Why do you guys think so many academics are Marxists or otherwise socialists, and so few are conservatives?

That may be true, it may be rational, but Marxism is malevolent and destructive.

So, the foremost experts in how humans socially organize generally support a certain school of thought regarding human social organization, and experts in other fields still generally sway more towards those beliefs than the average person?

Still seems like a pretty good indication that conservatism is generally unsupported by the smartest people in the world, and socialism is generally more supported by the smartest people, and the more a smart person studies social organization, the more they believe in socialism.

So maybe socialists are right?

Read his books dude.

He called for a violent overthrow and complete destruction of the classes. Very disruptive, and very malevolent.

Because academics are funded by the government, brainlet. They live in lala land where they are isolated from the demands and processes of modern trade, logistics, and business, they talk with people mostly from their own field pre-occupied with their own research, and theoretical possibilities appeal to them more than practical realities

Let me ask you another question.
Why are most bankers politically right-wing?

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-04-28 17-28-08.png (1600x900, 77K)

You've never read Marx, have you?

>disruption bad!!!!!! revolution change nothing!
also it doesn't say that you dumb negro.

Attached: 1492917920362.jpg (400x400, 36K)

I wish to accrue wealth. Marxism is against the very concept of this? Why should I be limited from doing so, when the circumstances may work well for me.

They are out-of-touch with reality because they live in ivory towers built on critical theory, sexual debauchery, drugs and other degeneracy.

>Conservative university students on average perform worse than other university students.
Yet they excel in the workplace.

>exclusively to discover truth
Not really, lots of it is hypothetical and shit, but doesn't really have numbers or facts backing it.

Try not not toeing the sjw partyline and having a career left.

>the foremost experts
self styled, but they never have any backing to that, just claims.

Class collaboration isn't Marxism.

>le occams razor xD
You sound like a Joe Rogan fan

ted's manifesto starts with a massive list dedicated to btfoing liberals. It's a work of art.

Attached: based ted.png (500x576, 157K)

there shouldn't be classes to collaborate with.

>fuck the facts man, they just keep getting in the way of my schizophrenic fantasies i make up to justify my worldview
ok

>Advocating for mixed markets is Marxism

I bet you think Japan and Korea have Marxist governments because of how regulated their economies are.

you mean throwing some ad hominems at them and then bitching and moaning about them. Wow, "liberals" btfo. How will they recover!

He's a nutcase and I don't agree with his dystopic techno pessimism, but I was surprised at how well he predicted the rise of SJWs, social justice bullshit, and the class of grievance studies and the perpetually offended

>utterly ignoring any lessons in what "is" in favor of what ought to be
surely nothing will go wrong.

Classes are an inevitability in nature and the universe. Anarcho shit is a meme and you know it.

Marx believed that when humans organize along class lines that create different, conflicting/opposing material interests of groups of people, that these groups of people will inevitably enter conflict of some sort until the differences between their interests are reconciled.

This is called "Dialectical Materialism", it stems from Hegel's philosophy.

He didn't so much "[call] for a violent overthrow", but uh, studied history and came up with a quite reliable method of analyzing and predicting social movements based on contradictions of material interests within a society.

The logical conclusion of this analytic method, which is remarkably consistent with reality, is a stage of human development where all differences of class interest have been reconciled, and therefore there are no remaining classes. This logical endpoint of the process of class conflict is what we call Communism.

This method has since been critiqued, refined and reworked for more than 100 years.

Ya can't stop it happening. Ya can't stop it being the truth.

The culture. Look at how open sharing info is on campus and between universities.

That it literally what marx wrote in the communist manifesto lmao. He was a fucking moron.

What's more likely?

The Sun and all the planets orbit the Earth, Geocentric theory is scientifically true, and so the smartest academics in the world believe it and not Heliocentric models.

or

Those damn Satanists are trying to force on this idea that the Earth and all the other planets actually orbit the Sun instead of the Earth.

Which one is more likely?
Let's see if you understand it.

I'm still waiting for the communist revolution to happen in Britain lmao

I did not say that it was ineffective, but that it was malevolent

insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means

This answers OP's question.

Also, political beliefs have no impact on your grades

>it's more likely so it's a fact
>when you entertain a thought you have agree with it

It happened. It was tried, it failed. How many times does it have to fail and how many millions of people have to die before you understand that marxism is fucking stupid?

>non jews reading Rabbi Marx's jewish utopia book

communism was created for jews. On one side you have Communism and the other side you have Zionism, both are ideologies by jews for jews.

Attached: churchill.jpg (900x500, 149K)

If Marxism is so coherent, why does every socialist group with more than two people devolve into shitflinging and infighting? Doesn't sound very rational or coherent to me when Lenin is calling Trotsky a jew for disagreeing with him.

Wasn't real socialism, pal. The soviet Union and North Korea were far right societies

>I wish to accrue wealth. Marxism is against the very concept of this?

You just keep confirming the fact that you've never read any Marx.

Hey, I don't blame you, it's really dry.

But don't pretend like you've
a) Made any attempt to do so
or
b) Know anything about Marxism

Marxism isn't "against the very concept of [accruing wealth]". Marxism isn't really for or against anything. It is a tool with which we can analyze the material world we live in, specifically the social organization of classes of people.

