Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 1)

[Eric Cartman]

Aww, International Women's Day over, I can't eat cake anymore :(

Cake is toxic to me.
I'll never eat it but that's more for you. =)

Why is everyone weird on Era?

It's not just that they're weird but how they bring it up

"Oh man I've been eating cake all day, haha"

"I'll die if I eat cake"

"..."

and then escalate:
"Oh, am I supposed to feel bad about cake? What about all of the people with a rare disease where their bodies can only absorb nutrients provided in cake form, you fucking hateful ableist piece of shit?"

for all the talk about 'weaponising' era has, the only thing they weaponise is fucking basic human interactions

[Straight Edge]

Sir, this is a Wendy's

[Eric Cartman]

Wendx

[Eric Cartman]

Yeah most of these dumb fucks don't have the intellectual curiosity to read about shit, so their opinion just becomes whatever they hear the most/whatever the last person they talked to said. This makes it really easy for them to just become right wing by default. It's a lot less effort to tell someone everything sucks cuz some evil shadowy cabal hates you, than it is to sit somebody down and explain to them economic theory and give them a history lesson on the New Deal. They stop listening before you finish saying the word economic.

I'm so sorry :spiders emote, I know I put a lot of work on you and you honestly do more than your fair share, but I'm gonna need you to dig deep and put in another showing

[Jansen]

Do it

[HaughtyFrank]

Yeah most of these dumb fucks don't have the intellectual curiosity to read about shit, so their opinion just becomes whatever they hear the most/whatever the last person they talked to said. This makes it really easy for them to just become right wing by default. It's a lot less effort to tell someone everything sucks cuz some evil shadowy cabal hates you, than it is to sit somebody down and explain to them economic theory and give them a history lesson on the New Deal. They stop listening before you finish saying the word economic.

I'm so sorry emote, I know I put a lot of work on you and you honestly do more than your fair share, but I'm gonna need you to dig deep and put in another showing

They don't see the irony in saying that while praising Hasan?

[kaleidoscopium]

The constant suicide baiting while also e begging for donations for “food” is so tiring Melody. Get a new shtick.

[Jansen]

I just want to know who or what swan is

[killamajig]

A mutant  in Fallout 4



He wanted to fuck it

[benji]

Yeah most of these dumb fucks don't have the intellectual curiosity to read about shit, so their opinion just becomes whatever they hear the most/whatever the last person they talked to said. This makes it really easy for them to just become right wing by default. It's a lot less effort to tell someone everything sucks cuz some evil shadowy cabal hates you, than it is to sit somebody down and explain to them economic theory and give them a history lesson on the New Deal. They stop listening before you finish saying the word economic.

I'm skeptical that this person knows what the New Deal was. Or that Hasan does. Or that either know economic theory considering the state of the forum's discussions of the topic.

Ironically, the New Deal wasn't based on any economic theory, it was literally just random ideas. The NIRA was a copy of what the fascists were doing in Europe. If there was any theory at all it was the strange one that prices had to be kept high rather than allowed to drop, even though a quarter to a third of the country had no income and the entire globe was suffering. They never asked themselves who could buy stuff if prices stayed high. This is how the government spent so much time prosecuting people for charging lower prices on food during a time when so many couldn't afford to even eat. Also when the government decided that growing wheat for yourself is something they should be allowed to determine because it effects the price of wheat globally. And when the President of the United States absent any law made it illegal to own gold while setting the price people would receive for it permanently below the market value. (Weird how that price wasn't allowed to rise huh) The main legacy of the New Deal is farm subsidies and politically directed appropriations. (FDR openly based federal aid on where it benefit him politically.) The ponzi scheme of Social Security wasn't part of the New Deal, it came later after the New Deal had flopped and not created any recovery.

But my point is more that if anyone in that conversation knew economic theory there would be at least three things they would know to be stupid because pretty much every form of acceptable economic theory agrees on them being stupid: not letting prices to fall, the labor theory of value and socialism.

