Whether Asao Inoue's motives are well-intentioned or not, one thing is clear: the actual wants and needs of his students are of less concern to him than they should be as an educator.
Let's be even more blunt. Inoue is simply a huckster who knows there is money to be made from the liberal left. The money and people telling him how gifted he is, is the driving force. His theroies are about replacing one form of government with another. The difference is the new government would be so much more oppressive of speech and questioning his ignorant and self serving ideas would be cause for a re-education camp.
Appreciate Erec Smith pointing out the shear insanity of Inoue writings and silly thoughts. The truth is that if Inoue truly loved Marxism he would have left already. But he would only love it if he was part of the ruling leadership. He is simply a fool and huckster hustling fools for money.
There is some truth to Inoue's motivation to jump on the bandwagon for his own selfish academic advancement! But it is worse than hucksterism. American Education is in decline, and he is simply profiting on the despair and underachievement of the American student.
Agree and pretty sad when people are willing to sacrifice children's future for some misguided notion that it actually helps. There will be potentially a generation of children who will carry that failure.
Exactly. While reading this piece, I kept thinking that the author was overthinking the situation and giving far to much credit for any sort of philosophical basis for Inoue (or really any other of the race-baiting demagogues). A simpler explanation (Occam's Razor), is what you have indicated. Inoue and the others are charlatans, snake-oil salesman, duping a naive and ignorant population who are hungry for some meaning in their lives. And like all hucksters and cult leaders, Inoue does not care at all about anyone other than himself. He and others can dress him up in all sorts of academic jargon, but in reality, he is naked.
We often misrepresent Marx because of his followers, but in fact what Marx has to say about alienation under capitalism is actually quite accurate: Primarily the alienation from one's self. This is the reason people are so quick to look for some way to find meaning in the commodities we lust after to replace our loss of the value of our work in our lives. The problem has been the misrepresentation of his idea of the Superstructure (all the institutions that promote the capitalist system from education to social mores to religion). There is not some cabal of capitalists overlords, that is not how the Superstructure operates. We feel loss as workers, we want meaning and we will embrace institutions that give us meaning. The problem with Schools of Education is they have the most simplistic idea of this. So they replace learning with self esteem. That is the downward spiral that only brings about ever lower self esteem. That is Bad Faith in Existentialist terms, self deception. We live in a world of fairy tales and self deception in every corner from gender to race and beyond. Truth is only secondary to good feelings, but good feelings are not equivalent to competence and pride of truly knowing thyself.
The connection between capitalism and alienation from ones self was invented by Marx because it was required to set itself apart and to create an unarguable tautology. One cannot argue for a system that is defined by alienation from ones self. That would be self-destructive.
IMO, Capitalism allows deeper connection with ones self through the freedoms afforded by prosperity - a prosperity that never happens under Marxism because the foundation of Marxism is envy, and greed follows from that: I want what you have. Envy and greed, on the other hand, do create alienation from self.
And there is much more to this alienation angle that is attached to Marxism. Marxism creates alienation like cold, damp, dark locations create mold.
I agree with you, Marxism itself undermines the very possibility of overcoming the alienation he recognizes. "Work makes life sweet!" But compelled work does not. We find our meaning in our work; so the trick is to provide the best education possible to the worker to perform at the top of her ability and enjoy the joy of work. This is why I think John Locke has it right and Marx does not: Education improves the value of your labor and the value of your labor improves your life. And better yet... a nation well educated has a more effective workforce and thus a stronger economy.
One could just as easily argue that the foundation of Capitalism is selfishness, and that greed also follows from that. Greed is a human condition, not a political one, and can poison anything. I would argue it's not really intrinsic to one particular polity over another. Besides, Marxism is more a form of government and Capitalism is more a form of economics. There's obviously a lot of overlap, but it's a bit like apples and oranges here. Or perhaps apples and apricots.
Capitalism is generally better at wealth opportunities, and getting goods and services where they need to be more efficiently. But I would also argue that at its core it overwhelmingly prioritizes maximizing profits above all other concerns. That's good for business of course (although I would argue not necessarily ethical or moral), but a government's job is not simply to facilitate wealth creation. It's primary job is to take care of its citizens: military defense, fair laws, commerce regulation, infrastructure, etc.
