Antifa listed as a terrorist organisation in New Jersey

[Sanctissima]

Hey, I'll take phallus-obsessed Freud over a bunch of circlejerking Marxists any day of the week.

Sociology isn't Marxism.
It covers Marx for obvious reasons, given his works were applied to put forward Critical Theory. Which is, y'know, how things are... criticised.

It was literally created by the man.

It is Marxist to the tee.

[United Empire of Humanity]

Hey, I'll take phallus-obsessed Freud over a bunch of circlejerking Marxists any day of the week.

Criminology and correctional studies are usually rolled in with the sociology department, QED cops are Marxists and we actually live in the dictatorship of the proletariat.
We did it, comrades!

Nonsense, comrade! Cops are too obsessed with authority! Therefore they are all Sorelists/fascists and the people at SAS were right, this is the pigdog fascist oppression empire!

[Kubra]

Sociology isn't Marxism.
It covers Marx for obvious reasons, given his works were applied to put forward Critical Theory. Which is, y'know, how things are... criticised.

It was literally created by the man.

It is Marxist to the tee.

y'all heard it here 1st, Weber and durkheim were closet Marxists. All according to plan, of course.

[Imperializt Russia]

Sociology isn't Marxism.
It covers Marx for obvious reasons, given his works were applied to put forward Critical Theory. Which is, y'know, how things are... criticised.

It was literally created by the man.

It is Marxist to the tee.

It's almost like the nineteenth century was a time when new fields of study were being discovered or something.

[United Empire of Humanity]

It was literally created by the man.

It is Marxist to the tee.

It's almost like the nineteenth century was a time when new fields of study were being discovered or something.

I'm pretty sure Durkheim's Suicide was the first example of sociology. Marx certainly looked at society, but I feel most of what he wrote was either economics or screeds about how the capitalist order deserves to be overthrown.

[Kubra]

It's almost like the nineteenth century was a time when new fields of study were being discovered or something.

I'm pretty sure Durkheim's Suicide was the first example of sociology. Marx certainly looked at society, but I feel most of what he wrote was either economics or screeds about how the capitalist order deserves to be overthrown.

Marx did not write screeds about the capitalist mode of production
He wrote screeds about everyone he disliked

[Genivaria]

Sociology isn't Marxism.
It covers Marx for obvious reasons, given his works were applied to put forward Critical Theory. Which is, y'know, how things are... criticised.

It was literally created by the man.

It is Marxist to the tee.

A the field of astronomy was created by Dr. Frankenstein.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's almost like the nineteenth century was a time when new fields of study were being discovered or something.

I'm pretty sure Durkheim's Suicide was the first example of sociology. Marx certainly looked at society, but I feel most of what he wrote was either economics or screeds about how the capitalist order deserves to be overthrown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#History
What we would now call sociology goes as far back as the Greek philosophers, surveying for what we would now call census is as old as the 11th century, and the first time when sociology became a field of academic study was after Marx's fucking death, in fucking Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_Woodbury_Small
These titles don't sound all that Marxist to me.
His last book, "Between eras - from capitalism to democracy" doesn't even mention Marx. Once.
https://archive.org/stream/betweenerasf ... earch/marx

[United Empire of Humanity]

I'm pretty sure Durkheim's Suicide was the first example of sociology. Marx certainly looked at society, but I feel most of what he wrote was either economics or screeds about how the capitalist order deserves to be overthrown.

Marx did not write screeds about the capitalist mode of production
He wrote screeds about everyone he disliked

Oh. I did not know that.

I'm pretty sure Durkheim's Suicide was the first example of sociology. Marx certainly looked at society, but I feel most of what he wrote was either economics or screeds about how the capitalist order deserves to be overthrown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#History
What we would now call sociology goes as far back as the Greek philosophers, surveying for what we would now call census is as old as the 11th century, and the first time when sociology became a field of academic study was after Marx's fucking death, in fucking Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_Woodbury_Small
These titles don't sound all that Marxist to me.
His last book, "Between eras - from capitalism to democracy" doesn't even mention Marx. Once.

I figured as much. If that's the case then where's the idea come from that Marxists founded sociology as a distinct science and still control it?

[Imperializt Russia]

Fuckwits who don't think there's anything wrong with society and that MARXISM IS EVILLLL

[Genivaria]

Marx did not write screeds about the capitalist mode of production
He wrote screeds about everyone he disliked

Oh. I did not know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#History
What we would now call sociology goes as far back as the Greek philosophers, surveying for what we would now call census is as old as the 11th century, and the first time when sociology became a field of academic study was after Marx's fucking death, in fucking Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_Woodbury_Small
These titles don't sound all that Marxist to me.
His last book, "Between eras - from capitalism to democracy" doesn't even mention Marx. Once.

I figured as much. If that's the case then where's the idea come from that Marxists founded sociology as a distinct science and still control it?

McCarthy?

[United Empire of Humanity]

Fuckwits who don't think there's anything wrong with society and that MARXISM IS EVILLLL

Oh. I did not know that.
I figured as much. If that's the case then where's the idea come from that Marxists founded sociology as a distinct science and still control it?

McCarthy?

Sounds reasonable.

[Liriena]

sociologists collecting sociological data? Scandalous!
Who should collect it then, physicists?

Mayhap Psychologists.

Y'know, actual academics who aren't glorified pseudo-intellectual Marxists.

