Welcome to Marxism-Leninism general: REVISIONIST SPECIAL EDITION
This general is for the discussion of Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of revolutionary socialism and communism. Broader 'Marxist' discussion is also encouraged, but not general 'leftist' ideologies. Communism is the next stage of humanity following the capitalist stage.
>Communism is a stage of society in which the productive infrastructure is socially owned, and goods are produced not in order to sell for profit, but in order to meet a social need. >Communism in it's full form is a stateless, classless society that follows the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. >To acheive such a society Marxism-Leninism teaches us that we must replace the capitalist state, which is controlled by the capitalist class, by a socialist state, which is controlled by the working class. Then, a period of class struggle follows in which the capitalist class is liquidated by the working class. When the capitalist class has been completely vanquished, there will be only one class, the working class, and eventually the functions of the state will become indistinguishable from the functions of the society as a whole, and the state as such will 'wither away' as Marx said.
>ballsack that's pretty lame. Autumn or bass would have been way cooler.
Noah Smith
>water fuck it.
re-roll
Carter Rogers
>pinball wizard no thanks.
re-roll
Adrian Bell
MOTHER FUCKER
re-roland
Mason Collins
mfw dialectic process never ends and communism can never exist as a final form
Evan Morales
re-rolling. I should be able to do better than Zoidberg
William Parker
Your just helping give the thread more bumps.
>First for talk to me about industrial democracy
Whats Industrial democracy & how does it relate to Marxism?
Jacob Gomez
>hobo twice is God trying to send me a message? My dad HAS threatened to kick me out if I keep waking him up fucking my gf... not that communists would understand what it's like to have a gf. LOL
let's try to avoid that. re-rolling
Thomas Flores
>doesn't know what sage is you have to go back
Caleb Murphy
>gender bender fuck.
re roll
Jeremiah Cruz
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT THREE TIMES NOW. MAYBE IT IS A SIGN
FUCK YOU KEK. I DONT WANT TO LIVE ON THE STREETS
RE ROLL
Nolan Taylor
>the ideology of revolutionary socialism
REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Tyler Bell
>blood acceptable.
Colton Butler
Why do Commies think a post scarcity economy will inevitably result in less centralization of government power rather than more?
Aiden Roberts
>another 46 g-good thing I wasn't rolling that time
Justin Fisher
you better have saged you virtue signalling retard
Landon Long
Roll By the way Stalin was the greatest leader of history
Cooper Rogers
I enjoy these debates raid or not. >Street sign captcha arab protest signs?
Caleb Bennett
This was a big red pill for me. The more I learned about Hitler the more I looked at Stalin by comparison.
Colton Ross
fair enough but you shouldn't bump in the hopes of brining in adversaries. The only thing bumping will do is bring it to the attention of actual Sup Forums tards who aren't raiding the board, many of whom will inevitably reply without even thinking about sageing, and so on until this thread is at the top of the catalog. Seriously, type sage you fucking nonce. All of the commies are from /leftypol/ and reddit
Tyler Davis
Marxism states two things: there is one unitary good, rationally derived; and that capitalism inherently exploits the worker.
I agree with the second part, but not the first. I believe in values pluralism - that we should all be able to seek our own good in our own way. Keeping this in mind, but taking note that capitalism inherently exploits the worker, I propose workers' co-ops. Every employee receives one share in the firm, they can only own one share each, and only employees can own shares. How employees organise their firm is up to them - if they want to pay everyone the same they can vote for that, but they might lose their highly qualified CEO to the firm next door that has higher payscales for senior management. Firms would exist in a free market, competing with each other to sell their goods. What this means is that firm structure would probably look the same as it does today, except that and inequalities in pay and remuneration would have to be justified to the people who AREN'T getting them. This would lead to much greater fairness - not equity. Firms that pay their employees less than they deserve will lose their employees. Employees would also get a much greater say in their work conditions. Private investment would fall - there's no point starting a firm because everyone you hire has to be given an equal share in your enterprise, so what's the point? Instead trade unions would create new firms, and they would be funded by union dues from old firms. These trade unions would also compete with other trade unions.
