Marx and Education

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  50 comments


Marx and Education
"In order to develop a sense of themselves as change agents, as active political players, youth also need opportunities to engage in such activity. Engagement itself, then, is a necessary part of taking up further engagements. Like riding a bike, one has to do it to learn it. There is an additional, very important reason that people become active, and that is that they are part of organizations or networks that are already active."

Leave a comment to auto-join group Books

Books

This is part 3 in a series exploring how so many Americans came to be indoctrinated and who got us to the point we are at today. Today we explore a professor, who beginning in the 1970's sat right at the center of corrupting what came to be known as "the official curriculum." Her name was Jean Anyon and she wrote the book which is the title of this expose. I'm less concerned with the book than with the more serious damage that Anyon did in the classroom.

Anyon promoted a form of dumbed-down brand of Marxist ideology in her classroom rather than a traditional approach to attainining knowledge. One of her main principles: "capitalism's private ownership of production is distinct from a socialist/communist system as imagined by Marx, in which everyone contrivutes to the production of economic goods according to their ability and is provided profits and goods according to what each person needs." In her 2011 book Marx and education, she wrote "An important insight of Marx was that Capitalism is an economic system that cannot function without fundamental inequality - meaning that inequality is built into the way the system works."  Any rational person can see the contradiction there. The free enterprise system has allowed so many to overcome inequalities, as is proven by all those who want to immigrate (legally & illegally) to the US.

her most egregious act and the one most relevant to what we witnessed in 2020 was her call to action. She wrote: "In order to develop a sense of themselves as change agents, as active political players, youth also need opportunities to engage in such activity. Engagement itself, then, is a necessary part of taking up further engagements. Like riding a bike, one has to do it to learn it. There is an additional, very important reason that people become active, and that is that they are part of organizations or networks that are already active."

Think of all the students not in class during the pandemic shutdown of 2020. Think of the prominent organizations - antifa and BLM. Remember all that rioting and widespread violence. Think of the Blue city officials who were aiding the mob. 

I don't mind having a Marxist teach history. There should also be a Capitalist teaching history. There should be real diversity of thought at our universities. Unfortunately there is none.


How many young minds did Anyon poison with this evil ideology?



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

We shall continue to examine how the radical left came to power in America.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

If you think Biden is radical left you're delusional.

We on the left know Biden is The Establishment.

Real radicals in America today are headed to DC.

And, they definitely aren't lefties. Are you going?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
1.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1.1    one month ago

Those "real radicals" don't have the numbers to be a strong force.

The radical left is the real threat to our freedoms

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.1    one month ago
If you think Biden is radical left you're delusional.

If you don't think he's ruled like Sanders, It's you that are in denial.

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
1.2  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Dear Mr. Vic Eldred:

I would suggest that for the future, you link previous seeded articles when doing a series. While I came late to this discussion, I did refer to your profile page and searched both for 'Marx' and 'Education.' I went back 10 pages in each and found nothing. For what it's worth.

Certainly, political economies will differ whether based on private or social ownership. As the resident Marxist, I'd say that without disagreeing, no Marxist I know postulates an axiom as a statement of Marxian political economy.

I don't see that this authoress has a grasp on Marx' political economy. Nor do I see where the radical left holds power in the US. I certainly don't hold it. Do you know anyone more radically left than yours truly? That's what I thought.

Take care.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trotsky's Spectre @1.2    one month ago
While I came late to this discussion, I did refer to your profile page and searched both for 'Marx' and 'Education.' I went back 10 pages in each and found nothing. For what it's worth.

It's not part 3 on that book. It's part 3 on leftist professors who have indoctinated so many of America's students. (and how we arrived at CRT). I began it with Herbert Marcuse. (Part 1)


I don't see that this authoress has a grasp on Marx' political economy.

You may be right, but she played a large part in mobilizing the indoctrinated


Nor do I see where the radical left holds power in the US.

You may need glasses


Do you know anyone more radically left than yours truly? 

That's a tough call.


Take care.

You too. Avoid Mexico City it you can. (They are waiting for you there!)

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
2  Hallux    one month ago

"In order to develop a sense of themselves as change agents, as active political players, youth also need opportunities to engage in such activity. Engagement itself, then, is a necessary part of taking up further engagements. Like riding a bike, one has to do it to learn it. There is an additional, very important reason that people become active, and that is that they are part of organizations or networks that are already active."

Like becoming an evangelical and joining some group with Patriot as part of its name and best of all echo the election lies.

Sure Vic, she was the horror. /S

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2    one month ago
she was the horror.

The very one that Colonel Walter Kurtz kept talking about....the horror......the horror!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago
I don't mind having a Marxist teach history. There should also be a Capitalist teaching history. There should be real diversity of thought at our universities. Unfortunately there is none.