The trick is to find a healthy balance between order and liberty. Because either one to the extreme is folly: Order - totalitarianism, Liberty - anarchy. Obviously America is not extreme on either end. But we shouldn't pretend that everything Marx/Engels said was complete B.S. any more than we shouldn't say Adam Smith was an infallible profit.
It doesn't have to be an equal offering, but they both do have something valuable to offer.
Yes, that is a common argument. Greed is a human condition, but only capitalism expressly recognizes it and exploits it.
The foundation of capitalism is "willing exchange". If you are greedy, you will price yourself out of the market or will not be able to find sellers to work with you. So greed has a control mechanism under capitalism. It does not under Marxism.
I'd also argue that a government is not supposed to take care of citizens. It should be to create a fair environment where citizens can take care of themselves. I'd put military defense in a whole separate category.
This is a great discussion and one that should be happening at all high schools and universities.
I'd really like to see true capitalism/representative democracy tried. :-) (sound familiar?)
It is sad that so many (including highly educated) people will not grasp (or acknowledge) that simple fact you state in regard to capitalism and free markets. In a system of "willing exchange" I can only gain if I am of some value to another.
Another aspect of free market capitalism is lack of infringement on individual freedom. Money (our transactional mode of exchange) enables freedom in the choices ("willing exchange") one makes. The more of my money I have, the more freedom I have. I get to choose what to use my money for, what I willingly exchange it for. Likewise, the more the government takes control of my money, the less freedom I have. Marxism, socialism, communism all come at the cost of individual freedom.
I'd also add that most people don't really know what an economy is. Most people would describe it as a "system of exchange". In fact, most definitions that I've seen are tautologies.
IMO, an economy is "a means of converting resources (time, labor, natural resources) from one form to another (production), placing a value on to the inputs and outputs (currency), and distributing those inputs and outputs (exchange)". At least that's what makes sense to me, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to put it that way - I just haven't found that person yet.
Thomas Sowell, in "Basic Economics", defines economics as the allocation of scare resources that have alternative uses. His definition sounds like it might align with yours.
"If you are greedy, you will price yourself out of the market or will not be able to find sellers to work with you. So greed has a control mechanism under capitalism."
If this were true, we wouldn't be having, for instance, an opiod crisis right now. One could argue that it is now self-correcting...but not before gigantic profits were made and hundreds of thousands of Americans died from it. Nothing stopped the pharma companies from doing this for 20 years, so I'd say the control mechanism (if there was one) was far, far too late and did not do its job at all. And there are thousands of examples of this kind of thing throughout American history, it's not an outlier.
If there is a greed control mechanism under capitalism, I'd say it either almost never works, is often too late to the party, or is so terribly weak in enforcement that its effects are negligible.
Using the opiod crisis is not a good comparison, because there is a disconnect between the seller and the buyer: insurance companies. In addition, no system works perfectly every time. And capitalism works infinitely better than any other system designed by man.
There are billions of examples in US history where the greed mechanism works. You have a problem with your decision model in that it is only looking at failures, and does not consider successes. The greed control mechanism is very, very strong in capitalism.
There is a great example of the "data exclusion" error circulating LinkedIn. In WWII, engineers studied the damage done to bombers returning from a mission and "beefed up" the areas with the most damage. However, they excluded the data from bombers that did not return, which would actually be a better view on what to "beef up".
IMO, the over-riding error in all economic models that I know of is that they try to equate an economic system to a mechanical system; if you just tweak the right thing at the right time everything will work perfectly. Instead, economic systems are much more live living systems - with the positives and negatives associated with that. And there is no escaping that reality, because any economic system is populated with, and managed by, living systems (humans) with all the error and inefficiency that entails.
Of course no system is perfect, no one is arguing that. I'm not disregarding the successes, I'm saying the important failures tend to be catastrophic. I mean, if you tried to tell someone who lost their life savings in 2008 that at least they can be thankful that the price of a big-mac or tank of gas is still cheap...they might punch you in the face. And sure the Federal Reserve may have left the door open for the banks, but they didn't have to walk through it. Basic greed enticed them to do so.
I would argue that a positive greed control mechanism for capitalism is directly proportional to the amount of outside oversight and/or controls being brought to bear on a given enterprise; whether that be federal regs, unions, market competition, or whatever. A completely laissez-faire market, while outstanding for owners and innovation in general, is also generally terrible for the common man. I mean, even during the Gilded Age real wage growth was around 50% for the average American worker, which alone sounds just dandy. But when you factor in all the negatives like 12-hour work days, child labor, deadly working conditions, high cost of living, shitty housing, etc. (not to mention the capital class having like a 5gazillion% wage growth) the negatives far outweigh the positives.