[kaleidoscopium]

I just want to know who or what swan is

Malds former Roommate that offed themselves, also the same apartment they’re still in court for not paying the rent on.

[benji]

Yeah most of these dumb fucks don't have the intellectual curiosity to read about shit, so their opinion just becomes whatever they hear the most/whatever the last person they talked to said. This makes it really easy for them to just become right wing by default. It's a lot less effort to tell someone everything sucks cuz some evil shadowy cabal hates you, than it is to sit somebody down and explain to them economic theory and give them a history lesson on the New Deal. They stop listening before you finish saying the word economic.

Also, this part is amusing because Marxist/socialist theory is premised on there being an evil shadowy cabal behind everything and that loyalty to this cabal trumps everything including capitalist economics.

This is what explains the disconnect between socialists who believe they aren't totalitarian and are actually arguing against it as they argue for a complete totalitarian system. They never examine the premise that explains there is an evil class that will do anything to harm everyone else by denying them utopia. It's the need to stamp out this class, and its sympathizers, that ratchets only in one direction.

They claim this is a "right-wing" trait because they all adopted the opinion that "left = good" and "right = bad" and what is actually being advocated is irrelevant, what matters is your "position" on a spectrum that doesn't make any sense and this somehow makes the "left" ratchet immune from criticism. It's much simpler to notice that both Marxism and MAGA are reactionary.

[Venice]

[Steven Snell]

The constant suicide baiting while also e begging for donations for “food” is so tiring Melody. Get a new shtick.

This is what 14 year old girls on MySpace used to do. But now it's a bald dude trying to be a girl soon their 40s.

[killamajig]

Also, this part is amusing because Marxist/socialist theory is premised on there being an evil shadowy cabal behind everything and that loyalty to this cabal trumps everything including capitalist economics.

This is what explains the disconnect between socialists who believe they aren't totalitarian and are actually arguing against it as they argue for a complete totalitarian system. They never examine the premise that explains there is an evil class that will do anything to harm everyone else by denying them utopia. It's the need to stamp out this class, and its sympathizers, that ratchets only in one direction.

They claim this is a "right-wing" trait because they all adopted the opinion that "left = good" and "right = bad" and what is actually being advocated is irrelevant, what matters is your "position" on a spectrum that doesn't make any sense and this somehow makes the "left" ratchet immune from criticism. It's much simpler to notice that both Marxism and MAGA are reactionary.

This is what ended my high school "Communist" phase. The more Marx and Co. I read, the more I realized they weren't the oppressed working-class heroes I thought they were. They seemed more like rich trust fund kids who blame everyone else when they don't get what they want. (ResetEra, anyone?)

I'm sure Benji knows but I wouldnt be suprised if most of them never worked a day in their life.

[benji]

This is what ended my high school "Communist" phase. The more Marx and Co. I read, the more I realized they weren't the oppressed working-class heroes I thought they were. They seemed more like rich trust fund kids who blame everyone else when they don't get what they want. (ResetEra, anyone?)

I'm sure Benji knows but I wouldnt be suprised if most of them never worked a day in their life.

Marx didn't, Engels (who came from a wealthy family) paid his way and even wrote his articles for him since he had a tendency to take jobs and then refuse to do them. Marx was also a deatbeat dad a lot of the time. (I do want to edit to note that Engels does seem to be a pretty good manager as he did a lot of the heavy lifting for keeping the movement in existence and getting everything published. It's maybe not a "real job" or "activism" and he started with wealth but he essentially was running a company. Marx was a rock star and Engels was the manager who made sure the tours and concerts and albums happened.)

None of the historical Communists have been proletariat, Lenin solved this by creating the Vanguard concept. It backwards explains how Marx could come to know the divine truth that's exclusive to the proletariat without being one, the intellectual vanguard doesn't have to be part of the class, they simply operate on behalf of it. (Even though this essentially falsifies all of Marxist class theory.) Marx's explanation to everything was always "shutting the fuck up is free."

