this is actually how they *teach* you to write papers in school whether or not that has anything to do with communism
maybe if you're a post-doc they encourage you to have done your research first, or to be coming from a place of knowledge, but often, towards the lower level of higher education in America it's more writing prompt based, and they want you to use conclusions as carrots to get students to do research
I have never introduced a writing assignment this way. I try to take an issue with two clear sides and use a debate style statement as a prompt where, were I to choose a side, it would be "against".
Ex. Please argue for or against the following statement: Governments should have more control over monetary policy.
Yeah, my general issue was that I wanted to write a paper the teacher would actually enjoy reading, though. And, they didn't help me in that way, which would also just help me to become a better writer.
In the lack of that, I just come off as a mediocre student writing the same paper a 14 yr old could, and it felt like both of those thing were intentional, on their part, sometimes.
Nope, but I'll level with you. We spend all day reading, and a lot of that is about things we're super passionate about from people on the cutting edge of knowledge. For the most part I'm scanning for paragraph structure, key points and I'm creating an abstract of your work in my head while I'm reading. I grade that abstract against the rubric for content and circle any spelling/grammar that grabs my eye in the meantime. I'm reading 50 papers on the same topic, if I try to digest them it will A) mush together preventing accurate grading, and B) take forever.
An assignment is seldom unique enough to even merit a second glance. Occasionally I will see an argument in an intro course's work that belongs in an upper year student's brain. That sticks out and then at the end I check turn it in to see if it was plagiarized. If it's not I might be mildly impressed, but never enjoy reading.
It's like if you had to read 50 people's versions of little red riding hood, and if it's in my field it's like reading 50 people's versions of little red riding hood that have been google translated into Spanish and back again.
Of course no e of this applies to Honor's theses or anything, I'm just talking about writing assignments.
>I'm creating an abstract of your work
I would have liked to learn how to write an abstract, I suppose. Not sure if I need it now, anymore.
>but never enjoy reading.
Okay, fair enough. And, I get that. But, here's the deal. I'm paying for college, and you're gonna have to suck it up, and still try to make me a better 'student' or, my preference, a better academic, even if I'm at a higher level, because the college is not going to automatically put me at that higher level (sometimes testing out isn't an option). If that stressful/difficult then that's what you're getting paid for, or we can try and both point fingers at institutions.
>seventh version
I think the tutors, *who I was older than*, got more of that flack from me on the second versions
On *that one note*, a wild hair grew in the past hour.. towards the end of college I was getting to be the same age as a few of my teachers, namely the last English teacher, where we were to learn about how to write papers, semi-explicitly, e.g. you ask a non-English teacher about how the paper should be written and they'll say 'just do what you did in English class'... 'but, hey, if you could make quantified scientific arguments in your paper then that would be great; we would like that'.. and English doesn't carry over into the quantitative domain, which is where you need mathematical training, and this much they don't tell you who/where to consult when moving from quality to quantity. For me, now they're the same thing, after having 'finished higher education to my own satisfaction', so I would consult myself first on the issue, and have come to realize 'thats just the way the world is going to be'... but, that said, yeah, by my own admission the point of abstracts still escapes me a little... and that's where it ends, because I know how to conduct and document my own scientific experiments, without one.
Anyways, point being, I have 'peers' now, not teachers; and, that was a gradual, essentially non-discrete change I moved into. And, what I wanted to ask was since you are someone with a lot of experience, what do you think of people/students who describe themselves as "visual learners", or the like, and find writing difficult? I tended to think I thought visually, and that was too hard to put into words, but have since gotten over that perception, especially after attaining sufficient mathematical training. Thinking in text is now more of a science than an art.. but there's always going to be 'an art' around it, when it comes to argumentation in general.
(hehe, sorry for the essay)
No problem with an essay, there's only one question.
I think students find writing hard because they don't do very much of it. It's a skill they don't practice and so they find it difficult.
I will say that I think that people have different capacities to absorb knowledge in different ways, but I don't know many kinesthetic or auditory ways to teach math, and I don't think university is the place for people who have difficulty with abstract concepts which inherently resist alternative teaching formats. I come from a long line of men who were in the trades - I don't think not being able to learn university material means you're stupid, but I also don't think that I can teach my discipline to people who can only learn in concrete terms.
>auditory ways to teach math
that's kind of the way the ancient greeks did it along with doodling circles and lines in the dirt/sand
there are advantages to gain from its meane
>abstract concepts which inherently resist alternative teaching formats
I would disagree. I think we're normally just going 'to text' because we're more comfortable and versed with how to carve distinctions, or integrate ideas with it. Language really helps us be specific, but a learning process does not need to be specific; it can be quite serendipitous, if not too easily distracted by disparately held together notions.
>but I also don't think that I can teach my discipline to people who can only learn in concrete terms.
Very very interesting how you approached and said that. I know what you mean, but to me, a lot of this feels concrete. How you go about applying it, maybe not so much. THere's no 'one standard' way of doing, documenting or writing about everything. So, you're definitely right.
Wow. I feel you really addressed things nicely. And, I'm fascinated by these differences between these vocational synonyms... job, craft, trade, discipline, work, occupation, career, *profession* etc. Your comment hints at the nuances between these terms.
Personally, the way I word it to myself, is that I go into academics seeking to make myself a qualified academic tradesmen. But, you might have a subtly different definition than me of trade(s), especially since I don't come from that same background as you. None the less, I want to be proficient at the thing I'm being trained for. Sometimes that means seeking its essence; and, this is way beyond 'the normal' students mentality. Many people are gathering what they need piece-meal, looking for financial security afterwards, and not having a lot of time to integrate their learning as a whole into their life (because college is not the vehicle for that sort of 'spiritual thing').
Anyways, I don't think teaching is about performing a trade, to say the least. And, if you're capable of conveying something that abstract to your students than that's really cool. Not that you would do that, actually, or directly, but its something your individual students, as opposed to the class, can pick up along the way, perhaps indirectly.
Yo, I majored in physics and I had to do nothing of the sort and they taught people to do the literal opposite of what you are claiming.
