Marxism and College (665 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.58 on 21 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by YourDadGuido (View user info) at 2005-01-21 22:47:34 EST
I debate, therefore, I'm inclined to side with Marxist Arguments - the Superstructure, Dialetcal Methodology, etc. and because of this inclination, I'm prone to be critical of the economic status of the people surrounding me - college students. Coming from a working class background, it becomes apparent of the vast social division that occurs at Universities across the nation (some more prone and apparent than my own). As I interview people at random, through casual conversation in class and with simple observation, details of their background start to exaggerate my assumption that the 'rich' outnumber the 'poor' in respect to collegiate population.
"The bottom line is that five out of every six qualified seniors whose families earn more than $75,000 — but fewer than half of those whose families earn less than $25,000 — enroll in a four-year college. Higher education used to be regarded as an engine of opportunity. Now it's certifying the gap between the haves and the have-lesses." New York Time Columnist David Kirp - The Rich Get Smarter
This notion of the 'rich' becoming more enrolled in the University makes the conclusion that the rich will always be rich and the poor will always be poor - I.E. The Class System preserved. At the same time that the rich are becoming more rich (largely due to the ability and resources to obtain a degree), Universities around the states are raising tuition at about a national average of 7% annually. Therefore, this only furthers the problem of socioeconomic division at the University level and in the general population of the United States.
What we can draw from this inspection into Marxism and College is the fact that the upper-class, the bourgeois, is furthering their position in the scheme of things and the prole. can only pull down this pants and hope they use lube and wait until individuals recognize this growing problem in academia and start to use the power they have to correct it.
User Reviews
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-22 16:43:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you read my earlier response, than you'll understand the alternative to my critque.
And what is your point, Michelle, in even citing Marx's influence?
Lastly, Icy, it appears the conflict is between pragmatism and ideology. Which is the greatest conflict in applying Marxism (the end result always failing). However, the post was there to provide insight to the issue of classism and to 'awaken' class consciousness (many Neo-Marxist contribute this lack of consciousness to be the failure of past communism).
Also, who cares about 2 posts I made about 2 years back. Matters nothing to what I'm posting now. Right now, I feel academia is one the best examples of class division and the furthering of classism in America.
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2005-01-22 08:25:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
As I understand it, anybody who does well at high school in America can get a stipendium for a good university, no?. So how it is the system's fault when the poor don't get educated? In Germany, university is completely free. The government even pays for housing, food, and any other things that a student requires while he attends university. Nonetheless, we have a similar problem: Only very few people from a working-class background go to college/uni. The intelligence of a child is mostly determined by their background. Kids that are parked in front of a tv the whole day will most certainly be dumber than kids who are, for example, taught reading at an early age. Education just isn't valued in lower-class families, that's the problem
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2005-01-22 04:22:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Lionel Trilling - The Liberal Imagination, Sincerity and Authenticity, etc. Boring like you. Check with Columbia, they may know a bit more about him.
Henri de Saint-Simon(1760-1825) - distinguished between "critical" and "organic" phases of civilization. Huge influence on Marx. His disciple Auguste Comte came up with the word for and the disipline of sociology.
Are you suggesting a new way of funding or provision of University that might appeal to the masses? You want to impose socio-demographic mirrors on acceptance boards? Force higher learning on the barely functional?
So you have discovered that children with means drift towards college while kids living mean do not. Duh.
