I figure i can leave the quantum linen equations to the economists as long as I can follow most of hte basics. Need to get on that, though. i totally failed to explain socialism to a well meaning but shockingly ignorant Libertarian recently.
Ah, well, with respect to you, I’d suggest that you reevaluate if they are actually well meaning. Not in a smarmy “you peasant! Don’t you understand what you support?!?” way (although… that too).
What I mean is if you talk to enough libertarian minded people you can find a pattern or “a type” that it appeals to.
Let me give an imperfect outline of where their thinking inevitably leads which explains why I don’t think any of them are well meaning, even if some are otherwise tolerably nice humans:
First let me give credit on which many are correct: anti-war, anti-police state, anti restrictions on social or personal things such as sexual preference, abortion, drugs being illegal, things like that. If someone is a libertarian and claims to be actually, really, anti-US military, anti police as they exist here, and pro-LGBTQ, pro-choice for abortion, pro-decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, that’s great. Glad they arrived somehow at moral opinions.
Now, my issue with libertarians (and uh, I’m avoiding writing a Marx-length book here…) can really be summed up, I think, in a core observation I’ve made (not uniquely, but personally). They have no awareness of or place no credibility to the (objectively true) concept of “primitive accumulation.” They want to just finger snap everything goes on as it is, but they will absolutely never, ever ever entertain the idea that “well, ok, let’s say we all agree to your world of basically no government. Whatever that means. Ok. But, you say merit defines success thus all those of merit will rise above the rest. So, we level all resources, we seize and redistribute all assets, and everyone is equal, then we go from there. You’ll be Bezos in a week! Right?” “Uh… what? Look man, I just DUN WUNT NO GUBBAMINT TAKIN MY-” blah blah blah it goes on something like that. And as half my family do talk in that country-ass way (rural SC for life…) I will take great liberty in mocking their stupidity.
So, basically… it’s just a child’s view of things. It stems from a fundamental flaw, shared by liberals, which they are but a different flavor I guess, that always fails to take into consideration the biggest elephant in the room: private property! And how that wealth and assets were acquired. They argue they earned it. buzzer false. Ok, maybe their family earned it! buzzer more truthful but still false. They can’t reckon with the reality of things, that they and/or their ancestors stole, coerced, murdered, whatever, in order to gain the capital to then churn over and over to enrich them/their descendants. I know this is all super obvious, but you do absolutely have to take a big stick, whack liberals on the head, and take a line from Kamala
“You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.”
or, hey, maybe Obama
“Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Emphasis mine. And yes I’m choosing them for the obvious reasons that they are libbed up libs, yet even they sometimes admit the truth. Kamala keeps repeating it actually. (No, not endorsing her…)
So when someone denies simple reality that should be blatantly obvious to them, I don’t think they mean well. I think rather that they like the system just fine, but they want an even more exploitative version of it. They want one where they can force everyone else to abide by whatever bullshit enters their skulls, yet they cannot be held accountable. It’s not a real ideology, it’s just childishness, and it’s totally unserious in every way. Which of course means it’s very common among Americans. It’s a great off ramp for anyone who has tendencies towards “all these wars are bad…” to “ah, you think so friend? Me too! Just vote for big boy Trump and he says he’ll return rights to the states! That means you and me are closer to our goal!”
I also just tell them “by your own logic… Bezos is smarter than you or me or anyone because he’s the richest. So, what stops Mr Bezos from simply enslaving us immediately after he hires a large private army? He’s gonna catch you. He’s the smartest, remember. And there are no laws… or are there laws now? Who enforces the laws? Oh no you’re creating government structures SO WHAT WAS YOUR POINT AGAIN???” Again, child brains, if they can’t grasp primitive accumulation and the source of wealth or capital they hold, they’re not gonna come around. And not grasping includes purposely remaining ignorant.
I like asking if Bill Gates is till the largest agricultural landowner on the day government is dissolved. Cause if yes, I’ve got some bad news about their childish yeoman farmer fantasies
Marx wrote a calculus textbook actually (seriously). Though dated by modern standards as a lot of the theoretical foundations of modern calculus were developed contemporaneously to Marx, and he was likely not aware of them.
I’m going to be honest. This instance has taught me more surprising information than any other. I never, in my life, would have guessed that as probable. :)
Feel free to ask us anything, we’re happy to talk, as long as it’s in good faith. We are only dunking on smug assholes when they come here from other instances in bad faith without any intention to hear us
The struggle might be complicated by the fact that you’re reading a math book.