You do not think that most history teachers in the USA are capitalists (by culture)?    The Marxist teachings in the USA are minuscule;  most 'information' about Marxism is horribly contrived and confused — not being based on the serious analysis of his collective works but rather on the superficial.   Kind of like reading only the titles but not the articles.

In her 2011 book Marx and education, she wrote "An important insight of Marx was that Capitalism is an economic system that cannot function without fundamental inequality - meaning that inequality is built into the way the system works."  Any rational person can see the contradiction there. The free enterprise system has allowed so many to overcome inequalities, as is proven by all those who want to immigrate (legally & illegally) to the US.

Let me help you out here Vic.   The success of the USA has lifted the standard of living of all US citizens.   You attribute that to Capitalism because that has been our economic system.   I attribute it mostly to a market-based economy in a resource-rich nation populated by immigrants (and their descendants) who escaped authoritarian societies.    (Motivation + opportunity.)   What Anyon likely is referring to is the demonstrable fact that those who own the productive resources of the economy can leverage same whereas those who do not can only leverage their personal labor.   I just stated fundamental Marx for you.   And clearly that is true.   Here is a modern day example.   Those who have enough capital to purchase stock are leveraging said capital to make more capital which then can be leveraged again.   Contrast that with individuals who do not have the means to invest.   Further, to make clear the power of leveraging, contrast those who can invest hundreds of dollars with those who can invest hundreds of millions of dollars. 

This is not Anyon claiming that Capitalism is 'evil' but rather pointing out the obvious fact that ownership of productive (leverageable) property/capital creates and perpetuates a class system.   And one can be a fan of Capitalism while simultaneously recognizing its imperfections.


Note:  'market-based economy' is not a synonym for Capitalism.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
You do not think that most history teachers in the USA are capitalists (by culture)?   

No.


 The Marxist teachings in the USA are minuscule;  most 'information' about Marxism is horribly contrived and confused — not being based on the serious analysis of his collective works but rather on the superficial.

Um-hum...Kind of like Socialism never really being tried correctly.


What Anyon likely is referring to is the demonstrable fact that those who own the productive resources of the economy can leverage same whereas those who do not can only leverage their personal labor. 

I concede that you may have a point on that.


 Those who have enough capital to purchase stock are leveraging said capital to make more capital which then can be leveraged again.   Contrast that with individuals who do not have the means to invest.  

Most people are in the Market today. Even I am involved in it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago
No.

So you think that our history teachers are mostly Marxists?   Really Vic?   Where did you get such an idea?  

Um-hum...Kind of like Socialism never really being tried correctly.

That does not even make sense.   You have nothing to offer other than put out a tired cliche that does not even apply?

I concede that you may have a point on that.

It does not take much looking to see this.  

Most people are in the Market today. Even I am involved in it.

You missed the point entirely.   I even gave you an example but I will make it sharper.   Compare the leveraging power of a typical 401k vs. that of an individual who has invested millions.     Both are invested in the Market and both are a single individual.   Yet the millions investor is generating hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and those profits can be reinvested (at capital gain tax rates even) to leverage even more.

Leverage is the fundamental means by which the 'rich get richer'.   And that in itself is not necessarily a horrible thing, but the disparity has been crazy and is simply getting worse.   Hard to deny this given it is obvious.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    one month ago
So you think that our history teachers are mostly Marxists?   Really Vic?   Where did you get such an idea?  

There was a book written in 2020 entitled The Breakdown of Higher Education. It was written by John M Ellis, distinguished professor emeritus at the University of California (Santa Cruz). In that book, Ellis cites a 2006 survey conducted by Neil Gross and Solomon Simmons, of a very large sample of faculty from 927 different institutions, in which Ellis studied the survey's data and concluded that the faculty in their sample were 9 percent Conservative (though only mildly so on average), while 80 percent were solidly left, with well over half of those being extreme left. They found that one in five professors in the social sciences self-identified as Marxist. (In the field of sociology, the ratio was more than one in four.)  "Astonishing as this statistic is" wrote Ellis, "it almost certainly understates the matter."  Ellis reasons that the word Marxist does not play well with the general public, and many whose ideas have been formed by Marx prefer to describe themselves as "Socialist" and "progressive" or simply as "activists." 



 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    one month ago

Left ≠ Marxists.   Left ≠ not Capitalist.

One in five is not 'the majority'.

Finally, Marxist ≠ 'socialist' as the term is commonly used in the USA political discussions today

Your facts show your prior statement was wrong (that most history teachers are NOT capitalist).   Do you recognize that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    one month ago
Do you recognize that?