Michelle
Submitted by IcyBlackHand (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:52:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"To begin, I'll address the accusations centered around the issue of reference towards Vietnam, Soviet Union, China, etc. And I'd like the supposed, educated, 'debater' to explain why he doesn't know the distinction between Maois, Leninism, and Marxism. To use these ideologies as reference and inclusion of Marxism is a complete error because they are not the same. If one was inclined to know Marxism, than they'd know the distinction between the three and the various other forms of "socialism." As many Neo-Marxists state, Marx never advocated socialism, in fact, he never advocated anything. The only thing Marx and Engel laid out was the notion of dialectal materialism - i.e. Capitalism doomed to fail. Whatever occured Post-Capitalism was never explained in any of Marx/Engels' Lit. "
The reason I mention these countries is because these are the real life apllications of similar schools of thought. I don't deal with the ethereal and hypothetical; I'm pragmatic and deal with reality. Reality shows that your ideas suck. Although I am unable to completely understand your grammar, it seems that you call into question my education. I go to a top 10 business school that ranks 2nd, ( only to wharton, that damn school that manages to be number 1 in everything) in my major. While that alone means nothing, I also maintain a high enough GPA to make Dean's list. One could claim that I am ignorant of a majority of marx's work, but I don't need be aware of every nuance of marx's to destroy his main arguments. I think I'm done posting about marxism, socialism and communism, because it just gives you people the idea that you have a chance to change this country. You don't, and that makes this a meaningless exercise. YourDadGuido, feel free to continue posting on Ubersite about this, because your other two posts sucked, and apparently you have found the only topic you can write about that might possibly get a positive score on ubersite with.
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:27:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fine - address my references; Trilling and Saint Simon- as to how they relate to your marxism/bankroll-vs-college rolls agenda.
Michelle
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:22:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Why would the educated, who are benefitting from the system change it? How could the people who are suffering, who are too stupid to understand or do anything about said system, change it?"
That is a good insight towards the problem of "rich smarter". The solution draws from those individuals who were fortunate to actually to be there as in - let's stop focusing on the issue of feminism and recognize the larger issue of classism. The reason for this need to put classism on the front burner is that in current academia we have so many theories aimed at division caused by self-identification. As in, Race, Sexuality, Sexual Orentiation, Ethnicity, etc...but all of these address self-characterestic that exclude and are bred under the superstructure of capitalism. (It's profitable for racism to exist because if the feud is between the proles, than nobody can focus on the capitalist, thus, I can keep labor down and all they'll do is focus on petty conflict like racism). However, the difference between all these popular 'movements' of isms, is that Classism is universal. No matter race, sexuality, sex-orientation, ethnicity, etc. we all know what it's like to be poor - we all can relate to the material world and the poor or good conditions we live in. Therefore, my hope is that those engaged in movements that lean towards Critical Race Theory, or Feminism, or 3rd World Nationalism, can move those movements to the secondary and focus upon the notion of class division and the growing gap even in America.
Submitted by WhoLetYouIn (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:20:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Viewing society as a whole is a good idea...HOWEVER, you can't get a whole society to change unless you deal with the INDIVIDUALS who refuse to do so. In America in particular, being a supposed "melting pot", many cultures do not, to be blunt, conform to the ideas of success that are required in society nowadays. Why not enlighten and educate rather than tear down the establishment?
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:17:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*****Ignore the Previous Post*****
I believe everyone missed the point of the post, nor do they even know what Marxism is.
To begin, I'll address the accusations centered around the issue of reference towards Vietnam, Soviet Union, China, etc. And I'd like the supposed, educated, 'debater' to explain why he doesn't know the distinction between Maois, Leninism, and Marxism. To use these ideologies as reference and inclusion of Marxism is a complete error because they are not the same. If one was inclined to know Marxism, than they'd know the distinction between the three and the various other forms of "socialism." As many Neo-Marxists state, Marx never advocated socialism, in fact, he never advocated anything. The only thing Marx and Engel laid out was the notion of dialectal materialism - i.e. Capitalism doomed to fail. Whatever occured Post-Capitalism was never explained in any of Marx/Engels' Lit.
Next, from Icy, is the 'illogical' notion of me using the ethos of debater influencing my opinion towards Marxism. First, if he too was a debater, he'd know the value of Critical Theory in respect towards argumentation, thus, if one is apt in Critical Theory, than he/she would be able to relate to a critical critique like Marxism. Obviously, opening lines, fail on those who are ignorant.
