as "theory" when I see it.

Give me examples. I may have presented some neo-Marxist theory alongside Marxist theory, but I am working from within modern Marxian thought; we're not all slavish dogmatists insisting on positivistic, "empirical," or structuralist readings of Marx.

Please stop being so solipsistic and trying to force your flawed methodology onto others.

>>6166057
Engels wants a word with you and your dogmatism.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/189094

File: 1421255033512.jpg (116KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x533px

>>6166078
>disclaiming positivism and empiricism
>still claiming to be a Marxist

This is what critical theory wankers actually believe.

>Give me examples

For one thing, your attempt to hold in your head at the same time the empirical claims of Piketty with Marx's analytical claims about capitalism.

If you think you're a Marxist and find yourself comfortable with Piketty's lukewarm condemnation of "inequality" (which, I'll give him, follow directly from his empirical conclusions, so he's consistent on that front), you've misunderstood one or the other.

>tfw there are Maoists in this thread RIGHT NOW

>>6166121
>This is what critical theory wankers actually believe.
So much anger. Did a critical theorist break your heart? I'm used to poli-sci people being smug, but you take the biscuit.

>>Give me examples
>For one thing, your attempt to hold in your head at the same time the empirical claims of Piketty with Marx's analytical claims about capitalism.
Unlike you, I don't deal in absolutes. It's impossible for unfalsifiable statements/ideas to be empirical.
And I didn't "disclaim" positivism and empiricism -- I use it all the time. I put empiricism in scare quotes, which you missed, implying it was YOUR subjective empiricism that you're taking as fact.

>If you think you're a Marxist and find yourself comfortable with Piketty's lukewarm condemnation of "inequality" (which, I'll give him, follow directly from his empirical conclusions, so he's consistent on that front), you've misunderstood one or the other.
This is where you fucking launched off from. At no point did I say it was an all-encompasing solution of a book. You set up an easy strawman there, buddy. I believe in Gramscian passive revolution because I think there's little else we can do to change the global order of capital, bar a world economy collapse of apocalyptic proportions. Picketty's solutions are piecemeal and watery, yes, HOWEVER I'll take that over nothing else. No one else in your private, esoteric Marxist club is getting this much attention. You're a fucking typical pedant of the Marxist left -- nothing can ever be good enough for you. Chomsky has rightfully criticised your intransigence and dogmatic unwillingess to compromise -- if that's not utopianism, I don't know what is.

You're a total fucking hypocrite, mate.

>tfw there are Maoists in this thread RIGHT NOW
Are you joking me? I was looking for the Engels quote and that was the first text that came up. I'm not a Maoist. Nice distraction. Now answer my criticisms in full.

File: 1421387309027.png (154KB, 254x400px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 254x400px

>>6166168
>So much anger. Did a critical theorist break your heart? I'm used to poli-sci people being smug, but you take the biscuit.
Funny story, I did history.

>It's impossible for unfalsifiable statements/ideas to be empirical.

Ah, fuck m8, you're telling you took the Popper criticism hook, line, and sinker? Or perhaps this is you reading Marx's critique of political economy to be moral adages again and, thus, wholly subjective.

Marx clearly makes an empirical claim regarding capitalism, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the labor theory of value. If prices have no connection to labor values and the rate of profit does not, in fact, have a tendency to fall that can be empirically observed, Marx was fucking wrong.

If so, I won't be around to pick up words and phrases without context, trying to reconstruct Marxism on the flimsiest of bases, finding refuge in the little whimsies of lit-crit--I'll be gone. Thankfully, Kliman and the TSSI group are doing very promising work, Michael Heinrich's New German Interpretation looks to be a fresh take on the method and study of the critique of political economy (though, at odds with Kliman, to a degree), and Paul Mattick Jr. has made convincing arguments against orthodox understandings of the recent crisis that mean Marx's actual analysis is still quite useful in evaluating empirical claims, if only for the time being.

>At no point did I say it was an all-encompasing solution of a book. You set up an easy strawman there, buddy.