No. There is a wide spectrum between Marxism and Capitalism. Twenty five % were self-proclaimed Marxists. We don't know the ideologies of the remainder.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    one month ago

Vic, you have offered nothing to support your claim that the majority of USA history teachers are not capitalists.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    one month ago

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    one month ago

LOL

A:  1 +3 = 3

B:  Support that claim

A:  1 + 3 ≥ 3

B:  That does not support your claim that 1 + 3 = 3

A:  I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    one month ago

Lol

Marxist and Socialists are not the same thing. 

Sorry, it was you who posted a false equation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    one month ago
Marxist and Socialists are not the same thing.  Sorry, it was you who posted a false equation.

How do you figure?:

TiG @3.1.3Finally, Marxist 'socialist' as the term is commonly used in the USA political discussions today

Do you know what the symbol '' means?

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
3.2  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
'Marxist teachings in the USA are minuscule...'

Which is the only reason that such screeds get an hearing.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4  Split Personality    one month ago

In the late 60's and early 70's "Marketing" was a major at University.  Business Law was considered the study of US Capitalism.

Communism and Marx were discussed in History, Philosophy and Economics.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    one month ago
"An important insight of Marx was that Capitalism is an economic system that cannot function without fundamental inequality - meaning that inequality is built into the way the system works." 

She is exactly right.  Capitalism creates economic inequality. And capitalism can never fix it.  In capitalism , the owner (the capitalist) is required to pay workers the lowest wage possible. (Or not be a good capitalist). Maximizing profit for the few by paying the lowest wage possible guarantees poverty and economic inequality. 

In the US (and other places) we mitigate this situation by having the state augment the financial situation of low wage workers through food stamps, EITC, and assistance with medical care. 

This is the best "compromise" we have come up with so far. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
In capitalism , the owner (the capitalist) is required to pay workers the lowest wage possible.

That is demonstrably false.

If that were true, then companies that offer above-average wages and benefits would all go out of business.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    one month ago

The word 'required' is wrong, but the principle is correct.   The owner will seek to maximize profit and part of the equation is to cut costs and (typically) a major part of costs are human costs.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    one month ago

It is required by the principles of capitalism.  Of course a few capitalists may try and do things a little differently. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    one month ago

In some cases an above average wage may be the lowest the company can pay to get that position filled. 

Capitalism creates poverty and inequality , there is no question about it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    one month ago
Capitalism creates poverty 

I disagree with that claim.

inequality

There is inequality in just about every single economic system you can even imagine, and I don't see how it can ever be totally eradicated.

there is no question about it. 

Oh, of course there are.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    one month ago

It is not required by Capitalism to pay the lowest possible wage.    In fact, paying the lowest possible wage is a great way to churn employees.

An owner will seek to reduce costs but will factor in many considerations beyond the $ going out in paychecks. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.4    one month ago
There is inequality in just about every single economic system you can even imagine, and I don't see how it can ever be totally eradicated.

Inequality is actually a critical part of an effective system.   A purely egalitarian system would self-destruct (and would be miserable while it lasted).   It is just like most things, a moderate amount is good but excess is bad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.5    one month ago
t is not required by Capitalism to pay the lowest possible wage.    In fact, paying the lowest possible wage is a great way to churn employees. An owner will seek to reduce costs but will factor in many considerations beyond the $ going out in paychecks. 

For many companies, some of their highest costs are associated with training new employees. If you are hiring because you are expanding your business, usually that can be absorbed much easier than if you are hiring to replace experienced workers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.4    one month ago
I disagree with that claim.

I do too.   Capitalism does indeed create class systems and disparity.   But while runaway Capitalism can make the lowest levels more 'poor' relative to the 'rich', it also is a highly successful system for societies and thus raises the standard of living for everyone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.7    one month ago

Indeed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.6    one month ago
Inequality is actually a critical part of an effective system.

Agreed, which is why I don't get all the complaining about inequality as it relates to this particular case.

It is obvious that some people will never earn as much as a doctor might, or a plumber might. That will create some inequality for sure, but why would a dishwasher make what a computer programmer makes?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
5.1.11  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    one month ago

Capitalism also rewards hard work. It also gives individuals incentive and motivation to better oneself and ones situation. All good things if you ask me. However, not all are equally gifted. Not all are motivated. Not all have a good work ethic. There is no question about it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    one month ago
But while runaway Capitalism can make the lowest levels more 'poor' relative to the 'rich', it also is a highly successful system for societies and thus raises the standard of living for everyone.

Exactly.

I dare say that someone who is dependent solely on government for support maintains a better live style today than the working poor without governmental support has.

In fact, without that economic disparity, I don't think many social net programs would exist today.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.12    one month ago
But while runaway Capitalism can make the lowest levels more 'poor' relative to the 'rich', it also is a highly successful system for societies and thus raises the standard of living for everyone.

That is only the case when the state intervenes and augments the income of the poor. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.13    one month ago
That is only the case when the state intervenes and augments the income of the poor. 

