Who is the biggest pseudo intellectual in literature?

when it comes to Peterson he appears to like taking the role of being the agent of ultimate wisdom and his fans will eat it up
hes a pseud under the degree of how he is perceived

>Peterson he appears to like taking the role of being the agent of ultimate wisdom
Id argue its more a standard bearer for western cultural wisdom discarded in haste. He has seen hesitant at every corner about being seen as anything but that.

with that specification I see your point. I think it’s hard to seperate him from his followers, same with the other people I mentioned. although I would never say that he isn’t an intelligent guy. Peterson attracts pseuds, but I don’t consider him one.

>Peterson attracts pseuds, but I don’t consider him one.
Big this. He is not revolutionary or tries to be he is just willing to make big bank on teaching old wisdom to the products of single mothers and the US public education system.

I think his value is the ability to articulate his thoughts to normies, its a gift, that most ppl with more than two brain cells to rub togeather have an issue with

I think its a useful concept to at least know about

How so? I'm willing to bet you simply didn't comprehend the point you think is contradictory

I'm not sorry you have brain damage

>Marx was an "economist" without even being trained in the field
There are Marxist economists, but Marx is not one of them.

Economics as its own field you could study as a course at university didn't exist at that time, Adam Smith didn't have a economics degree does that invalidate him?

he wasn't a philosopher, he wholeheartedly rejected philosophy:
>Where speculation ends — in real life — there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence.

he wasn't a historian, since he didn't take part in the intellectual division of labour of bourgeois society. and he wasn't a philosopher, since the entirety of his thought and action was premised on the overcoming of philosophy. he was a communist

>The rate of profit is falling
>Corporate profit still continues to rise
>Household income continues to rise when adjusted for inflation
Again, Marxists are just bullshiting numbers as always

>Everyone is lying but my schizophrenic no name bloggers without any background in economics
Yeah, no, sorry

>Source
>The New School of Economics
>The New School is a private research university in New York City. It was founded in 1919 as The New School for Social Research with an original mission dedicated to academic freedom and intellectual inquiry and a home for progressive thinkers.
>ts faculty and alumni include numerous notable businesspeople, political figures, fashion designers, journalists, musicians, and artists. Notable students and alumni who have achieved prominence in political and business fields include economist Heather Boushey,[7] a member of President Joe Biden's Council of Economic Advisers;
Yeah, no Anon, that's just propaganda. You really think people are going to trust data from fricking people who work for Joe Biden? Lmao.

Imagine calling people useful idiots when you link data from Soros-backed think thanks. Its so weird how you people paint yourself as anti-establishment and then link data from Soros and all the corporate institutions that control our country.

Self reported data from tax returns is much more open than data made up by paid for by Soros and Joe Biden, yeah.

Nonsense, Darth Soros is an evil wizard coming to eat your babies

Bruh, even conservatives recognize median income buys you less today than any time in the past 5 decades

am i hallucinating or is this floating bowtie and kippah talking to me right now

I'm the guy who posted that.
The Marxist Humanist report had good example about this. There was a critique of Paul wienershot understanding of the LTV because these morons can't even get their basic correct.
https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/episode-20-wienershott-versus-marx-interview-with-rv
They aren't even consistent on LTV. I know how these people think; they always change their tune and make shit up as they go. They rely on nobodies like wienershot and Hudson who never are consistent or have replicable data. I bet you that moron who posted about the profit rate doesn't even know Husdon. They just google first thing that confirms their priors and run with it.

I like how you leave out Cass' advocacy of mercantilism as being the solution, which is correct as you can't escape political economy.

>The top few percentiles have HUGE increases of wealth
>The 50th percentile fluctuates around about the same total amount
The operation of the free market concentrates wealth at the top while the vast majority are actually worse off after each market crash.

profit comes from unpaid labour

ESL lmao

Actually, no. Marxists just make shit up. He doesn't start with any facts. You have alternative facts. You have alternative facts about history. Alternative facts about economics. Alternative facts about society. You're just merchants in rhetoric like sophists.

