The establishment vs Uber

[kandrathe]

Beyond the world cup, this week I'm watching the battle against Uber being fought in many cities across the US and Europe.

So, What Really Happened with the Government vs. Uber?

A company creating something altogether new in an industry still in its infancy may not have established players or protectionist laws in its way. On the other hand, a startup offering an innovative product that disrupts a well-established, politically privileged industry may find itself besieged by lawsuits and bureaucrats.

Uber is offered in my metropolis, and it's very affordable. There are three levels of vehicle, small(eco sedan), medium(luxury sedan), large (SUV). A trip across town for the small vehicle was quoted at about $60. They have fixed prices between the airport and downtown Minneapolis, and downtown Saint Paul.

So, it will be a test to see if innovation, "creative destruction" and competition are allowed. Or, if the establishment bureaucracy and protectionist forces of local government regulation prevail. I suspect the latter, actually.

[Jester]

Uber is offered in my metropolis, and it's very affordable. There are three levels of vehicle, small(eco sedan), medium(luxury sedan), large (SUV). A trip across town for the small vehicle was quoted at about $60. They have fixed prices between the airport and downtown Minneapolis, and downtown Saint Paul.

So, it will be a test to see if innovation, "creative destruction" and competition are allowed. Or, if the establishment bureaucracy and protectionist forces of local government regulation prevail. I suspect the latter, actually.

Schumpeter vs. the Hansom Cab? I know where my money is.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Should a real gentleman be seen in a Hackney Coach? Progress then, progress now.

More to the point really would be the freedom of disruption of a changing market. The old establishment Hackney coach, which also had a political lock on the market, lost to the sleek Hansom cab which became the consumers choice mode of transport.

Mainframe computer manufacturers didn't do anything wrong for their elite cadre of dedicated customers so to speak, they just failed to see the threat in a cheaper, poorer-quality product that initially reaches less profitable customers but eventually takes over and devours an entire industry.

Do I want the service of being able to tap my phone and get the closet available ride, or do I need to go through the establishment bureaucracy of calling the Black Cab company, describing where to pick me up, waiting for the cab to arrive, etc? And, still there is nothing preventing localities from requiring drivers be "professional drivers", licensed, bonded and etc.

As for Schumpeter, his idea that; "...collapse of capitalism from within will come about if democratic majorities vote for restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure." is not far from accurate in many places. It is certainly a restriction to the point of suffocation.

[kandrathe]

One other consideration I didn't expound upon. My first instinct for myself was to determine whether it would be cheaper to forgo owning a car altogether. Generally, in the USA (according to AAA), owning a car costs between 45 cents to 75 cents per mile depending on your choice of vehicle (assuming about 15,000) miles per year. Or, that is roughly $6,700 to $11,340 per year.

If you used an on demand car service for 600 trips (2 per day for 300 days), the break even point would be about $12-$20 per trip depending on your vehicle, and other factors such as if you would have garage rental at either end of the trip. Then again, if you were without a car you might consider biking for short distances on the nicer days, or using public transit where possible...

[FireIceTalon]

As for Schumpeter, his idea that; "...collapse of capitalism from within will come about if democratic majorities vote for restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure." is not far from accurate in many places. It is certainly a restriction to the point of suffocation.

Except, this idea(lism) does not accurately reflect the history of capitalism, and it sounds more like pro-free market rhetoric and propaganda than it does a proper material analysis of capitalisms' woes. Schumpeter sounds like he is just parroting capitalist pundits like Friedman or Hayek.

