Harry Potter star reveals politics :o. [Archive]

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 00:02

next time you see him sprawled all over a magazine/the tube/anywhere, remember, he wants to privitise your local post office! :ohmy:

Who gives a shit? Why are "public" capitalist bureaucracies better than "private" ones? Workers must seize control of the post office regardless of who owns it, and until that day, the post offices are tools of the bourgeois class, regardless of whether they're "privately" or "publicly" owned.

You do realize that the entire Harry Potter series is a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory, right?

What? Are you high? How is whiny liberal *****ing about Bush-Blair style Thathcerism "a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory"? Just because the characters speak Latin and hang out in boarding schools and like riding around in steam engines?

what was that shit bashing public education in the previous film?

So? Public schools are shit and should be bashed.

25th July 2009, 00:17

Daniel Radcliffe is just a prat. What did you expect, h0m0rev? :D

Also it's unsurprising given he starred in that Jerky Rowling's adaption anyways. It sucked when I was 12 years old, now it's just :X (the worst bit is I know some decent folks who actually read it!).

Lolshevik

25th July 2009, 00:30

Mildly disappointing.

I think this might ruin the movies for me now...

Andy Bowden

25th July 2009, 00:42

Harry Potter and the European Union Privatisation of Postal Services Directive #33426.

Not as catchy as his earlier books really?

NecroCommie

25th July 2009, 00:48

He appears so insecure even in the films that I am not exactly surprised that he is afraid to be "different". Otherwise seems like a nice bloke so he might be a leftie in a social vacuum. But then again this is just my personal hunch.

Personally I am a huge Harry Potter fan, and am actually reading the last book right now. Gotta love Rowling and her storytelling. R.A. Salvatore and Drizzt beat Harry 10 to 1 though.

So? Public schools are shit and should be bashed.
You honestly want to start a fight over this subject, eh?

You do realize that the entire Harry Potter series is a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory, right?
Where as I would not be at all surprised of this, I demand more proof. Many fantasy novels "glamourise" details of old feudal and imperial culture, but this mostly has something to do with aesthetics and mood alone.

Also, this subject was somewhat discussed in the "arcane group of revolutionary wizards" :D

Dr Mindbender

25th July 2009, 00:49

I have to say a resounding 'meh' tbh.

An A-list movie celeb enjoying the hollywood shangrilla of privilege and excess, completely alienated from the realities of working class life being warmly receptive to the capitalist status quo, who'd have thunk it?

I was half expecting this thread to say that he was a BNP supporter, that would have been more shocking, worrying and surprising.

OneNamedNameLess

25th July 2009, 00:57

You do realize that the entire Harry Potter series is a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory, right?

And what was that shit bashing public education in the previous film?

Really? And how is this represented in the films and books? Just curious. I'm struggling to see it.

Pirate Utopian

25th July 2009, 00:58

Atleast he doesnt discriminate... it's something.

Not that I care about Harry Potter (only saw the first 2 movies but I was way younger back then) but I always thought it was about racism.
Voldemort and his muggle and halfblood killing followers were like Hitler and the Nazi's.
Muggles were like non-whites.
Making Slytherin like (mainstream) right-wing anti-immigrant people.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 00:58

You honestly want to start a fight over this subject, eh?

Yes, the one thing I cannot abide is alleged radicals bemoaning right-wing attacks on "public" capitalist bureaucracies. How is a public school any better than a police station?

NecroCommie

25th July 2009, 01:07

Yes, the one thing I cannot abide is alleged radicals bemoaning right-wing attacks on "public" capitalist bureaucracies. How is a public school any better than a police station?
So you did start a fight... :rolleyes:
Try making a society or a revolution without any education. If you have alternative ways of providing quality education during monetary system I am all ears.

NecroCommie

25th July 2009, 01:10

... but I always thought it was about racism.
Voldemort and his muggle and halfblood killing followers were like Hitler and the Nazi's.
Muggles were like non-whites.
Making Slytherin like (mainstream) right-wing anti-immigrant people.
Yes I did notice this too... The unfortunate thing is that this is not the most obvious reference to real life politics in fiction.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 01:19

So you did start a fight... :rolleyes:
Try making a society or a revolution without any education.

And the reason we need education is because the masses have been miseducated by, amongst other things, public schools.

How is being taught capitalist lies necessary for an education? Or for that matter, a revolution?

If you have alternative ways of providing quality education during monetary system I am all ears.I am a communist and am thus entirely uninterested in coming up with solutions within the monetary system.