Takes a high amount of psuedry to think an author from 200 years ago, who wasn't even an economist, is relevant to today. Especially when you've never read capitalist books. Have you read the Law by Bastiat? Have you heard anything by Rothbard? or Friedman? Or Sowell. You think women can have penises - no one takes you seriously when it comes to economics. You don't have the intelligence to make claims about it.

>Economics is a science
Lol, no. The entire economy is built around belief and expectations of no permanence. Also, today there is no industrial group which can be said to be: in the majority, producers on whom society "depends", in dire need. Nobe of Marx's writings on society are even relevant today outside from the ideologies it sprouts forth that affect actions in the real world.

>Have you read the Law by Bastiat? Have you heard anything by Rothbard? or Friedman? Or Sowell.
The absolute ironing of recommending this while complaining about how Marxists regularly fail to be empirical.

>How is it capitalist when there's no private property relations based markets
there were, read up on Soviet agriculture
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09668135608410028
>The kolkhoz market is in essence a free market to which agricultural producers bring food products for sale to individual private consumers at prices determined by local supply and demand conditions. While I shall later have occasion to qualify and elaborate various elements of this definition, it serves adequately to describe the more than 8000 kolkhoz markets in the USSR today. A significant share of total private consumption passes through these markets, while income from market sales forms the major share of the kolkhozniki's (collective-farmers') money income.

>Do you think capitalism means profits??
yes, capitalism is distinguished by the majority of production being motivated by profit

Were they published?

no, "economics" and "sociology" are categories of bourgeois science. you're accusing me of taking the quote out of context, but the context, in the same chapter, is that Marx explicitly contrasts economics as such with communism, identifying the former with capital:
>[Proudhon] wants to soar as the man of science above the bourgeois and proletarians; he is merely the petty bourgeois, continually tossed back and forth between capital and labour, political economy and communism.
and with your pretense that economics is above class struggle and as such can unite communists with bourgeois ideologues under the same category, you're doing just the thing Marx accuses Proudhon of here.
which means you're just a lib who can't see beyond bourgeois society and who considers bourgeois categories as neutral, timeless and universal. that's why you automatically try to shoehorn Marx into them. it's the same as with people who call him a leftist.
and let's just get a final piece of "context" from the same book:
>Ricardo, after postulating bourgeois production as necessary for determining rent, applies the conception of rent, nevertheless, to the landed property of all ages and all countries. This is an error common to __all the economists, who represent the bourgeois relations of production as eternal categories__.
which is the same mistake as representing bourgeois categories such as "an economist" as universal and all-encompassing.

[...]
>We just want to groom kids all day instead of work!
[...]
That graph is fake and its not even empirical. Marxists literally make a graph without a methodology, and call it it true. It also doesn't align with Marxists own arguments. You can not argue that inequality is increasing while arguing profit rates are falling. Everyone would becoming poorer, but this isn't happening.

>You can not argue that inequality is increasing while arguing profit rates are falling.
you can not argue anything about this until you go back to high school and learn basic math

>The rate of profit is falling
>Corporate profit still continues to rise
>Household income continues to rise when adjusted for inflation
Again, Marxists are just bullshiting numbers as always

you don't even understand what a "rate" is. you should immediately stop attempting to address serious subjects and go write comments on pornhub instead

>You Marxists are moronic. According to you, rates can be falling while profits are constantly going up.
that's not Marxism, that's just math. take it up with fricking thales of miletus
>Working hours are going down
no, the total amount of working hours goes up. take a look at world's population graph if you can read it
>You're very stupid
bro, you literally don't understand basic arithmetic. stop projecting this bad

>You don't understand Math.
you literally can't differentiate between absolute and relative amounts lmao
>Another claim that's completely wrong.
you don't even know what "total amount" means. go back to kindergarten you mongoloid
>And you're so moronic you think world population growth is metric to measure time at work.
are you also language illiterate on top of math illiterate? I said that the total amount of work hours performed will scale with population, which should be immediately obvious to anyone above elementary school
>You should probably stop pretending you're informed because you skim wikipedia articles.
which articles? I learned math at school