"I'd also argue that a government is not supposed to take care of citizens. It should be to create a fair environment where citizens can take care of themselves. I'd put military defense in a whole separate category."
I wanted to come back to this is you don't mind. Firstly, I'm not sure why you would put military in a separate category. One of the govs job's is precisely to protect its citizens for foreign threats, it's not a special category of federal responsibility. Second, taking care of its citizens, to a certain degree, is very much the responsibility of a government. Yes, creating a fair environment is one aspect of that. But there are a whole host of other things that, in the modern era, a government should be trying to do for its people. It's a give and take.
For instance, if someone breaks into your home and tries to harm you, you are completely within your right to shoot them dead with your own gun. But to then try and say something like "well...can't we get rid of the police and all just administer our own justice in the public realm using our individual judgements and sense of fair play?" (which would be "citizens taking care of themselves" mind you) ...that would be utter chaos.
Individual liberty, as important and sacred that ideal is, also needs to be balanced with the common good. How we determine what that common good is is precisely why we have elections and laws and judges and regulations and all sorts of other things civilized societies rely on to live together peacefully. Otherwise, instead of 50 states we might as well have 330 million states...a sure way to destroy society as we know it. The wild west is long gone, and good riddance. Something like that can't survive in the modern era.
OMG, what made you put those Lenin quotes in your article???? You almost gave me a heart attack, it made me think I was back in school, in one of my "political science" classes. Really, I might start thinking that microaggressions are a legit issue :-). Joke aside, that is EXACTLY how indoctrination worked in former communist countries, you are 100% right. Us kids, were were all "soldiers of the revolution", and papa Lenin's words were our Bible. The propaganda completely brainwashed me when I was little, and it took a long and very painful effort from me to get out of that. Looking back, it almost seems like that is another person, whose journey I imagined. Thank you for sounding the alarm, although I am pretty sure many people in academia think it's YOU who are the crazy one.
It is such a recipe for failure, setting these students up to be another generation of victims in a world that won't change for the few. I feel terrible for those students. Those are my "feelings".
I don't disagree, but the pendulum swings and there are enough of us with common sense to fight back against insanity. The media, however, is very good at creating perceptions that "everyone" thinks this way, but that truth doesn't play out in the streets. Hopefully, the next time someone gets the chance, this all gets squashed at whatever cost. Just my personal preference.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. In my (MANY) years of experience, it seems the pendulum swings wildly from 'dangerous crazy' at one end to 'dangerous crazy' at the other. Rarely pausing very long at the 'common sense middle'.
I hope to be proven wrong on this issue, but not much evidence yet.
I certainly don't disagree. My fear is the same as yours. Unless the woke brigade is stopped soon, we won't land anywhere near the middle. The authoritarian right will absolutely swing into extremes. The normie's of the world have to unite in this one purpose. Push back against both extremists. I don't know if we will win, but we can try.
Here's how vapid Marxism is. If it is truly, as defined above, the continuing struggle by the exploited against the exploiters, it is a self-destroying system, as the result of that struggle is that the exploited and exploiters switch places and the cycle starts over in a diminished environment (which is a result of the battles between the two groups). Each time the switch occurs, it is in a more entropic environment, until it devolves to randomness, or chaos.
If that switch is not an expected outcome, that can only mean that the exploited are being used. Eventually, the exploited figure that out and rebel. (this is beginning in the US with disaffected Dems - especially minorities)
I think it's time we actually call this movement what it is: cultural Nazism. The race essentialist base of Inoue and others has much more in common with Nazism than it does Marxism. And lest we forget, redistribution of wealth and property along racial lines was one of Nazism's core tenants (and how often do you see calls to redistribute the wealth of, say Kanye West or LaBron James?). There was also a strong worker-based element within the North German Nazi party prior to Hitler's unification of the party in the late 1920s. The NSDAP also made strong inroads in the German university system, especially in programs like the then-new field of sociology and both law and history.
Allowing this race-based tripe to hide behind the cover of Marxism does no-one any favors, and lends them a level of credibility they frankly don't deserve.