The capitalist system IS unsustainable to be sure, and its destruction at some point is assured, but because of "tighter regulations" is an unlikely, if not completely erroneous scenario. It is an inherently contradictory system, and its adherents have the myopic belief that we live in a world of infinite resources; resulting in mass over-production in order to maximize profits and profitability - which can explain why the planet is in terrible shape (and not just economically or socially, but also environmentally). Of course resources are finite, yet the system also must create 'artificial scarcity' as needed by the demands and flow of international capital, which is why "poverty in the midst of plenty" is an intrinsic trait of the capitalist system and cannot be removed from it. The State does not exist with the purpose to destroy the capitalist system, but rather to preserve and protect it from itself (though this too, has its limitations, and it cannot alter the social relations or the fundamental characterization that define the system and make it what it is, and how it works. Nor can they ultimately save it, not forever anyway). The presence of the state merely slows down or postpones the inevitable demise of the system, nothing more nothing less. Without a state or some other similar agency of absolute power, capitalism would have gone the way of the dinosaurs long ago. The state is the only reason it has survived as long as it has - capitalism does not (and cannot) exist on its own merit or accord.

A more likely outcome is, the capitalist system will implode on itself due to the above (and other) contradictions, as well as its permanent features of constant wars, poverty, and destruction of the planet, in conjunction with estrangement, decadence, and social and economic decay.

Sure, governments may fuck around with certain industries that result in some individuals or business being harmed, but to suggest that they have the power to single-handedly destroy the entire existing social order that exists across the globe is a pretty fantastically exaggerated claim. The state is powerful, but not that powerful. But even if they were, they have no vestige in wanting to do so, since the state itself both directly and indirectly benefits from preserving the current way of things (the only major individual statesman that was probably an exception to this was Lenin, whose politics do not closely align with my own yet I have the sense that he genuinely wanted a better and more just world than what exists).

[Jester]

Except, this idea(lism) does not accurately reflect the history of capitalism, and it sounds more like pro-free market rhetoric and propaganda than it does a proper material analysis of capitalisms' woes. Schumpeter sounds like he is just parroting capitalist pundits like Friedman or Hayek.

Thanks for that - I actually laughed out loud.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Yes, wow. Léon Walras spins in his grave... Maybe a bit more study FIT.

Schumpter was born a decade before Fredrik Hayak, and two decades before Milton Friedman. Hayak was 7 years old when Schumpter earned his Ph.D. and published his first work in 1906.

Here is a free link to Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

[FireIceTalon]

Yes, wow. Léon Walras spins in his grave... Maybe a bit more study FIT.

Schumpter was born a decade before Fredrik Hayak, and two decades before Milton Friedman. Hayak was 7 years old when Schumpter earned his Ph.D. and published his first work in 1906.

Here is a free link to Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

Guess it depends on when he said that quote really, since he could have still easily been paraphrasing their ideas as they were all alive at the same time when both Hayek and Friedman were well into their 40's or 50's. But, that is neither here nor there.

My larger point still stands - that Schumpter's idea that the state has the power to destroy the entire capitalist order, or would even desire to do so, is utterly ridiculous. Which is not surprising, since....

Schumpters work you linked. I stopped reading the moment after he wrote "In one important sense, Marxism is a religion". This is a discredited claim usually made by trolls. A pity really, cause he had my attention before that. For something to qualify as a religion, that system of thought requires a belief in the supernatural and metaphysical, and it must structure its views upon that particular premise. Marxism (and pretty much all sociological methods in general) lacks such a component, and therefore is impossible for it to be a religion - in fact the materialist conception of history was probably the first application of scientific methodology applied to the social sciences, as a way of understanding the historical development and material conditions of society in that context (including religions role itself in many societies). Capitalism and Liberalism ironically enough, have lots of traits and overtones similar to those seen in religions - the notion of a "invisible hand" being the most obvious. Yet cappies will be quick to call Marxism a religious doctrine. How cute.

[Jester]

Guess it depends on when he said that quote really, since he could have still easily been paraphrasing their ideas as they were all alive at the same time when both Hayek and Friedman were well into their 40's or 50's.

Ignorance can be cured with knowledge. But ignorance plus stubbornness is just stupidity. This "Friedman and Hayek" stuff is rancid, and does nothing but demonstrate that you don't yet have a passing understanding about the history of economics.