>Can't even read a graph correctly
your graph shows a amount per worker, while I was talking about the total amount. with every comment you keep broadcasting that you're an illiterate moron who still doesn't understand how a relative measure (such as the rate of profit) can fall, while the absolute measure (such as the total profit) rises. and that's because you can't even tell the difference between the two, as evidenced. just stop embarrassing yourself

I do, but you don't know what "per worker" means. why the frick would it matter whether it's annual or daily? you're genuinely mentally moronic, I'm not being hyperbolic

You're clearly moronic. Your profit rate graph shows the profit rate going down constantly since 1950, yet moron, we've had higher profits in 2016 than in 1950. Your belief is mathematically impossible. Ah yes, corporate profits are growing faster at a time where profit rates are allegedly falling in the same time frame. You idiots don't even get basic logic. Seriously, have a nice day. You're worthless and dumb as frick.

>Your profit rate graph
I haven't posted any profit rate graph
>we've had higher profits in 2016 than in 1950
you're still comparing the rate with the absolute amount (which is what's on your graph), despite having been told 5 times already that this is a basic mistake. your teachers probably gave up on you early on because you can't even learn by correcting your own mistakes after someone helpfully points them out for you. no wonder you're so unbelievably fricking stupid

Your point is moronic. One, the graph has no methodology. Not even the data provided shows how those numbers made that graph. You can't even explain how to make that graph. Two, Marxists can't even measure the rate of profit because their understanding of profit is impossible to measure. According to Marx, surplus value is the rate of profit. Its not possible to measure surplus value because surplus value is the amount of unpaid labor time the capitalist allegedly forces people to work to make a commodity. The value of a commodity is not tied to the amount of labor hours you put into a commodity. And in many cases, its not even possible for you to know how much labor hours it will take to make a product - there is inherent risk and uncertainty when making a product. Laborers aren't machines, they tire, they have limited time and resources, they aren't always efficient with their labor, they can't predict demand - the value is almost always subjective and an estimation. Three, you are stupid as frick - you can't explain why a constant rate of profit going down correlates with profit rate that is clearly faster than rate going down would imply. Your dumb. Literally, its non-sense - nobody talks about the falling rate of profit; its only Marxists who bring this argument up. None of them have the same methodology for measuring the rate of profit either. You want us to believe corporations are hiding falling profit rates from the rest of us? Its moronic. Everyone would be talking about if it was the case.

>According to Marx, surplus value is the rate of profit
that's interesting, because his equation for the rate of profit includes surplus value as the nominator, and there are other things in the denominator. but I guess in moron math everything is possible
>Its not possible to measure surplus value
it is, since sum of values must = sum of prices, and we can measure sum of money invested and the sum of money that came back
>surplus value is the rate of profit
>surplus value is the amount
again with the rate being the amount? in each of your post you find a new way to commit the exact same kindergarten-child-with-down-syndrome level error. it's honestly amazing
>The value of a commodity is not tied to the amount of labor hours you put into a commodity.
true, it's tied to the amount of abstract labour hours that would be needed to reproduce the commodity, not the amount of concrete labour hours that have been put into it
>And in many cases, its not even possible for you to know how much labor hours it will take to make a product
irrelevant tangent
>there is inherent risk and uncertainty when making a product
risk and uncertainty are also irrelevant, because they average out with global mass production
>Laborers aren't machines... the value is almost always subjective and an estimation
no, an estimation of value will be an estimation. the value won't. measuring a tree with imperfect accuracy doesn't make the tree itself taller or shorter depending on the measurement error.
>you are stupid as frick - you can't explain why a constant rate of profit going down correlates with profit rate that is clearly faster than rate going down would imply
yep, still doesn't know what a rate is and calls other people stupid
>You want us to believe corporations are hiding falling profit rates from the rest of us?
why would corporations be interested in economy-wide rate of profit?