All of this is overseen by a representative democratic republic according to a communist constitution. Industrial disputes are arbitrated by something analogous to the FairWork commission.
This system would be predicated by a purge of the elites, and there would be a wealth cap, somewhere around upper-middle class, to prevent the elites ever becoming resurgent.
Jeremiah Johnson
good job trying to use our lingo as if you're one of us. Not working
Jordan Turner
Yea alright. What are your opinions on gommunism? Personally I think its an impossible pipe dream though I do think we can create a near post scarcity society where peoples basic needs can be taken care of without having to labor.
We really should start some eugenics programs and avoid importing shitskins to better prepare for that transition though.
Elijah Harris
>there is one unitary good, rationally derived 'Good' is a subjective concept no matter how hard you rationalize it. Seems like the ideology is flawed in it's conception.
Luke Bennett
Industrial democracy is a form of socialism in which workers directly own their individual workplaces. Unlike Marxist-Leninist socialism in which industry is nationalized and controlled by the government on behalf of the workers, industry is federalized and controlled directly by the workers working in it.
Check out Richard D. Wolff and Daniel De Leon.
Juan Rivera
Fight me irl shithead. No Gods no Spooks
Ryder Watson
Just being objective comrade.
Jaxon Rogers
HERE COMES THE QUADS
Jason Green
how coy. k.y.s.
>opinions on communism it's an unscientifically derived theory of political economy based on the philosophical maxim "EVERYONE DESERVES TO BE EQUAL!". Of course it's wrong, but in reality it's so disastrously wrong that even Lenin abandoned about half of Marx's original doctrine with the NEP after he saw how awful they are in action. >we can create a near post scarcity society where peoples basic needs can be taken care of without having to labor. TANSTAAFL. Anyway, why would we want to do that? People aren't happy when they don't feel like they've earned their success. Get a job and tell me how it feels to cash your first paycheck, knowing you did a good job, and then spend that paycheck on food or something. It's much different (for the better) from getting that money for free from the gubbamint.
Aiden Ortiz
Marxist-Leninism acts as though communism and socialism are things to be worshiped. It is both a tragedy and a farce that MLs consider themselves social and political scientists; they simultaneously distort the dialectics of the class struggle and ignore or openly suppress any evidence or contribution to the field that contradicts their model.
tl;dr OP should an hero. Do it for Australians everywhere
Camden Williams
>This system would be predicated by a purge of the elites, and there would be a wealth cap, somewhere around upper-middle class, to prevent the elites ever becoming resurgent I think you are missing the point of what co-ops are for. To give a gradual and painless transition from corporate capitalism, to worker owned enterprise. By purging the elites, you introduce a dangerous element to society that can be used to bludgeon whoever the state defines as "the elite", and that's a risk I'm not willing to take. Can you offer a way for these to grow naturally?
There's another added element that I think you need to touch on, and that is labor. A major issue the U.S. is facing is that it is much cheaper for corporations to outsource production to third world countries like China and Indonesia to cut costs on labor, and they are able to do this because the workers have no say in how the company is run, ergo, the board can vote to ship jobs overseas and leave the workers out to dry. This destroys communities and does all kinds of fuckery to the state because now it has to support all of these now unemployed or underemployed people that will be receiving welfare. A worker co-op prevents this, because no worker in his right mind is going to vote to ship his job overseas. However, they will still have to deal with normal corporations who still benefit from outsourcing, and are thus able to provide cheaper products. How do you handle this without purging "the elites"?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please stay civil.
Robert Parker
There are potential problems when we give people tons of free time with nothing to do it is true. We should try to build a cultural drive towards advancing the human race to hopefully get people to work towards progress even if they aren't forced to. This is the major reason why I think we need eugenics.
Sebastian Baker
>We should try to build a cultural drive towards advancing the human race to hopefully get people to work towards progress even if they aren't forced to. It's called Capitalism.