I stopped reading the moment after he wrote "In one important sense, Marxism is a religion". This is a discredited claim usually made by trolls. A pity really, cause he had my attention before that.

"I am confronted by an idea with which I disagree. Therefore, I stop reading, and discredit the author."

-Jester

Edit: I notice that this is the second sentence of the first chapter. I take it you mean Schumpeter had your attention for all of ten seconds before you found something you disagreed with, and could therefore consign him to the dustbin?

[FireIceTalon]

And, my larger point is once again dodged. I'm assuming its because you know I am right but have too much pride to come out and admit it. Is not the whole notion that the state can and/or desires to eliminate the capitalist order an fantastic claim? I see no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. Either admit I am right, or put up a compelling argument if you disagree. But quit dodging me.

I already knew Schumpter was pro-capitalist going in so I already disagreed with him, but wanted to see if there was any critiques of socialism that might be worthwhile. I skimmed parts of the introduction to get an idea of what the book was about, and then began with the prologue of the first chapter, which seemed ok. But once I got into the first chapter he instantly starts with one of the common yet fallacious and unfounded arguments made by anti-Marxists and I pretty much lost interest at that point. The minute someone uses that argument, their point has no merit in my view. He should have saved that one for towards the end, and even though I would have indeed consigned him to the dustbin anyways for using it, at least I would have had the interest to read further before stumbling upon it. But instead of an interesting argument that would make me think and want to formulate a response, all I got was another troll. Oh well. I guess I should have seen a red flag (no pun intended) when he titled the first chapter "Marx the Prophet", since Marx was not a prophet in any sense, but a social scientist and economist.

[kandrathe]

I stopped reading the moment after he wrote "In one important sense, Marxism is a religion". This is a discredited claim usually made by trolls. A pity really, cause he had my attention before that.

"I am confronted by an idea with which I disagree. Therefore, I stop reading, and discredit the author."

-Jester

Edit: I notice that this is the second sentence of the first chapter. I take it you mean Schumpeter had your attention for all of ten seconds before you found something you disagreed with, and could therefore consign him to the dustbin?

The antithesis of university study is to confine ones knowledge to only a narrow point of view. Of course, it reinforces a fear I have that our universities have become shrines of Narcissus filled with professors reflecting on the beauty of their own ideas.

To read an author with no thought of criticizing the work, is senseless. To criticize the writing with no thought of reading it is much worse.

I guess it is one reason my imagination returns to the caricature of Che t-shirt wearing Marxist revolutionary wannabe, who's learned to parrot the popular lines enough to fit in, but has no interest in understanding the foundations of economic thought nor debate their merits.

Maybe one would start by reflecting on the life and transformation of perhaps the leading American Marxist, Paul Sweezy. Of course, Sweezy was a Marxist who has read and understands Schumpter... Why Stagnation? by Paul Sweezy, Monthly Review

[FireIceTalon]

The antithesis of university study is to confine ones knowledge to only a narrow point of view. Of course, it reinforces a fear I have that our universities have become shrines of Narcissus filled with professors reflecting on the beauty of their own ideas.

True to some extent. Although, my guess is that you are simply being condescending here and implying that I am just taking in what my "Marxist professors" feed to me and regurgitate it more than you are trying to make a point about the problems of our higher education system. Only one problem, none of my professors, at either the community college I attended or university I currently attend are Marxist. In fact, most of my learning of Marxism has come from OUTSIDE the classroom - done on my on accord for my own interest. Contrary to the fear mongering of conservative pundits everywhere, universities are not Marxist havens - quite the opposite really. Marx is covered to be sure - sometimes favorably, sometimes not so favorably (i've found it to be about half and half).