What economic system would you like to see in place, and will the government be supporting anyone in any way?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @5.1.11    one month ago

When you have a system that will always produce poverty and inequality it then becomes necessary for the state to augment low wages. 

"Everyone " cannot succeed in a capitalist economy. It is impossible and no capitalist system has ever eliminated poverty without government intervention. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.14    one month ago

I dont really object to the system we have now, capitalist with the government augmenting people with no or low wages. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago
When you have a system that will always produce poverty and inequality it then becomes necessary for the state to augment low wages. 

What system eliminates poverty and inequality?

And in that system, the government doesn't augment anyone's wages in any way?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.10    one month ago

Your comparisons are at a level where most people agree.   The problem is when you compare what a plumber can earn by working every day (unleveraged) vs. what a business owner can earn by leveraging its productive resources.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @5.1.11    one month ago
Capitalism also rewards hard work. It also gives individuals incentive and motivation to better oneself and ones situation. All good things if you ask me. However, not all are equally gifted. Not all are motivated. Not all have a good work ethic. There is no question about it.

It is the talent market that rewards hard work.  If someone has marketable skills and an employer is convinced the individual will apply those skills at a proficient level, the person will have earned a higher wage.   Businesses pay workers what they need to keep them on the job and motivated. 

But this is not a defining characteristic of Capitalism.   Any system of inequality will have the feature of the higher marketable skills demanding higher compensation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago
"Everyone " cannot succeed in a capitalist economy.

Spot on.   Capitalism requires disparity.   That is the requirement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.18    one month ago
The problem is when you compare what a plumber can earn by working every day (unleveraged) vs. what a business owner can earn by leveraging its productive resources.

It would be difficult to compare those two things.

How would one consider the risk a business owner takes every day compared to a worker who is only guaranteed to be paid if the business is open and he works?

While true that a worker's income will always be limited by market demand for his work, an owner has no guarantees at all.

I really don't think a fair comparison can really be made, and I am not advocating that one side in it is more favorable

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.21    one month ago
How would one consider the risk a business owner takes every day compared to a worker who is only guaranteed to be paid if the business is open and he works?

Owners have greater responsibility and typically risk (especially for smaller operations).   The risk for large corporations is considerably less. 

One can easily make a comparison of the relative abilities to leverage and one need not consider risk (or any other factor) to do so.

The point I made was about class disparity.   Look at the big picture.    Reality is quite clear ... especially now.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
5.1.23  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago

What system would you like to implement? I guarantee every system you can choose from has haves and have nots.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @5.1.23    one month ago

Every system will have inequality (practically speaking ... and it is desirable).   Thus, in relative terms, haves and have nots will exist.   The question really is the degree of disparity.

 
 
 
Trotsky's Spectre
Freshman Quiet
5.1.25  Trotsky's Spectre  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    one month ago
'If that were true, then companies that offer above-average wages and benefits would all go out of business...'

Hasn't that been the mantra for decades? Unless you accept this concessionary contract, our plant must close and you will all be out of jobs! Methinks that worker struggles show your point moving on the trajectory opposite to what you argue.

When the economy is expanding, a few piecemeal sops can be thrown to the proletariat. But when the economy contracts and competition becomes cutthroat, even those must be taken back.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6  Thomas    one month ago
She wrote: "In order to develop a sense of themselves as change agents, as active political players, youth also need opportunities to engage in such activity. Engagement itself, then, is a necessary part of taking up further engagements. Like riding a bike, one has to do it to learn it. There is an additional, very important reason that people become active, and that is that they are part of organizations or networks that are already active."

Think of all the students not in class during the pandemic shutdown of 2020. Think of the prominent organizations - antifa and BLM. Remember all that rioting and widespread violence. Think of the Blue city officials who were aiding the mob. 

I don't mind having a Marxist teach history. There should also be a Capitalist teaching history. There should be real diversity of thought at our universities. Unfortunately there is none.


How many young minds did Anyon poison with this evil ideology?

What are you on about, Vic?  Is there supposed to be a book attached to this screed or did you just feel like typing some incoherent nonsense? What, exactly, do you find disturbing about her observations? They seem to exist more on the level of truisms than fact challenging statements. And then your non-sequitur to the BLM and antifa movements looked like you just ran out of time on an essay test so you scribbled something, anything down. 

Think of all the students not in class during the pandemic shutdown of 2020. Think of the prominent organizations - antifa and BLM. Remember all that rioting and widespread violence. Think of the Blue city officials who were aiding the mob.

Once again with your tired conflation of the protest themselves and the rioting that occurred.I am sure that it was only because of her teaching that these happened. S/

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @6    one month ago

Neither you nor anyone else may know it, but I think you may have stumbled upon something.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Just Jim NC TttH
Texan1211
Veronica
JohnRussell
Greg Jones
Snuffy
Hallux
Ronin2
Sparty On


47 visitors