This comment is sort of orthogonal to Erec's piece, but I wanted to point out something that I've been concerned about that his piece reminded me of. Erec uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" several times here. If someone wanted to find out more about cultural Marxism, or perhaps didn't know what it is in the first place, where would they likely go? My guess would be Wikipedia.
If you go to Wikipedia's "cultural Marxism" page you are automatically redirected to a page titled, "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", which describes a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory". There's a note at the beginning of the article in italics that says, "For 'cultural Marxism' in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see 'Marxist cultural analysis'." The "Marxist cultural analysis" page contains what is basically a description of what Marxists think is wrong about capitalism on a cultural level, with no space on the page for any criticism about these ideas.
Therefore, someone who doesn't know much about what Erec is talking about but would like to learn more could easily end up coming away from this believing that Erec is, fundamentally, being conspiratorial about what he believes Inoue's intentions are.
With Wikipedia in particular, it uses secondary sources as its foundation for what is true. Primary sources are allowed but secondary sources are much preferred. Wikipedia calls themselves a "tertiary source", to make this preference clear. The most common type of secondary source is a news article. This in itself isn't that bad but it becomes bad due to a few other factors:
1) The vast majority of journalists lean left. Since Wikipedia relies fundamentally on secondary sources, there will literally be more left-leaning secondary sources than right-leaning ones. This on its own can create a bias.
2) Not all news organizations are considered equally reliable as a source by Wikipedia. In my opinion, left-wing news sources are considered more reliable than right-wing news sources. This may be true, but even if it is true, the extent to which left-wing sources are thought to be completely reliable vs the extent to which right-wing sources are thought to be completely unreliable is troubling.
As a result, if you wanted to make the argument that "cultural Marxism" should not be labeled first and foremost as a conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, you'd have your work cut out for you. First off, there would be a lot more left-leaning articles available that say it's a conspiracy theory. Second, the articles available that say it has a totally legitimate, non-conspiratorial, use, will be both fewer in number and considered either less reliable or not at all reliable.
Even Erec's piece couldn't be used as an example of the non-conspiratorial use of the phrase "cultural Marxism" because FAIR wouldn't be considered as reliable by Wikipedia.
Anyway, I don't know what to about this, but I think it's a problem. So many people blindly believe whatever Wikipedia says nowadays.
If you point out that communism has repeatedly failed catastrophically the typical response from Marxists is that true Marxism has never been tried. If you read a biography of Lenin it is remarkable how committed he was to the goal of following Marxist ideology per se. I guess what is needed in future attempts at Marxism is a better class of dictators of the proletariat.
Eric, you can’t fight what’s happening without also fighting Marxism and communism. They’re not admirable in the slightest. This is partly why they’re dominating the universities. Would you ever say that you’re the arguing against a Fascist political beliefs, ‘just his fascist pedagogy?’ There is no successful fight if we don’t realize that these beliefs, political as well as how they pertain to teaching, are utterly corrupt and evil. Lest anyone misunderstand what I’m saying, I’m not talking about censorship to save democracy - I’ll leave that nonsense to leftists. But I am talking about the obvious link between a belief in Marxism and communism being as evil and destructive as a belief in fascism, regardless of whether they’re trying to use at a bases for teaching.
Let us remember that this Inoue character is not black but half white and half Japanese. I'm sure he is teaching his own 3/4 white and 1/4 Japanese kids how to write in perfectly good standard English because hey, why not try our dangerous theories on other people's children?
My master's thesis was in essence a rebuttal of inoue. The politicization of college classes reflects the vanity of the professor, rather than exploring the views of the students. VanValkenburgh, 2021
Educating kids is the foundation of our democracy. Allowing teachings which don't support this foundation need to be looked at with a critical eye. IF you want to teach the Marxist/Communist agenda their are plenty of Countries who will welcome you, not this one. I want to thank Eric Smith for unpacking this article but as usual I quickly found it to be gobbledygook and could not continue reading it. (Something written in an overly complex, incoherent, or incomprehensible manner.) Not to criticize Mr. Smith but the subject matter. I find those who try to teach CRT have the same agenda. Making it so difficult to understand what they are talking about that nobody can rationalize it. This is the objective of these people, not to make it understandable just to criticize me for not understanding it. What I do is once it falls into the gobbledygook basket I move on and dismiss it.
Let's be even more blunt. Inoue is simply a huckster who knows there is money to be made from the liberal left. The money and people telling him how gifted he is, is the driving force. His theroies are about replacing one form of government with another. The difference is the new government would be so much more oppressive of speech and questioning his ignorant and self serving ideas would be cause for a re-education camp.