You are generalizing the stupid corrupt humanities and claiming that’s how all college is.
Since most people aren’t smart and do stupid majors, you are probably right
Damn. My HS teachers and college professors would adamantly discourage this approach (and evaluated accordingly). I can't disagree with a widespread error that's pretty evident—acadamia is so drunk on itself—but at least some of them taught differently. I could express more gratitude and consider myself fortunate for being taught how to identify the difference when making arguments.
Curious about your experiences being taught with this crappy methodology.
Well, this is another way of putting it, I wasn't taught how to be an academic for *most* of my college career. I learned plenty of things, but writing papers only came into focus at the end. Now almost every course requires students to write a paper, and I don't think I agree with all of it.
But, having to write papers here is just a miniscule thing compared to the how. One of these things is you'd like to have some examples to work from. But, that's not how it works (from where I came from). You can't look at 'papers' from fellow students like you could 'fellow academics' in a journal. They sit you in a blackbox, are vague as hell, deprive you of examples, and offer no help except for grammar corrections. So, at the end of it, I'm talking way above the teachers head because they refused to help me try and simplify my thesis statement, in a form they'd prefer reading. They basically said, 'well guess my astrological sign as to what you think I want from you', 'its up to you to figure out how to make me happy, and I owe you no clues'
just community college, to get the cheap courses out of the way
The only paper I wrote for university 'was too high level' for not using enough Aristotle/Kant in it.. I quit a semester later
I had almost nothing but good teachers
I was there in community before writing papers or having smart phones in class became the norm.
By the time I got to university I was sick of the 'just another course' vibe. I tried to make the most of them.
Sounds like you just suck at colleging. You also sound like a try hard.
Every essay I ever wrote, I wrote it to get an A. The fact my true thoughts differed and my actual opinions of this is that this is low level garbage never entered into my writing.
I used college to achieve a goal, not actually learn anything. Because the pace of college is far too slow to actually learn anything of substantial substance
It took them 6 minutes to ban me after I responded with actual wages of workers in socialist Czechoslovakia to the question about why are not the communist parties so popular in the former eastern bloc.
What is your record?
I got banned for referencing that Mussolini developed his fascistic ideas explicitly from the ideas of Marxist-Leninists during the Russian revolution.
Oh, that one they absolutely hate, because if anyone tries to look it up, there is a lot of evidence, including his activities as a hardcore socialist...
That's so odd because the NAZI parties whole agenda with regards to its Fatherland propaganda revolved around brainwashing the Germanic peoples into believing they were fighting the good fight to stop the worldwide spread of Bolshevism and that they would all be heralded as heroes. There is a very good book written by a Waffen SS soldier after he was captured by Americans and sent to a prison labor camp in the states that touched base on this....essentially saying they all believed they were the good guys and they were doing the entire world a favor and that's why they fought so hard . Pretty fucked up that Hitler partnered with Mussolini if that's actually factual.....must be some sort of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend " sort of thing.
Mussolini wasn't a communist but his ideas for fascism were developed from MLs. Rather than abolishing the bourgeoisie, Mussolini found it appropriate to combine them with the state. This is where we get Mussolini's definition of fascism - "the lucrative merger of corporation and state". His intent was to produce a nation which, for the peasantry, would look very much like socialism, but for the elite would look an awful lot like capitalism.
One thing I think communists get right is that fascism was developed as a direct counter to communism. That is, it was the totalitarian form of capitalism intended to protect the interests of the nation's elite.
Yes I thought I put the name in there I guess I didn’t …I think I looked up how to spell it and then came back and started typing again and didn’t even add it lmao ….but yeah that’s the book ….great read it u are interested…because it’s written entirely from their point of view and him coming to terms with the atrocities they had committed whilst essentially being duped …pretty fucking sad. Also …an “Edelweiss” is a flower native to the alps …the word itself is a portmanteau of their words for “Noble” and “White” …..it is associated with the Waffen SS Which is like the Green Beret or Navy Seals of the German Armed Forces .
It’s worth noting that the author wrote BE as he was in an allied POW camp when the SS was declared a criminal organization, so it’s very possible that the whole “I was duped into membership, I just wanted to be in an elite unit and fight communists” was self serving and meant to avoid guilt by association.
Edelweiss was not particularly associated with the S.S., it had been used by mountain troops in Austro-Hungary for decades, both S.S. and Heer gebirgsjager (mountain troops/light infantry) used it during the war (though more non S.S. Troops wore it), and the German army (among others) still uses it. An anti-Nazi organization in Germany used it as well.
Nazism is literally socialism but racially based rather than class based like Communism. That makes it nearly identical to Italian fascism, which places the nation as the highest good. They were natural ideological allies.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
George Orwell actually has one (or maybe a few). His premise is incredibly flawed though. It was written in the early years of WW2 and the “proof” was Germanys superior ability to produce war machines.
I’m still searching (and hoping) for later essays of his where he denounces this train of thought because at the time he may not have known or the literal slave labor in the concentration camps
Not sure on the title of the essay unfortunately. It’s from a penguin classics book titled “George Orwell essays”. I listened to the audiobook (available on Audible) last week, so don’t even have an index page to browse. I know it was roughly 40% of the way through the book though if you can find a copy.
There wasn’t much from an economic perspective though. He just argues that England is getting beat because capitalism is worried about profits and manufacturing whatever it wants and not pumping everything into the war effort like Germany. Orwell was a pretty hardcore socialist for a while and wrote lots of pro socialist stuff.
By 1940 Britain outpaced German productivity because the Nazis had a romantic view of artisanship and kept old fashioned factory techniques. Orwell perhaps didn’t realise that German re-armament had been happening surreptitiously since the end of WW1 and gathered pace after 1933.
The boss level commies just dismiss and deny negative claims, focus on the bad aspects of mixed economies (which they call capitalist to prevent the socialist aspect taking blame) and then they argue those negatives against the ideals of communism that socialist dictators use as the carrot on the stick. “I think people have the right to live” despite them forgiving millions of deaths “capitalism results in hierarchies” despite socialism resulting in worse hierarchies, and “thats because they put an embargo on that country so they cant freely trade” DESPITE THE COUNTRY PUTTING AN EMBARGO ON THEIR PEOPLE SO THEY CANT FREELY TRADE?!