>eugenics yep
Isaac Ortiz
Isiah Berlin has a detailed restructuring of Marx's argument in his persuasive "Two Concepts of Liberty" essay, but to sum it up it's not as retarded as it sounds on the surface. If something is true it cannot contradict another true statement, right? If I say the sky is blue I can't then say that the sky is the same colour as a fire engine and have both statements be true because they are contradictory. Unitary ideologies see conflict as a sign that somebody is doing the wrong thing. If everyone does the right thing there will never be conflict because the right thing is truly good and will never contradict what anyone else does. Because we are all allegedly fundamentally rational once everyone is educated in the right way to act we will have harmony. This is the theory behind the state withering away - everyone will behave like good communists because it is supremely rational, and they are rational, and good communists will never come into conflict. It sounds very utopian but it's pretty epistemologically watertight.
Again, read Isaiah Berlin's essay if you're interested in it. He restructures and then dismantles the concept.
I'm a pluralist myself, though.
Cameron Gray
Objectively Stalinism was the most successful form of Marxism. According Maxrist theory like Dialectical Marxism this does not mean Marxist was wrong.
The problem is that capitalism is quickly coming into a state of crisis. Soon automation will take over and there wont be anywhere near enough jobs to go around. What do you do then?
Elijah Reyes
>marx's idea was tried >it didn't work >it was tweaked and tried again >it didn't work >it was tweaked some more >it didn't work >surely communists have it right this time! >it didn't work >what we need to do is get back to pure marx >mfw
Zachary Sanchez
And it required the murder of millions of peasants for no reason other than "well those kulaks over there were pretty successful farmers, better purge them so they don't rebel", and then everyone wonders why the Soviet Union immediately suffered from famine. Who knew killing your most productive farmers was a bad idea?
Beyond that, living in the Soviet Union was also objectively shitty, as if even so much of voiced a tiny bit of dissatisfaction, you'd be either gulag'd for being a traitor or end up missing. Fuck living under that.
Michael Ross
>If something is true it cannot contradict another true statement, right? >what is the preface paradox? >what are different optimal behaviors for genetically and culturally different populations? you are really disconnected from the human condition. Are you an abbo?
Benjamin Reed
>I think you are missing the point of what co-ops are for. To give a gradual and painless transition from corporate capitalism, to worker owned enterprise Firstly, they will never be permitted to exist so long as the reigning establishment persists. Change will not come from above. True change requires the sitting powers be swept away, otherwise there will only ever be compromise. Secondly, I have no further goal than universal co-ops. I don't think any further reform is necessary. I'm in this game to protect and empower the worker without sacrificing economic competitiveness and without engaging in philosophical theorising about the nature of man and so on. I want to make pragmatic and practical suggestions based on my experience working at the FairWork commission. Obviously my pet ideology will never be implemented, but I think it's eminently plausible as far as it goes.
>By purging the elites, you introduce a dangerous element to society that can be used to bludgeon whoever the state defines as "the elite" The definitions are perfectly clear. Sitting politicians, top public servants, business owners above a certain wealth, individuals above a certain wealth, media executives, and so on, and their immediate families. I'm only talking a few thousand people at most. Nobody will be purged for disagreeing with me - only for their material characteristics. This is necessary because these are the people with power and will to resist. They are the enemy, when you see the enemy you kill him.
Anything else is namby-pamby squeamishness at best, and moral cowardice at worse.
After the initial purge there would be no more need for bloodshed, because the system prevents the re-emergence with elites via the wealth cap (and some minor political reforms).
>However, they will still have to deal with normal corporations who still benefit from outsourcing There are no normal corporations left. Worker co-ops are mandatory by law.
Levi Martin
sure. In the same way that capitalism is objectively the most successful economic system
Christian Anderson
why does rudimentary communism and the ideology of moral relativism go hand in hand? and that may not be true, just an observation
Cameron Sanders
If Stalinism was so bad how did Soviets win WW2 and beyond?
Nicholas Johnson
>>what is the preface paradox? Not relevant because one of the beliefs, though rationally held, is not true. I never said rational beleifs can't contradict, I said that true statements can't contradict.