You can go back further to Rosseau, who infamously wrote an autobiography exposing that he was an anti-social grifter who shacked up with rich women to gain access to their wealth and then treated them like shit. And treated his friends even worse.

As much as I prefer pointing out that their theory is bad, I suspect this does have something to do with why Marx never actually came up with an explanation of how capitalism works or what capital even is. He claimed he had a definition of it and also for class but it wasn't in any of the first three parts of Kapital that he wrote before he died, nor in any other of his works that Marxists spend all their time pouring over. It seems like the simplest explanation is that he simply could not conceive of how it worked in a way that fit what he had already mandated is how it works. You see this with Nepenthe and others, her descriptions of how "things should work" sound more like capitalism than her complaints. Marx similarly describes a capitalist system that makes no sense, and very shortly proved all his predictions wrong, and especially does not differ from how he describes communism except that communism eliminates all but one class and so the "problems" of capitalism simply cease to exist. It really does sound like a theory built backwards from the conclusion he wants.

From the first time I read the explanations of exchange value I was baffled by it and ever since I've had this fear that I just don't understand it. But I've read all kinds of explainers, even ones written for kids and I really should just conclude that it doesn't make sense. It's an entirely backwards theory. Marx noticed, correctly, that prices don't match the cost of goods, but to this he concluded that there must be a "real value" of the good hidden somewhere that could be extracted from the price. He thinks the labor theory of value solves this, except it doesn't, because labor's price also fluctuates. There's no stable price for an hour of labor throughout all of human history across all fields and industries. Marxist economics is premised on this not only being true but that the "true price" can be discovered. (Even though it's irrelevant as communism eliminates the dilemma.)

Most of Era doesn't even bother with this, because their heroes like Hasan don't. They think socialism is some system where everyone is paid what they're worth on some objective scale in which each individual determines their value. But this is not what any socialist ever has written it would be. It's supposed to be all of society treated as a single factory and with every member an interchangeable laborer. There's no "wages" because economics is "solved", there's only distribution which matches what the factory intended to produce in the first place. You can see why it appeals to the narcissists of Era though, nobody's different, nobody has to deal with others being different, things are just done as they are supposed to be which matches what I want done, nothing I don't want done happens, etc. It's a comforting total system that eliminates what they hate about the real world. "Scientific socialism" is literally beyond utopian in that it's not imagining utopia it's saying it is already possible.

I think the reactionary nature of it is clear if you read any of the writers. Rousseau, Marx, etc. can't help but talk about some mythical Eden they believed existed before and that the use of enough violence by the state could bring back and end all our modern complaints that we never needed to suffer if that bitch hadn't taken the apple. Nepenthe writes about this endlessly and it animates her fantasies of the "simple life" of being an artist in Bahia or wherever. Most of Era doesn't realize how backwards this is because they aren't imaging some subsistence pastoral life, they're imagining when they were kids. They want that back. TransEra especially, but many of the rest constantly harp on about the impositions that growing out of childhood have done to them irredeemably. It's the same complaint as humanity advancing out of constant poverty into all the awesome stuff we have now is somehow bad because it adds responsibilities to us all.

The other thing Marxist, and reactionary in general, thought does is it exempts you personally from any responsibility for your actions. It's always bad luck or systemic issues. This allows Era to tell themselves that the problem is just all of society and if they could have just corrected it they'd be living the life they imagine they deserve but didn't want to do anything to have. TransEra imagines this is as simple as making everyone treat them like women because of how they treat women they imagine this will just relieve them of all responsibility. But it's endemic across the forum, the problem is always that there wasn't a cop staff member around to beat ban the bad actors until everyone just did as they should.

[Snoopy]

There must be a new toy coming out or something if Shreds is dusting off the ole suicide routine

[Eric Cartman]

I'm sure Benji knows but I wouldnt be suprised if most of them never worked a day in their life.