If you honestly think the "education" given by the public school system is of some sort of good quality, you have a bizarre idea of quality.

khad

25th July 2009, 01:24

Where as I would not be at all surprised of this, I demand more proof. Many fantasy novels "glamourise" details of old feudal and imperial culture, but this mostly has something to do with aesthetics and mood alone.

Also, this subject was somewhat discussed in the "arcane group of revolutionary wizards" :D
J.K. Rowling is a member of the British Weights and Measures Association, a group of conservatives and reactionaries who describe the SI (metric) system as a politically existential attack on Britishness.

'Nuff said.

Charles Xavier

25th July 2009, 01:27

And the reason we need education is because the masses have been miseducated by, amongst other things, public schools.

How is being taught capitalist lies necessary for an education? Or for that matter, a revolution?

I am a communist and am thus entirely uninterested in coming up with solutions within the monetary system.

If you honestly think the "education" given by the public school system is of some sort of good quality, you have a bizarre idea of quality.

Your right! I was taught Capitalist Math, Science and English!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DEMAND SOCIALIST CHEMISTRY CLASSES AND ANARCHIST MECHANIC CLASSES!

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 01:28

J.K. Rowling is a member of the British Weights and Measures Association, a group of conservatives and reactionaries who describe the SI (metric) system as a politically existential attack on Britishness.

'Nuff said.

Talk about a leap of logic.

PS: Fuck the metric system.

khad

25th July 2009, 01:33

Talk about a leap of logic.

PS: Fuck the metric system.
Talk about ignorant. One of the patrons of the BWMA is Sir Patrick Moore, who used to be the chairman of this little xenophobic outfit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Country_Party

Or this fellow, John Monson, Baron of Monson, who heads this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Individual_Freedom

"The Society for Individual Freedom (SIF) is a United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)-based association of libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism), free-market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market) conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) and others promoting individual freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_freedom)."

25th July 2009, 01:36

Right, I was initially confused by the notion "public schools" (in the UK that means private schools, yeah don't ask me the whole thing makes no sense, we call real public schools comprehensives).

khad

25th July 2009, 01:37

Right, I was initially confused by the notion "public schools" (in the UK that means private schools, yeah don't ask me the whole thing makes no sense, we call real public schools comprehensives).
Yes, but Agrippa is an American.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 01:39

Math

Rather than focusing on a theoretically holistic and abstract approach to math, the capitalist education system just forces children to memorize meaningless statistics to prepare them for their future lives as white-collar workers.

How does forcing young children to learn math by rote going to encourage a passion for math? It will just make them hate it, as most of them do. How many graduates of highschool math class go on to be algebrists?

Science

Again, the "science" taught by capitalist education is entrenched in narrow-minded capitalist bigotry, and is usually taught in a way that has no practical application to the real world. Again, it's just a way to get kids used to sitting in uncomfortable chairs, inside an ugly office room, under florescent lights, etc. for their future adult lives as white-collar workers. How does that prepare anyone to be a revolutionary?

English!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So children should be forced to read whatever some random state-bureaucrat decides is part of the English literary canon? How is that going to impart on them a love of reading?

And of course the interpretations of the literature will all be rooted in bourgeois ideology.

Unless you're referring to learning basic English. Public education is one of the worst ways to learn a language. There are so many Americans who can only speak the level of French you'd expect from a French kindergartner with Down's Syndrome. Why? Because they learned French from the public education system.

You left out, of course, history, Mr. Amaru. I wonder what capitalist public education curricula has to say about your namesake? They'd probably say he was a cannibalistic savage who stood in the way of technological progress.

In short, they schools can't teach us shit. My people need freedom.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 01:43

You do realize that the entire Harry Potter series is a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory, right?

And what was that shit bashing public education in the previous film?

Funny enough, I had the same reaction to Harry Potter initially.

I'm not really surprised at Radcliffe's political orientation. I would have been mroe surprised if he'd come out for the left in any way.

khad

25th July 2009, 01:44

So children should be forced to read whatever some random state-bureaucrat decides is part of the English literary canon? How is that going to impart on them a love of reading?

And of course the interpretations of the literature will all be rooted in bourgeois ideology.

Unless you're referring to learning basic English. Public education is one of the worst ways to learn a language. There are so many Americans who can only speak the level of French you'd expect from a French kindergartner with Down's Syndrome. Why? Because they learned French from the public education system.

You left out, of course, history, Mr. Amaru. I wonder what capitalist public education curricula has to say about your namesake? They'd probably say he was a cannibalistic savage who stood in the way of technological progress.