So you're telling me you recommended a book you either don't understand or thought was wrong without the appropriate warning to the one who asked you? I simply assumed you recommended it without much comment because you thought it was right. But, ah! I guess empirical claims aren't that important.

File: is this running dog serious.png (163KB, 259x242px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 259x242px

>>6166121
>thinking Maoists are hot on Piketty
>There are anti-Maoists in this thread RIGHT NOW

>>6166234
>Funny story, I did history.
Me too. I guess you're just naturally smug.

>>It's impossible for unfalsifiable statements/ideas to be empirical.
>Ah, fuck m8, you're telling you took the Popper criticism hook, line, and sinker? Or perhaps this is you reading Marx's critique of political economy to be moral adages again and, thus, wholly subjective.
>Marx clearly makes an empirical claim regarding capitalism,
Again with the dogmatism. Since when is it my concern what Marx thought was empirical or not? Readers have agency -- this is why there is neo-Marxism. Fuck me.

>If so, I won't be around to pick up words and phrases without context, trying to reconstruct Marxism on the flimsiest of bases, finding refuge in the little whimsies of lit-crit--I'll be gone. Thankfully, Kliman and the TSSI group are doing very promising work, Michael Heinrich's New German Interpretation looks to be a fresh take on the method and study of the critique of political economy (though, at odds with Kliman, to a degree), and Paul Mattick Jr. has made convincing arguments against orthodox understandings of the recent crisis that mean Marx's actual analysis is still quite useful in evaluating empirical claims, if only for the time being.

>>At no point did I say it was an all-encompasing solution of a book. You set up an easy strawman there, buddy.
>So you're telling me you recommended a book you either don't understand or thought was wrong without the appropriate warning to the one who asked you? I simply assumed you recommended it without much comment because you thought it was right. But, ah! I guess empirical claims aren't that important.

If you actually read my initial comment, I said "if you won't go down that route [i.e. Negri, whom I'm not a dogmatist to, I just think there's one or two salient ideas in amongst a big mess of stuff], read Piketty" -- implied in that was, it was accessible, broad, and not too divergent from Late Capitalism. Of course you, however, tore into your big blistering mass of shit, replete with copious amounts of assumptions, strawman, diversions, ad hominems etc. You're obviously not dumb, but you lack self-awareness and an ability to integrate systems of thought, which leads me to think you're a dogmatist, or a narcissist.

You kind of made a fool of yourself, basing your criticisms of me on a false premise.

>>6166168
>Picketty's solutions are piecemeal and watery, yes, HOWEVER I'll take that over nothing else. No one else in your private, esoteric Marxist club is getting this much attention. You're a fucking typical pedant of the Marxist left -- nothing can ever be good enough for you. Chomsky has rightfully criticised your intransigence and dogmatic unwillingess to compromise -- if that's not utopianism, I don't know what is.

>You're a total fucking hypocrite, mate.

As for this, you seem to have me confused. I didn't say Piketty's policy goals were bad, I said his empirical claims were, though I suppose this has an analytical element. Piketty has diagnosed the central problem caused by capitalism to be "inequality"--not that it's a problem for capitalism, but that's it's a problem for liberal society because of capitalism.

The Marxist analytical claim, the very critique of political economy, is to understand the logic of capitalism, and from there Marx has made the claim that capitalism's problem is itself because of its internal contradictions stemming from its logic.

I'll take reforms wherever and however I can get them. That doesn't mean I need to accept every little bit of ideology that comes my way because it sounds nice to a bunch of critical theory wankers. If Piketty conflicts with Marxism, then I should be able to make a decision about what seems more promising, more able to make sense of the world around me.

>>6166290
>I'll take reforms wherever and however I can get them.
Wow, you almost sound reasonable here.

>That doesn't mean I need to accept every little bit of ideology that comes my way because it sounds nice to a bunch of critical theory wankers.
Ah, back to your strawman attack. I think you've gotten it in your head that I'm a critical theorist because I mentioned it as an outgrowth of Marxism. I'm a historian, so please, move on. That said, there's plenty to be gained from Adorno etc., but I think analysing films is naval gazing compared to analysing the machinations of capitalism and society in general.