In my case when I encounter the latter, it becomes more of a question if it is trolling (like calling Marxism a religion) or just based on simple misconceptions or misunderstandings (that Marxism views history as a linear, and preordained trajectory) - thankfully it is usually the latter, and interesting discussion results. And when he is discussed favorably, it is usually more in a sociological context than in an economic one, which indicates to me that works like The Manifesto get alot of attention compared to Capital Vol.1. Of course the latter is far larger and more complex to tackle (especially in the time constraints of a university setting), but it bugs me nonetheless since one cannot really understand the foundations or entire picture of the materialist conception of history (as well as its dialectical application to historical development), even if they agree with it - without at least reading and understanding the first 3 chapters of Capital volume 1. This is of course deliberately done for ideological purposes, but that's another topic.

Most of the far leftists I have encountered through my tenure in college, professor and student alike, have been closer to Anarchists interestingly enough. But heaven forbid leftist thought of any type is somewhat more prevalent in universities than it is in most other spheres of society. We can't have that now, can we?

To read an author with no thought of criticizing the work, is senseless. To criticize the writing with no thought of reading it is much worse.

Except, I have heard Marxism be called a religion from well, almost every other reactionary on the planet. Nothing new there to read I'm afraid. If I was interested in reading such tripe I could just take a trip over to Stormfront.org or something.

I guess it is one reason my imagination returns to the caricature of Che t-shirt wearing Marxist revolutionary wannabe, who's learned to parrot the popular lines enough to fit in, but has no interest in understanding the foundations of economic thought nor debate their merits.

At least you use the word "imagination" there. I don't own any Che T-shirts, I generally disagree with Che and his idea of Focoism, nor am I trying to "fit into" anything. Well, scratch that, that isn't entirely true. I am a human being trying to fit into a anti-human system that is rife with injustice, exploitation and discrimination, scapegoating, corruption, shallowness and decadence, inefficiency, backwardsness, and untold human suffering. That aside, your description is just you letting stereotypical imagination run wild. Also, to suggest I have no interest in debating the history of economic and political thought is pretty short-sighted as well. I have done it here, on various other forums, with friends and family, as well as in the classroom.

Lastly, my point is dodged yet again. Is the idea of the state being powerful enough to single handedly destroy the entire capitalist social order an absurd idea, or not? I say it is. Disagree? Give me an argument then. Using Ad hominem fallacies like you did above isn't an argument.

[Jester]

Except, I have heard Marxism be called a religion from well, almost every other reactionary on the planet.

By that logic, everyone at least as "far right" as Bertrand Russell is a reactionary bigot who belongs on Stormfront.org.

I can't fault you for inconsistency in your worldview. You do actually seem to draw the line for "reactionary" at "Menshevik."

If you'd like to start an actual discussion about Schumpeter's views on the self-destruction of capitalism, that might be neat, except that you've already loudly declared that you're neither interested in reading him, nor would you bother take him seriously if you did.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

So, What Really Happened with the Government vs. Uber?

A company creating something altogether new in an industry still in its infancy may not have established players or protectionist laws in its way. On the other hand, a startup offering an innovative product that disrupts a well-established, politically privileged industry may find itself besieged by lawsuits and bureaucrats.

Uber is a startup, but let's be clear here. It is not really an underfed, malnourished but adorably scrappy underdog. When it has some cash infusion from Google Ventures,

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/22/google-...deal-ever/


it's probably not a newsie in a poboy cap with only it's moxie to earn it's daily bread. Which the big bad gov't bureaucrat is withholding, as -always-, with some moustache twirling and slinging red tape.


Now with that out of the way, let's discuss some of the more interesting and practical issues this brings up.

If google finally makes a working driverless \auto navigator car system, and combines it with Uber, Johnny Cab might finally be here for real.



Hopefully less Uncanny Valley like.

Seriously, a human driver is increasingly seen as expensive (think insurance side), not the most reliable or at least inconsistent, and fragile component of a driving system.

Automation\robotics systems is already happening\increasing in the aerial drones sector (military and civil purposes), and to me it's looking more likely that driving might go the same way.

