1. You're not supposed to delete information using "..." so as to change the meaning of the passage (which Friedman did regarding Marx's point about the middle class).
2. David Friedman didn't use ellipses in 2 out of the 5 places he made edits anyhow.
I didn't even continue further with my argumentation, you don't need any special knowledge of Marx to see the above points are 100% true. All they had to do was check the original text to confirm. I made these two points again and again because I thought they would be *obvious* to even the most layman SSC reader.
Instead I got the most credulous clique in the world quoting the wikipedia definition of ellipses at me.
I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but did you comment anywhere that this is Friedman's *only* quotation from Marx in the whole book in the first place?
Not in the SSC slapfight, no. I think it's a lot easier to nail someone on what they *did* do (construct a thoroughly misleading 'quotation') rather than what they *didn't* do (probably didn't read any Marx/Engels past page 10 of any book they wrote). Of course I can't say that with 100% certainty, even though that's how it appears.
I was mostly trying to be a bit lazy and not deviate from the topic at hand. For example, iirc Marx and Engels have stuff about the formation of a *modern 'middle class'* (i.e highly paid wage laborers) but I would have had to search around in some stuff to eventually find relevant bits. It was much easier and useful to just hammer him on the same quilt quotes again and again since he wasn't 'fessing up to it anyhow.
Probably makes for much more boring reading compared to if I was quoting from Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc as I sometimes do. As much as I enjoyed 'owning' this clown over the past few days its also been a very dispiriting experience about the dreck they let rise through academia and the publishing world, and the more general inability of people to see facts right in front of them.
Not to mention the sort of things they'll tolerate from out and out fascists but blanch at and bring out the banhammer when the username references a communist...
Of course you do recall correctly about Marx and Engels, who refer to a petite bourgeoisie or "petit-bourgeois" (which was the term I grew up with) who either only own capital in small amounts or manage small amounts of capital with equivalent remuneration on the behalf of more affluent full-blown capitalists.
More recently, Marxist theorists have argued that postmodern consumer society has a much larger labour class than is immediately obvious (we are, apparently, *not* all middle-class now, as some politicians would have it) because production has been off-shored to the likes of China, where the industrial working class is arguably *growing*, as somewhat anticipated by Marx.
David "Failson" Friedman would presumably argue that this misses the point of comparative advantage (rather than absolute advantage) but he'd be projecting: that rural folk flock to the cities seeking higher industrial wages does not imply that the reserve army of labour will continue to exist indefinitely.
I was thinking more specifically about the category of 'labor aristocrat', I'm not sure if M&E ever actually used that term but I know they did talk about that kind of stuff. Of course your point about the petit-bourgeois would work just as well. I mean, there's a reason why Marx & Engels specify '*lower strata*' of the middle class even in the sentence Friedman plucked. Anyway, like I said, that's all more effort than I was willing to put in when I can't even get people there to recognize Friedman's basic dishonesty.
Quality sneer from the other thread needs to be reposted:
I used to think MarxBro was both the funniest and most effective
sneerer because he so clearly reveals the bankruptcy of the rationalist
‘project’ - just as the rationalists claim to be unideological and
neutral yet mindlessly repeat neoliberal (or worse) dogma as truth with
no evidence to support it, MarxBro would straight-facedly deliver Maoist
argumentation and then pull TPO’s ‘read all these books’, leaving the
NPCs to flounder with ‘100 million dead!’ and ‘authoritarianism bad!’
without ever making a substantive engagement.
Unfortunately it turns out he’s completely ineffective as a sneerer
because rationalists are so dim they can’t identify their own
shortcomings even when slapped around with them over the course of 20
posts. Still hilarious though.
When did SneerClub ever ban me for pointing out that David Friedman falsified a citation? If Rationalists were the honest truth-seekers they portray themselves as, they would be open to talking about intellectual fraud within their community, no?
I just want to take this opportunity to object to David Friedman’s
name. It’s far too close to the name of a real, cool academic who does
real, cool work, and so David Friedman being such a hack is thereby
slandering Sy-David
Friedman.
Edit: seriously, this
is cool and it’s a crime that one af its authors is forced to almost
share a name with this hack.