>>6166289
>Again with the dogmatism. Since when is it my concern what Marx thought was empirical or not?

Ever since you decided to call yourself a Marxist. You've gutted the work while taking the name and god knows why you decided to keep it. What do you actually think Marxism--the whole body of work, the tradition, the method--actually is?

>If you actually read my initial comment, I said "if you won't go down that route [i.e. Negri, whom I'm not a dogmatist to, I just think there's one or two salient ideas in amongst a big mess of stuff], read Piketty" -- implied in that was, it was accessible, broad, and not too divergent from Late Capitalism.

So I'm just supposed to know how you've evaluated the works you've recommended based on your wholly uncritical little blurbs.

>but I think analysing films is naval gazing compared to analysing the machinations of capitalism and society in general.

Really? You sure don't seem to show it.

>>6166323
>Ever since you decided to call yourself a Marxist.
Wow, the strawmen never seem to let up with you. Look back over this thread -- at no point did I call myself a Marxist.
Whatever it takes for you to win the argument, I suppose.

>You've gutted the work while taking the name and god knows why you decided to keep it. What do you actually think Marxism--the whole body of work, the tradition, the method--actually is?
I think Marx himself would laugh his beard off at such a statement. Do you think his theories came out of thin air? He built upon Hegel, Ricardo and many more. Similarly, neo-Marxism builds on Marx. I take elements of Marxism as a means of understanding the world, in the same way I use Hegelian dialectic to structure arguments. I am not a Marxist, nor a neo-Marxist. I assume you have (dubious) aspirations to work in academia, and this type of dogmatism and self-labelling works well in this field, but you've just walled yourself off in your closed garden of pseudo-academia instead.

>So I'm just supposed to know how you've evaluated the works you've recommended based on your wholly uncritical little blurbs.
It was all there in what I said. You chose to ignore and/or twist what I said. I can't help it if you're a reactionary who can't control his desire to (attempt to) browbeat others. Is it a narcissistic urge you have to consolidate your dogmatism?

>Really? You sure don't seem to show it.
An attempt to be pithy. You haven't enlightened anyone mate -- you've gone off on a dozen tangents that have missed the point entirely about so many things I've said. You're a structuralist and a solipsist who can't comprehend divergence from your own flawed, dogmatic thinking.

>>6166361
To add to this:

Your entire criticism of me was obviously based on the false assumption that I was a self-declared Marxist. At no point did I say this. I've argued against dogmatism consistently.

There's your error. You obviously can't envision people taking elements of Marx and using them as a toolkit of understanding in the world -- this is something Marx did with Smith, Ricardo, Hegel etc. and it's something we all do; even you, though you'd deny it.

>>6166361
>Wow, the strawmen never seem to let up with you. Look back over this thread -- at no point did I call myself a Marxist.
Fine. Then take this as a defense of Marxism against its willful misinterpreters, as you have presented it.

>I think Marx himself would laugh his beard off at such a statement. Do you think his theories came out of thin air? He built upon Hegel, Ricardo and many more. Similarly, neo-Marxism builds on Marx.

But he would not call his method Hegelian (he would, in fact, call it the exact opposite) or his analysis Ricardian (insofar as Capital was a critique of Ricardo and many others). He built his work upon a critique of great thinkers and founded a new tradition. It is the work of Marxists to take his methods and then evaluate his claims, in the immanent critique Marx himself practiced. If the method holds and the claims seem justified, then we take it against the world and launch upon the ruthless critique of everything existing.

If some would come along and gut the very methods of that tradition, then they simply aren't accurate in calling themselves "neo-Marxists" or whatever--what do they owe to Marx at all? This isn't dogmatism, this is theory and practice, and adherence to a method. We will modify the empirical claims and refine the method as we deepen our understanding of the world, but if we abandon the central parts of the method--empiricism, dialectical reasoning, abstraction, the analysis of capital in terms of its means and relations of production-- of the critique of political economy, we abandon the whole project, for good or ill.

I call myself a Marxist because I take the methods seriously.