I almost started to believe I was being baited, but that screed confirmed that you're honestly trying to formulate correct thoughts, but you always immediately run into the limitations imposed by your down syndrome

lmao is that best you could do

>>I haven't posted any profit rate graph
>You're so moronic you don't even know who you talking to. Is this autism?
why are you projecting again? you're the one who thinks you're talking to someone who posted some graph, but I haven't posted any graphs.
>You're so stupid you're changing Marx's definition of the profit to something that's even more stupid.
what am I changing Marx's definition of profit to from what? you're just confused because you're so mentally deficient that you wouldn't be able to comprehend the difference between speed and acceleration
>Yeah, why would corporations not want to know the profitability of the markets they operate in?
I haven't said they wouldn't want to know the profitability of the markets they operate in. I said they wouldn't give a shit about economy-wide profitability, which is true.
>Why do you think S&P 500 were among the first people to actually check out your dumbass theory of the falling rate of profit in the 1970s and found no falling rate of profit?
that's just not true
>I don't even how you're trying to be so smug when you're so stupid.
you have the understanding of a piece of wood, so I might just as well be explaining to you that 2+2=4, and you'd still think I'm being smug

Facts:
>Working hours going down
>Profits going up
Brain dead Marxist:
>This secret graph with on wordpress from Michael Hudson, a literal Marxist economist nobody, is proof the corporations are hiding from you the profit rate is failing the demise of capitalism is certain. I can't even explain to you how get made the graph, or how to get his numbers, but you'll just have to trust me.
Dude, you are dumb. I'm so glad people in the field economics, especially my country, don't give a frick what you have to say and never will. You make it so easy for people to not waste their time with morons like you.

>This secret graph with on wordpress
I haven't posted any wordpress graphs. get checked
>a literal Marxist economist
there's no such thing. Marxism and economics are in opposition. Marx:
>[Proudhon] is merely the petty bourgeois, continually tossed back and forth between capital and labour, political economy and communism.

>is proof the corporations are hiding from you the profit rate is failing
they don't need to be hiding anything. it's not the duty of any corporation to give a shit about the economy-wide rate of profit
>the demise of capitalism is certain
it's not certain because of some graphs, but because capitalism can't stop developing the productive forces to be ever more socialized and it can't stop reproducing the proletariat

>the amount of abstract labour hours
And this is where Marxism breaks down. Funny that no one in this thread has pointed it out yet.

>And this is where Marxism breaks down.
and this is where your post broke down

>the amount of abstract labour hours
And this is where Marxism breaks down. Funny that no one in this thread has pointed it out yet.

Last year I made one dollar of a ten dollar investment. This year I made two dollars of a thirty dollar investment.

My post was to intended to demonstrate that rate of profit can fall while profit increase although that didnt seem to penetrate

do make it simpler:
2021 ROP - Profit : 10% - 1 dollar
2022 ROP - Profit : 6% - 2 dollars

>doesn't know about the PWT or the BEA
keep being a useful idiot for a federal reserve bank lol

>Takes a high amount of psuedry to think an author from 200 years ago, who wasn't even an economist, is relevant to today
If he's irrelevant why argue against him? If people think he's relevant then you should read him before making judgements on him. Economics is a science and a lot of our science is 200+ years old. I'm also curious about what you think qualifies someone as an "Economist". Was Adam Smith an economist?
>Have you heard anything by Rothbard? or Friedman? Or Sowell.
I've read at least one book from all of them and most of their publically available lectures. You left out Hayek though and he was the only one with some actual decent points.
>You think women can have penises - no one takes you seriously when it comes to economics.
Literally obsessed

Go leave.

Obviously, because we see the graphs of profit and rate of profit align if their thesis was true. But there is no alignment. There is no empirical relationship. Corporate profits keep going up, are higher at the lowest point of allegedly the profit rate. They don't understand methodology and they don't understand logic.