Appreciate Erec Smith pointing out the shear insanity of Inoue writings and silly thoughts. The truth is that if Inoue truly loved Marxism he would have left already. But he would only love it if he was part of the ruling leadership. He is simply a fool and huckster hustling fools for money.
There is some truth to Inoue's motivation to jump on the bandwagon for his own selfish academic advancement! But it is worse than hucksterism. American Education is in decline, and he is simply profiting on the despair and underachievement of the American student.
Agree and pretty sad when people are willing to sacrifice children's future for some misguided notion that it actually helps. There will be potentially a generation of children who will carry that failure.
Exactly. While reading this piece, I kept thinking that the author was overthinking the situation and giving far to much credit for any sort of philosophical basis for Inoue (or really any other of the race-baiting demagogues). A simpler explanation (Occam's Razor), is what you have indicated. Inoue and the others are charlatans, snake-oil salesman, duping a naive and ignorant population who are hungry for some meaning in their lives. And like all hucksters and cult leaders, Inoue does not care at all about anyone other than himself. He and others can dress him up in all sorts of academic jargon, but in reality, he is naked.
Excellent and fully agree.
We often misrepresent Marx because of his followers, but in fact what Marx has to say about alienation under capitalism is actually quite accurate: Primarily the alienation from one's self. This is the reason people are so quick to look for some way to find meaning in the commodities we lust after to replace our loss of the value of our work in our lives. The problem has been the misrepresentation of his idea of the Superstructure (all the institutions that promote the capitalist system from education to social mores to religion). There is not some cabal of capitalists overlords, that is not how the Superstructure operates. We feel loss as workers, we want meaning and we will embrace institutions that give us meaning. The problem with Schools of Education is they have the most simplistic idea of this. So they replace learning with self esteem. That is the downward spiral that only brings about ever lower self esteem. That is Bad Faith in Existentialist terms, self deception. We live in a world of fairy tales and self deception in every corner from gender to race and beyond. Truth is only secondary to good feelings, but good feelings are not equivalent to competence and pride of truly knowing thyself.
The connection between capitalism and alienation from ones self was invented by Marx because it was required to set itself apart and to create an unarguable tautology. One cannot argue for a system that is defined by alienation from ones self. That would be self-destructive.
IMO, Capitalism allows deeper connection with ones self through the freedoms afforded by prosperity - a prosperity that never happens under Marxism because the foundation of Marxism is envy, and greed follows from that: I want what you have. Envy and greed, on the other hand, do create alienation from self.
And there is much more to this alienation angle that is attached to Marxism. Marxism creates alienation like cold, damp, dark locations create mold.
I agree with you, Marxism itself undermines the very possibility of overcoming the alienation he recognizes. "Work makes life sweet!" But compelled work does not. We find our meaning in our work; so the trick is to provide the best education possible to the worker to perform at the top of her ability and enjoy the joy of work. This is why I think John Locke has it right and Marx does not: Education improves the value of your labor and the value of your labor improves your life. And better yet... a nation well educated has a more effective workforce and thus a stronger economy.
One could just as easily argue that the foundation of Capitalism is selfishness, and that greed also follows from that. Greed is a human condition, not a political one, and can poison anything. I would argue it's not really intrinsic to one particular polity over another. Besides, Marxism is more a form of government and Capitalism is more a form of economics. There's obviously a lot of overlap, but it's a bit like apples and oranges here. Or perhaps apples and apricots.
Capitalism is generally better at wealth opportunities, and getting goods and services where they need to be more efficiently. But I would also argue that at its core it overwhelmingly prioritizes maximizing profits above all other concerns. That's good for business of course (although I would argue not necessarily ethical or moral), but a government's job is not simply to facilitate wealth creation. It's primary job is to take care of its citizens: military defense, fair laws, commerce regulation, infrastructure, etc.
The trick is to find a healthy balance between order and liberty. Because either one to the extreme is folly: Order - totalitarianism, Liberty - anarchy. Obviously America is not extreme on either end. But we shouldn't pretend that everything Marx/Engels said was complete B.S. any more than we shouldn't say Adam Smith was an infallible profit.
It doesn't have to be an equal offering, but they both do have something valuable to offer.
Yes, that is a common argument. Greed is a human condition, but only capitalism expressly recognizes it and exploits it.