>>6166407
You still won't address the fact that your arguing from a false premise. I'm not a Marxist or a neo-Marxist.

You're trying to argue that my use of different Marxian and neo-Marxian elements is somehow "gutting" the work. It's not -- this is a weak argument you know isn't true. You can never tell me you've not taken elements from different texts, without taking the whole text on board.

Your criticisms of me only are accurate if I was indeed a Marxist/neo-Marxist. Please just recognise this so we can move on.

>I call myself a Marxist because I take the methods seriously.
You're the worst kind of Marxist and the worst kind of debater, for that matter. You're a browbeater, didactic, dogmatic, solipsistic, bad tempered, fallacious (false assumptions, false premises, and strawmen galore), intransigent, and--worst of all--you blame others for your oversights or your bad/false arguments.

You've also set yourself up as some supreme authority, which is so hubristic it barely needs mentioning.

>>6166447
And to add to this:

Wrap this up -- it's late here.

>>6166361
>I take elements of Marxism as a means of understanding the world, in the same way I use Hegelian dialectic to structure arguments.

If you understood dialectical reasoning, you would understand that neither Hegel's method nor Marx's method can be taken piecemeal; dialectical reasoning builds upon layers of abstraction in order to uncover what is essential; in Hegel he applies this to ideas as if they were pure expressions, whereas Marx is the opposite in that he applies abstraction to crude material reality in order to uncover the essential logic of mode of production we live in. The claims Marx makes are after he has first used abstraction to uncover the essential logic of what he is analyzing and then applies it again to empirical reality. So you can't, say, take Marx's arguments about class struggle without historical materialism, or his bit on the commodity fetish without taking on his whole critique of political economy.

It'd be like agreeing with the idea of a Christian afterlife without accepting that there is a Christian god. Completely incoherent without the other.

>I assume you have (dubious) aspirations to work in academia, and this type of dogmatism and self-labelling works well in this field, but you've just walled yourself off in your closed garden of pseudo-academia instead.

Pah.

>It was all there in what I said. You chose to ignore and/or twist what I said.
Gee, you'd think a comment that something is "well-researched and argued" is a comment on the quality of its empirical claim and arguments.

>You still won't address the fact that your arguing from a false premise. I'm not a Marxist or a neo-Marxist.
But you sure are misinterpreting Marxism. Parts or the whole, you've demonstrated only that you don't understand it, and when pressed on this claim no responsibility to understand the original work.

>>6166370
>You can never tell me you've not taken elements from different texts, without taking the whole text on board.

If I have, it is because that bit I judged to be self-contained and isolated from the rest of it in a way that I argue much of Marx's original work cannot be.

To go back to this:
>this is something Marx did with Smith, Ricardo, Hegel etc.

I'd argue is a complete misunderstanding of Marx.

For example, please tell me what you think you've taken on board from Marx and then why you think these things are valid to believe.

>You've also set yourself up as some supreme authority, which is so hubristic it barely needs mentioning.

Pah again.

>>6166489
The one thing you are good at is evasion.

I have to go to bed now, but Ill just say this:

Many of Marx's biggest theories have been incorporated into general thinking. Certain big things are just commonly accepted in academic discourse, the same way Gramscian Hegemony or passive revolution is. You are wilfully avoiding this.

>you can't, say, take Marx's arguments about class struggle without historical materialism, or his bit on the commodity fetish without taking on his whole critique of political economy.
Yeah, I wouldn't do this. You've gone to the nth degree with assumptions. You have no concept of what my worldview is, but you're making up little case studies as if they're representative of me.

Marx had a basis in Ricardian and Hegelian thought, with his works. We're all Marxists to a degree as we all take his theories as fact now, as many of them are useful for understanding society -- where you and I differ is on incorporating changes/developments into Marxian thought.

You are a pig-headed traditionalist.

I'm done arguing. You're too conceited to give any ground and to be rational.

You know, I take it back: you're not an idealist, because if you were you think you'd understand that thinkers do not just bullet points that you can pick and choose from, but logical systems that must be unbound and ruthlessly critiqued. You're nothing but a shallow thinker.

