Jesus Christ, I hate the Economist...

[Comrade B]

To top off midterm week and the work which accompanies it, one of my teachers has assigned 95 pages of anti-marxist reading. The worst part so far is a lovely little bit by the Economist, which is honestly causing me physical pain to read. Jesus, fucking, Christ, I hate the Economist.
One of the claims seems to be that scholars read Adam Smith, and only want to be intellectuals read Marx or on Marx. Also that Marx was only a great writer because he was accompanied in writing by Engles, and clearly this makes his ideas not as strong. It sounds like a half insane 70 year old Reaganite's *****ings about the good old days. One claim is that "communism" is responsible for Al Queda because the people of the middle east had to defend themselves.

[Comrade B]

Ah, here is a quote from the reading

In western democracies today, who chooses who rules, and for how long? Who tells governments how companies will be regulated? Who in the end owns the companies? Workers for hire--the proletariat. And this is because of, not despite, the things Marx most deplored: private property, liberal political rights and the market. Where it mattered most, Marx could not have been more wrong.So true.. huh...

[RHIZOMES]

That's horrible. wtf course is that?

[Comrade B]

Introduction to Comparative Politics, that was the most painful reading I have ever done...

The writer seems to think he is an expert in all fields, with the ability to discredit all Marxist theory, from Marxist economic principles, to women's rights, to art history in one big swoop.

I did learn one thing from this writing.

Supporters of die hard free market Liberalism cannot defend their ideology, they can only shit talk to make it seem like everything else is worse, but they have no way of defending themselves.
There is no argument made in their own defense, just acting as if it is common knowledge that their system is pure and perfect.

[RHIZOMES]

Introduction to Comparative Politics, that was the most painful reading I have ever done...

The writer seems to think he is an expert in all fields, with the ability to discredit all Marxist theory, from Marxist economic principles, to women's rights, to art history in one big swoop.

I did learn one thing from this writing.

Supporters of die hard free market Liberalism cannot defend their ideology, they can only shit talk to make it seem like everything else is worse, but they have no way of defending themselves.
There is no argument made in their own defense, just acting as if it is common knowledge that their system is pure and perfect.

That's the awesome thing I discovered doing Sociology courses involving Marxism heavily, the liberal students can't really back up their opinions in our little lecture debates.

[NecroCommie]

That doesn't stop them from thinking they can. Also, logic has never been a major hinderance for right-wingers.

[Angry Young Man]

One claim is that "communism" is responsible for Al Queda because the people of the middle east had to defend themselves.

It takes near superhuman levels of ignorance for the author to blind himself to the irony of that claim.

[Raúl Duke]

One of the claims seems to be that scholars read Adam Smith, and only want to be intellectuals read Marx or on Marx.

Perhaps in the English-speaking world this might be so...

In Puerto Rico and I guess Continental Europe, Marx is fine to read

[rednordman]

Didnt your teacher give you this so you could refute the anti-marxist literature? If she hasnt, then she is technically only preaching to the choir isnt she?

I think alot of the things that you have read have been put forward to be easially refuted. 'Marx was only a good writer because he had help from Engles?'WTF?!! Thats nearly as stupid as the claim that its communisms fault for the war in Afganistan. Surly that didnt actually come from the Economist did it?

[jake williams]

Introduction to Comparative Politics, that was the most painful reading I have ever done...
I have a similar class. It's absolutely fucked. I don't know how to deal with it.

[Comrade B]

The teacher uses articles from magazines to elaborate on topics, not teach... but some of the stories just make me feel nauseous. I laughed my ass off at an old one where the economist claimed that Chavez was about to lose his power from around 2002 or something

[Bilan]

You need to read things like that. If you can't disprove it, then there's a problem, isn't there?
But evidently, you can. Most claims against Marxism are relatively, if not absurdly, distorted (I see them all the time in Sociology, it never feckin' ends - I had one lecturer claim that Marx's views on religion, in some way, legitimised Stalin's attacks on Religious people. Needless to say, I cleared that up for him in front of a crowded theatre).

The point of reading stuff like that is to make you think. It's annoying. But I promise you, reading that isn't as frustrating as Friedman. That guy's economic theory is written as if, since being enlightened from Feudalism, we are now walking on the clouds.

[Il Medico]

You need to read things like that. If you can't disprove it, then there's a problem, isn't there?
But evidently, you can. Most claims against Marxism are relatively, if not absurdly, distorted (I see them all the time in Sociology, it never feckin' ends - I had one lecturer claim that Marx's views on religion, in some way, legitimised Stalin's attacks on Religious people. Needless to say, I cleared that up for him in front of a crowded theatre).

The point of reading stuff like that is to make you think. It's annoying. But I promise you, reading that isn't as frustrating as Friedman. That guy's economic theory is written as if, since being enlightened from Feudalism, we are now walking on the clouds.
Haha. Bravo on schooling the lecturer. I used to correct my teachers back in high school, but usually it would just start an argument which I couldn't win. (Not because my reasoning or points were faulty, but because other students for some reason think that teachers are infallible when it comes to the subject they teach no matter how flimsy their points are.) So now I just correct/argue with them after class. I kinda feel like I am cheating the students though, but its not like they'd listen to me over a professor anyways.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Economist is probably my favorite rag. It discusses a lot of things which are never brought up by the US press, and it puts bullshit news (new iphone) were it belongs (not anywhere important).

[Le Libérer]

The Economist is rs2k's fav rag too. We've been keeping up the $125 a year subscription. To quote him, The Economist was Marx's favorite bougeious publication.

[jake williams]

The teacher uses articles from magazines to elaborate on topics, not teach... but some of the stories just make me feel nauseous. I laughed my ass off at an old one where the economist claimed that Chavez was about to lose his power from around 2002 or something
The clear doctrine in my class, both on the part of the professor and on the part of a large number of the students, is "liberal democracy" (not ever "liberal capitalism", this much is generally implied).

But the articulations of what liberal democracy is are often clumsily close to... fascism. Case in point: the other day one student went on at length about how "late developers" (eg. any country other than France and Britain), especially with "weak states", need to go through a period of "authoritarianism" to "achieve democracy". Really. It only gets worse from there, too.