The foundation of capitalism is "willing exchange". If you are greedy, you will price yourself out of the market or will not be able to find sellers to work with you. So greed has a control mechanism under capitalism. It does not under Marxism.
I'd also argue that a government is not supposed to take care of citizens. It should be to create a fair environment where citizens can take care of themselves. I'd put military defense in a whole separate category.
This is a great discussion and one that should be happening at all high schools and universities.
I'd really like to see true capitalism/representative democracy tried. :-) (sound familiar?)
It is sad that so many (including highly educated) people will not grasp (or acknowledge) that simple fact you state in regard to capitalism and free markets. In a system of "willing exchange" I can only gain if I am of some value to another.
Another aspect of free market capitalism is lack of infringement on individual freedom. Money (our transactional mode of exchange) enables freedom in the choices ("willing exchange") one makes. The more of my money I have, the more freedom I have. I get to choose what to use my money for, what I willingly exchange it for. Likewise, the more the government takes control of my money, the less freedom I have. Marxism, socialism, communism all come at the cost of individual freedom.
I'd also add that most people don't really know what an economy is. Most people would describe it as a "system of exchange". In fact, most definitions that I've seen are tautologies.
IMO, an economy is "a means of converting resources (time, labor, natural resources) from one form to another (production), placing a value on to the inputs and outputs (currency), and distributing those inputs and outputs (exchange)". At least that's what makes sense to me, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to put it that way - I just haven't found that person yet.
Thomas Sowell, in "Basic Economics", defines economics as the allocation of scare resources that have alternative uses. His definition sounds like it might align with yours.
"If you are greedy, you will price yourself out of the market or will not be able to find sellers to work with you. So greed has a control mechanism under capitalism."
If this were true, we wouldn't be having, for instance, an opiod crisis right now. One could argue that it is now self-correcting...but not before gigantic profits were made and hundreds of thousands of Americans died from it. Nothing stopped the pharma companies from doing this for 20 years, so I'd say the control mechanism (if there was one) was far, far too late and did not do its job at all. And there are thousands of examples of this kind of thing throughout American history, it's not an outlier.
If there is a greed control mechanism under capitalism, I'd say it either almost never works, is often too late to the party, or is so terribly weak in enforcement that its effects are negligible.
Using the opiod crisis is not a good comparison, because there is a disconnect between the seller and the buyer: insurance companies. In addition, no system works perfectly every time. And capitalism works infinitely better than any other system designed by man.
There are billions of examples in US history where the greed mechanism works. You have a problem with your decision model in that it is only looking at failures, and does not consider successes. The greed control mechanism is very, very strong in capitalism.
There is a great example of the "data exclusion" error circulating LinkedIn. In WWII, engineers studied the damage done to bombers returning from a mission and "beefed up" the areas with the most damage. However, they excluded the data from bombers that did not return, which would actually be a better view on what to "beef up".
IMO, the over-riding error in all economic models that I know of is that they try to equate an economic system to a mechanical system; if you just tweak the right thing at the right time everything will work perfectly. Instead, economic systems are much more live living systems - with the positives and negatives associated with that. And there is no escaping that reality, because any economic system is populated with, and managed by, living systems (humans) with all the error and inefficiency that entails.
What is the disconnect exactly?
Of course no system is perfect, no one is arguing that. I'm not disregarding the successes, I'm saying the important failures tend to be catastrophic. I mean, if you tried to tell someone who lost their life savings in 2008 that at least they can be thankful that the price of a big-mac or tank of gas is still cheap...they might punch you in the face. And sure the Federal Reserve may have left the door open for the banks, but they didn't have to walk through it. Basic greed enticed them to do so.
I would argue that a positive greed control mechanism for capitalism is directly proportional to the amount of outside oversight and/or controls being brought to bear on a given enterprise; whether that be federal regs, unions, market competition, or whatever. A completely laissez-faire market, while outstanding for owners and innovation in general, is also generally terrible for the common man. I mean, even during the Gilded Age real wage growth was around 50% for the average American worker, which alone sounds just dandy. But when you factor in all the negatives like 12-hour work days, child labor, deadly working conditions, high cost of living, shitty housing, etc. (not to mention the capital class having like a 5gazillion% wage growth) the negatives far outweigh the positives.
"I'd also argue that a government is not supposed to take care of citizens. It should be to create a fair environment where citizens can take care of themselves. I'd put military defense in a whole separate category."
