The near-majority of the population is college-educated to some extent (42%). Class isn't about education, it is about hierarchy in production and property relations.
Have these writers considered that democracy seems to be breaking down because of material changes in society, not because of abstract and immeasurable ideals?
This is a weak critique and is filled with lowballing.
Has Jonathan Haidt considered that this extremely narrow bourgeois view is the problem, because it denies the necessary role of collective action in maintaining democracy?
To a leftist, it is not really that hard to see that this democratic sclerosis goes back to economic inequalities and class-based society.
But this is mind-blowing to these mainstream intellectuals.
The problem is that a surplus nationally is not always a surplus in each area.
But it does demonstrate we have the capacity and ability to build units as such, but allocation and investment decisions ignore the things that are necessary for people.
This is also why the ''redistribute units'' stuff can also be misleading.
Labor is called the ''value'' because the labor process itself represents the scarcity of goods and services.
The labor process creates the want for commodities, and the existence of human labor is a necessary condition for commodities. Imagine if everything was automated.
Marxism is economics is based on sociological analysis, that should help clear the confusion.
Its not really that confusing. Its just a way of thinking of how a society works, but it misaligns so much with other forms of thought because its framework of analysis is unique.
Marginalism is the opposite of Marxism in that sense, its not sociological.
When marginalist neoclassical schools talk about economic facts, it talks about them as objective laws of the market and not as how human beings relate to each other and build their societies.
One thing that really irks me is the tendency to take all the wrong conclusions from modern social problems.
I hear moderate commentators talk about democratic crisis, and in the very same breath they rally to the defense of established institutions such as capitalism.
This is totally the wrong lesson from history.
The moderate right-wing approach of defending democratic institutions as bundled up with other established hierarchies is just so wrong. The problems of the latter metastasizes into the former.
Nationalism (often seen as the avatar of anti-democratic trends these days) is a symptom of a larger problem.
The national cope is the logical consequence of a badly organized labor movement and the relative weakness of transformative social movements.
The left has always warned that the social inequalities of capital combined with the contradiction between globalized production and national states will bring countries into conflict.
Meanwhile, a socialist had to run twice just to kick the “normie liberal” politics into gear.
We see this with the conflict between BRICS and the older powers. Capitalist globalization at its apex has reversed tune and has begun to degenerate into conflict between old and incumbent powers, the development of global production brings national states into competition.