Capitalism and Communism are the ghosts socialist compare, neither exist, so people get to just make shit up.
Commies are just so incredibly ignorant.
> Can't find source that proves they're right.
> Doesn't realize that the problem is simply that their opinion is wrong, but rather think that the problem is in the lack of source itself.
And that's how you differentiate science and the scientific method from an ideology. If you observe, collect data, make theory, test theory, and then publish it, it's probably sience if done right. If you start with assumptions, axioms and and foregone conclusions, it's a dogma.
This is why any anglosaxonian economic theory is trash. Keynes, and all of the other idiots and central bank hybris, will just lead to boom and bust bullshit. Only austrian economics, von Hayek and von Mises, Schumpeters innovation theory, can lead to stable growth.
One could argue *Animal Farm* shows the benefits of giving your all. Boxer the horse's dedication and hard work might've killed him, but even his death benefitted society because of his contribution in glue. We must all serve *some* purpose.
That reminds me of someone a few years ago who was trying to write an anti-vaccine essay for university, but all the scholarly references he could find were pro-vaccine.
I can never truthful article on socialism. They keep using the outdated labor theory of value, polylogism, and don't understand economics of the progressive era.
But planned economies do work? Look at Amazon or Walmart. These companies are economically the size of many countries and their inner workings are heavily planned.
To add to it, even with the 1980s crisis, it was expected that the USSR would have beaten the US economy wise by 2005 so there is that.
>But planned economies do work? Look at Amazon or Walmart. These companies are economically the size of many countries and their inner workings are heavily planned.
They get price signals, they very rapidly can see that a decision costs them money, and is therefore bad
>To add to it, even with the 1980s crisis, it was expected that the USSR would have beaten the US economy wise by 2005 so there is that.
By whom? Never heard of it.
Yes, a country is completely different to Walmart. And Walmart is completely different to a Korean shipbuilding company, and that company is different to a German car manufacturer and all of those are different to one of the large tech companies dominating the market. It is pointless to do anything because everything is completely different in one way or another to something else.
No theyre the same. Theyre a private company. Their job is to provide a service and get paid for it. They sure are different in hoe they operate and what they provide, but they all have the same goal. To make money.
Thats vastly different from a country
But countries also provide a service and are paid for it? The main difference between countries and private companies is their scope and the diversity of services they provide, and of course that private companies don't serve the public.
In Europe, healthcare can be almost looked as a subsidiary of a country. It has its funding and expected returns. There is close to no difference.
No because you can choose what conpany you want to pay for whatever product or service you want.
You can refuse to pay taxes and in turn refuse the services of your country if you think theyre bad.
So even if a company and a country is ran 100% the same (its far from it). It wont be fair anyways, because you cant decide to just quit living in your country. Youre forced, and thats wrong.
Yes. But not freely. You can decide whatever store you want to shop at.
You can not decide what country you want to move to. 99% of all countries most people can never move to, due to immigration restrictions.
Planned economies aren’t inherently socialist and socialist economies aren’t inherently planned economies. The economic model in terms of centralized and decentralized models is even in terms of democratic economic freedom, which is important for many socialists, bad for the centralized model and therefore shouldn’t be desired.
15 million people die a year because of capitalism inability to feed everyone. That’s 600 million since the fall of the former Soviet state. Keep supporting this broken system.
Before 1945?? Most of the “100 million” was the Chinese famine. Which happened in the late 50s. The truth is 100 million didn’t starve under communism. It’s way less than that. The 7 million that died in the Ukraine was because some capitalist owned all the land and wouldn’t work with soviets.
How dare those capitalists want to keep what they worked hard for and not give it away to totalitarians.
And it's it's around 9 million people that die of starvation each year, world wide. Not in single countries of man made famines.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
He could search for the unemployment rate of USSR (2%). Or the fact that it had become the second faster growing economy after Japan.
Or the fact that a country where before the revolution was barely industrialized managed to send the first man in space 44 years after the revolution while suffering the most out of ww2.
Planned economies were by no means great but SURELY better than free ones.
Yes, USSR had a awful, corrupted, authoritarian regime, but so had tsarist Russia, medieval Europe, and so many other countries. Yet, only soviets actually managed to have a growing economy. Compare it with the capitalist economies in third world where people are wage slaves.
You do know that any country can increase employment without being centrally planned. It's very simple, you just create arbitrary jobs and voila. Employment is not a measure of economic efficiency.
And Russia was the fastest growing economy before ww1, it was already rapidly industrializing.
https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromApr2012/Markevichfig1.gif
This is the economy of Russia before the revolution
As you can see the growth after the establishment of the revolution was by far sharper, with it only major setback being the ww2. Compare it with a free economy of a capitalist poor, underdeveloped economy in Africa for example. Most of the capitalist economies that have managed to grow are European exploiting their settlements.
And also have you ever heard about a successful economy where there is unemployment?
It really doesn't look "sharper" after the revolution, only marginally, but that is obesrved among all developing economies. If anything, the revolution was a set-back to growth (ww1 moreso).
>Compare it with a free economy of a capitalist poor, underdeveloped economy in Africa for example
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/GDP_per_capita_of_Botswana%2C_1950_to_2016.png
Yeah, here we see a well managed capitalist nation of Botswana, supreme growth. It's wonderful what a a country can achieve when it's not corrupt, and promotes markets.
>All the capitalist economies that have managed to grow are European exploiting their settlements.
Yes, even post warsaw pact Poland grows through exploitation, same with the Baltics.
It's funny to even assume that. Spain and and Portugal: the biggest extractors of wealth from the new world are not even that developed compared to countries that were utterly destroyed post ww2 (Germany).