I wanted to come back to this is you don't mind. Firstly, I'm not sure why you would put military in a separate category. One of the govs job's is precisely to protect its citizens for foreign threats, it's not a special category of federal responsibility. Second, taking care of its citizens, to a certain degree, is very much the responsibility of a government. Yes, creating a fair environment is one aspect of that. But there are a whole host of other things that, in the modern era, a government should be trying to do for its people. It's a give and take.
For instance, if someone breaks into your home and tries to harm you, you are completely within your right to shoot them dead with your own gun. But to then try and say something like "well...can't we get rid of the police and all just administer our own justice in the public realm using our individual judgements and sense of fair play?" (which would be "citizens taking care of themselves" mind you) ...that would be utter chaos.
Individual liberty, as important and sacred that ideal is, also needs to be balanced with the common good. How we determine what that common good is is precisely why we have elections and laws and judges and regulations and all sorts of other things civilized societies rely on to live together peacefully. Otherwise, instead of 50 states we might as well have 330 million states...a sure way to destroy society as we know it. The wild west is long gone, and good riddance. Something like that can't survive in the modern era.
Very nice, so well said. Yes, for Locke government is really secondary to protecting the individual rights of citizens and that is it.
OMG, what made you put those Lenin quotes in your article???? You almost gave me a heart attack, it made me think I was back in school, in one of my "political science" classes. Really, I might start thinking that microaggressions are a legit issue :-). Joke aside, that is EXACTLY how indoctrination worked in former communist countries, you are 100% right. Us kids, were were all "soldiers of the revolution", and papa Lenin's words were our Bible. The propaganda completely brainwashed me when I was little, and it took a long and very painful effort from me to get out of that. Looking back, it almost seems like that is another person, whose journey I imagined. Thank you for sounding the alarm, although I am pretty sure many people in academia think it's YOU who are the crazy one.
It is such a recipe for failure, setting these students up to be another generation of victims in a world that won't change for the few. I feel terrible for those students. Those are my "feelings".
But then how will Inoue justify his existence?
It's my (rather cynical) perception that we are currently living in a world that IS willing to change for the few.
And for a myriad of very pathological reasons.
I don't disagree, but the pendulum swings and there are enough of us with common sense to fight back against insanity. The media, however, is very good at creating perceptions that "everyone" thinks this way, but that truth doesn't play out in the streets. Hopefully, the next time someone gets the chance, this all gets squashed at whatever cost. Just my personal preference.
Sorry this is so delayed, Brandy.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. In my (MANY) years of experience, it seems the pendulum swings wildly from 'dangerous crazy' at one end to 'dangerous crazy' at the other. Rarely pausing very long at the 'common sense middle'.
I hope to be proven wrong on this issue, but not much evidence yet.
I certainly don't disagree. My fear is the same as yours. Unless the woke brigade is stopped soon, we won't land anywhere near the middle. The authoritarian right will absolutely swing into extremes. The normie's of the world have to unite in this one purpose. Push back against both extremists. I don't know if we will win, but we can try.
Here's how vapid Marxism is. If it is truly, as defined above, the continuing struggle by the exploited against the exploiters, it is a self-destroying system, as the result of that struggle is that the exploited and exploiters switch places and the cycle starts over in a diminished environment (which is a result of the battles between the two groups). Each time the switch occurs, it is in a more entropic environment, until it devolves to randomness, or chaos.
If that switch is not an expected outcome, that can only mean that the exploited are being used. Eventually, the exploited figure that out and rebel. (this is beginning in the US with disaffected Dems - especially minorities)
I think it's time we actually call this movement what it is: cultural Nazism. The race essentialist base of Inoue and others has much more in common with Nazism than it does Marxism. And lest we forget, redistribution of wealth and property along racial lines was one of Nazism's core tenants (and how often do you see calls to redistribute the wealth of, say Kanye West or LaBron James?). There was also a strong worker-based element within the North German Nazi party prior to Hitler's unification of the party in the late 1920s. The NSDAP also made strong inroads in the German university system, especially in programs like the then-new field of sociology and both law and history.
Allowing this race-based tripe to hide behind the cover of Marxism does no-one any favors, and lends them a level of credibility they frankly don't deserve.