So, it will be a test to see if innovation, "creative destruction" and competition are allowed. Or, if the establishment bureaucracy and protectionist forces of local government regulation prevail. I suspect the latter, actually.

I once got sideswiped by an unlicensed cab van. I had to dodge some potential collisions with a few licensed cabs driven by a person who made me think "how did they manage to get a license at all". And yes, I also had some excellent cab rides driven by some genuine salt of the earth types who knows how to operate a vehicle. So I want to see improvement in all aspect of our world. Most people do. But there is a 'baby v bathwater' concern here.

Now reading the blurb on the company, it does say that Uber only employs licensed drivers. I'd like to see how well that is enforced, and how accountable it is. For both the benefit of the passengers, and drivers.

And no, the traditional taxi industry is not perfect either. I'm not playing favourites here, I'd like to see continuous improvement \ vigilance on both.

As for 'creative destruction', I think I prefer Bucky Fuller's version.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

ps. Please remember there are some of us in this discussion that has a poor grasp of Hayek(s), especially in the case of Friedrich vs Salma, and had problems understanding the differences between the two figures.

In short, you might be dealing with a snowflake unique poli-sci genius savant. So adjust your vocabulary and ideas accordingly. Speak -only- in literal terms, s-l-o-w-e-r, and LOUDER.

[FireIceTalon]

By that logic, everyone at least as "far right" as Bertrand Russell is a reactionary bigot who belongs on Stormfront.org.

Not necessarily. Me and Mr. Russell would probably agree on little, but I doubt there is a racist bone in his body and it would be silly to put him on the same level as the folks over at Stormfront. Nevertheless, it is my experience that most people who refer to Marxism as a religious doctrine are trolling hard. Perhaps Mr. Russell isn't though, and in that case he just has a serious misunderstanding of Marxist theory, and/or is unable to distinguish between Idealist systems of thought and Materialist ones. The same may be true of Schumpter, I don't know. Either way, it is difficult for me to take one serious when they use this logic.

If you are trying to imply that I think the people at Stormfront.org and B. Russell should be lumped together, then I would disagree. Both are reactionary, but reactionaries aren't monolithic (just as Marxists aren't) and there are different degrees of it. Obviously, Russell is a respectable person (even if I agree with little of his theories, that is irrelevant here), while the people over at stormfront are racist scum. Just as Rosa Luxemburg was a great Marxist thinker, brave revolutionary, and beacon of hope for proletarian emancipation; while Stalin was an caricature of Marxism, cult-of-personality dictator, and brutal opportunist.

I can't fault you for inconsistency in your worldview. You do actually seem to draw the line for "reactionary" at "Menshevik."

?? Not quite sure what you are getting at here. What inconsistencies?

The Mensheviks were indeed reactionary. They ultimately supported the Russian Provisional Government which consisted of Liberals, former Tsarist officials and counter-revolutionaries, and they put themselves on the opposite side of the Russian proletariat. Me supporting the Mensheviks in any way would indeed be very inconsistent as a Marxist, since their actions were utterly very anti-Marxist. But I don't. So again I ask, what inconsistencies?

If you'd like to start an actual discussion about Schumpeter's views on the self-destruction of capitalism, that might be neat, except that you've already loudly declared that you're neither interested in reading him, nor would you bother take him seriously if you did.

I think capitalism can self-destruct or degenerate into something even more barbaric, but one of the points to revolutionary socialism is to prevent this from happening, since its self-destruction would likely result in environmental catastrophe and take all of humanity down with it. That being said, I don't see how tighter regulations and state intervention can possibly be responsible for such a scenario. Capitalism needs the state, and the state needs capitalism (or at least some form of class rulership).

[Jester]

So again I ask, what inconsistencies?

My language must have been ambiguous - I meant to suggest the opposite. You really do think the Mensheviks (and Bertrand Russell) are reactionaries, and view the world accordingly. Sort of like how every direction is south, if you're at the north pole.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

... In fact, most of my learning of Marxism has come from OUTSIDE the classroom - done on my on accord for my own interest.