Its pretty telling that in this thread of hilarious cognitive dissonance hot takes:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/chicago-cops-protecting-a-tesla-store.1129281/#post-136779147
("Even if there was an actual threat, you only need one cop" / "Oh, okay there were protesters there, but there are way more cops" / "Okay, there were lots of protesters but THE MEDIA were covering it up" / "Why don't cops do real cop things, even though ACAB and there are no real things cops can do" etc)

people who bring up 'waste' don't say things like "MY tax dollars at work", they talk about "taxpayers" as some abstract other group they heard about once as a useful rhetorical citation

[Propagandhim]

This is what ended my high school "Communist" phase. The more Marx and Co. I read, the more I realized they weren't the oppressed working-class heroes I thought they were. They seemed more like rich trust fund kids who blame everyone else when they don't get what they want. (ResetEra, anyone?)

I'm sure Benji knows but I wouldnt be suprised if most of them never worked a day in their life.

Marx didn't, Engels (who came from a wealthy family) paid his way and even wrote his articles for him since he had a tendency to take jobs and then refuse to do them. Marx was also a deatbeat dad a lot of the time. (I do want to edit to note that Engels does seem to be a pretty good manager as he did a lot of the heavy lifting for keeping the movement in existence and getting everything published. It's maybe not a "real job" or "activism" and he started with wealth but he essentially was running a company. Marx was a rock star and Engels was the manager who made sure the tours and concerts and albums happened.)

None of the historical Communists have been proletariat, Lenin solved this by creating the Vanguard concept. It backwards explains how Marx could come to know the divine truth that's exclusive to the proletariat without being one, the intellectual vanguard doesn't have to be part of the class, they simply operate on behalf of it. (Even though this essentially falsifies all of Marxist class theory.) Marx's explanation to everything was always "shutting the fuck up is free."

You can go back further to Rosseau, who infamously wrote an autobiography exposing that he was an anti-social grifter who shacked up with rich women to gain access to their wealth and then treated them like shit. And treated his friends even worse.

As much as I prefer pointing out that their theory is bad, I suspect this does have something to do with why Marx never actually came up with an explanation of how capitalism works or what capital even is. He claimed he had a definition of it and also for class but it wasn't in any of the first three parts of Kapital that he wrote before he died, nor in any other of his works that Marxists spend all their time pouring over. It seems like the simplest explanation is that he simply could not conceive of how it worked in a way that fit what he had already mandated is how it works. You see this with Nepenthe and others, her descriptions of how "things should work" sound more like capitalism than her complaints. Marx similarly describes a capitalist system that makes no sense, and very shortly proved all his predictions wrong, and especially does not differ from how he describes communism except that communism eliminates all but one class and so the "problems" of capitalism simply cease to exist. It really does sound like a theory built backwards from the conclusion he wants.

From the first time I read the explanations of exchange value I was baffled by it and ever since I've had this fear that I just don't understand it. But I've read all kinds of explainers, even ones written for kids and I really should just conclude that it doesn't make sense. It's an entirely backwards theory. Marx noticed, correctly, that prices don't match the cost of goods, but to this he concluded that there must be a "real value" of the good hidden somewhere that could be extracted from the price. He thinks the labor theory of value solves this, except it doesn't, because labor's price also fluctuates. There's no stable price for an hour of labor throughout all of human history across all fields and industries. Marxist economics is premised on this not only being true but that the "true price" can be discovered. (Even though it's irrelevant as communism eliminates the dilemma.)

Most of Era doesn't even bother with this, because their heroes like Hasan don't. They think socialism is some system where everyone is paid what they're worth on some objective scale in which each individual determines their value. But this is not what any socialist ever has written it would be. It's supposed to be all of society treated as a single factory and with every member an interchangeable laborer. There's no "wages" because economics is "solved", there's only distribution which matches what the factory intended to produce in the first place. You can see why it appeals to the narcissists of Era though, nobody's different, nobody has to deal with others being different, things are just done as they are supposed to be which matches what I want done, nothing I don't want done happens, etc. It's a comforting total system that eliminates what they hate about the real world. "Scientific socialism" is literally beyond utopian in that it's not imagining utopia it's saying it is already possible.