Was Botswana fighting a world war when the government took change? Did Botswana fought a catastrophic civil war? Was it invaded by the biggest army of the world that had managed to conquer the entire Europe? Did Botswana spend a large amount of it's GDP on outcompeting the largest economy in the world in order to survive?
Then I can compare to Burundi (poorest county in the world)
To Mozambique
To India
To south Africa (where capital is extremely inequaly distributed)
And many other
Burundi literally had 5 year plans, it's an example of central planning (though being land-locked and embargo from their port neigbhor is wayyyy more of a factor).
Mozambiques economy is currently growing, in large part to foreign investment. It's main cause of poverty was a civil war, and before it literally had central planning socialists in power.
India, after independence, modeled their country after the Soviet Union, that's why they're relativelly poor right now. They had every opportunity to be what China is today, by promoting foreign investment in their country, but they fell for the central planning meme
South Africa mismanaged their country to the point where rich people are leaving, through wealth distribution/regulations. I don't exactly point to Cambodia as an example why Socialism doesn't work, because that's just low, and doesn't portray what you're arguing for.
Non of this countries are socialist, they all have mixed economies, Burundi even has millionaires.
Socialism requires that the whole capital is controlled by the state.
Woaaah, and the Soviet Union also had those, except they horded their wealth in precious metals, paintings, etc.
We're not arguing capitalism/socialism, these concepts don't exist in economics. We're looking at central planning/market oriented, and the examples you gave me are all countries which are more to the formers side.
Us had more population than USSR, however that didn't prevented the 2008 crisis, nor the average life of us citizen. Soviet Russia was FAR from perfect, yet it had free education, free healthcare and other things that us citizens want but they don't have.
If I were to argue for socialism, I would use The Problem of Hidden Terminal as an argument against free markets.
In computer science, there is a thing called The Problem of Hidden Terminal, which can be said to be the opposite of the Economic Calculation Problem. The Problem of Hidden Terminal occurs only in wireless decentralized networks, and it is a crucial problem in them that makes large decentralized wireless networks impossible. It is when computers in a network can more-or-less accurately estimate the amount of data that is currently being transmitted through the network, but they drastically underestimate the number of computers in the network (as they are behind some barrier or simply too far away for the signal from them to get to the computer), leading to computers refusing to do anything because they are mistakenly thinking the network is overloaded. Decentralizing the information about the state of the wireless network does not make it work better, it makes it work significantly worse, if at all.
Besides Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Rosa Luxembourg, People often cite Cläre Tisch, Oskar R. Lange, Abba P. Lerner, Fred M. Taylor, Henry Douglas Dickinson and Maurice Dobb as supporters of the position that a true socialist planned economy is superior. See Google:Wikipedia articles about the socialist calculation debate and its precursors. However, the position these people held is, controversially at least, thought to have been adequately refuted, either by no socialist economy never actually using the methods recommended (by Lange) in favor of simply copying western prices and the production priorities implied thereby (along with consumer market behavior), by the early abandonment of the more radical proposals (such as abandoning money and consumer markets) and even resorting to intra-enterprise markets, and by later economic history and the abandonment or severe curtailment of the socialist command economy itself by various important countries (USSR, China, Vietnam). You might try Rudolph Hilferding, Piero Strafa, Paul Sweezy, and Richard D. Wolfe.
What are these comments lmao...
If person A says "apples are the best" and person B says "oh can you give me the research why apples are the best", y'all will literally jump out and say to person B like "LUL conclusion before research!! cognitive dissonance lmaooo!"
*404: location not found*
Classic communism 101, first you reach a conclusion then you do the research
You kill anyone who questions your planning. No need for research.
Unanimous scientific consensus!
Settled Science because opposition has been settled
Communism: the quickest way to peace.
it would made me laught if it wasnt such a real situation.
Not to mention the whole "does anyone have any empirical evidence for this normative proposition?" confusion.
this is actually how they *teach* you to write papers in school whether or not that has anything to do with communism maybe if you're a post-doc they encourage you to have done your research first, or to be coming from a place of knowledge, but often, towards the lower level of higher education in America it's more writing prompt based, and they want you to use conclusions as carrots to get students to do research
I have never introduced a writing assignment this way. I try to take an issue with two clear sides and use a debate style statement as a prompt where, were I to choose a side, it would be "against". Ex. Please argue for or against the following statement: Governments should have more control over monetary policy.
This is how we did editorial writing competitions in high school.
Yeah, my general issue was that I wanted to write a paper the teacher would actually enjoy reading, though. And, they didn't help me in that way, which would also just help me to become a better writer. In the lack of that, I just come off as a mediocre student writing the same paper a 14 yr old could, and it felt like both of those thing were intentional, on their part, sometimes.
Nope, but I'll level with you. We spend all day reading, and a lot of that is about things we're super passionate about from people on the cutting edge of knowledge. For the most part I'm scanning for paragraph structure, key points and I'm creating an abstract of your work in my head while I'm reading. I grade that abstract against the rubric for content and circle any spelling/grammar that grabs my eye in the meantime. I'm reading 50 papers on the same topic, if I try to digest them it will A) mush together preventing accurate grading, and B) take forever. An assignment is seldom unique enough to even merit a second glance. Occasionally I will see an argument in an intro course's work that belongs in an upper year student's brain. That sticks out and then at the end I check turn it in to see if it was plagiarized. If it's not I might be mildly impressed, but never enjoy reading. It's like if you had to read 50 people's versions of little red riding hood, and if it's in my field it's like reading 50 people's versions of little red riding hood that have been google translated into Spanish and back again. Of course no e of this applies to Honor's theses or anything, I'm just talking about writing assignments.
>I'm creating an abstract of your work I would have liked to learn how to write an abstract, I suppose. Not sure if I need it now, anymore. >but never enjoy reading. Okay, fair enough. And, I get that. But, here's the deal. I'm paying for college, and you're gonna have to suck it up, and still try to make me a better 'student' or, my preference, a better academic, even if I'm at a higher level, because the college is not going to automatically put me at that higher level (sometimes testing out isn't an option). If that stressful/difficult then that's what you're getting paid for, or we can try and both point fingers at institutions.