File: 1374972790461.jpg (148KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 640x426px

>>6166501
>>You've also set yourself up as some supreme authority, which is so hubristic it barely needs mentioning.
>Pah again.

Oh, the irony.

>>6166517
>Yeah, I wouldn't do this. You've gone to the nth degree with assumptions. You have no concept of what my worldview is, but you're making up little case studies as if they're representative of me.

I never said they were representative of you, you little egotistic fart; they are abstractions which are connected to the whole of the method. That was the bloody point.

Insofar as "Marxist" thinking has entered common understanding, it has entered it in that crude, bullet-point way that guts him as a thinker and the whole Marxist method.

>>6166518
>if you were you think you'd understand that thinkers do not just bullet points that you can pick and choose from but logical systems that must be unbound and ruthlessly critiqued.
My god, you're a fucking moron.

Disregarding something IS A CRITIQUE in and of itself.

You fucking moron.

>>6166541
So you think that Marx can and should be understood in a bullet-point way, discarding the idea that he has to be understood as a logical and cohesive whole?

>>6166518
>you're not an idealist, because if you were you think you'd understand that thinkers do not just bullet points that you can pick and choose from, but logical systems that must be unbound and ruthlessly critiqued.

Amazing. You know papers are written on refuting one or two of Marx's points all the time -- this is a refutation. This is someone actively changing the discourse on Marx -- they are, in effect, picking and choosing elements of Marx, and improving on them.

Please, please, stop. You're embarassing yourself. Way to codify your own shallow thinking. How insecure you must be.

>>6166548
>So you think that Marx can and should be understood in a bullet-point way, discarding the idea that he has to be understood as a logical and cohesive whole?
NEVER said that. ANOTHER strawman.

You're unreal.

Read this:
>>6166554

>>6166548
>So you think that Marx can and should be understood in a bullet-point way, discarding the idea that he has to be understood as a logical and cohesive whole?

I firmly believe you can refute elements of Marx once you understand him as a cohesive whole. It's simple fucking academia.

Christ. How banal.

Fucking Marxist pedant.

>>6165035

Wow truly rekt!

>>6166554
>>6166559
>>6166566

Then if they're right, the whole project comes crumbling down, as it should. Disconnected and incoherent ideas should be discarded. Logical inconsistency is the first charge that must be deflected if you will ever argue for anything; if you can't do that, give up.

>>6164632
>Sports aren't an intentional diversion from capitalism any more than giggling at a random TV commercial is. It's an enjoyable activity that, like plenty of other things, gets commodified because it can make money.

this

>>6166584
>Disconnected and incoherent ideas should be discarded.
Another false assumption.
>Logical inconsistency
Strawman. So there are no logical critiques of Marx? You're making zero sense now. You're devolving and devolving.

This is absurd now.

How is a critique of a minor element of something invalid?

If we used your logic, there'd be no progress in academia. You're literally challenging the entire basis of academia.

>>6164581
>NAFTA remains punishing Mexican industry

No it's not.

File: Ooo Shit.jpg (43KB, 330x381px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 330x381px

>>6166584
>Then if they're right, the whole project comes crumbling down, as it should.

Wow, you're like a hardline Stalinist or something.

So, by this logic, if we tweak Capitalism, it will all come falling down?

You're a full-on utopian -- even more scary, you're hardline, didactic and uncompromising. You'd make a good Stalinist.

>>6166584
>Then if they're right, the whole project comes crumbling down, as it should.
Marx would never claim infallibility. Why are you claiming it for him?
You've painted yourself into a corner.

>>6166611
>"Stalinism"
>Utopian

Why do you pretend?

>>6166596
>Strawman.

Of what? You claimed that you can pick and choose elements of Marx and refute others without discarding the whole. I claimed that there are essential ideas you cannot discard without discarding the whole. It would be logically inconsistent to.

>So there are no logical critiques of Marx?

Of course there are. Hundreds and thousands. They're unconvincing.

>How is a critique of a minor element of something invalid?