I mean, that’s what Volume 2 and 3 of Das Kapital are kinda are…
Definitely painful reads
Very unfortunate that Marx wasn’t alive to finish editing
Although for most people, Vol I is more than enough to get a grasp on Marx’s explanation and critique of capitalism
I figure i can leave the quantum linen equations to the economists as long as I can follow most of hte basics. Need to get on that, though. i totally failed to explain socialism to a well meaning but shockingly ignorant Libertarian recently.
Ah, well, with respect to you, I’d suggest that you reevaluate if they are actually well meaning. Not in a smarmy “you peasant! Don’t you understand what you support?!?” way (although… that too).
What I mean is if you talk to enough libertarian minded people you can find a pattern or “a type” that it appeals to.
Let me give an imperfect outline of where their thinking inevitably leads which explains why I don’t think any of them are well meaning, even if some are otherwise tolerably nice humans:
First let me give credit on which many are correct: anti-war, anti-police state, anti restrictions on social or personal things such as sexual preference, abortion, drugs being illegal, things like that. If someone is a libertarian and claims to be actually, really, anti-US military, anti police as they exist here, and pro-LGBTQ, pro-choice for abortion, pro-decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, that’s great. Glad they arrived somehow at moral opinions.
Now, my issue with libertarians (and uh, I’m avoiding writing a Marx-length book here…) can really be summed up, I think, in a core observation I’ve made (not uniquely, but personally). They have no awareness of or place no credibility to the (objectively true) concept of “primitive accumulation.” They want to just finger snap everything goes on as it is, but they will absolutely never, ever ever entertain the idea that “well, ok, let’s say we all agree to your world of basically no government. Whatever that means. Ok. But, you say merit defines success thus all those of merit will rise above the rest. So, we level all resources, we seize and redistribute all assets, and everyone is equal, then we go from there. You’ll be Bezos in a week! Right?” “Uh… what? Look man, I just DUN WUNT NO GUBBAMINT TAKIN MY-” blah blah blah it goes on something like that. And as half my family do talk in that country-ass way (rural SC for life…) I will take great liberty in mocking their stupidity.
So, basically… it’s just a child’s view of things. It stems from a fundamental flaw, shared by liberals, which they are but a different flavor I guess, that always fails to take into consideration the biggest elephant in the room: private property! And how that wealth and assets were acquired. They argue they earned it. buzzer false. Ok, maybe their family earned it! buzzer more truthful but still false. They can’t reckon with the reality of things, that they and/or their ancestors stole, coerced, murdered, whatever, in order to gain the capital to then churn over and over to enrich them/their descendants. I know this is all super obvious, but you do absolutely have to take a big stick, whack liberals on the head, and take a line from Kamala
or, hey, maybe Obama
Emphasis mine. And yes I’m choosing them for the obvious reasons that they are libbed up libs, yet even they sometimes admit the truth. Kamala keeps repeating it actually. (No, not endorsing her…)
So when someone denies simple reality that should be blatantly obvious to them, I don’t think they mean well. I think rather that they like the system just fine, but they want an even more exploitative version of it. They want one where they can force everyone else to abide by whatever bullshit enters their skulls, yet they cannot be held accountable. It’s not a real ideology, it’s just childishness, and it’s totally unserious in every way. Which of course means it’s very common among Americans. It’s a great off ramp for anyone who has tendencies towards “all these wars are bad…” to “ah, you think so friend? Me too! Just vote for big boy Trump and he says he’ll return rights to the states! That means you and me are closer to our goal!”
I also just tell them “by your own logic… Bezos is smarter than you or me or anyone because he’s the richest. So, what stops Mr Bezos from simply enslaving us immediately after he hires a large private army? He’s gonna catch you. He’s the smartest, remember. And there are no laws… or are there laws now? Who enforces the laws? Oh no you’re creating government structures SO WHAT WAS YOUR POINT AGAIN???” Again, child brains, if they can’t grasp primitive accumulation and the source of wealth or capital they hold, they’re not gonna come around. And not grasping includes purposely remaining ignorant.
I like asking if Bill Gates is till the largest agricultural landowner on the day government is dissolved. Cause if yes, I’ve got some bad news about their childish yeoman farmer fantasies
Marx wrote a calculus textbook actually (seriously). Though dated by modern standards as a lot of the theoretical foundations of modern calculus were developed contemporaneously to Marx, and he was likely not aware of them.
I’m going to be honest. This instance has taught me more surprising information than any other. I never, in my life, would have guessed that as probable. :)
The man devoted his life’s work to analyzing Capitalism mathematically, so it’s not unresonable
Feel free to ask us anything, we’re happy to talk, as long as it’s in good faith. We are only dunking on smug assholes when they come here from other instances in bad faith without any intention to hear us