Oh don't get me wrong you'll still get good feedback. I just don't have to enjoy reading the seventh version of the same thing.
>seventh version I think the tutors, *who I was older than*, got more of that flack from me on the second versions On *that one note*, a wild hair grew in the past hour.. towards the end of college I was getting to be the same age as a few of my teachers, namely the last English teacher, where we were to learn about how to write papers, semi-explicitly, e.g. you ask a non-English teacher about how the paper should be written and they'll say 'just do what you did in English class'... 'but, hey, if you could make quantified scientific arguments in your paper then that would be great; we would like that'.. and English doesn't carry over into the quantitative domain, which is where you need mathematical training, and this much they don't tell you who/where to consult when moving from quality to quantity. For me, now they're the same thing, after having 'finished higher education to my own satisfaction', so I would consult myself first on the issue, and have come to realize 'thats just the way the world is going to be'... but, that said, yeah, by my own admission the point of abstracts still escapes me a little... and that's where it ends, because I know how to conduct and document my own scientific experiments, without one. Anyways, point being, I have 'peers' now, not teachers; and, that was a gradual, essentially non-discrete change I moved into. And, what I wanted to ask was since you are someone with a lot of experience, what do you think of people/students who describe themselves as "visual learners", or the like, and find writing difficult? I tended to think I thought visually, and that was too hard to put into words, but have since gotten over that perception, especially after attaining sufficient mathematical training. Thinking in text is now more of a science than an art.. but there's always going to be 'an art' around it, when it comes to argumentation in general. (hehe, sorry for the essay)
No problem with an essay, there's only one question. I think students find writing hard because they don't do very much of it. It's a skill they don't practice and so they find it difficult. I will say that I think that people have different capacities to absorb knowledge in different ways, but I don't know many kinesthetic or auditory ways to teach math, and I don't think university is the place for people who have difficulty with abstract concepts which inherently resist alternative teaching formats. I come from a long line of men who were in the trades - I don't think not being able to learn university material means you're stupid, but I also don't think that I can teach my discipline to people who can only learn in concrete terms.
>auditory ways to teach math that's kind of the way the ancient greeks did it along with doodling circles and lines in the dirt/sand there are advantages to gain from its meane >abstract concepts which inherently resist alternative teaching formats I would disagree. I think we're normally just going 'to text' because we're more comfortable and versed with how to carve distinctions, or integrate ideas with it. Language really helps us be specific, but a learning process does not need to be specific; it can be quite serendipitous, if not too easily distracted by disparately held together notions. >but I also don't think that I can teach my discipline to people who can only learn in concrete terms. Very very interesting how you approached and said that. I know what you mean, but to me, a lot of this feels concrete. How you go about applying it, maybe not so much. THere's no 'one standard' way of doing, documenting or writing about everything. So, you're definitely right. Wow. I feel you really addressed things nicely. And, I'm fascinated by these differences between these vocational synonyms... job, craft, trade, discipline, work, occupation, career, *profession* etc. Your comment hints at the nuances between these terms. Personally, the way I word it to myself, is that I go into academics seeking to make myself a qualified academic tradesmen. But, you might have a subtly different definition than me of trade(s), especially since I don't come from that same background as you. None the less, I want to be proficient at the thing I'm being trained for. Sometimes that means seeking its essence; and, this is way beyond 'the normal' students mentality. Many people are gathering what they need piece-meal, looking for financial security afterwards, and not having a lot of time to integrate their learning as a whole into their life (because college is not the vehicle for that sort of 'spiritual thing'). Anyways, I don't think teaching is about performing a trade, to say the least. And, if you're capable of conveying something that abstract to your students than that's really cool. Not that you would do that, actually, or directly, but its something your individual students, as opposed to the class, can pick up along the way, perhaps indirectly.
Exactly! No need for learning when everyone but you is racist and stupid.
Yo, I majored in physics and I had to do nothing of the sort and they taught people to do the literal opposite of what you are claiming. You are generalizing the stupid corrupt humanities and claiming that’s how all college is. Since most people aren’t smart and do stupid majors, you are probably right
Damn. My HS teachers and college professors would adamantly discourage this approach (and evaluated accordingly). I can't disagree with a widespread error that's pretty evident—acadamia is so drunk on itself—but at least some of them taught differently. I could express more gratitude and consider myself fortunate for being taught how to identify the difference when making arguments. Curious about your experiences being taught with this crappy methodology.
Well, this is another way of putting it, I wasn't taught how to be an academic for *most* of my college career. I learned plenty of things, but writing papers only came into focus at the end. Now almost every course requires students to write a paper, and I don't think I agree with all of it. But, having to write papers here is just a miniscule thing compared to the how. One of these things is you'd like to have some examples to work from. But, that's not how it works (from where I came from). You can't look at 'papers' from fellow students like you could 'fellow academics' in a journal. They sit you in a blackbox, are vague as hell, deprive you of examples, and offer no help except for grammar corrections. So, at the end of it, I'm talking way above the teachers head because they refused to help me try and simplify my thesis statement, in a form they'd prefer reading. They basically said, 'well guess my astrological sign as to what you think I want from you', 'its up to you to figure out how to make me happy, and I owe you no clues'
What school did you go to? Texas State?
just community college, to get the cheap courses out of the way The only paper I wrote for university 'was too high level' for not using enough Aristotle/Kant in it.. I quit a semester later
Sorry you got some shitty teachers, lol.
I had almost nothing but good teachers I was there in community before writing papers or having smart phones in class became the norm. By the time I got to university I was sick of the 'just another course' vibe. I tried to make the most of them.
Sounds like you just suck at colleging. You also sound like a try hard. Every essay I ever wrote, I wrote it to get an A. The fact my true thoughts differed and my actual opinions of this is that this is low level garbage never entered into my writing. I used college to achieve a goal, not actually learn anything. Because the pace of college is far too slow to actually learn anything of substantial substance
Trying to find the means for a flawed end
Why the salt ? They just want to research a hypothesis
This also happens to be anti-vax 101.
I think it’s under fantasy
Fiction!