Read before posting.
>>what are different optimal behaviors for genetically and culturally different populations? Marx didn't believe in that.
Kevin Anderson
>le automation meme! you realize that 80+% of the jobs that people held 70 years ago have been replaced by machines, right? The >muh automation! is a meme. Yes, it's POSSIBLE to create a robot that could replace just about anyone, but it won't be economically efficient for a very long time.
Owen Brown
Dialectical materialism is a corruption of historical materialism that was coined by Lenin to justify state oppression in the Soviet Unon. Of course diamat doesn't mean Marxism is wrong; it changed Marxism to fit the needs of the Bolsheviks
Ian Martinez
I am happy to concede that point. But this may not be the case in the future.
James Torres
Given the rate of technological improvement I wouldn't estimate it being all that long of a wait. Regardless even if it does take a long time you agree that eventually we will have to deal with the issue of mass unemployment?
Levi Nelson
I would argue that Dialectical Materialism is superior to Historical Materialism.
Christian Nelson
I don't care what Marx believed. He is objectively wrong about almost everything, including but not limited to: >we will reach a post-scarcity stage of society >the worker's revolution will take over le world in a one world stateless... thing! >the price system is expendable >economic classes are solid, or even stable (this is a fairly recent development. I can't blame him for believing this about the 16th century, but it is certainly not true in the 20th and 21st centuries) >everyone is equal!
Jack Wood
What makes you think we wont reach a post scarcity society? I mean I suppose it depends on how you define post scarcity and the degree of resources we can pull from the earth or elsewhere but still.
Anthony Collins
>eventually we will have to deal with the issue of mass unemployment? no. Supply and Demand. The money is STILL going to be circulating among HUMANS ONLY, in which case there will continue to be a suppsly and demand for labor until humans die out. Advances in technology actually increase aggregate supply, so people on average will be better off.
Colton Bennett
...
Benjamin Ward
As long as there is more than one human existing, there will be competition for resources.
Jayden Clark
...
Hunter Foster
>I don't care what Marx believed You may be in the wrong thread.
Jonathan Jackson
...
Ian Hill
You see, that purging mentality just doesn't sit right with me. At least not in that way. The current SJW left is already falling apart from similar logic. For them, it's all about oppression and who's the most marginalized in the population, and trying to cater to them the most. That's why we've been seeing additional letters add onto the once LGB community to the LGBTQ2+ community which includes silly faggots like otherkin. Basically once the "most marginalized" is defined, a whole new marginalized group forms and become the new "most marginalized" group. This process repeats over and over until they get trapped in their own rainbow of infinite gradation. You say that you will define the elites once and purge them, but in doing so you will simply create a new elite class that will likely end up getting purged when shit starts to go wrong.
Purging is not the answer here.
What say you to Italy's policy where if you become unemployed, you can opt to take the entirety of your 2 year's worth of unemployment upfront if you can gather up 10 or so individuals to start up a worker co-op? If all corporations inevitable fail, would this not eventually lead to their supplementation by co-ops?
Even then, there are some Company owners that would rather not sell off their company to random people who they don't know or trust to take care of their workers. Would you not rather provide for the state to allow for the workers to take a loan from the government to buy the Company and turn it into a worker co-op?
Noah Harris
There will always be demand for labor but the supply may eventually well exceed the demand. Supply does exceed demand from time to time.
Connor Rogers
>points out the inaccuracies of a man's 150 year old theory and how it applies to the modern world, ignoring advances and contributions to leftist theory made in fields of sociology and economics since >uses dead man's 150 year old theory to justify scientific racism and apply that to the modern world, ignoring advances and contributions made in fields of biology and evolution since
wew lad
Jaxon Cook
>pure dogmatism honestly? You accept Marx's ideology as the word of god? holy shit you guys are more retarded than I thought
Logan Cox
Doesn't that imply that demand could exceed supply from time to time, aka bread lines?