Marxism predicts that, should everyone generally act in their own interests (and there are analyses of how people don't act in their own interest. See: the concept of the "lumpen-proletariat" ) that the system of private property we currently use will be removed by the class that has an interest in its removal.

This is not a necessarily violent process.

Hypothetically, the proletariat could peacefully expropriate the private property (or "means of production") of the bourgeois and formulate a new system of democratically organizing access to that private property.

The problem with that is that the bourgeoisie happen to never let this happen. That's on them.

If they are met with violence because they won't cooperate with a social movement that is inevitable and just, and will allow them, should they cooperate, to have autonomy and material abundance at the low cost of the exact same amount of creative labour everyone else is expected to do, well, fuck em, they're obviously fucking stupid and want more than their fair share.

Did you reply to the wrong post or are you actually retarded?

I never said that you cretin.

Try reading what's in front of you instead of the ludicrous impressions in your tiny, smooth brain.

Most academics are liberals/moderates not Marxists.

You know Marxists by definition aren't liberals, and are in fact virulently opposed to liberalism, right?

No fuck wait, I made the mistake of thinking you might know something. Shit, my bad.

>Wasn't real socialism
Oh boy here we go again

I want to accrue enough wealth to carry out petty whims for whatever reason. Seems like it would be more enjoyable.

it was written in 1995, and, as evidenced by the fact that it's recognition led to his capture, was based on ideas formed far earlier. His criticisms were far enough ahead of their time as to be almost entirely unique. Also, critizing someone's motive and credibility is hardly an ad hominem.
The idea that technological progress must lead to a loss of agency is interesting. If not unique. It forms a lot of the basis for complaints about the 9-5 lifestyle.

Agitate and educate, comrade.

It was for the post you were replying to, which was obviously yourself.

>I learned that "liberals" has a cultural meaning and a separate definition in political science in high school
good thing that has any relevance when it is explicitly clear which meaning is being used. Good post.

>students in an environment hostile to their beliefs don't preform as well (by thats system's metrics) as those who's beliefs are constantly reaffirmed by said system
that's truly shocking, also don't you think it's funny that conservatives earn more on average than their liberal peers?

>which was obviously yourself.
I see. Retarded, and insane.

Marxism isn't really exclusive to conservatism, it's an economic, not a sociological/political theory and it's opposed to classical or neo-liberalism.

if he were that motivated, maybe he would understand the value of motivation and incentives for the individual.

Because that was when the left weren't full of clowns and a huge hive mind. People like Einstein strived for knowledge and to learn more and make greater things, and modern leftists strive for transgenders and gays.

It's pretty obvious you were just reiterating your earlier post. Stop acting like an obtuse retard, first year undergrad.

congrats on missing the entire argument in favor of a pathetic, pedantic attempt to frame common knowledge as though it is unique.

>BBBBRAAAAAAPPPP: The ideology
It's not so much that we don't know (it's ancient shit written specifically for retarded, illiterate proles). It's more like we know and don't give a fuck about it or straight up despise it.

It's edgy shit for angry, envious dumbfucks. I'm glad every gay-ass worker and peasant movement gets violently crushed every time. Fantasizing about torturing and killing commies gives me a boner.

careful, downvotes headed your way. These threads always draw out idiots like that lmao.

>you were just reiterating your earlier post
Look at the post again, and then realize how stupid you are. If you still can't see why you're an idiot, tell me so I can tell you how the whole Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism thing went down.

imagine acting pretentious about an ideology that amounts to "they have money. I want money. Revolution when?" The idea that only the poor work for what they have is nonsense.
there's different a site that loves clowns arguing like this you know.
>if I argue syntax I will finally be victorious!

Even before, but especially while the Marxist endeavors of the twentieth century took place, they were being critiqued as authoritarian, opportunistic, right wing, etc. by people within and around those movements.

Even Marx, in his day, was heavily derided within his own organization by the Bakuninists for being too right wing, too in favour of state/parliamentary action.

Vanguardism is usually the most contested aspect of any Marxist political programme that includes it, and it was a feature of nearly every twentieth century socialist project.

How can you look at a history of strong, widespread critique and warning against the more destructive aspects of these projects, and a contemporary general consensus that Bakunin's critique of Marx and the LeftCom critiques of Lenin were pretty accurate, and then go "Oh this whole enormous school of thought must have nothing to offer"?

You either know nothing about these movements or are a liar. Just watch like at least a couple of introductory YouTube videos on the topic or something lmao like how could you even make the mistake of thinking you know anything about the subject?

I haven't really experienced that academics are particularly non-conservative, where I live the hard-left, commies and stalinists are usually the conservative ones, construe 'degeneracy' as being caused by capitalism, i.e promiscuity is people growing up in a culture informed by market-logic end up becoming products to be consumed themselves.

>what happens when idealism meets the uncompromising reality within a plethora of countries is of no interest
This is a fascinating argument.

Maybe in your dogshit country it does, but I live in the real world.