What do you think are "minor elements"?

>>6166611
>So, by this logic, if we tweak Capitalism, it will all come falling down?

If you tweak something that is essential to the logic of capitalism like, say, property right, then, yes, it all comes crumbling down.

>You'd make a good Stalinist.

I guess consistency is Stalinist these days.

>Marx would never claim infallibility. Why are you claiming it for him?

Did I claim infallibility? I claimed consistency in method and logic.

>>6166632
Utopian doesn't mean good -- it's an idea that needs to meet perfect criteria to work. Duh.

>>6166634
>Of course there are. Hundreds and thousands. They're unconvincing.
That's all I need to see.

G'night. You're a hardliner. So Marx got nothing wrong?

Again, he wouldn't claim infallibility, but you're doing it for him. He would have revised and had he lived to write Capital Vol. 2 & 3, he would've elucidated more.

You're either a cultish fanatic or just dumb.

>>6166634
>>If you tweak something that is essential to the logic of capitalism like, say, property right, then, yes, it all comes crumbling down.
So I'm not understood, by "tweak" I mean "remove this particular element" as some claim you can do with essential parts of Marx without getting rid of the whole.

>>6166644
>So Marx got nothing wrong?

Marx got dates and data wrong all the fucking time, and that means his conclusions from that wrong data were sometimes wrong. But his method is essentially coherent and insightful, which is why I adhere to it, and this is what I have defended this whole time.

>>6166642
>Utopian doesn't mean good
No shit. Leninism is not Utopian.

ITT: people misunderstand Marx and claim their misunderstand him as a point of pride

>>6165941
Hey yeah, thanks, I will definitely be scoping some of these out. Erg. I actually forget that I sometimes try not to get bogged down in this topic because I fear it gets in the way of my metaphysical growth, but I also do kind of love it. One book wont hurt.

>>6165956
Okay, now it all makes sense. You must have at least a medium amount of higher education in economics, the majority of whom are government shills which explains your hysteria over the cia/crack thing (way to take a joke, btw) and your stalwart defense of the status quo. Btw, I think the entire field of economics is as credible as scientology, because resources, capital, interest, debt etc can and are manipulated to serve particular purposes that have no grounding in and of themselves or in anything that you would cogently call Economics. But whatever, call me a retard or whatever.

>>6166914
You're a retard. You were also arguing against the other guy, who insists that understanding the work of original theorists is dogmatism and willfully misunderstanding it while mashing it together ad hoc with other ad hoc ideas is nuanced and intelligent

>>6162819
Tell us what you do to better the world please.

>>6167236
He's clearly doing the world a service by being made euphoric by his own intelligence.

>>6165085
How can so many stereotypes fit into so few words ?

"Self-regulation" of market is a term often used by people deep into collectivism. Nobody in any liberal circle actually has an admiration for order. I don't care about "regulation", not even "self-regulation".

And the rant abour colonialism. Oh my God. Do you realize colonialim ended long ago ? Do you know, nay, recognize that colonial empires were stupid politicians being stupid. I live in France. The French Empire had been a financial burden every single year for the hole duration of the second colonial empire. Netherlands and Belgium knew huge growths after they abandonned their colonies that siphoned their investments. Even Britain was better off without its colonies. As Gustave de Molinari said it : "Colonialism is the burden of the State that cost the most and give the least". Of course that doesn't fit the oppression Olympics narrative but whatever.

Your obsesion with regulation is showing in the end of your post. You are the kind of motherfucker that prevent me from selling specific services that people want (enough for them to ask me for it on the "black market" even though I never made any kind of publicity). And before you picture youself some pimp-slumlord, I am seaking about specific IT services, and nothing about IT security. Your kind won't shut up until I am made to have a very restricted range of allowed activities with 10 state workers for myself alone looking at what I do.

And the whole inequality stuff at the end...it hurts seriously. I have 9 times as much capital as one of the guys working with me. I guess I unconsciously perform some bizarre social oppression by this fact alone.