**Dave Fridmann**
David Lawrence "Dave" Fridmann is an American record producer and musician. From 1990 onwards he co-produced most releases by Mercury Rev and The Flaming Lips. Other bands he has worked with include Weezer, Saxon Shore, Neon Indian, Wolf Gang, Ammonia, Ed Harcourt, Sparklehorse, Café Tacuba, Creaming Jesus, Elf Power, Mogwai, Thursday, Mass of the Fermenting Dregs, The Delgados, Low, Phantom Planet, Gemma Hayes, Goldrush, Tapes 'n Tapes, Hopewell, Black Moth Super Rainbow, Number Girl, Jed Davis, Zazen Boys, Sleater-Kinney and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. He has recently worked on new recordings with MGMT, Neil Finn, The Cribs, OK Go, Tame Impala, Baroness, Spoon, and Interpol.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
You should do a list of rationalist blogs from which you were banned
for being a leftist. I know you’re banned from /r/slatestarcodex /
/r/TheMotte as well as Ozy’s blog (Thing of Things), and now Slate Star
Codex, for this reason. Which else ?
Being banned from ozys blog is fine... iirc the top rule there was "dont annoy me" or something like that which I respect a lot more than the people pretending they're having brave and charitable conversations that cover a wide breadth of thought.
Also i got banned for a funny joke on ozys blog which is always satisfying as an added weight to the punchline.
Anyway, to be a Marxist in a Rationalist space is to be a Banned Man Posting. You know your time is gonna be up soon.
I wasn't trolling rSSC, I was simply correcting users regarding Marx and injecting some intellectual diversity into the sub. Sometimes the truth is annoying.
David Friedman's academic malpractice would likely continue to go unexposed if it weren't for me. Is there a single person nerdy and Marxist enough to notice that stuff besides me? That's why I'm the MVP (Most Valuable Poster) of the Rationalist community.
You probably like me better now because you're starting to realize that Marx was right, my tone and style of posting has always been the same.
I'm fairly certain Scott reads Sneerclub, or a tattler caught MB.
Regardless, looking forward to robust discussion over whether this ban was worthy or not. *Holds breath*
TPO:
>As far as I can tell, [Aboriginals] are one of the least intelligent, dullest, and most uncouth groups in the world.
MB:
>Maybe you don’t often talk to the common working class man like me who values a “no bullshit” attitude, instead of valuing obfuscation and word tricks like the ivory tower is wont to do.
Which ban got more pushback? Only time will tell...
I don't see why crossposting this on SneerClub would result in a ban. If "Rationalists" are honest about their intellectual project they should congratulate me for spreading facts about David Friedman's academic dishonesty as far as possible.
Of course “Rationalism” was always just a Boys Club clique. As soon
as you lob actually rational arguments like a Marxist handgrenade at
them they just ban you. This is a sad day for the discourse, folks.
It is weird btw, I have seen a ban before, but that was 'there were so many reports of this person the system autobanned them(\*)'. And that was a horrible person who was just dropping outrageous inflammatory shit. You were just being slightly annoying (\*\*) while calling people out, and you were actively banned by Scott (with no reason given).
\*: This is btw such a bad system, and even worse when you admit you have this system in place.
\*\*: which is one of the things rationalists (Yud at least) prides himself on, no false humility. Lol.
Jesus, this this
hack’s hack job! But the guy himself is quite a joke—the failson of
a faileconomist and a physic PhD holding a professorship in law. The
polemic on class reproduction (his larping name is Duke
Cariadoc) writes itself from here….
Also what is up with that person going ‘you never said it changed the
meaning’ how was that not clear from the first time it was brought up?
Like scroll up, it is right there.
To be honest I *was* kinda trying to unfold my argument one step at a time, which is why I didn't bring up the use of the term 'middle class' for a while. It's really a pity but I think most "Rationalists" are fundamentally dishonest people (as are most people in general), and you kinda have to play these games if you're gonna debate them.
If he wanted to get into the weeds of Marxist thought and the quote he was using I had a lot more points ready to go. It was easy enough to catch him in lies about really simple stuff like citations and Marx's use of the term "middle class" so there was no need for me to make my argument any more complicated. I had a quick browse of Friedman's book and the quotes from Marx and Engels are from Chapter 1 of the 'Communist Manifesto' and the Introduction to 'Conditions of the Working Class in England', which suggests to me he doesn't want to get into the weeds of it all either and probably hasn't read that much Marx or Engels. But perhaps that's me being uncharitable.
There's just such a fundamental disconnect between the language of "steelmanning", "being charitable", "good-faith debate" and what Scott does when one of his buddies has been caught falsifying citations.