I think the reactionary nature of it is clear if you read any of the writers. Rousseau, Marx, etc. can't help but talk about some mythical Eden they believed existed before and that the use of enough violence by the state could bring back and end all our modern complaints that we never needed to suffer if that bitch hadn't taken the apple. Nepenthe writes about this endlessly and it animates her fantasies of the "simple life" of being an artist in Bahia or wherever. Most of Era doesn't realize how backwards this is because they aren't imaging some subsistence pastoral life, they're imagining when they were kids. They want that back. TransEra especially, but many of the rest constantly harp on about the impositions that growing out of childhood have done to them irredeemably. It's the same complaint as humanity advancing out of constant poverty into all the awesome stuff we have now is somehow bad because it adds responsibilities to us all.

The other thing Marxist, and reactionary in general, thought does is it exempts you personally from any responsibility for your actions. It's always bad luck or systemic issues. This allows Era to tell themselves that the problem is just all of society and if they could have just corrected it they'd be living the life they imagine they deserve but didn't want to do anything to have. TransEra imagines this is as simple as making everyone treat them like women because of how they treat women they imagine this will just relieve them of all responsibility. But it's endemic across the forum, the problem is always that there wasn't a cop staff member around to beat ban the bad actors until everyone just did as they should.

Right.  And the labor theory of value relies on obvious circular reasoning, not sure how it isn't joked out of existence.  It starts with the assumption that Marxists are trying to demonstrate - equating labor power directly with wage rates and surplus with profit ratios. But these assumptions make the core claims unfalsifiable.  Marx argues that the value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. So he then defines surplus value as the difference between the value workers create through their labor and what they receive as wages.  So when Marxist economists attempt to empirically test or validate Marx's theory, they measure "labor value" by directly using wage rates and equate "surplus value" with observed profits.  So they use market-determined prices (wages and profits) to measure labor values and surplus values which were the fucking categories Marx claimed were independent of market prices and should instead explain them.

[benji]

There must be a new toy coming out or something if Shreds is dusting off the ole suicide routine

There was some special edition Gundam he was salivating over a few weeks ago. And he mentioned when Monster Hunter came out that he couldn't afford to get it because he needed to get some other future games.

Entirely coincidentally he started emphasizing how little money he had in other posts and getting his "girlfriend" to boost the lack of food he has post over and over.

I just hope Canada can supply a living wage for their soldiers.

[Eric Cartman]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/walmart-ceo-sounds-alarm-on-a-big-problem-for-customers.1129464/#post-136793676

Many consumers have begun to start shopping at lower-priced national retailers in an attempt to cut costs.

One such retailer is Walmart (WMT) , which is already the number one grocer in the United States.

The retailer has been taking great pains to cut costs, announcing in 2024 that it would work to reduce the cost of many items — including food — back to pre-inflation levels.
However, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon says that sometimes those efforts are just not enough to ease the difficulties entirely. "You can see that the money runs out before the month is gone, you can see that people are buying smaller pack sizes at the end of the month," McMillon said at the Economic Club of Chicago.

He added that he feels the stress of consumers across all socioeconomic levels, particularly for folks who are more exposed to price hikes.

Reeeeetards takes:

'sucks to suck, poors'-WM CEO

He added that he feels the stress of consumers across all socioeconomic levels, particularly for folks who are more exposed to price hikes.

*jerkoff-motion*

"Yeah it's really hard out there, it's hard. But..keep shopping here please..even though we're doing nothing to help things."

Actual fucking brain damage, jfc

even more reeeetard takes in the minutes since I posted this, I actually fucking despair at the general comprehension levels of the people left on that forum.

He's not saying "WOW, TIMES ARE TOUGH, WE GON MAKE BANK SON" you absolute fucking cretins, he is warning of inflationary indicators being higher than expected which is going to directly affect peoples purchasing power, especially at the low end.

