How will socialism in the US be different from other failed attempts at socialism?

[Shalcker]

Which ones? Just note... he said this:

So, Pavlov’s dog and the Iron Mother experiments don’t fit... You know what does?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Mishukov

For example, UBI trials certainly count as social experiments.

You subject part of population to certain conditions then check results. Similar things happen with various welfare programs.

They certainly can count as experiments - their results cannot be predicted with full certainty and sometimes can be unexpected by those enacting them, and data that is gathered for purposes of program evaluation can be (and is) used to further social understanding.

[Endus]

taken from that article. the existence of those arguments against it mean it is not a science. it has elements of a science but it is not a science which is why its an arts degree not a science degree.

Where did I claim it was a science?

This is beyond a straw man. You're building straw colossi.

you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss. whilst rejecting even the possibility of there critique's being correct, then say i lack understanding, ever heard of hypocrisy ?

Sociology and anthropology aren't split into two camps. Where the hell did you get that particular bit of nonsense from?

and besides all that you then use that to base and prove a further theroy that socialism is inherent to humans....

Literally never claimed that. Yet another straw man.

which is my root issue with you, you draw conclusions from rocky foundations and affrim there correctness time and time again in thread after thread, your like the MMO-C Jorden Peterson

And yet, you're the one who said we're like other animals, which is directly in line with Peterson's ridiculous lobster analogy. You're the one cherry-picking a single source and refusing to consider other arguments, because you had a predetermined conclusion and only want one source that supports it.

further more i have cited, ive told exactly what books i get my opinion on the matter from. so cut that crap.

If you'd gotten even a baccalaureate degree, you'd know that's not how citations works. You can't just list a book by title.

and on the point of power and status we know neanderthal had rudimentary status markers such as predator pelts, bird wings or claws, colorants, and a range of speciality items, and we learnt burying our dead from them. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2011.00376.x

The problem with that point, as you're citing it, is twofold;
The existence of "rudimentary status markers" is not evidence of a class system. Not sure where you even got that idea; it's not from Hayden.
It's actually unclear from the abstract (and I currently don't have academic access) so I can't check the article, but I'd be curious how Hayden even draws the conclusion that they are status symbols in the sense that we generally understand, or if he's perhaps defined that term specifically in a way that's more explanatory of his meaning. Because as it stands, any claims as to the purpose would be, essentially, guesswork.


Edit: Also, it's frankly more than a little fucking weird that you've gone on tirades about lack of rigor in the social sciences, and sociology and archaeology specifically, while someone defending anthropological papers as ironclad fact that cannot be contested. Anthropology is just like the other social sciences.

[Monster Hunter]

Where did I claim it was a science?

This is beyond a straw man. You're building straw colossi.

you know you keep saying this but it dosnt make you suddenly right or make you look any more correct in your arguments.

Sociology and anthropology aren't split into two camps. Where the hell did you get that particular bit of nonsense from?

literally not what i said or anything to do with what i said. you are basing your ideas on works that has alot of criticism and is still under debate but you're presenting it as fact to try to prove your own further argument, you are as bad faith as it can possibly get and when i point this out you try your damndest to diflect from that, because you know it shoots down your whole argum

And yet, you're the one who said we're like other animals, which is directly in line with Peterson's ridiculous lobster analogy. You're the one cherry-picking a single source and refusing to consider other arguments, because you had a predetermined conclusion and only want one source that supports it.

to say humans have things in common with other apes is should hardly be a surprise or create upset unless you live in the bible belt and this is the first time you have heard of evolution (probly likley you seem to belive in a lot of other wishful fantasy ideas).

to follow the same illogical and outcome biased steps Peterson does to draw his conclusion's and then try to pretend to be an authority on them, that's another thing, that's what you do constantly. just because you have opposite opinion's to Peterson dosn't mean you get to them in just the same intellectually dishonest way's, you are a writer, from what i hear a piss poor one at that, you have never delt with any system more complex than a shoe lace, stop walking into threads like you have even an ounce of ability to understand complex multilevel systems like human behaviour because all that happens is you make you big sweeping statement that you have gotten from a macro view of some thing and then you base 1000 further arguments of it like you have suddenly had some insight the experts haven't

If you'd gotten even a baccalaureate degree, you'd know that's not how citations works. You can't just list a book by title.

i have a BSC and an MSC in computer engineering, i have done more than enough citation for a life time, so excuse me for not bothering to find the exact quotes from books on my shelf, just to show some random Canadian that making sweeping statements and building arguments from them is stupid, and thats the thing i dont need to disprove mauss, theres plenty all ready doing a fine job of that in academia, all i need to show is you dont understand that A. there is a debate and B. building your world views on something still under discussion is stupid.