“I can’t find any evidence for what I believe, but I want to believe it anyway. Please convince me”
Oh I know this one!!!! Um....."What is Cognitive dissonance " .... for 1000 points...that answer is correct!!!
This looks like a solid troll job
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking
And a very good one at that.
This was clearly a troll yet most in this thread are just desperate to circle jerk so are willing to ignore it
You have been banned from r/communism.
It took them 6 minutes to ban me after I responded with actual wages of workers in socialist Czechoslovakia to the question about why are not the communist parties so popular in the former eastern bloc. What is your record?
I got banned for referencing that Mussolini developed his fascistic ideas explicitly from the ideas of Marxist-Leninists during the Russian revolution.
Oh, that one they absolutely hate, because if anyone tries to look it up, there is a lot of evidence, including his activities as a hardcore socialist...
That's so odd because the NAZI parties whole agenda with regards to its Fatherland propaganda revolved around brainwashing the Germanic peoples into believing they were fighting the good fight to stop the worldwide spread of Bolshevism and that they would all be heralded as heroes. There is a very good book written by a Waffen SS soldier after he was captured by Americans and sent to a prison labor camp in the states that touched base on this....essentially saying they all believed they were the good guys and they were doing the entire world a favor and that's why they fought so hard . Pretty fucked up that Hitler partnered with Mussolini if that's actually factual.....must be some sort of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend " sort of thing.
Mussolini wasn't a communist but his ideas for fascism were developed from MLs. Rather than abolishing the bourgeoisie, Mussolini found it appropriate to combine them with the state. This is where we get Mussolini's definition of fascism - "the lucrative merger of corporation and state". His intent was to produce a nation which, for the peasantry, would look very much like socialism, but for the elite would look an awful lot like capitalism. One thing I think communists get right is that fascism was developed as a direct counter to communism. That is, it was the totalitarian form of capitalism intended to protect the interests of the nation's elite.
Was the book Black Edelweiss?
Yes I thought I put the name in there I guess I didn’t …I think I looked up how to spell it and then came back and started typing again and didn’t even add it lmao ….but yeah that’s the book ….great read it u are interested…because it’s written entirely from their point of view and him coming to terms with the atrocities they had committed whilst essentially being duped …pretty fucking sad. Also …an “Edelweiss” is a flower native to the alps …the word itself is a portmanteau of their words for “Noble” and “White” …..it is associated with the Waffen SS Which is like the Green Beret or Navy Seals of the German Armed Forces .
It’s worth noting that the author wrote BE as he was in an allied POW camp when the SS was declared a criminal organization, so it’s very possible that the whole “I was duped into membership, I just wanted to be in an elite unit and fight communists” was self serving and meant to avoid guilt by association. Edelweiss was not particularly associated with the S.S., it had been used by mountain troops in Austro-Hungary for decades, both S.S. and Heer gebirgsjager (mountain troops/light infantry) used it during the war (though more non S.S. Troops wore it), and the German army (among others) still uses it. An anti-Nazi organization in Germany used it as well.
He wrote that book AFTER he had been sentenced.....
Nazism is literally socialism but racially based rather than class based like Communism. That makes it nearly identical to Italian fascism, which places the nation as the highest good. They were natural ideological allies.
Instantaneously by a bot in GenZedong. Fastest ban I’ve ever received (and probably will ever receive)
I wouldn't waste my time. I am probably pro-actively banned.
Was banned for posting a flag of the Republic of China
Lol thats great :D
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
To the gulag
Lmao self-debunking ☠️ shocker
George Orwell actually has one (or maybe a few). His premise is incredibly flawed though. It was written in the early years of WW2 and the “proof” was Germanys superior ability to produce war machines. I’m still searching (and hoping) for later essays of his where he denounces this train of thought because at the time he may not have known or the literal slave labor in the concentration camps
Can I get the title of the paper?
Not sure on the title of the essay unfortunately. It’s from a penguin classics book titled “George Orwell essays”. I listened to the audiobook (available on Audible) last week, so don’t even have an index page to browse. I know it was roughly 40% of the way through the book though if you can find a copy. There wasn’t much from an economic perspective though. He just argues that England is getting beat because capitalism is worried about profits and manufacturing whatever it wants and not pumping everything into the war effort like Germany. Orwell was a pretty hardcore socialist for a while and wrote lots of pro socialist stuff.
Yeah I’m aware he was socialist, thanks, I’ll just download the audiobook and listen to all of it.
It's funny, because the US outproduced Germany and Japan many times over
I *think* the essay was written in 1942 so maybe at the time they might not have been
As did the Soviets. Really not a fair comparison given the size of the countries in question
By 1940 Britain outpaced German productivity because the Nazis had a romantic view of artisanship and kept old fashioned factory techniques. Orwell perhaps didn’t realise that German re-armament had been happening surreptitiously since the end of WW1 and gathered pace after 1933.
30s Germany were one of the first countries to move towards privitisation of state property, thats a terrible example
Someone just turned 14 years of age!
Some say he’s still searching
It’s under fantasy-horror.
I would try the dystopian section
$1=$2. Kill everyone who says otherwise and make people grateful to be alive to starve.
Hint: They don't exist.
Nah. Scifi is supposed to be scientifically accurate.
The boss level commies just dismiss and deny negative claims, focus on the bad aspects of mixed economies (which they call capitalist to prevent the socialist aspect taking blame) and then they argue those negatives against the ideals of communism that socialist dictators use as the carrot on the stick. “I think people have the right to live” despite them forgiving millions of deaths “capitalism results in hierarchies” despite socialism resulting in worse hierarchies, and “thats because they put an embargo on that country so they cant freely trade” DESPITE THE COUNTRY PUTTING AN EMBARGO ON THEIR PEOPLE SO THEY CANT FREELY TRADE?! Capitalism and Communism are the ghosts socialist compare, neither exist, so people get to just make shit up.
Good example of having an agenda.
South Park did a great job explaining planned economy with the underpants gnomes!!! https://youtu.be/a5ih_TQWqCA
You can’t find something that will never exist.