>You can't just rely on own critical thinking skills!
>People don't innate skills
Who the frick cares about political projects, you fricking bum? No one has to live for politics you stupid child. Motherfrickers like you die like Marx - without money and friends because you wasted your life in matters you can't even control. You're too stupid and too dumb do anything that will change history. Stop thinking you're next Lenin when you're not.

>pull urself by the bootstrap and follow u instinct

>pull urself by the bootstrap and follow u instinct

Black folk in Detroit got more sense than people who read Marx and call themselves Marxists. They make more money than you, they get laid and got friends. You're so autistic you think all it is to life is just Marx and class struggle. Nothing else bros. Its just DiaMat, HisMat or some other moronic shit a worthless israelite said 200+ years ago that's no longer relevant. We know you're gynecomastia having nerd that wears glasses and was shoved into lockers in school. You have no skills or talents. You can't make art, you can't make books, you can't engineer or build anything. You're just a waste. You can't even do anything original. You just repeat and copy. At least fascists were and still are a bit original. Motherfrickers like you have no imagination at all or future really.

Pretty sure you'd need drugs to feel happy in that sort of stagnating, nihilistic and uncompetitive environment.

I wonder how long such an arrangement would be socially sustainable before people become resentful towards those who dont pull their weight within the community

>you rent everything including and all products a designed according to central planning
>you eat at a cafeteria
What the frick kind of bug man wants to live like this? It sounds like you're just describing your own meme brand of a capitalist dystopia

>>you rent everything including and all products a designed according to central planning
Who said anything about renting?
>you eat at a cafeteria
So? I bet you eat at some greasy McDonalds's everyday lol.

Your "family" is a meaningless abstract construct that does not exist in any real way but to act as a link in the chains that hold you down.

No. Community is real, at least was hundred years ago. Read mutual aid by Kropotkin

>You realize this is a completely different society right? How you personally feel about it is irrelevant we'd all be long dead by the time high communism were achieved anyway and the people born into this society would feel just as uncomfortable and weird about how we currently live.
so not only are you completely oblivious to the fact that many people actually care about more than the material self-interests of their own lives, you simultaneously agree that there is no incentive for me to invest in building your bugman hellworld beyond "maybe generations down the road my family and culture and values will disintegrate and people will eat in a cafeteria every day and consoom product for free"

>just because
i didst say "Just because", are you illiterate?
> you only "care" about doing it under capitalism because you get rewarded with money
you say that like its supposed to be a bad thing lmao. yes I quite enjoy being able to exchange my labour of money, which is an extremely efficient way to translate my labour into virtually anything I want/need. being able to exchange your labour for anything you want/need is true freedom, and you are literally looking to take that away from people. and impose EXTREME limitations

lmao frickin hell
>I eat in a cafeteria, where do YOU eat?

Did it ever occur to you that people who live lives beyond smoking weed and playing videogames might actually prefer the opportunity to labour for more hours in exchange for the material and immaterial benefits that your "utopian" society lacks, or hell, that shorter work weeks and hours are not mutually exclusive with living in a society with private property and wage labour, rendering the entire thing pointless?

well there's the lack of ownership of property, the nature of the property its self, ie. theres too many limitations on its design, limitations on what you can "withdrawal" from the company store, too many limitations on type the food you eat, extreme limitations on housing. theres the whole "not having to eat in a cafeteria" thing lmao. and all around most importantly, id prefer not having to be a rootless cultutreless atheist bugman with no family unit just because some deranged psychopath thought they were all "spooks" and needed to be eliminated so they had their goons genocide everyone to make way for their vision of "class consciousness". you like to preach all about freedoms but in reality your society is EXTREMELY limiting and based on utterly dystopian totalitarian social engineering

projection much?

>went to war with both of those new governments, kek.
It had more to do with the fact that they didn't want society to crumble in the hands of the bolsheviks. Who started the thing when thwy couped the government which then proved itself to be inept, but that's basic democracy for you

LARPing has never been so lucrative, America is governed from the private sector and the formal government is just an elaborate historical re-enactment the think tanks put on. Go ahead, put up your mask coward, you live and breath to dick ride the status quo.