The problem with that point, as you're citing it, is twofold;
The existence of "rudimentary status markers" is not evidence of a class system. Not sure where you even got that idea; it's not from Hayden.
It's actually unclear from the abstract (and I currently don't have academic access) so I can't check the article, but I'd be curious how Hayden even draws the conclusion that they are status symbols in the sense that we generally understand, or if he's perhaps defined that term specifically in a way that's more explanatory of his meaning. Because as it stands, any claims as to the purpose would be, essentially, guesswork.

its in the books I told you to go read. namely the first which talks about how the rigid class system's of today developed from the simple more fluid social class's based on the dependence the group had on select individuals back then. that dependence afforded privileges and power, and those privileges were a resource to covet and thus you have the birth of the internal social ladder

Edit: Also, it's frankly more than a little fucking weird that you've gone on tirades about lack of rigor in the social sciences, and sociology and archaeology specifically, while someone defending anthropological papers as ironclad fact that cannot be contested. Anthropology is just like the other social sciences.

its actually quite simple, anthropology and sociology arn't sciences, its dressed up philosophy and guess work based on what limited information that is available, nothing in it is set in stone or in any way trust worthy enough to base anything from, which is my point and why i hate you, because you dont see that, you dont see that what your basing your staments from is just educated guess work that you then quote as fact to prove what ever further assanine idea you may have, and the best way i can think of showing you how stupid that is, is to literally throw it back at you,

so now you have a choice, agree social science and anthropology is rocky and thus its stupid to base your further belief's from.
or
stick to beliving social science shopuld be treated like the finding of a real science and thus except that the theory's you are using as your base have strong critisim and counter points as well as havent followed correct scientific rigor and cheaking and thus your stupid to base your belief's off them.

pick one.

[Endus]

literally not what i said or anything to do with what i said. you are basing your ideas on works that has alot of criticism and is still under debate but you're presenting it as fact to try to prove your own further argument, you are as bad faith as it can possibly get and when i point this out you try your damndest to diflect from that, because you know it shoots down your whole argum

You claimed I was basing my entire argument on Mauss. Here's the direct quote; "you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss". I cited 6 articles, back a few pages. Not only were none of those by Mauss, none of them even referenced Mauss in their sources. You tried to divide the field of anthropology into Testart or Mauss, with no other relevant authors. So yes; that was your claim, and it was patent nonsense, and worse, it just continued your pattern of making shit up that had nothing to do with my actual arguments.

i have a BSC and an MSC in computer engineering

So, not actually trained in the social sciences and speaking on a subject you don't have much real understanding of or training in.

its actually quite simple, anthropology and sociology arn't sciences, its dressed up philosophy and guess work based on what limited information that is available, nothing in it is set in stone or in any way trust worthy enough to base anything from, which is my point and why i hate you, because you dont see that, you dont see that what your basing your staments from is just educated guess work that you then quote as fact to prove what ever further assanine idea you may have, and the best way i can think of showing you how stupid that is, is to literally throw it back at you,

You're being hypocritical, since you're treating Testart as an ironclad factual source that cannot be contested or disputed, when even you admit that his work, in your own words, is "dressed up philosophy and guesswork".

Don't blame me for your own inconsistencies, and don't project your own biases against the social sciences onto me. You're still attacking arguments I never made.

so now you have a choice, agree social science and anthropology is rocky and thus its stupid to base your further belief's from.
or
stick to beliving social science shopuld be treated like the finding of a real science and thus except that the theory's you are using as your base have strong critisim and counter points as well as havent followed correct scientific rigor and cheaking and thus your stupid to base your belief's off them.

pick one.