Friedman here makes the bizarre claim that “the theory of absolute
advantage” is “incoherent”. Now it is true that for about 200 years,
thanks to Ricardo, free trade has been well-enough (though not totally)
characterised by a supposedly contrasting theory of “comparative
advantage”, whereby otherwise distinct parties in an exchange can
mutually benefit from trade. But it isn’t true that an idea of “absolute
advantage” is incoherent even it is a mischaracterisation of
common forms of trade when trumpeted as the final say on how parties
trade with each other.
It is perfectly coherent to say of one country, for example, that it
has an “absolute advantage” in producing this or that good. France,
being the country which contains the region “Champagne” has an absolute
advantage in producing “wine from Champagne”, because no other country
contains that region.
There is no incoherence here, even given the theory of comparative
advantage, unless for example you hold the metaphysical view that if
China builds a machine which reproduces a bottle of “Champagne”
physically identical in terms of chemical structure to one from France
it is functionally identical in terms of economics: but you wouldn’t
understand economics if you held that view.
Note that Ricardo himself believed that the comparative advantage argument applied for free trade of goods, but it required a lack of free trade of capital, and the thing that neoliberals like the Friedmans advocate for *is free trade of capital*.
David Friedman: such an intellectual titan that he knows Marx was
wrong about the disappearance of peasants and blacksmiths in Western
Europe! Also such an intellectual titan that he is apparently not the
author of the first three items on his Google Scholar profile. (Those
three items, by the way, account for about 40% of his citations.
Coattails much?)
What a bunch of complete idiots
Quality sneer from the other thread needs to be reposted:
Praise be to /u/thehivemindspeaketh
[deleted]
@Banned4Truth
Ah, the only thing proven to stop MarxBro: ban(s) from forum(s).
Well, I guess getting permabanned from SSC is an achievement of sorts.
blessed are the martyrs
I just want to take this opportunity to object to David Friedman’s name. It’s far too close to the name of a real, cool academic who does real, cool work, and so David Friedman being such a hack is thereby slandering Sy-David Friedman.
Edit: seriously, this is cool and it’s a crime that one af its authors is forced to almost share a name with this hack.
You should do a list of rationalist blogs from which you were banned for being a leftist. I know you’re banned from /r/slatestarcodex / /r/TheMotte as well as Ozy’s blog (Thing of Things), and now Slate Star Codex, for this reason. Which else ?
Like there’s not even a coherent reason for doing this other than “Leftist bad rightist good”
Of course “Rationalism” was always just a Boys Club clique. As soon as you lob actually rational arguments like a Marxist handgrenade at them they just ban you. This is a sad day for the discourse, folks.
Jesus, this this hack’s hack job! But the guy himself is quite a joke—the failson of a faileconomist and a physic PhD holding a professorship in law. The polemic on class reproduction (his larping name is Duke Cariadoc) writes itself from here….
(Note the correct usage of the ellipsis above.)
EDIT: savage, mad respect Marx bro.
Called it.
Also what is up with that person going ‘you never said it changed the meaning’ how was that not clear from the first time it was brought up? Like scroll up, it is right there.
Friedman here makes the bizarre claim that “the theory of absolute advantage” is “incoherent”. Now it is true that for about 200 years, thanks to Ricardo, free trade has been well-enough (though not totally) characterised by a supposedly contrasting theory of “comparative advantage”, whereby otherwise distinct parties in an exchange can mutually benefit from trade. But it isn’t true that an idea of “absolute advantage” is incoherent even it is a mischaracterisation of common forms of trade when trumpeted as the final say on how parties trade with each other.
It is perfectly coherent to say of one country, for example, that it has an “absolute advantage” in producing this or that good. France, being the country which contains the region “Champagne” has an absolute advantage in producing “wine from Champagne”, because no other country contains that region.
There is no incoherence here, even given the theory of comparative advantage, unless for example you hold the metaphysical view that if China builds a machine which reproduces a bottle of “Champagne” physically identical in terms of chemical structure to one from France it is functionally identical in terms of economics: but you wouldn’t understand economics if you held that view.
David Friedman: such an intellectual titan that he knows Marx was wrong about the disappearance of peasants and blacksmiths in Western Europe! Also such an intellectual titan that he is apparently not the author of the first three items on his Google Scholar profile. (Those three items, by the way, account for about 40% of his citations. Coattails much?)
marxbro solidarity
this direct attack on freedom of expression within the rationalist community will not be tolerated