To address the other reasons why the 'lower-class' do not enroll in schools ...I think people need to step outside of the normal paradigm of class, i.e. everyone had the same opportunity that I did, or that there's always the token ghetto-bred CEO, and inspect the reasoning behind why such conditions exist. Why do school system no longer focus on college? Well, because many of them can't afford to attend college, therefore, its a waste for X school to have AP programs based on the reality of budget cuts. Or why do the household not force higher educate values on their children? Many of the mothers and the FEW fathers never had the opportunity to enroll in college.
To make it simple, because I plan on posting on this issue again, the socioeconomic conditions these people live in contribute to their decreased enrollement too. We need to stop focusing on the individual aspect of everything and to examine society as a whole.
Submitted by Johnathan_Brains (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:15:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"wait until individuals recognize this growing problem in academia and start to use the power they have to correct it"?
Why would the educated, who are benefitting from the system change it? How could the people who are suffering, who are too stupid to understand or do anything about said system, change it?
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:15:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe everyone missed the point of the post, nor do they even know what Marxism is.
To begin, I'll address the accusations centered around the issue of reference towards Vietnam, Soviet Union, China, etc. And I'd like the supposed, educated, 'debater' to explain why he doesn't know the distinction between Maois, Leninism, and Marxism. To use these ideologies as reference and inclusion of Marxism is a complete error because they are not the same. If one was inclined to know Marxism, than they'd know the distinction between the three and the various other forms of "socialism." As many Neo-Marxists state, Marx never advocated socialism, in fact, he never advocated anything. The only thing Marx and Engel laid out was the notion of dialectal materialism - i.e. Capitalism doomed to fail. Whatever occured Post-Capitalism was never explained in any of Marx/Engels' Lit.
Next, from Icy, is the 'illogical' notion of me using the ethos of debater influencing my opinion towards Marxism. First, if he too was a debater, he'd know the value of Critical Theory in respect towards argumentation, thus, if one is apt in Critical Theory, than he/she would be able to relate to a critical critique like Marxism. Obviously, opening lines, fail on those who are ignorant.
To address the other reasons why the 'lower-class' do not enroll in schools ...I think people need to step outside of the normal paradigm of class, i.e. everyone had the same opportunity that I did, or that there's always the token ghetto-bred CEO, and inspect the reasoning behind why such conditions exist. Why do school system no longer focus on college? Well, because many of them can't afford to attend college, therefore, its a waste for X school to have AP programs based on the reality of budget cuts. Or why do the household not force higher educate values on their children? Many of the mothers and the FEW
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2005-01-22 03:06:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What the Trilling?
Shut the Saint-Simon up you idiot!
Michelle
Submitted by WhoLetYouIn (user info) at 2005-01-22 02:44:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This post is unorganized, unthought, and just another hippie college student post.
People from lower income families who don't go to 4-year colleges don't go because of a few reasons:
1. Education isn't promoted in their culture or household.
2. Desire to work.
3. Ignorance to the millions of dollars available in scholarships there are in America alone.
4. LAZINESS
5. Poorly enforced public education system that does not entreat students to go to college.
Humans aren't made for communism. As <b>individuals<b> a human being cannot live as a simple "prole" of the state.
If you're upset about it, buddy, become a guidance counselor or shut up.
Submitted by IcyBlackHand (user info) at 2005-01-22 02:29:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Realized I didn't quite handle the actual content of the post, and its pretty late, so I'll be quick. It is unfortunate that fewer than half of those people from homes with income under 25,000 go to college. However, these reasons are not just monetary in nature. Homes in these income ranges are less likely to teach and stress the importance of education. And as for free education, less people would be educated because of the limits of the system. Only the top X% would get into college, thus leaving the rest forced to go into mediocre jobs. And the ones most likely to be part of the top X% would still be the wealthy because their tax dollars create better local public schools. So then you'd once again be forced to create an economically classless society, whose problems I have detailed in my previous note.