>Rejects Lolbertrain re-enactments.
>Let’s reject both stupid of these poltical assumptions, because both are dogshit
>uhhh, troony much?
Sargon?

>Exists
>Also Exists
Do Bunkergays REALLY?

>France, Sweden, the UK, etc. weren't fascist and they adopted the welfare state all the same
And? What does that have anything to do with anything I said?
>it's moronic to present it as a contribution of fascism
The only thing I presented as a a contribution of fascism was the Italian welfare state, can't you read?
>what was common to all those countries was that they were capitalisms with a rapidly developing industry
Not all the countries you presented had a particularly growing economy, especially France with its constant economic woes. The "rapidly growing" proletariat wasn't growing as much as you think it was, the institution of the welfare state rather was mostly a reaction to the perceived failures of laissez faire in 1929, as can be seen in the graphic you posted. As you say, it was the measures considered necessary for the survival of the economic mode of production (not that its fall would have meant the start of socialism). Also, the institution of the Italian welfare state was coupled with a variety of new approaches, both economic and political, that progressively increased the power of the workers inside companies and statal control over trade and resource production, thus reducing or completely killing the margins of profits of companies that wouldn't comply with current and future changes. Corporativism reached its peak in the SRI, where fascists, free of the conservative bandwagoners, instituted a system very similar to the NEP. Then again, you believe the Soviets were capitalists, so it's useless arguing that with you.

the working class can't be enslaved and manipulated according to an "egotistical vision". it requires the enormous material force of capital to subjugate it, and that force is only available if it's done for the vision of capital accumulation, not according to some pathetic little personal egotisms

no, you can't wield an enormous mass of centralized capital according to egotistical whims. it's a bit like the ring in LOTR: you either destroy it or you let it wield you for its own purposes (accumulation).

no, history has confirmed it at every step. all great historical events of modernity prove that personal ambitions of "great men" are always just vehicles used to forward the interests of a powerful social class. they have no command of their own.

Pretty sure you'd need drugs to feel happy in that sort of stagnating, nihilistic and uncompetitive environment.

>you apply yourself to the sciences, art, music etc. in your abundance of free time likely working on large communal projects
>stagnating, nihilistic and uncompetitive environment.
lmao

>Who said anything about renting?
It's implied. You can't own private property in communism. The the property has to be rented from the "community", ie the central planning committee which is AKA "the community."

that's not what rent is

Did it ever occur to you that people who live lives beyond smoking weed and playing videogames might actually prefer the opportunity to labour for more hours in exchange for the material and immaterial benefits that your "utopian" society lacks, or hell, that shorter work weeks and hours are not mutually exclusive with living in a society with private property and wage labour, rendering the entire thing pointless?

who asked what you prefer

Profit is not the essential feature of capitalism as a mode of production. Capitalism is characterized by the private ownership of capital, the means of production. If the full value of the labor went to the laborer, as opposed to the capitalist owner, it cannot be called capitalism, even if the “profit” comes from exchange on a free market. So you’re dumb and gay.

>Profit is not the essential feature of capitalism as a mode of production. Capitalism is characterized by the private ownership of capital, the means of production.
capital-ism is characterized by production being dominated by capital, i.e. by value directed towards multiplying itself. this means that the multiplication of value is the motive of production, and multiplication of value is just another word for the production of profit. so, yes, profit is the essential feature.
if there's generalized production of profit, then it's capitalism. if there isn't, then it's not capitalism.
>If the full value of the labor went to the laborer, as opposed to the capitalist owner, it cannot be called capitalism
if the labourer and the capitalist owner happen to be the same person, then the value of the product goes to the labourer, but it also goes to the capitalist owner, so it's still capitalism.
"capitalist" is not a name of a particular person but of a function: making a sum of money larger than it was by passing it through production of commodities and their sale on the market. this function can be fulfilled by an idler, by an agricultural worker, by a state bureaucrat. but as long as production is based on that role being fulfilled, it follows the same specific laws.