/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 4096


Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan

(29.22 KB 285x287 Nassim-Taleb.jpg)
Anonymous 11/15/2019 (Fri) 11:51:14 No. 127506
what are some good critiques of Nassim Taleb?
(76.32 KB 653x511 winner-take-all-effects.png)
(28.55 KB 611x205 This_FUGGGING_Guy.png)
I personally like his books mainly because I've always hated lifting for more than 10 minutes a day. I do nothing but power lifting now. He seems to be most aligned with libertarian socialists (or classical liberals. But if you are of the opinion that libertarian socialism naturally extends from classical liberalism like Chomsky says, then it's basically the same thing) and ultimately anti-centralization in any form, especially the state. Also, he seems to be on good terms with Graeber. I'd be interested in reading any critiques that aren't from Murray/Pinker cucks too.
>He seems to be most aligned with libertarian socialists
No, not really. He once had a tweet where he said something like the correct approach is "communism within the family, socialism in the friend group, democracy in the community, republicanism on the state level and libertarian on the federal." He also thinks Marxists are "braindead"

Basically he is a right-libertarian, but one of those who genuinely believe the freedom meme, and are not just in it for their freedom to crush others because they think they're superior.
>He also thinks Marxists are "braindead"
lots of libertarian socialists might agree tbh. Last I recall, Marxists intellectuals despise/belittle libertarian socialists. Even Graeber has discussed how out of place he feels as a libertarian socialist around the more theoretical Marxist types. Shit, Chomsky shit talks Zizek, appropriately I think, for being too theoretical and apparently useless with his almost perverted abstractions/word babble. In other words, there is an obvious divide b/w libertarian socialists and Marxists. The fact that Taleb despises Marxists is no indication that he feels the same towards Libertarian Socialists.
>Basically he is a right-libertarian
He hates Ayn Rand though. He's libertarian leaning is all I'd voucher for him. I wouldn't accuse him of being either left or right until I knew more about his political inclinations wrt libertarianism.
(70.50 KB 618x561 talebbb.png)
honestly the more he talks about his personal position the more confusing it gets
the talking point to counter this is we can't afford the rich anymore they are too expensive
Literally who?
Looks like classic rigthroid talk to me.
>But if you are of the opinion that libertarian socialism naturally extends from classical liberalism like Chomsky says
Does he really? I guess everyone says stupid shit from time to time.
>muh perfect idealized entrepreneur
Is this the liberal version of the nazi's "muh aryan businessman who helps everybody"?
not really
he's a capitalist
I respect him quite a bit for this couple of FB takes on Marx:
>My point on Marx is that he understood fragility & alienation. No other thinker has ever gotten close to that. Ignore his remedies; he got the fragility right, but the rest backwards as he did not reach the level of antifragility (& there was no word for it in German & languages he knew).

>Marx was (perhaps) globally wrong (but locally right); Hayek was mildly right all the way. But Marx, when right, had huge insights; e.g. Chapter 14 of Das Capital I on the Division of Labor and its dismemberment of humans. Immense erudition: he moves from Xenophon to obscure German writers. Hayek's writing is indigestibly dull (and according to J.G. he was dull in person), Marx is lively, rich, and gripping. Compare the looks of the two fellows. Who would you like to have dinner with?
He seems like a fun guy, makes the world more colorful like Zizek by hijacking the Anglo meme machinery and uploading his Lebanese ideology to the internet subconscious. He doesn't seem to have a throughout knowledge of the LTV though, and his writings target the finance civil sector more than the economic research one.
Adam Smith already had this kind of takes, he hated landlords and thought they should have no saying in public policy, that the working class was honorable but too dulled by physical work to be instructed enough to make good decisions, and that the capitalists who relied on their own wits were the best people to handle the polis.
>monopolizing means of production is not rent-seeking

ok boomer
To be perfectly honest, maybe Graeber wouldn't feel quite so out of place if he bothered to read a bit of Marx. His Debt book is definitely one of my top 5 books, but he occasionally has some weird takes throughout the book demonstrating that he doesn't actually understand what capitalism is.
You imbecile. You won't find any because there aren't any, it's simply not possible
The graphic implies Georgism
No coherent ideology. Has an idiosyncratic grab-bag of values which he holds together mostly thanks to a truly massive ego, leading him to read books about his groundbreaking new ideas he thinks everyone should read about and that will revolutionize the world.

There's plenty more like him out there. The dumber version would be Tom Friedman of NYT fame.
Dude believes in a weird grab-bag mix of ideologies involving one of his own coining called 'localism' (in a nutshell: the more local the more communistic, on a national and trans national level you just stop giving a shit about other people) and some bizarre Mediterranean supremacism (tbh he's right, Mediterranean countries are based). He's also in love of his own math and loves ranting about concepts he thinks are super deep because they involve math: ergodicity (you see, inequality isn't a big deal because it's not the same people who are rich all the time so on the whole it balances out), scale-variance (communism on a family level and ancrap on a federal level), fat tails (rare unpredictable stuff can happen), convexity (what if stuff wasn't linear? deep), and a bunch of other shit like antifragility (stuff that's survived a long time is more likely to survive longer, because reasons). He's also written basically the same book three times in a row much like Zizek.

He does have some interesting insights however, and for all his rambling and weirdness I don't think he's a grifter. He's very erudite, speaks at least 4 languages and drops a bunch of math and historical tidbits. He did take a spectacular dump on all the IQ fetishists by writing a comprehensive takedown that triggered all the conservatives because they couldn't understand all the math, he constantly shits on people like Charles Murray, Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris and all the obnoxious alt-right/alt-center/alt-lite clique. He also got Nate Silver to call him a cuck.
Like i said, Taleb is more aligned with libertarian socialists (anarchists) and like Chomsky (and Graeber), dislikes excessive theorizing and centralization of power.


Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?