babyhueypnewton posted:you're right, I disagree with Chang, just like I disagree with Bruce Cumings when he prefaces everything with "north korea is a totalitarian dystooia, please don't fire me..." this is a function of their role as intellectuals, and to put it simply if they were revolutionary they wouldn't exist (I guess they would be janitors somewhere). that's not to say they are censoring themselves, it's not a conspiracy. they made it that far because they are can make it that far, I'm sure you're familiar with chomsky on intellectuals (who himself is allowed to exist as an impotent radical)
thats why i said he was for beginners. I long ago stopped looking for "truth" in academia, and Zizek is right that post-modern marxism is allowed to exist in a form in identity politics studies (race, feminist, lgbt studies) because it doesn't challenge the system itself. zizek himself is allowed to exist because he's mostly inaccessible and is a professional troll rather than a serious revolutionary.
why are you allowed to exist
babyhueypnewton posted:I long ago stopped looking for "truth" in academia ... Zizek is right
haha you sure did
babyhueypnewton posted:I love how he dismisses Latin America, Africa,and India as if that is not the majority of the underdeveloped world. ... And his only example left is China, which he conveniently forgets to mention developed because of a SOCIALIST SYSTEM.
combining Maoist China, the USSR, most of Africa, large sections of India, large sections of Latin America, and various socialist regimes around the world THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION HAS LIVED UNDER ACTUALLY EXISTING SOCIALISM. the negativity of this board is another mental illness worth looking at.
All those other countries were also socialist according to you.
babyhueypnewton posted:no
okay, then on what basis do you trust the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian allen over the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian ellman
jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:no
okay, then on what basis do you trust the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian allen over the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian ellman
um I understand their background, their role in the class struggle, their biases and the limitations of their field. I guess none of you even went to school, in any history class in the last 40 years this isn't even controversial. I'm sure even in high school history they present different interpretations of a historical event and show the truth in all of them. most of what i say is not controversial at all, everything i said is pretty much ripped straight from gramsci, althusser, foucault, and chomsky on science, intellectuals, and empiricism. not that i imagine any of you understood them.
I have no inherent "trust" in anybody, however allen's research is interesting because it goes against the field and his class interests, while just reading a paragraph of Ellman is enough to see his bullshit and dismissal of the majority of honest research into development (dependency theory).
I don't know why i even bother though, you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a moron. little dissapointed in getfiscal who is incapable of responding to responses to his trolls, including that maoist guy. i guess when a troll doesn't end in a ban you're lost.
jools posted:or why does it matter that the capitalism ha-joon chang talks about is not free-market? it's still capitalism, the existence or not of the so-called "market" doesn't make a different really
sorry im not going to give you a 101 class on developmental state economics. try reading a book.
babyhueypnewton posted:jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:no
okay, then on what basis do you trust the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian allen over the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian ellman
um I understand their background, their role in the class struggle, their biases and the limitations of their field. I guess none of you even went to school, in any history class in the last 40 years this isn't even controversial. I'm sure even in high school history they present different interpretations of a historical event and show the truth in all of them. most of what i say is not controversial at all, everything i said is pretty much ripped straight from gramsci, althusser, foucault, and chomsky on science, intellectuals, and empiricism. not that i imagine any of you understood them.
I have no inherent "trust" in anybody, however allen's research is interesting because it goes against the field and his class interests, while just reading a paragraph of Ellman is enough to see his bullshit and dismissal of the majority of honest research into development (dependency theory).
I don't know why i even bother though, you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a moron. little dissapointed in getfiscal who is incapable of responding to responses to his trolls, including that maoist guy. i guess when a troll doesn't end in a ban you're lost.
actually what you're saying has as much relation to gramsci, althusser, foucault, and chomsky as a crayon drawing of a woman does to the mona lisa. you have a really funny + bad conception of science, where if anything goes against someones putative class interests (vulgar economism if ever i heard it!) it becomes transcendent gospel truth. your responses to ellman amount to "he farted on my friends, so i hate him".
like samir amin goes on about the bandung era of import substitution as being the basis of the later export-manufacturing second phase of imperial rent. you haven't read any of these people you talk about!
babyhueypnewton posted:um when did i say that i liked ha joon chang? i specifically said i dislike him and only recommend him for beginners if you bothered to read words. your question was so moronic it provoked that response, to anyone with knowledge it's like asking: what's the difference between fascism and social democracy is, they're both capitalism right? it's from another time, or just a position of ignorance.
this is you
jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:no
okay, then on what basis do you trust the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian allen over the bourgeois neoclassical economic historian ellman
um I understand their background, their role in the class struggle, their biases and the limitations of their field. I guess none of you even went to school, in any history class in the last 40 years this isn't even controversial. I'm sure even in high school history they present different interpretations of a historical event and show the truth in all of them. most of what i say is not controversial at all, everything i said is pretty much ripped straight from gramsci, althusser, foucault, and chomsky on science, intellectuals, and empiricism. not that i imagine any of you understood them.
