TreadOnMe [none/use name]

That is very interesting, I didn’t follow that little saga.

That said, I will say that from his other works, Simon suffers from liberal blinders from having spent too much time with cops and journalists. But like chuds who are telling on themselves when they make movies, David Simon also tells on himself by literally seeing things from the cops point of view, including their bad behavior. In that way, his blinders actually work in his favor because he literally can’t see it as ‘consistent negligence and bad behavior’. A more self-aware propagandist would either hide the behavior so it doesn’t exist or highlight the behavior so much that it would never get past the censors of production funding.

It’s almost as if the most low-effort thing you can do under capitalism is participate in the renters economy and not actually contribute to production.

I fundamentally disagree with that take. The Wire doesn’t have to mention it, it literally shows that policing is systemically racist, so while no singular cop regularly expresses racist views, and can be quite diverse in race themselves, they still end up treating the places they patrol, which are by and large poor black communities, as their personal fiefdoms, where they believe that they have carte-blance to ‘fight crime’ even as they commit crimes (like constant reckless DWI, that even ‘good police’ do) to no actual positive effect on the neighborhood because there is no trust in the police, because there is no reason to trust them.

What the Wire is guilty of is having characters who we are supposed to think are smart (Bunny Colvin) wax on about a time when it wasn’t like this and blame it on the War on Drugs policy, which is some grade-A rose tinted glasses. But I like to think that it just portraying a guy who thinks like that (who may exist in the police), and not the writers actual opinion of historical policing.

Herc especially is portrayed as the stereotypical cop, a mildly racist buffoon who is so incompetent at his job that despite failing upwards the only actually good police work he does is when he has been fired from the police and now works as a PI for the lawyer of the very drug dealers that got him fired. We are supposed to be following the last few ‘good po-lice’, not necessarily the average cop, though them and their work do come up quite often. And pretty much all the cops are shown to be cowards who never do anything without a massive force disparity.

What we don’t get is the openly racist cop who never gets any punishment and still continues to move up the ranks, but idk if that works for Baltimore particularly as a setting.

The fact that you are naive enough to believe that the study of economics can be divorced from ‘ideology’ is why nobody is taking anything you say seriously. You so clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and yet you are so confident in your answers that it doesn’t really seem worth it to most people here to explain it in painstaking detail, since you clearly have done no actual research yourself before spewing your opinions online.

When Marx was writing, economics, or at the time as it was called, the study of political-economy, was not about specifically getting ROI’s, a.practice at which even modern ‘economics’ is shaky at with the best of times (given that they are constantly changing their weighted values). After all, that’s less about the study of human political economy, and more the study of statistical outcomes. Hilariously enough, the very fact that you can predict ROI’s to even a certain degree is something that Marx would have been alone at the time in predicting would occur in the field, with neo-classical and Austrian school economists claiming since Marx that the market has too many variables to predict accurately, which is why a completely free market is the best statistical judge of people’s wants and desires. After all, if you can predict an ROI, then you can accurately forecast demand.

I’ll explain it to you like this. You think that your whole bottom tax heavy, lack of educational infrastructure spiel doesn’t fit square within Marx’s predictions (which was predicted and cautioned against by American Marxists since even before Reagan) of the inevitable outcomes of capitalist political-economy, which means to most people here you are simply not worth the economic investment of time to explain shit to for the outcome we will receive, especially for anonymous online horseshit forum.

Marx’s problem is that despite creating an incredibly accurate picture of the political economy of capitalism, he never actually created an outline for what a socialist political economy, or even transitional socialist economy looks like, which means that even people who believe his economic-political structure of capitalism can and will get things incorrect about how to transition away from that model of ownership and production.

God help us if the people who ‘teach rhetoric’ can’t see past this nonsense. I’d genuinely prefer sophism.

Hog out or log out.