Its fucking walmart. Its not a margins business. They are already making cuts to try and minimise inflationary pressures, and the fucking CEO is warning that its not going to be enough LOLOL LUIGI LOLLOL CEO I AM VERY SMART

[benji]

Right.  And the labor theory of value relies on obvious circular reasoning, not sure how it isn't joked out of existence.  It starts with the assumption that Marxists are trying to demonstrate - equating labor power directly with wage rates and surplus with profit ratios. But these assumptions make the core claims unfalsifiable.  Marx argues that the value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. So he then defines surplus value as the difference between the value workers create through their labor and what they receive as wages.  So when Marxist economists attempt to empirically test or validate Marx's theory, they measure "labor value" by directly using wage rates and equate "surplus value" with observed profits.  So they use market-determined prices (wages and profits) to measure labor values and surplus values which were the fucking categories Marx claimed were independent of market prices and should instead explain them.

Also "socially necessary" is defined in such a way that makes it unfalsifiable and then it's "measured" in such a way that it could mean an endless supply of gruel in a trough in the factory and also what Royalan eats every hour for everyone on Earth. I think the funniest part is that you can eliminate surplus value just by changing the value of "socially necessary" in Marx's own equations. Which is essentially what "actual capitalism" did to his predictions.

I seriously can't comprehend how people read any of that stuff and think it makes any sense at all rather than just some circular loop. Especially at this point in history. But I know otherwise smart people who are Marxists, there's no hope for the comparatively ignorant.

edit: I think the funniest move Marxist economists make is when they say "socially necessary" can differ across locations and cultures and so on. And like, NO, you're just trying to reinsert regular economics and stuff now! How could Marx be discovering a truth of History if the value wasn't the same everywhere???

[StandingOvation]

There must be a new toy coming out or something if Shreds is dusting off the ole suicide routine

I wonder if they got out of the house to watch Gundam GQuuuuuuX: Beginning 🤔

[kaleidoscopium]

Also lol at the thinnest skinned moderator of all time, never fails to entertain

https://www.resetera.com/threads/did-you-guys-catch-hasan-on-theo-von-theo-von-didnt-know-what-the-new-deal-was.1129338/page-2#post-136794288

The thing he’s referring to?

"America deserved 9/11"? What in the flying fuck is wrong with some of you?

[Polident]

Right.  And the labor theory of value relies on obvious circular reasoning, not sure how it isn't joked out of existence.  It starts with the assumption that Marxists are trying to demonstrate - equating labor power directly with wage rates and surplus with profit ratios. But these assumptions make the core claims unfalsifiable.  Marx argues that the value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. So he then defines surplus value as the difference between the value workers create through their labor and what they receive as wages.  So when Marxist economists attempt to empirically test or validate Marx's theory, they measure "labor value" by directly using wage rates and equate "surplus value" with observed profits.  So they use market-determined prices (wages and profits) to measure labor values and surplus values which were the fucking categories Marx claimed were independent of market prices and should instead explain them.

Also "socially necessary" is defined in such a way that makes it unfalsifiable and then it's "measured" in such a way that it could mean an endless supply of gruel in a trough in the factory and also what Royalan eats every hour for everyone on Earth. I think the funniest part is that you can eliminate surplus value just by changing the value of "socially necessary" in Marx's own equations. Which is essentially what "actual capitalism" did to his predictions.

I seriously can't comprehend how people read any of that stuff and think it makes any sense at all rather than just some circular loop. Especially at this point in history. But I know otherwise smart people who are Marxists, there's no hope for the comparatively ignorant.

Guys with rich parents, I presume?

[Boredfrom]

1741541599[/url]']

1741540807[/url]']
There must be a new toy coming out or something if Shreds is dusting off the ole suicide routine

I wonder if they got out of the house to watch Gundam GQuuuuuuX: Beginning 🤔

Isn’t the premise of GQux that “the space Nazis won”?

