Attached: F57528E9-7E7A-4791-8FF1-ACA33B17516D.jpeg (1756x1648 109.55 KB, 315.77K)
People who study economics and finance see socialism for what it is (trash)
they suck their own brains what the fuck dude who the fuck
Pretty sure monks didn't have a very favourable view of secularism or atheism too
this is STEMlord erasure
what's the source user? sounds interesting
Sike, because life is just economy?
Sociology came out of economics, anthropology and educational sciences and tries to understand society as a whole, interconnecting system of systems. Those people look at the effects the economic mode of production has on society on a micro, mido and macro scale.
Sociology is the most autistic major ever because literally all you do is looking at statistics you dumb fuck. Cant get more "real" than this. Also the word you where looking for was scientific.
Didn't really see that coming, tbh. Is it because IR-folks are more cynical and redpilled about state propaganda (including Western propaganda)? Could also be because IR can be pretty materialist-minded in its analyses of state behavior and states' relative capabilities and constraints (geographical factors, economic factors, etc.), and seem to disregard most idealist language as empty rhetoric when coming from state actors.
Also, OP is retarded. Of course most mainstream economics students will dislike socialism. Most of them seek to gain cushy jobs in the market economy, and their competence is in trying to understand the market economy, which they've spent a lot of effort and sometimes a lot of money in doing. They're myopic and biased in this regard. When they in turn become economics professors themselves, they will pass on their ideology and myopic understanding of economics to their own students, perpetuating the cycle. Your mistake is in not realizing that the economics profession is heavily politicized (which should be obvious to anyone) and filled to the absolute brim with ideology. It's not like in natural sciences, where simply appealing to authority is more legitimate as it is usually less politicized. Not to mention that there is little consensus even among pro-capitalism economists about how the economy actually works, something you'd know if you had ever read anything more advanced than "muh economics 101" but then you wouldn't be an an-cap.
lmao i have a hard time believing even you think this. marxist “economics” is literally just a bunch of mental gymnastics trying desperately to justify the ideology. it seeks to create a truth, not find one.
stinky stanky starving tankie
Wow, id never would have thought id agree with an ancrap
meanwhile among people who matter
People who study anthropology and international relations tend to be more socialist.
So people who look at the big picture of the world and those who study human macro behavior both like socialism, but those spoonfed liberalism at McUniversity come out as liberals. Well gee willikers billy.
Here's a question for you faggot, i thought all universities were for cultural marxist indoctrination so why do all the universities teach capitalism?
why don't you ask Einstein what he thought about socialism, or for a white version, Steven Hawking, you fucking pleb
I’m not surprised by that. My sister studied international development and has done a couple stints of NGO field work in developing countries (Senegal and Bolivia). She came out of it fully aware of the realities of neocolonialism and imperialism, and the role that supranational institutions and NGOs play in it.
Not an argument.
read marx then comeback and criticize marx
trips of truth
Mainly because economics is a sham major run by pseuds. don’t take it from me, it from the guy who predicted the 2008 market crash. even entry-level stuff like the theory of the firm is a complete farce.
The undergraduate student is basically doing a stats & calculus degree in order to grasp the mechanics of simple bourgeois models. Masters students, and beyond actually get exposed to the models proper. So Ugrads are not seriously probing the foundations of these models because they don't know what they are. The students are not given the conceptual tools to critique the economy itself, they are only given the tools to mitigate failures in the system. But even though Masters and beyond are exposed to the models in more depth, the purpose of academic economics is to produce empirical papers using these models. Academic economists are simply using some bourgeois model to reasonably understand some observation in a capitalist economy. So as you move higher up the academic hierarchy your knowledge of economy becomes increasing specific rather than an increasingly deep.
I know one closet Post-Keynesian prof who is also a liberal Marxist-revisionist… but he is only allowed to exist because his teaching contains no structural critique of neoclassical economics. The department basically forces out any heterodox lecturer or researcher. They will, though, tolerate Austrian cranks although everyone sees them as kooks.