Note that whatever I do, I will be considered as the oppressor. I could fucking give my money so that me and the other guy had equal sums at the bank, I would still be putting on a show of oppression by showing that I don't care about money because I have become accustomed to it.

>>6167411
>And the whole inequality stuff at the end...it hurts seriously. I have 9 times as much capital as one of the guys working with me. I guess I unconsciously perform some bizarre social oppression by this fact alone.
>Note that whatever I do, I will be considered as the oppressor. I could fucking give my money so that me and the other guy had equal sums at the bank, I would still be putting on a show of oppression by showing that I don't care about money because I have become accustomed to it.

Maybe. All I know is I want your shit.

>>6167439
That's some troubling honesty anon. I'm a bit triggerred.

Don't you have some combination of castration complex, material productive forces and internalised social struggle to rephrase your argument ?

>>6167453
That's the other guy. I'm the Marxist.

>>6167017
>who insists that understanding the work of original theorists is dogmatism and willfully misunderstanding it while mashing it together ad hoc with other ad hoc ideas is nuanced and intelligent
Well done misrepresenting me again and creating about your 50th strawman in this thread.

So much narcissism.

>>6167411
>Do you realize colonialim ended long ago ?
How can someone be so naive?

Go on, convince us the US doesn't oversee a global empire of neoliberal capitalism.

>The French Empire had been a financial burden every single year for the hole duration of the second colonial empire.
Yes, they realised they were going about it the wrong way -- the same way with slavery in the US; it was more profitable to pay the people pittence than to keep them as slaves and own them. The British realised this before the Americans.
If you don't believe in wage slavery, you're a fool.

There is a severe imbalance in the distribution of capital and wealth across the planet -- if you don't think neocolonialism and the spread of neoliberalism (through hard and soft American power) is the cause of this, then you're living in a fantasy world.

>And the whole inequality stuff at the end...it hurts seriously. I have 9 times as much capital as one of the guys working with me.
Is this satire?

>Note that whatever I do, I will be considered as the oppressor.
This is a strawman argument, hyperbolic, and a cop-out. Your mantras are, "if I don't do it somebody else will" or "screw the other guy before he screws you" -- I can help it if you're locked into that way of thinking. We could all live quite comfortably on the planet's resources if capital was spread around a bit more effiecently -- if workers owned the means of production, this would stymie alienation. People, mostly, want to work -- but they don't want to do so simply so that some fat can can take home 100-10000x as much pay as they do. Things like Jeffersonian Agrarianism were early attempts to glorify work, but this only is applicable when one is not suffering alienation from the means of production.

>>6168069
Says Mr."I appreciate my brain too much"

Look, you clearly don't understand Marx, you didn't understand Piketty--because, even if you attach yourselves to these so-called "neo-Marxist" ideas that may, in their gutted version of Marxism, admit Piketty, Marx the theorist would clearly have disagreed strenuously with Piketty--and you don't value logical consistency. You assumed I was a rapid capitalist apologist and then turned around and accused me of dogmatism when you couldn't refute my attempts to explain what Marx thought to you.

Stick to your mishmash of ideas and soundbyte politics if you want, but you shouldn't make claims about understanding thinkers that you really don't.

>>6168095
>Yes, they realised they were going about it the wrong way -- the same way with slavery in the US; it was more profitable to pay the people pittence than to keep them as slaves and own them.

Hah, this is what a lack of faith to empiricism gets you, doesn't it. Eugene Genovese got you good, didn't he?

Most recent studies of the economics of slavery in the United States demonstrate its robustness, profitability in terms of returns on capital relative to industrial investment, and integration into capitalism. There's a good materialist argument for why free labor and slave labor couldn't coexistent, but it's clearly not that free labor was cheaper than slave labor, because it clearly wasn't.

>>6168199
All this smug positivism.

>>6168185
Mate, you're stilla rguing from a false premise. I never said Piketty was neo-Marxist, or implied it.

Wow, you're a fucking loon, and a conceited one at that.
>Look at how epirical my dogmatism is.
Ha.

>>6168199
>Eugene Genovese got you good, didn't he?
So many assumptions.

Marxbot-3000 is overheating.