Then it is like a hobby, and you are just as likely to get bad source information as you are to get good. You said before you were pursuing political science, and therefore I guess I assumed you were studying the Marxian perspective to some depth. You can take it from me. When Schumpter said Marxism had become like a religion, he did not mean it as a troll. He meant it in the sense that in his day, as it is now, adherents recite the dogma without any understanding. They take it on faith, without any intellectual digestion. You are so put off by the suggestion that anything might be wrong with a Marxian ideology, you refuse to "open" your mind to ideas that might challenge your extreme worldview (up there at the north pole).

To me, and I suspect to your college professors, you have just enough knowledge of Marxism to be frustrating. But, yet do not seem serious enough about it to really study it -- which would require you to actually read economists views, like Schumpter, Keynes, Galbraith, Sweezy, and even Friedman and Hayak. It seems Marxism is either your silver bullet, where you may believe it to be THE "answer", or you are merely using it to differentiate yourself (or elevate) from the masses of the brain dead surrounding you. Either way... you seem to not understand enough about it to realize yet that it is not.

[FireIceTalon]

Then it is like a hobby, and you are just as likely to get bad source information as you are to get good. You said before you were pursuing political science, and therefore I guess I assumed you were studying the Marxian perspective to some depth.

I discovered Marx and Engles in a early philosophy class I took in my second semester at community college. We covered a variety of thinkers that ranged the political spectrum. We covered conservative thinkers all the way from Hobbes, to Edmund Burke, to even Ayn Rand. Plenty of leftist thinkers as well from Mill, to Rawls, to Marx/Engels and some of the Anarchists.

Going into the class I was not a Marxist yet and knew little about him or his theory, but I was already somewhat sympathetic to the ideals of socialism so I was already starting to become 'class conscious'. When we covered Marx toward the end of that semester his work fascinated me and I found that his theory reflected much of what I saw in society. Of course, Marx was just a small piece of what I learned in that class, but his work stood out and made the most sense to me, and so I began to further study and inquire about it outside the classroom since my interest was sparked. And I am still studying and learning about it. In later classes, Marx was also covered on occasion, so I guess your assumption was/is correct to some extent, but most of my learning of the theory has been outside the classroom.

Admittedly, I have slacked lately, just because school and work eat up most of my time now, and the little free time I do have I have been playing D3 expansion, heh (life cant always be serious now, can it?). For a while though, I was pretty engulfed in studying it. I guess for now I just need some downtime. There is a ton of books I want to get my hands on though, so many I do not even know where to begin. Engels book "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State" is pretty high on my list.

You can take it from me. When Schumpter said Marxism had become like a religion, he did not mean it as a troll. He meant it in the sense that in his day, as it is now, adherents recite the dogma without any understanding.

It is true that there are some "Marxists" that misconstrue the framework and blindly use it in dogmatic ways because they are more interested in being "right" than trying to understand the world we live in. That being said, Marxism isn't a dogmatic framework, and in fact, it is very anti-dogmatic. Phil Gasper touches on this topic well, in my opinion. The problem is not Marxism, but the incompetent individual who misunderstands it and thus misuses it when trying to understand a particular event in history. More on that below.

They take it on faith, without any intellectual digestion. You are so put off by the suggestion that anything might be wrong with a Marxian ideology, you refuse to "open" your mind to ideas that might challenge your extreme worldview (up there at the north pole).

But Marxism isn't even an ideology at all. It is a methodolgy, and in fact it is useful for explaining how ideology itself is shaped in relation to the society. It isn't used to conjure up utopian fantasies (nor should it be), nor should it be used in an ideological sense as that would make the framework deterministic and compromise what it should be used for - its explanatory power. I see this pretty commonly in "Academic Marxism", which is just another vulgarization of the framework that has little merit, because of its 'Ivory Tower' attitude and isolation from genuine, real-world class struggles. I am pretty sure that I have also stated in the past that one can be pro-capitalist, and still accept and use the Marxist framework as a legitimate mode of analysis for understanding the real world (however odd that may be).