Alright then, since you seem to think that it is merely a syntax thing, then you truly are an imbecile. Let me break it down for your sub 80 IQ brain:
This post by OP attempts to affirm that marxism must be correct because "the smartest people in the world believe in socialism" after evaluating the evidence, and that the notion that someone might be purposefully creating a bias is crazy.
My post, brings up the historical fact that "the smartest people in the world"
believed that the Earth was in the center of the universe, and that the notion that the Sun was in the center of the universe is crazy. Despite this, the so called "smartest people in the world" were actually the ones in the wrong, and the "crazy" guy was in the right all long, it was just that the academics choose to see the evidence the way they wanted to instead of how it was, and that therefore academics are not in any way infallible. Now, if you have any brain at all in your skull, you might realize this is actually the opposite of OP's attempted assertion. There we go. Broken down in a way that I hope your monkey brain can understand.

I've read all about it. Kropotkin, Bakunin, Makhno, Malatesta. All that shit. It's just a bunch of even bigger retards and pussies criticizing less retarded and pussy cucks for being too mean and violent. None of that shit is based in reality and even leftcom projects resulted in even more pathetic failures than marxist-leninist projects. Everything about socialism is gay shit.

>don't you think it's funny that conservatives earn more on average
Actually it completely makes sense with a Marxist analysis.

One will generally protect their class interests.

Conservatism is the ideology of the bourgeois, because it protects their class interests.

A poor person supporting conservatism has been duped. You don't become rich by supporting conservatism.

Is that really what you believe?

Seems like you don't pay attention to modern leftists, but fictional folk-demons.

Try living in the real world.

Man I love socialism.

Attached: 38ea451aa6.jpg (1084x806, 244K)

is this somewhere like eastern europe? It's bizarrely outside of the mainstream. It sounds like standard authoritarian communist arguments though. You actually could probably find enough similarities to speeches from figures like Mussolini to call it just authoritarian rhetoric though. I.e. thing I hate -> a general "decay from greatness"

Regardless, the op said that most academics are communists and socialists, so I'm not sure where the post was coming from. There were no lines drawn between marx and conservatives.

>talking about important topics on Jow Forums
hehe xd

Attached: back to pol.jpg (546x700, 136K)

>You don't become rich by supporting conservatism
Ok then let's disregard all those millions of entrepreneurs who became rich thanks to conservative venture capitalists and investors and making smart, conservative decisions with their finances.

>fact that it's recognition led to his capture
what led to his capture was the fact that he bombed people to death, not some autistic screeching in a book

ah yes, it was the economic model of socialism that killed those people, not a group of people that claimed to be socialist.

>i-it'll work this time around

I do. Just the other day a leftist judge broke the law and let a criminal out the back door, and you're considered homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, evil, and a "drumpf" supporter if you're white/male/not left wing.

>purposefully misreading in an attempt to seem superior

>I read any of the original posts
I literally don't care about the context. You both spent 15 posts on "which was obviously yourself" shit.

autistic screeching in a front-page article -> hey I recognize that autist. "Oh fugggg :DDD." - based Ted

Because they are idealistic given that they deal with the world of ideas and theories. On the opposite end all conservatives are usually businessmen who deal with practical matters. They both are needed to counteract each other although in this day and age economic conservatism is triumphing because capitalism has grown too strong (depending on where you live.)

The absolute irony of saying >purposefully misreading in an attempt to seem superior
and then going on about "you're obviously him"

The opposition to scientific advancement didn't come from other academics, it came from the Catholic Church. People basically had to reject heliocentrism for fear of persecution. Sort of like how we had to reject Marxism because of McCarthy.

I guess I might as well respond to your argument as well. It's a pretty decent allegory, but marx vs conservatives is more about two opposing views being not being given equal weight vs. inertia against new ideas.

Name one who wasn't already at least petty-bourgeois.

I'm criticizing that autist. I'm not him.

>you're considered homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, evil, and a "drumpf" supporter if you're white/male/not left wing.

Could it be that you're considered a homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist Trump supporter because you are those things?

Or alternately, have you actually been accused of such things and if so were the accusations actually wrong?

I forgot about McCarthy. It's frankly odd that the era didn't have more of an effect on today's academic thought. I guess maybe it just added to the false sense of nonconformity.

Why are we assuming what a hypothetical group of intellectuals think?

>tfw I get more (you)'s from this thread than I do in a week
pseuds SEETHING

>Because they are idealistic given that they deal with the world of ideas and theories.

You know this statement is completely vacuous right? You know that the "practical" matters that business people deal with also exist in the world of ideas and theories. Like, you know money exists as an idea, right?

what was the point of this post? There is no hypothetical. All soft sciences are overwhelmingly leftwing. That wasn't a given, and it is interesting to wonder why it happened.

>I guess maybe it just added to the false sense of nonconformity.

You know, Marxists really aren't concerned with conformity. It's you that's concerned with it. Stop projecting.

no. The problem is the "is-ought" problem. There is a vast yawning chasm between talking about the way things are and the way we believe they should be. Apparently a lot of semi-modern philosophical thought is focused on the gap.

ah yes, the classic shitposting after you lost an argument. A staple of the Jow Forumscuck