I have no inherent "trust" in anybody, however allen's research is interesting because it goes against the field and his class interests, while just reading a paragraph of Ellman is enough to see his bullshit and dismissal of the majority of honest research into development (dependency theory).
I don't know why i even bother though, you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a moron. little dissapointed in getfiscal who is incapable of responding to responses to his trolls, including that maoist guy. i guess when a troll doesn't end in a ban you're lost.
actually what you're saying has as much relation to gramsci, althusser, foucault, and chomsky as a crayon drawing of a woman does to the mona lisa. you have a really funny + bad conception of science, where if anything goes against someones putative class interests (vulgar economism if ever i heard it!) it becomes transcendent gospel truth. your responses to ellman amount to "he farted on my friends, so i hate him".
sorry but im going to have to go with getfiscal's conception of science for second, because if you don't even have a base level of knowledge of the things i'm talking about you just come off as a moron and flail about like you're doing atm. you're literally just throwing words out, regardless of what you think of my conception of science it is as far from vulgar economism as possible. try again, this time with substance.
babyhueypnewton posted:I would recommend Ha Joon Chang for a beginner who wants to understand how the system of the east asian tigers had absolutely nothing to do with free market capitalism. I would also recommend for Getfiscal burning that guy's book, and for everyone else see what the standard of research is among "experts" on the soviet union among the bewildered herd of independent minds (Chomsky).
also this is all you said about chang sorry
^^^
like what is that? it doesn't say anything. it doesn't point out where what i said conflicts with what i said later, it doesn't point out that you were wrong or modify what you said earlier in any way, it is just a sentence that leaves to the collective imagination what it means.
babyhueypnewton posted:like, you haven't said anything. you've attacked me, you've thrown out a couple of lines with buzzwords, but you haven't actually said anything which is what's frustrating. at least getfiscal put words out there to respond to, your response is the very worst of lf.
^^^
like what is that? it doesn't say anything. it doesn't point out where what i said conflicts with what i said later, it doesn't point out that you were wrong or modify what you said earlier in any way, it is just a sentence that leaves to the collective imagination what it means.
this is because you've not actually said anything yourself. i read through your posts again, just to check if i've missed anything. nope! instead you rattle on about farm to factory, as if it is the complete final word on the economic history of the soviet union, then you admit you're not very well read (i assume on the post-stalin era?), then you dismiss ellman as ignoring dependency theory after reading two paragraphs of him.
you need to be more charitable if you're serious about science! what is this bullshit? how can i latch on to and assess anything critically if all you're doing is writing homilies about some transcendental marxist science that is superior to bourgeois science, and not actually writing anything substantial?
getfiscal is writing actual things because he is better read than either of us - and specifically has recently been reading a lot on socialist planning - and more importantly he's mostly ignoring the shit you're spewing.
what, actually, is your conception of socialism anyway? it seems very confused, as earlier you posted some sub-brezhnev rubbish about india being socialist pre-1990. for someone who claims familiarity with dependency theory you have a weirdly cominterny view of the historical-economic blocs of the 20th century.
getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:have a little bit of trust in your instincts, and let all information age with time before you absorb it fully. I think this is where crow was getting at with trust your experience, and distrust snake oil salesman who are willing to throw Marxist concepts out the window but try and sell you a new leftist cure for the world (this especially goes for the post-marxists getfiscal loves so much)
my intuition is that most socialists have no idea what socialist economics entails. they exist entirely in reaction to their negative experience of capitalism. they bracket socialism as a minimum belief that planning works, maybe sometimes it even works well if the right people are in charge or new technology is involved or it is more participatory/mass influenced, and leave it at that. accordingly, instead of working through the scholarly consensus and historical record, they simply choose works that reinforce their worldview. usually this involves coming up with elaborate reasons why whole periods of history are irrelevant despite having very similar basic structures.
i fail to see how "importing foreign technology" or "new technology" is somehow a blow against central planning. like i'm sure uganda has perfectly good cell phones and telecommunication technology, but that hasn't saved it. India has some of the leading tech firms in the world, but that hasn't helped them as much as you would expect.