Juan Ramirez
I would tend to agree but we may come to a point where people can at least get their basic needs and even some desires met at very little cost which while obviously not putting us entirely post scarcity would be close enough practically speaking.
Gabriel Wood
...
Levi Morris
>what was December 25, 1991 Just because the state survived, does not mean that they people were having a fun time with their 5 year plans and Stalin-induced famine.
Jaxson Hughes
>uses dead man's 150 year old theory to justify scientific racism and apply that to the modern world, ignoring advances and contributions made in fields of biology and evolution since no. Darwin's theories aren't used in the infograph. Just a quote from him. Most of the info in the pic are fairly recent.
William Cook
Collective ownership is impossible, this post is cancer
Cameron Russell
Bread lines are supply exceeding demand in terms of the labor market. There weren't enough jobs for workers to fill.
Robert Campbell
Or there wasn't enough resources for the workers to utilize
Jayden Sullivan
Stalinists don't view Marx with a critical eye, they see Marx as the end all be all. Notwithstanding the fact that Marx lived and died in a wholly different society and the fact that anything that claims to be a science that is unopen to dissent and critique based on overwhelming and imperical evidence and methods ceases to be a science. It is truly retarded
Tyler Hernandez
>You say that you will define the elites once and purge them, but in doing so you will simply create a new elite class that will likely end up getting purged when shit starts to go wrong. There is no alternative. Innocent people will certainly die in a purge like this. Most of the bourgeois and elites are not bad people. They are simply the enemy. However, change cannot come without changing the people in power, and they will never leave willingly. They have to go. Democratic reform is a joke. If you look at a history of US policies the reforms that the poor want and the rich don't NEVER get through, and when it's the other way around they always get through. There is a study that shows this but I'm not going to bother finding it unless you want me to because it's simply common sense.
Purging the elites is a necessity for any change, not just communism. If you want to make any real change in politics at all instead of pathetic attempts at incremental legilsative reform where you compromise away your vision and kill yourself aged 67 in a fit of existential angst you need to sweep away the elites.
>What say you to Italy's policy where if you become unemployed, you can opt to take the entirety of your 2 year's worth of unemployment upfront if you can gather up 10 or so individuals to start up a worker co-op? A step in the right direction but it doesn't go far enough.
>If all corporations inevitable fail, would this not eventually lead to their supplementation by co-ops? I don't think all corporations inevitably fail, I simply think that they are unfair. I don't agree with Marx on very much.
Ian Jenkins
You don't think there were enough resources on earth during the great depression? What does that say about the world now? What exactly do you mean?
Gabriel Fisher
I can do two things: 1. explain Marx to you 2. talk to you about industrial democracy
You don't seem to want to do either of them, so I'm not sure why you're replying to me.
Bentley Ortiz
Yes, but it attempts to fit genetic evidence into the framework of a ghost, that is, scientific racism. Stalinists use data in a similar way, attempting to link them with orthodox and unchanging theories put forward by Marx or Engels (and occasionally Lenin) themselves. It's nothing more than using unrelated evidence to justify past theories because the holders of those theories don't want to be wrong
Alexander Peterson
ML is complete and utter garbage. The scramble of the Soviet economist as they desperately tried to reconcile that SNLT was was the basis for renumeration, while proclaiming to have finally reached communism, must've been an astounding sight to behold. ML was never about reaching communism, it was about reaching equilibrium under a single capitalist.
Robert Lewis
take economics 101. You're out of your depth trying to talk about economics without actually having studied the basics.
I say this as encouragement, not in the way I normally tell commies to take ECON101.
Again, why would you want to do that? "muh free shit"?
kek. They're a religion.
I don't care about you, nor whether or not I reply to you, nor for what reason. You're a religious nutjob, similar to Islamists.
Isaiah Turner
>I don't care about you, nor whether or not I reply to you, nor for what reason Okay.
Cameron Jackson
What does the great depression have to do with finite nature of earth's resources?