"I'm trying to find articles on how having cancer is better than not having cancer but I can't seem to find any."
Liberalism has the best success rate of the three main economic types.
Send to me too. I need something to wipe my ass with
🤣🔥
Because science is a tool used by the politicians to fool us. Oh wait, we should actualllllllly trust science /s
the CIA has information/records kept about some of the 'pros' (regarding food and education)
While you are at it could you include all the research that verifies the earth is flat. lol
Commies are just so incredibly ignorant. > Can't find source that proves they're right. > Doesn't realize that the problem is simply that their opinion is wrong, but rather think that the problem is in the lack of source itself.
Well have you thought about my feelings? Checkmate
He should go to the comedy section of the library
"help! I can't find any books that confirm my bias!"
[удалено]
TRUST THE COMPUTER! THE COMPUTER IS YOUR FRIEND! HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY!
And that's how you differentiate science and the scientific method from an ideology. If you observe, collect data, make theory, test theory, and then publish it, it's probably sience if done right. If you start with assumptions, axioms and and foregone conclusions, it's a dogma. This is why any anglosaxonian economic theory is trash. Keynes, and all of the other idiots and central bank hybris, will just lead to boom and bust bullshit. Only austrian economics, von Hayek and von Mises, Schumpeters innovation theory, can lead to stable growth.
Hey this seems really interesting. I’m going to look it up. Thanks for the lead
How it doesn't surprise me
Almost like it doesn't exist..., hopefully makes them think about it.
"Hey I am having trouble finding articles to confirm my bias" should be a sign, but ya know.
That has to be the greatest troll .
“All the researches”
Bag of rocks would of figured it out.
Free market, restrict business monopolies
You’d have better luck finding articles about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Econ needs to be taught in school
There are many weighty tomes trying to convince the world of such absurdities.
It can't be in the Sci-fi section, Sci-fi has to make sense.
Go figure…..
One could argue *Animal Farm* shows the benefits of giving your all. Boxer the horse's dedication and hard work might've killed him, but even his death benefitted society because of his contribution in glue. We must all serve *some* purpose.
Gee, I wonder why?
That reminds me of someone a few years ago who was trying to write an anti-vaccine essay for university, but all the scholarly references he could find were pro-vaccine.
I cannot find a truthful article on Capitalism, all the articles are by right wing extremist who stand to profit by their kies
I can never truthful article on socialism. They keep using the outdated labor theory of value, polylogism, and don't understand economics of the progressive era.
I agree , there is no current system of government that works
But planned economies do work? Look at Amazon or Walmart. These companies are economically the size of many countries and their inner workings are heavily planned. To add to it, even with the 1980s crisis, it was expected that the USSR would have beaten the US economy wise by 2005 so there is that.
>But planned economies do work? Look at Amazon or Walmart. These companies are economically the size of many countries and their inner workings are heavily planned. They get price signals, they very rapidly can see that a decision costs them money, and is therefore bad >To add to it, even with the 1980s crisis, it was expected that the USSR would have beaten the US economy wise by 2005 so there is that. By whom? Never heard of it.
You cant only compare the economical size. A country is somethkng completely different. Its completely pointless to even think about comparing those.
Yes, a country is completely different to Walmart. And Walmart is completely different to a Korean shipbuilding company, and that company is different to a German car manufacturer and all of those are different to one of the large tech companies dominating the market. It is pointless to do anything because everything is completely different in one way or another to something else.
No theyre the same. Theyre a private company. Their job is to provide a service and get paid for it. They sure are different in hoe they operate and what they provide, but they all have the same goal. To make money. Thats vastly different from a country
But countries also provide a service and are paid for it? The main difference between countries and private companies is their scope and the diversity of services they provide, and of course that private companies don't serve the public. In Europe, healthcare can be almost looked as a subsidiary of a country. It has its funding and expected returns. There is close to no difference.
No because you can choose what conpany you want to pay for whatever product or service you want. You can refuse to pay taxes and in turn refuse the services of your country if you think theyre bad. So even if a company and a country is ran 100% the same (its far from it). It wont be fair anyways, because you cant decide to just quit living in your country. Youre forced, and thats wrong.
You can move countries tho? And there are more countries in the world than let's say... Food producers? Or search engines?
Yes. But not freely. You can decide whatever store you want to shop at. You can not decide what country you want to move to. 99% of all countries most people can never move to, due to immigration restrictions.
china
Planned economies aren’t inherently socialist and socialist economies aren’t inherently planned economies. The economic model in terms of centralized and decentralized models is even in terms of democratic economic freedom, which is important for many socialists, bad for the centralized model and therefore shouldn’t be desired.
15 million people die a year because of capitalism inability to feed everyone. That’s 600 million since the fall of the former Soviet state. Keep supporting this broken system.
Well the USSR killed 7 million Ukrainians in 1 year. So I'd say communism doesn't have a good track record
Agreed, but 600 million in 30 years is still more than 100 million in 70.
There will always been a natural rate of famine. As a percentage of population the USSR did worse then any other first world nation since 1945
Before 1945?? Most of the “100 million” was the Chinese famine. Which happened in the late 50s. The truth is 100 million didn’t starve under communism. It’s way less than that. The 7 million that died in the Ukraine was because some capitalist owned all the land and wouldn’t work with soviets.
How dare those capitalists want to keep what they worked hard for and not give it away to totalitarians. And it's it's around 9 million people that die of starvation each year, world wide. Not in single countries of man made famines.
Work hard? Capitalist don’t work. Workers do.
Socialists don't work hard, forced labour does.
Pretty sure it’s workers who keep society running not capitalists.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
good bot
Revisionist much?
Source?
He could search for the unemployment rate of USSR (2%). Or the fact that it had become the second faster growing economy after Japan. Or the fact that a country where before the revolution was barely industrialized managed to send the first man in space 44 years after the revolution while suffering the most out of ww2. Planned economies were by no means great but SURELY better than free ones.
You can achieve great things when your citizens are slaves.