elemennop posted:i fail to see how "importing foreign technology" or "new technology" is somehow a blow against central planning. like i'm sure uganda has perfectly good cell phones and telecommunication technology, but that hasn't saved it. India has some of the leading tech firms in the world, but that hasn't helped them as much as you would expect.
go back and read what i said, you didn't parse it correctly.
elemennop posted:getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:have a little bit of trust in your instincts, and let all information age with time before you absorb it fully. I think this is where crow was getting at with trust your experience, and distrust snake oil salesman who are willing to throw Marxist concepts out the window but try and sell you a new leftist cure for the world (this especially goes for the post-marxists getfiscal loves so much)
my intuition is that most socialists have no idea what socialist economics entails. they exist entirely in reaction to their negative experience of capitalism. they bracket socialism as a minimum belief that planning works, maybe sometimes it even works well if the right people are in charge or new technology is involved or it is more participatory/mass influenced, and leave it at that. accordingly, instead of working through the scholarly consensus and historical record, they simply choose works that reinforce their worldview. usually this involves coming up with elaborate reasons why whole periods of history are irrelevant despite having very similar basic structures.
i fail to see how "importing foreign technology" or "new technology" is somehow a blow against central planning. like i'm sure uganda has perfectly good cell phones and telecommunication technology, but that hasn't saved it. India has some of the leading tech firms in the world, but that hasn't helped them as much as you would expect.
yeah, it doesnt, because bhnp learns precisely the wrong lessons from the soviet industrialisation process lol
babyhueypnewton posted:how dishonest. What I was saying in context when I said that I'm not well read is that pure science can be used to hoodwink or distort, and only experts have the time and knowledge to dispute falsehoods. I used the example of global warming as something where even well read people can be outflanked by mathematical models, dense academic sources which most people don't have access to, or being overwhelmed with information which no one has the time to thoroughly dispute except professional scholars. In fact, this is a D&d tactic which is well known here, however, using your opponents honesty to gain the upper hand and treating a debate like a fight is also a D&D tactic, one which you just used. i have no time for you or anyone who is so blatantly dishonest.
if you cant hack the argumentative tools necessary to treat the subject honestly you should perhaps Shut The fuck UP? why is any of this necessary for arguing for Socialism anyway?
"Sorry, I don't do ontotheology any more"
getfiscal posted:elemennop posted:i fail to see how "importing foreign technology" or "new technology" is somehow a blow against central planning. like i'm sure uganda has perfectly good cell phones and telecommunication technology, but that hasn't saved it. India has some of the leading tech firms in the world, but that hasn't helped them as much as you would expect.
go back and read what i said, you didn't parse it correctly.
i never read anything twice, life is too short
jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:how dishonest. What I was saying in context when I said that I'm not well read is that pure science can be used to hoodwink or distort, and only experts have the time and knowledge to dispute falsehoods. I used the example of global warming as something where even well read people can be outflanked by mathematical models, dense academic sources which most people don't have access to, or being overwhelmed with information which no one has the time to thoroughly dispute except professional scholars. In fact, this is a D&d tactic which is well known here, however, using your opponents honesty to gain the upper hand and treating a debate like a fight is also a D&D tactic, one which you just used. i have no time for you or anyone who is so blatantly dishonest.
if you cant hack the argumentative tools necessary to treat the subject honestly you should perhaps Shut The fuck UP? why is any of this necessary for arguing for Socialism anyway?
it has nothing to do with arguing socialism and everything to do with arguing with you. when I say "i'm not well read" in a specific context to make an obvious point (that there is no such thing as "well read", anyone can be overwhelmed by information and mathematics if they are not familiar or don't have the time to check sources) and you use that line to attack me and minimize my argument, than you're an asshole and we're done. my argument with getfiscal is entirely separate from fending off your potshots from the sidelines.
I would call a Socialist anyone who intervenes in the economy to a large extent. Hitler and Mussolini did this. That would certainly stop them being capitalists anyway.
Back to the original point, the world has never run out of any resource, and due to price mechanisms and profit motives, it never will. You don't really sound qualified to argue with that. If you can come up with an adequate reply, backed up by evidence, I'll take you seriously.
babyhueypnewton posted:i dismissed ellman because in that paragraph he displayed a profound ignorance of something which I do know about with academic rigor. anyone who thinks that the growth of the east asian tigers is not "remarkable" is a fool at best, who is dismissing the entirety of developmental state theory. now, i have my problems with that school myself, but ellman is a clown.
you read that incorrectly. he isn't saying that the asian tigers were unremarkable. he's saying that soviet growth was outstripped in other countries like the asian tigers, making soviet growth less remarkable.