[Boredfrom]

1741541763[/url]']

1741541522[/url]']

1741541161[/url]']
Right.  And the labor theory of value relies on obvious circular reasoning, not sure how it isn't joked out of existence.  It starts with the assumption that Marxists are trying to demonstrate - equating labor power directly with wage rates and surplus with profit ratios. But these assumptions make the core claims unfalsifiable.  Marx argues that the value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. So he then defines surplus value as the difference between the value workers create through their labor and what they receive as wages.  So when Marxist economists attempt to empirically test or validate Marx's theory, they measure "labor value" by directly using wage rates and equate "surplus value" with observed profits.  So they use market-determined prices (wages and profits) to measure labor values and surplus values which were the fucking categories Marx claimed were independent of market prices and should instead explain them.

Also "socially necessary" is defined in such a way that makes it unfalsifiable and then it's "measured" in such a way that it could mean an endless supply of gruel in a trough in the factory and also what Royalan eats every hour for everyone on Earth. I think the funniest part is that you can eliminate surplus value just by changing the value of "socially necessary" in Marx's own equations. Which is essentially what "actual capitalism" did to his predictions.

I seriously can't comprehend how people read any of that stuff and think it makes any sense at all rather than just some circular loop. Especially at this point in history. But I know otherwise smart people who are Marxists, there's no hope for the comparatively ignorant.

Guys with rich parents, I presume?

Not necessarily. They could just be intellectual bohemian parents, not always rich but living thanks to grants from the state (depending of the country). 

Funny enough, these people don’t say “is Capitalism…” for every single thing that goes wrong. They will express their socialist views in more digestible way.

[benji]

Guys with rich parents, I presume?

To be fair, they are mostly professors of some kind. PoliSci professors being Marxists seems normal to me but I'm always amused at History professors being them. (Maybe they just enjoy trying to salvage it over and over from actual history?) But there's also guys like Freddie deBoer, who sees through so much bullshit especially the self-serving kind, but then he's a Marxist who thinks gender identity is legit and refuses to hear criticism about either. Although I did notice in one of his columns last year that he seemed to make a distinction between economics and the truth of Marxism, most of his readers wouldn't notice but I imagine he's trying to salvage the "class conflict" theory of history and discard the rest. But this isn't Marxism. Also, it shouldn't take long for anyone to read Freddie and realize that he rejects the idea of the proletariat as the main actor of history OR he defines proletariat so broadly as to always include 99% of people even if they aren't manual laborers. Which again, isn't Marxism. I don't think this is actually unusual for most "socialists" these days, remember Occupy's messaging and how it mirrored the Tea Party and then MAGA.

[Polident]

Guys with rich parents, I presume?

To be fair, they are mostly professors of some kind. PoliSci professors being Marxists seems normal to me but I'm always amused at History professors being them. (Maybe they just enjoy trying to salvage it over and over from actual history?) But there's also guys like Freddie deBoer, who sees through so much bullshit especially the self-serving kind, but then he's a Marxist who thinks gender identity is legit and refuses to hear criticism about either. Although I did notice in one of his columns last year that he seemed to make a distinction between economics and the truth of Marxism, most of his readers wouldn't notice but I imagine he's trying to salvage the "class conflict" theory of history and discard the rest. But this isn't Marxism. Also, it shouldn't take long for anyone to read Freddie and realize that he rejects the idea of the proletariat as the main actor of history OR he defines proletariat so broadly as to always include 99% of people even if they aren't manual laborers. Which again, isn't Marxism. I don't think this is actually unusual for most "socialists" these days, remember Occupy's messaging and how it mirrored the Tea Party and then MAGA.

I suppose some in academia could be considered smart people. That is true.

[benji]

I'm not saying there's a lot of them, especially in the humanities. Freddie or even Kara are like these people I'm describing. Actually, the smartest of the polisci people I'm talking about is a full blown Marxist, he doesn't edit it like these losers.

Actually, actually, this also reminds me how the group that went hardest after the 1619 Project were all those Marxist historians.