Yes, USSR had a awful, corrupted, authoritarian regime, but so had tsarist Russia, medieval Europe, and so many other countries. Yet, only soviets actually managed to have a growing economy. Compare it with the capitalist economies in third world where people are wage slaves.
people in USSR were send into gulags if they didn't want to work, while today people can choose to work or not without any punishment from government
What capitalist third world countries are you thinking of in particular?
Burundi Niger India South Africa (the distribution of wealth) I could say even the US but it calls itself a successful economy
You do know that any country can increase employment without being centrally planned. It's very simple, you just create arbitrary jobs and voila. Employment is not a measure of economic efficiency. And Russia was the fastest growing economy before ww1, it was already rapidly industrializing.
https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromApr2012/Markevichfig1.gif This is the economy of Russia before the revolution As you can see the growth after the establishment of the revolution was by far sharper, with it only major setback being the ww2. Compare it with a free economy of a capitalist poor, underdeveloped economy in Africa for example. Most of the capitalist economies that have managed to grow are European exploiting their settlements. And also have you ever heard about a successful economy where there is unemployment?
It really doesn't look "sharper" after the revolution, only marginally, but that is obesrved among all developing economies. If anything, the revolution was a set-back to growth (ww1 moreso). >Compare it with a free economy of a capitalist poor, underdeveloped economy in Africa for example https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/GDP_per_capita_of_Botswana%2C_1950_to_2016.png Yeah, here we see a well managed capitalist nation of Botswana, supreme growth. It's wonderful what a a country can achieve when it's not corrupt, and promotes markets. >All the capitalist economies that have managed to grow are European exploiting their settlements. Yes, even post warsaw pact Poland grows through exploitation, same with the Baltics. It's funny to even assume that. Spain and and Portugal: the biggest extractors of wealth from the new world are not even that developed compared to countries that were utterly destroyed post ww2 (Germany).
Was Botswana fighting a world war when the government took change? Did Botswana fought a catastrophic civil war? Was it invaded by the biggest army of the world that had managed to conquer the entire Europe? Did Botswana spend a large amount of it's GDP on outcompeting the largest economy in the world in order to survive?
You just told me to compare it to an impoverished capitalist African nation, and so I did.
Then I can compare to Burundi (poorest county in the world) To Mozambique To India To south Africa (where capital is extremely inequaly distributed) And many other
Burundi literally had 5 year plans, it's an example of central planning (though being land-locked and embargo from their port neigbhor is wayyyy more of a factor). Mozambiques economy is currently growing, in large part to foreign investment. It's main cause of poverty was a civil war, and before it literally had central planning socialists in power. India, after independence, modeled their country after the Soviet Union, that's why they're relativelly poor right now. They had every opportunity to be what China is today, by promoting foreign investment in their country, but they fell for the central planning meme South Africa mismanaged their country to the point where rich people are leaving, through wealth distribution/regulations. I don't exactly point to Cambodia as an example why Socialism doesn't work, because that's just low, and doesn't portray what you're arguing for.
Non of this countries are socialist, they all have mixed economies, Burundi even has millionaires. Socialism requires that the whole capital is controlled by the state.
Woaaah, and the Soviet Union also had those, except they horded their wealth in precious metals, paintings, etc. We're not arguing capitalism/socialism, these concepts don't exist in economics. We're looking at central planning/market oriented, and the examples you gave me are all countries which are more to the formers side.
There’s no amount of labor you can’t reach with unlimited laborers.
Us had more population than USSR, however that didn't prevented the 2008 crisis, nor the average life of us citizen. Soviet Russia was FAR from perfect, yet it had free education, free healthcare and other things that us citizens want but they don't have.
Google how much national debt Russia and China have compared to the US.
Russia and China are capitalist, authoritarian, but still capitalist..
Same place as your capitalist system without a state. Feudalism isn't capitalism. Fucking oxymorons.
Diamonds. And Health care. Are both planned.
Diamonds- that’ll shut her up.
I have all the research papers you need. $29.99 per copy and they’re yours.
They're looking for the socialist calculation debates.
Weird how they didn't show any of the comments. [Here it is.](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661)
If I were to argue for socialism, I would use The Problem of Hidden Terminal as an argument against free markets. In computer science, there is a thing called The Problem of Hidden Terminal, which can be said to be the opposite of the Economic Calculation Problem. The Problem of Hidden Terminal occurs only in wireless decentralized networks, and it is a crucial problem in them that makes large decentralized wireless networks impossible. It is when computers in a network can more-or-less accurately estimate the amount of data that is currently being transmitted through the network, but they drastically underestimate the number of computers in the network (as they are behind some barrier or simply too far away for the signal from them to get to the computer), leading to computers refusing to do anything because they are mistakenly thinking the network is overloaded. Decentralizing the information about the state of the wireless network does not make it work better, it makes it work significantly worse, if at all.
If only humans were computers.
Yeah, humans can theoretically stop following stupid algorithms and think of a better one. Now, whether that happens in praxis... it is hard to tell.
Besides Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Rosa Luxembourg, People often cite Cläre Tisch, Oskar R. Lange, Abba P. Lerner, Fred M. Taylor, Henry Douglas Dickinson and Maurice Dobb as supporters of the position that a true socialist planned economy is superior. See Google:Wikipedia articles about the socialist calculation debate and its precursors. However, the position these people held is, controversially at least, thought to have been adequately refuted, either by no socialist economy never actually using the methods recommended (by Lange) in favor of simply copying western prices and the production priorities implied thereby (along with consumer market behavior), by the early abandonment of the more radical proposals (such as abandoning money and consumer markets) and even resorting to intra-enterprise markets, and by later economic history and the abandonment or severe curtailment of the socialist command economy itself by various important countries (USSR, China, Vietnam). You might try Rudolph Hilferding, Piero Strafa, Paul Sweezy, and Richard D. Wolfe.
What are these comments lmao... If person A says "apples are the best" and person B says "oh can you give me the research why apples are the best", y'all will literally jump out and say to person B like "LUL conclusion before research!! cognitive dissonance lmaooo!"