I don't think I've ever said the Marxist system is infallible, perfect and the be all end all. If it were, it would not have changed, grown, and developed over the years as it has, because it wouldn't have needed to. But at the same time, that certainly doesn't make it a religion. As I explained in the above paragraph it can and has been improperly used. However, is there anything in the physical world that scientists could observe that would make them doubt the validity of the scientific method? You would be hard pressed to find one. This applies to Marxism and its adherents also. That doesn't make Marxism a religion - that just makes it a sturdy and valid system of thought that can, has, and will adapt itself and its applications to the changes in society (because it must do so). 'Academic Marxists' generally come across as elitist and are often far removed from the framework they claim allegiance to, but we don't discard the entire framework because of that. Just as we don't discard the theory of evolution because of Nazi scientists or other proponents of social darwinism.

At the end of the day, Marxism isn't perfect, and like any other mode of thought, it can be misconstrued and misused. By the same token, it isn't a religion by any stretch of the imagination, and it has proved itself to be a resilient, useful and valid theoretical framework, and will continue to be so regardless of how much its opponents (and sometimes, its proponents!) try to shoot holes in it, discredit it, or vulgarize it for whatever reason they fancy. The theory has absolutely been through the wringer and then some, and yet it has come out unscathed.

To me, and I suspect to your college professors, you have just enough knowledge of Marxism to be frustrating.

Not sure what you mean by this, in particular the frustrating part.

Lastly, I would like to say I don't think the Marxist viewpoint is "extreme". Extreme would imply that it is ideological, and the framework itself by its nature, is anti-ideological. Rather, the targets of its analysis, are often extreme. It is "radical" perhaps, in that the materialist conception of history is a very different way of looking at the world and its historical development then in more standardized and orthodox methods. But radical and extreme need not mean the same thing.

[Hammerskjold]

. Just as we don't discard the theory of evolution because of Nazi scientists or other proponents of social darwinism.

" Hallo, ah sorry vee are soo late ja. Took us nearly 18 posts for us to get here. Ach, traffic was very bad ja, and Hans was playing vit hiss schtupid 'Angry Birds' on ze phone, so we could not get on ze Uber taxi app.

Arre you avare of zis? Ever herr of zis? It's Uber ja, most wunderbar.

It'z great ja, ze future isch herr already. Soon everyvhan vill need only ze phone for everyzing, anyvay enough with ze goebel goebel ja?

Vee.... brought....bratwurst!!1111 So, vaat did vee miss?"

[kandrathe]

... skipped to make just a general point ...

To me, and I suspect to your college professors, you have just enough knowledge of Marxism to be frustrating.

Not sure what you mean by this, in particular the frustrating part.

I would say you know enough to ask difficult questions, but not enough to understand the answers.

Lastly, I would like to say I don't think the Marxist viewpoint is "extreme". Extreme would imply that it is ideological, and the framework itself by its nature, is anti-ideological.

And... here is part in parcel of what I'm talking about. You don't get to redefine words to suit your purposes. Ideology is just that, a framework of thought or returning to our latin roots, thought narrative. Here is Wikipedia's view of what is defined there as Marxist ideology. Anti-ideology as discussed by Chomsky for example, was used to describe fear mongering propaganda and policy, such as in "anti-communism".

Generally, anything followed by -ism can be described as an ideology. Marxism is an ideology. Luxemburg-ism is a more ultra-leftist schism of Marxism left of Leninism, left of Bolsheviks. Extreme is the concept of being not just to the left in this case, but to the extreme left. As opposed to centrist, or leaning left, or leaning right. You are, as we've discussed above, extremely outside the norms of political thought, and in fact, you appear pretty far outside the norms of Marxist thought.

So far out, in fact, that we're clearly using different dictionaries.