Eli Flores
I have taken economics 101 and I'm studying them in University and planning to go into Marxian economics when I'm older. You're asking like Marx's theories are merely philosophical and political - his economics are the basis of his critique of capitalism. Not that ML's understand Marx.
Luis Campbell
Well yes muh free shit would be nice if we could afford to do it without losing productivity and again you are going to have to do something with a growing population where fewer and fewer jobs are available. Unless you think that technology combined with population growth wont lead to growing unemployment in which case i'm curious to hear your rationale.
Michael Gutierrez
>scientific racism oh shut the fuck up with your buzzwords. You're not an evolutionary biologist.
>unrelated evidence my god, the intellectual dishonesty/inability...
Noah Sanders
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II, Section C:
Genocide Defined: Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Cultural Genocide:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.
Luis Nguyen
The other user suggested bread lines were caused by finite resources.
I do see the finite nature of earths resources being a major problem when combined with increased efficiency in exploiting these resources along with a growing population. We will likely either have to start culling the human population eventually or tapping the resources of space.
Easton Bailey
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
DIVERSITY IS A CODE WORD FOR WHITE GENOCIDE
Dominic Walker
How about Richard Lewontin, who is a geneticist?Research has largely vindicated his beliefs that the majority of genetic variation takes place within groups, not between them.
Posting a tweet by Richard Dawkins doesn't make race realism a real.
Nathan Cox
Checkum Wizard
Joshua Ortiz
You should be aware that Capitalism became successful by the state supporting it, not enforcing it. By changing the factors that play into the production of capital, Feudalism died out, and Capitalism arose. youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs I can not link this enough. It is an accurate guide on how politcal power works, and how it sustains itself. Your initial purge strategy gives too much power to revolutionaries, and your movement will likely go the way of Stalin should you pursue that path.
We will not be able to make much headway, and neither will worker co-ops if you pursue that mindset. >I don't think all corporations inevitably fail, I simply think that they are unfair. I don't agree with Marx on very much. The vast majority do, perhaps not the most largest and well connected of them, but most do. Last I checked (I need to find the study) worker co-ops fail less often than Corporations do, therefore they will naturally supplant them over time - Much like how evolution works. If a certain trait provides even a 2% advantage, it will supplant the population in matter of 6-7 generations. Is that not preferable to bloody revolution?
Leo Ortiz
roll
Leo Rivera
>muh free shit would be nice I don't think it would be. Many people would stop being productive altogether and become NEETs. Participation in the labor market is a good thing for society and for individuals.
>fewer jobs available the economy isn't fixed, neither are the number of jobs. There is a market for S+D. Take Econ 101, it'll be fun! Besides, I'm tired of conversing with you
>Unless you think that technology combined with population growth wont lead to growing unemployment in which case i'm curious to hear your rationale. can you think of any other time in history when both of those things have happened? Is there any reason for you to believe that the automation to come will be any more severe than what has occured in the past?
I'm humoring you but I shouldn't be. If you took ECON 101 your questions would be answered.
Aiden Foster
Roll
Adrian Mitchell
Marxism-Leninism does resemble a religion. It's important to keep in mind, however, that it is not the dominant or sole form of socialist and leftist thought. The Soviet Union is long dead, and socialists have rejected theories proposed by it since its inception. Not all leftists resemble religious fundamentalists.
He is correct; something that is important to understand when approaching Marxism is the base-superstructure model. This model holds that economic modes of production are the primary determinant for things like culture, politics, and philosophy. This is outlined in Marx's 1844 manuscripts and the German Ideology, but the Wikipedia page is the best place to gain an understanding of it. I don't want the thread to 404. Evidence posited for the existence of historical materialism can be found in Capital and many other works by people that aren't named Marx.
Daniel Sanchez
Are you suggesting that we go to a system intended for a post scarcity society, before we achive that post scarcity status? Wouldn't that result in failure?
William Robinson
>Is there any reason for you to believe that the automation to come will be any more severe than what has occured in the past?
Rapid growth of technology basically. You mind telling me why i'm wrong here besides demanding that I take ECON 101 repeatedly?