It's widely known that students exposed to economics play "rationally" in non-cooperative games, so that for instance in the Prisoner's Dilemma, they will shaft other players rather than seek the superior outcome though cooperation. So there is an element of self-fulfilment. Those not exposed to economics, and those in sectors of the economy that select for cooperative/empathetic behaviour (nursing, etc) will generally choose pareto efficient outcomes, while economics grads will overwhelmingly not.
In fact, students also learn much later that in repeating games, cooperation is enforced though deviation punishments, but by that time the damage is done. Econ 101 has convinced these kids that the market is perfectly competitive, game theory means "every1 look out for themselves!", and the economy must have a balanced budget.
Now, if you study physics to an undergraduate level you will not be allowed to operate a nuclear reactor. Yet in economic science, a student can skim econ101 and go to the world in full confidence that they have the principles of economics fully worked out. They go into business, banking, journalism, and politics, armed with their superficial understanding of neoclassical econ…
Remember, most professors explicitly tell the students that these models are instrumentalist, and exist only to be used to interpret empirical findings. They are NOT proofs that justify capitalism.. again profs and tutors will remind the students "these are simply models to explain data in specific contexts… there are competing models… not all the models are consistent with eachother… this is not a general picture of how the economy works" but students ignore those points. They bluster into journalism jobs and write shitty articles about carbon taxes, and compassionate capitalism.
If you are a teenage leftist, do not study academic economics. You will get frustrated and quit. It has absolutely no relevance to Marxian economics whatsoever. The Math and Stats/Econometrics is very useful, but the theory is mostly irrelevant unless you want to be a professional economist in the public/private sector.
Now, if you are a stakhanovite and have the work ethic to study something you hate and disagree with for 10-11 hrs a day for almost a decade (econ degrees are dense and difficult) just to turn their own models against them then go for it. But remember you will have to study the Marxian economics, and criticisms of what you are studying on top of your work in your own time. It's very difficult and I have never seen a student do it without their grades suffering as a result.
This is just from my position in a UK university.
Marx and Luxembourg sometimes get taught in optional History of Economic Thought, but they will make up one week of classes. Some of the tutors will simply skip them in seminars. I know a teaching fellow who just ignores the sections on Marx. He once said to me "I have never read Marx and I never will, his ideology caused the death of x gazillion people". So students have no idea… They learn Ricardo and Smith in a fair way, which is good, and the more intelligent students will discover Marx as the completion of that classical trajectory… but most will just ignore Marx or have no fucking clue what's going on. I mean seriously… do the universities expect 19 year olds to grasp Marxism in a week? two lectures and one seminar? for the entirety of Capital 1? really?
So he has touched on the main problem, which is Marxism and socialism is simply never discussed.
Also IR classes will expose students to a variety of growth and development theorists. I have spoken to econ guys who don't know who Kaldor is. IR/politics students generally have a better understanding of development economics.
Luxemburg … autocorrect
Hahaha that's funny. But no seriously, quit larping as an anarchist or actually take some time to read Proudhon, Kropotkin, or Bakunin. Your patron saint Rothbard even admitted that you guys weren't anarchists but instead a bunch of liberals lol. Also, cite your sources dingus you're making a fool of yourself.
Good post. I'm an econ. undergrad in a third world country (I study at the UBA in Argentina), but most of this applies. I dedicated a lot of thought to what you're saying because I was about to choose Sociology but I stayed mostly for the maths and statistics part. The theory is indeed unbereable, I only passed Macroeconomics I for now but I already "learned" the typical orthodox lessons: employment below the "NAIRU" creates inflation (even though we never really digged into what the NAIRU is other than the textbooks definitions from Mankiw, Blanchard, etc.), reducing the fiscal deficit can actually be expansive even in the short term if you consider rational expectations, etc… Of course, he said that these were "models" and all of that epistemological aclarations but if they don't present you any alternative, you just end up believing that this is at least a very similar way of how real economics work. Thankfully I am reading Marx by my own and Shaikh and I have some professors who you can choose and teach Sraffa, poskeynesians, marxists, structuralists, etc. But everytime I think of my career it kinda depresses me.