Why? The first is just fundamentally wrong and deeply misunderstands what the social sciences are and how they function. And the second isn't something I have ever argued; that's the straw man you invented.

This is a false dilemma you've presented. Worse, neither option is a sensible take on anything.

[Monster Hunter]

You claimed I was basing my entire argument on Mauss. Here's the direct quote; "you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss". I cited 6 articles, back a few pages. Not only were none of those by Mauss, none of them even referenced Mauss in their sources. You tried to divide the field of anthropology into Testart or Mauss, with no other relevant authors. So yes; that was your claim, and it was patent nonsense, and worse, it just continued your pattern of making shit up that had nothing to do with my actual arguments.



So, not actually trained in the social sciences and speaking on a subject you don't have much real understanding of or training in.



You're being hypocritical, since you're treating Testart as an ironclad factual source that cannot be contested or disputed, when even you admit that his work, in your own words, is "dressed up philosophy and guesswork".

Don't blame me for your own inconsistencies, and don't project your own biases against the social sciences onto me. You're still attacking arguments I never made.



Why? The first is just fundamentally wrong and deeply misunderstands what the social sciences are and how they function. And the second isn't something I have ever argued; that's the straw man you invented.

This is a false dilemma you've presented. Worse, neither option is a sensible take on anything.

its actually quite simple, anthropology and sociology arn't sciences, its dressed up philosophy and guess work based on what limited information that is available, nothing in it is set in stone or in any way trust worthy enough to base anything from, which is my point and why i hate you, because you dont see that, you dont see that what your basing your staments from is just educated guess work that you then quote as fact to prove what ever further assanine idea you may have, and the best way i can think of showing you how stupid that is, is to literally throw it back at you,

you really just don't get it do you?

everything you have said apply's to you, and yet you feel you have the authority to criticise the OP but think yourself immune to having your own style of hypocrisy thrown back at you?

you quote the works of Mauss, and those like Mauss or those who agree with Mauss or Mauss 3rd aunt twice removed or w/e and state your sources as fact and base your opinion's which you use to belittle other posters as true because of those sources and state it with authority, and when shown that 1. its not fact nor due to the nature of that field ever be considered a fact and 2. there are those in trained in that field that disagree and have there own argument as to why, you completely disregard them.

you are the Jordan Peterson of MMO-C, just as Peterson does with Jung and his arguments you do with your sources and arguments, and the irony is you will never understand why people dislike you.

[Endus]

you quote the works of Mauss, and those like Mauss or those who agree with Mauss or Mauss 3rd aunt twice removed or w/e and state your sources as fact and base your opinion's which you use to belittle other posters as true because of those sources and state it with authority, and when shown that 1. its not fact nor due to the nature of that field ever be considered a fact and 2. there are those in trained in that field that disagree and have there own argument as to why, you completely disregard them.

you are the Jordan Peterson of MMO-C, just as Peterson does with Jung and his arguments you do with your sources and arguments, and the irony is you will never understand why people dislike you.

I never cited Mauss, or anyone who referenced Mauss. That's just something you made up, based on nothing, because you have this image in your head that you'd rather respond to rather than anything I've actually said.

I'm not going to bother wasting everyone's time by continuing to respond to it. You have no interest in what I'm saying and haven't made any effort to respond to it, just the straw men you chose to build up.

[Monster Hunter]

I never cited Mauss, or anyone who referenced Mauss. That's just something you made up, based on nothing, because you have this image in your head that you'd rather respond to rather than anything I've actually said.

I'm not going to bother wasting everyone's time by continuing to respond to it. You have no interest in what I'm saying and haven't made any effort to respond to it, just the straw men you chose to build up.

its part of the opinion Mauss sided with... Jesus Christ.

is that literally all you got, are you that incapable of self reflection you cant see i dont care who your quoting only that you quoted one side of an ongoing debate, used it as a basis to have a go at another poster and then when shown there's actually 2 sides to that debate and the debate its self is held in a field that's mostly hot air, you cant even admit that you shouldn't go round shiting on people when your own beliefs and opinions are also based on sand....

and thats the real reason you won't respond from now on, because you know im right about you and who you are.

[Rozz]

Discussion isn't supposed to devolve into personal snipes but this thread wasn't in a good direction regardless. This is closed.