Sociologists are actual academics, though. Sociology is a legitimate science. What sort of half-baked reactionary propaganda are you trying to peddle here?

[Liriena]

I mean at this point, what fucking else is there to post.
It's sociological data on a sociological issue. This isn't psychology.

Remember when psychologists were looked down upon as glorified pseudo-intellectuals?

Hey, I'll take phallus-obsessed Freud over a bunch of circlejerking Marxists any day of the week.

If you seriously think all sociologists are Marxists, that only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and instead you're just uncritically parroting propaganda.

Sad. Just sad and embarrassing.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>tfw too smart to not consider antifa a terrorist group

[Liriena]

Sociology isn't Marxism.
It covers Marx for obvious reasons, given his works were applied to put forward Critical Theory. Which is, y'know, how things are... criticised.

It was literally created by the man.

It is Marxist to the tee.

Except Marx did not single-handedly create the entire discipline. A plethora of authors were involved in its origins, and most of them weren't Marxists. Many were positivists or structuralists. Please stop talking nonsense.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I figured as much. If that's the case then where's the idea come from that Marxists founded sociology as a distinct science and still control it?

People tend to think nowadays that everything that's anti-capitalist or "new" since the 19th century is Marxist. The fact that most prominent leftists have come from social schools of thought is also another thing.

Which is far from true, to be honest. On both accounts.

While I do not agree with Marx on everything, his critique of historical studies is one that has influenced my field in several ways and has changed historical studies for the better. But there's also a lot of fields that came along, and new perspectives on existing fields, by other people besides Marx. He's just one of the "prime" thinkers (or basically the dude everyone knows about nowadays on a Survey of whatever history touching on the 19th century) of his time.

Just because Marx did it doesn't mean it's bad, but just because Marx did it doesn't mean he's right either.

[War Gears]

Trump's open hostility to (and hypocrisy by later courting) the economic elites is also a hallmark of fascism, as are his constant attacks on the press.

If your argument relies on him being an opportunist and populist to label him a "Fascist," it's rather pitiful. Hillary Clinton has done the same.

In the sense that he and his supporters are (as Wikipedia describes fascism): "opposed to liberalism, socialism and anarchism" and on the "far-right", then surely by other arguments in this thread "the shoe fits".

It's doubtful that Trump is opposed to liberalism (in the ideological sense, not as modern progressivism) though he clearly wants the benefits of this limited to Americans rather than inclusive of all people. But even if he were, this description also describes a ton of conservative ideologies which are not Fascist and predated Fascism (e.g the Catholic Church).

Trump does not fit any of the criterion for a Fascist. He is not in favor of a totalitarian state, which has more in common with the Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. Nor does he favor corporatism or syndicalism. In spite of his nationalist posturing, he's nowhere near close to Mussolini or Hitler's ultra-nationalism. He has less in common with Fascism than Salazar's Portugal or Metaxas' Greece.

[The Serbian Empire]

Firstly, calling Antifa 'domestic terrorists' is a wee bit of a stretch, seeing as the worst thing they can apparently dredge up is fighting at protests.

Secondly, why does New Jersey need its own Department of Homeland Security?

Something something government waste.

[The East Marches II]

Mayhap Psychologists.

Y'know, actual academics who aren't glorified pseudo-intellectual Marxists.

Sociologists are actual academics, though. Sociology is a legitimate science. What sort of half-baked reactionary propaganda are you trying to peddle here?

>Sociology
>Real science

In so far as Austrian Economics is :^)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Mayhap Psychologists.

Y'know, actual academics who aren't glorified pseudo-intellectual Marxists.

What kind of psychologists are you specifically talking about that do case studies to find sociological data?

[Liriena]

Sociologists are actual academics, though. Sociology is a legitimate science. What sort of half-baked reactionary propaganda are you trying to peddle here?

>Sociology
>Real science

In so far as Austrian Economics is :^)

Yes, sociology is a legitimate science. If you don't like that, take it up to Durkheim's remains. Just because its body of work does not strictly fit the positivist mold or the faux "natural" scientificism of neoclasical economists (who, I'd dare say, were far better propagandists than they were actual scientists) doesn't mean it's not a science.

[Kubra]

Sociologists are actual academics, though. Sociology is a legitimate science. What sort of half-baked reactionary propaganda are you trying to peddle here?

>Sociology
>Real science

In so far as Austrian Economics is :^)

military science is a """""science"""""" as well
But if you're gonna be a general, you better read clausewitz.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sociologists are actual academics, though. Sociology is a legitimate science. What sort of half-baked reactionary propaganda are you trying to peddle here?

>Sociology
>Real science

In so far as Austrian Economics is :^)

Are you gonna go for the "only chemistry, physics, and biology are real sciences" schtick?

Because, you know, that's the only "real" science if we want to break it down by what is the real science, here.

The rest of us are mere plebs when it comes to them, and, sadly, they have a leg over us because they're more demanded in the market.

[United Empire of Humanity]

>Sociology
>Real science

In so far as Austrian Economics is :^)

Are you gonna go for the "only chemistry, physics, and biology are real sciences" schtick?

Because, you know, that's the only "real" science if we want to break it down by what is the real science, here.

The rest of us are mere plebs when it comes to them, and, sadly, they have a leg over us because they're more demanded in the market.

I mean, isn't chemistry a profitable science?
It's useful but that hardly means it has supremacy over the others.