This comment is sort of orthogonal to Erec's piece, but I wanted to point out something that I've been concerned about that his piece reminded me of. Erec uses the phrase "cultural Marxism" several times here. If someone wanted to find out more about cultural Marxism, or perhaps didn't know what it is in the first place, where would they likely go? My guess would be Wikipedia.
If you go to Wikipedia's "cultural Marxism" page you are automatically redirected to a page titled, "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", which describes a "far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory". There's a note at the beginning of the article in italics that says, "For 'cultural Marxism' in the context of social theory and cultural studies, see 'Marxist cultural analysis'." The "Marxist cultural analysis" page contains what is basically a description of what Marxists think is wrong about capitalism on a cultural level, with no space on the page for any criticism about these ideas.
Therefore, someone who doesn't know much about what Erec is talking about but would like to learn more could easily end up coming away from this believing that Erec is, fundamentally, being conspiratorial about what he believes Inoue's intentions are.
With Wikipedia in particular, it uses secondary sources as its foundation for what is true. Primary sources are allowed but secondary sources are much preferred. Wikipedia calls themselves a "tertiary source", to make this preference clear. The most common type of secondary source is a news article. This in itself isn't that bad but it becomes bad due to a few other factors:
1) The vast majority of journalists lean left. Since Wikipedia relies fundamentally on secondary sources, there will literally be more left-leaning secondary sources than right-leaning ones. This on its own can create a bias.
2) Not all news organizations are considered equally reliable as a source by Wikipedia. In my opinion, left-wing news sources are considered more reliable than right-wing news sources. This may be true, but even if it is true, the extent to which left-wing sources are thought to be completely reliable vs the extent to which right-wing sources are thought to be completely unreliable is troubling.
As a result, if you wanted to make the argument that "cultural Marxism" should not be labeled first and foremost as a conspiracy theory on Wikipedia, you'd have your work cut out for you. First off, there would be a lot more left-leaning articles available that say it's a conspiracy theory. Second, the articles available that say it has a totally legitimate, non-conspiratorial, use, will be both fewer in number and considered either less reliable or not at all reliable.
Even Erec's piece couldn't be used as an example of the non-conspiratorial use of the phrase "cultural Marxism" because FAIR wouldn't be considered as reliable by Wikipedia.
Anyway, I don't know what to about this, but I think it's a problem. So many people blindly believe whatever Wikipedia says nowadays.
If you point out that communism has repeatedly failed catastrophically the typical response from Marxists is that true Marxism has never been tried. If you read a biography of Lenin it is remarkable how committed he was to the goal of following Marxist ideology per se. I guess what is needed in future attempts at Marxism is a better class of dictators of the proletariat.
Eric, you can’t fight what’s happening without also fighting Marxism and communism. They’re not admirable in the slightest. This is partly why they’re dominating the universities. Would you ever say that you’re the arguing against a Fascist political beliefs, ‘just his fascist pedagogy?’ There is no successful fight if we don’t realize that these beliefs, political as well as how they pertain to teaching, are utterly corrupt and evil. Lest anyone misunderstand what I’m saying, I’m not talking about censorship to save democracy - I’ll leave that nonsense to leftists. But I am talking about the obvious link between a belief in Marxism and communism being as evil and destructive as a belief in fascism, regardless of whether they’re trying to use at a bases for teaching.
Let us remember that this Inoue character is not black but half white and half Japanese. I'm sure he is teaching his own 3/4 white and 1/4 Japanese kids how to write in perfectly good standard English because hey, why not try our dangerous theories on other people's children?
Marxism - the opium of intellectuals.
- Raymond Aron
My master's thesis was in essence a rebuttal of inoue. The politicization of college classes reflects the vanity of the professor, rather than exploring the views of the students. VanValkenburgh, 2021
Educating kids is the foundation of our democracy. Allowing teachings which don't support this foundation need to be looked at with a critical eye. IF you want to teach the Marxist/Communist agenda their are plenty of Countries who will welcome you, not this one. I want to thank Eric Smith for unpacking this article but as usual I quickly found it to be gobbledygook and could not continue reading it. (Something written in an overly complex, incoherent, or incomprehensible manner.) Not to criticize Mr. Smith but the subject matter. I find those who try to teach CRT have the same agenda. Making it so difficult to understand what they are talking about that nobody can rationalize it. This is the objective of these people, not to make it understandable just to criticize me for not understanding it. What I do is once it falls into the gobbledygook basket I move on and dismiss it.