Usually I'd give a 0 on my second review, but I need to emphasize just how bad this post was.
Submitted by IcyBlackHand (user info) at 2005-01-22 02:16:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Intelligent Marxism post = auto +2.
Communism r0xx0rz!!! "
There is no such thing as an intelligent marxist post. Marxism/Communism/Socialism - none work in the real world. No system listed is able to deal with ambition. If there exists no incentive to succeed, there is no reason to do so. Few are motivated by a slap on the back and a "great job". Why would you spend 20 years of you life learning if you could just coast? But then how do you get people to follow marxism? You tell those who are too lazy, or stupid, or those few who have just been fucked over in life (they'll always exist, no matter what system) that its those who succeed who have caused their failure. You then arm these forces, and have them keep the "bourgeois" in line. And don't act like the wealthy now have all inherited it, its almost all earned in present times. The only way to enforce any of the above economic systems is to institute tryanny. There has never been an even remotely democratic country with those systems. Whether it is China, Vietnam or the former Soviet Union, all have been repressive regimes. And before you say Nicaragua, I don't count rigged elections in rebel controlled areas as democratic processes. Marxism/Socialism/Communism tell people that you're not at fault for your station in life, but you're not able to do anything about it. These ideas strips people of both self-responsibilty and self-empowerment.
PS: " I debate, therefore, I'm inclined to side with Marxist Arguments " Well guess what, I debate too, but in no way is it the act that makes my side the right one. Your opening sentence lacks logic, reason and sense. I was orginally going to put up a sentence with similar form and logic in mockery, but was unable to lower myself to that depth of nonsense.
Submitted by dethcow (user info) at 2005-01-22 01:14:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Intelligent Marxism post = auto +2.
Communism r0xx0rz!!!
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2005-01-22 01:06:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Way to point out a fact that has been discussed for decades.
Submitted by YourDadGuido (user info) at 2005-01-22 00:59:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Agreed about the inability to see, but the furthering of this system of "rich smarter" is only going to further classism in America. Granted, they may find some form of content in manual labor or non-college educated labor, but, in reality the majority are nothing, but labor for those with a college degree - the architects, city planners, etc.
Submitted by YELLOW-MAN (user info) at 2005-01-21 23:56:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You make a good point, I can see how what you mean the class structure being preserved through those methods. But you have to realize a good portion of the working class or lower class don't realize opportunities in front of them and simply take the best job they can find. Most likely being some sort of skilled profession, because of the people around them telling them that the good money is in this line of work or the good money is in that kind of work (such as skilled professions) they do not persue academics and simply settle for a life of mediocrity. You must consider that because most people are just not able to understand that they can persue a more meaningful career than one they slave away at. I mean some people just can't help it it's all they know.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-01-21 23:42:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Random +2.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-01-21 23:37:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You don't have to be a Marxist to implement free university education... it was done by the Whitlam government in Australia in 1972. Now it has been repealed, and our government has just allowed universities to raise their fees (paid in instalments by students with interest, no less) by 25%. This year, for the first time in recent history, the number of university applicants has actually fallen, by 8%. That means for the first time in recent history, the marks you need to gain entry into a course have actually dropped, thus furthering the gap between the rich and the poor AND lowering the standard of universities. Damn Howard.
Anyway, I'm starting university next month, and was slightly concerned about whether I would make the requirement for my course. I just made it - (I received an OP 5, my course was a 7) - but the criteria for the course is now a 10.
It's still cool to be a Marxist though. Woot.
Submitted by wtf_is_going_on (user info) at 2005-01-21 22:50:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 CAUSE I'M FUCKING DRUNK.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
GO UBERSITE PEOPLE!
YOU ALL FUCKING ROCK.
WANNA HAVE A GOOD TIME ANYONE?