In short, they schools can't teach us shit. My people need freedom.
Let me guess. You're against teachers' unions too because they're also money-grubbing pawns of the capitalist bureaucracy, right? :rolleyes:

Funny enough, I had the same reaction to Harry Potter initially.

I'm not really surprised at Radcliffe's political orientation. I would have been mroe surprised if he'd come out for the left in any way.

Of all the educational institutions Rowling could have chosen, she chose to glorify Eton, the traditional home of the British elite. Oh well, to be expected from someone who shares the opinions of the arch-conservatives of British politics.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 01:47

Talk about ignorant. One of the patrons of the BWMA is Sir Patrick Moore, who used to be the chairman of this little xenophobic outfit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Country_Party

Or this fellow, John Monson, Baron of Monson, who heads this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Individual_Freedom

"The Society for Individual Freedom (SIF) is a United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)-based association of libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian), classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism), free-market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market) conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) and others promoting individual freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_freedom)."

So? Has Rowling endorsed any of Mr. Moore or Mr. Monson's stances on any political issue, other than that of standards of weights and measures?

I fucking hate Harry Potter and Mrs. Rowling, the rich talentless asshole who never has to work a day in her life for writing these shitty books. But you're displaying typical Stalinist logic. J.K. Rowling belongs to some political association involved in some entirely minor, irrelevant, benign, hobby-horse political cause (such as what the capitalist state uses as its standard system of weighing and measuring. Does it really fucking matter from either a capitalist or a revolutionary perspective?) that also has several members who are right-wing classical liberal / free-market assholes. Therefore her books are "a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory".

Have you even read her books? Can you supply a quote from her books that would suggest this is a legitimate interpretation? I think it's fairly obvious that her books are a generic (and quite transparent) libeal / multiculturalist criticism of racial intolerance and right-wing "abuse of power". Yet you insist she's a "reactionary" because of her opinion of the metric system. Is your capacity for critical thinking that stunted? What if I wrote a cheesy liberal book and I happened to belong to the NRA, would that make my books "reactionary" too?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

25th July 2009, 01:50

What? Are you high? How is whiny liberal *****ing about Bush-Blair style Thathcerism "a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory"? Just because the characters speak Latin and hang out in boarding schools and like riding around in steam engines?

There is nothing wrong with riding around in steam engines.

So? Public schools are shit and should be bashed.

Amen.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 01:54

Let me guess. You're against teachers' unions too because they're also money-grubbing pawns of the capitalist bureaucracy, right? :rolleyes:

No. Teachers are workers. How am I insulting teachers by opposing the class-enemy (a.k.a. the school administrators, etc.) of the teachers and other school workers? Who do you think the teachers unions end up fighting in any serious labor conflict?

That's like saying I think the people trying to unionize Wal-Mart are "money-grubbing pawns" because I refer to Wal-Mart as a "capitalist bureaucracy"

I mean, teachers' unions suck, but no more so than any other capitalist, reformist, mediationist unions. ;)

Yes, but Agrippa is an American.Ain't never been American. :D

In all seriousness, public education in the US is a gulag that oppresses both children and teachers. It's no different in any other country although the US is an extreme example. No communist shouuld support the education system any more so than they should support the prison system because "the same people who control the educucational system control the prison system".

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 01:58

Of all the educational institutions Rowling could have chosen, she chose to glorify Eton, the traditional home of the British elite. Oh well, to be expected from someone who shares the opinions of the arch-conservatives of British politics.

When those books came out, I remember everyone saying they were great, and to read them. I finally borrowed my younger brother's copy and after reading it, I said I didn't want to see anymore because the positive portrayal of boarding schools, which I thought was obvious nostalgia for when Britain was a powerful empire. :lol: You're the first I've met to say the same thing.

Charles Xavier

25th July 2009, 01:58

khad

25th July 2009, 02:01

When those books came out, I remember everyone saying they were great, and to read them. I finally borrowed my younger brother's copy and after reading it, I said I didn't want to see anymore because the positive portrayal of boarding schools, which I thought was obvious nostalgia for when Britain was a powerful empire. :lol: You're the first I've met to say the same thing.
Ha, if there are two, there are bound to be more. IIRC, there was a review that called the books out on that same premise.

:che:

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:03

khad

25th July 2009, 02:05

I have no idea what public schools are like in Britain, but I would imagine they aren't very different from public schools in the US: little factories designed to turn out loyal capitalist-loving drones or, in the case of the "gifted" students, the next generation of capitalists. They determine the "worth" of each child through standardized tests that measure ones ability to spit back every theory the testmakers want forced down your throats, the teachers go along with it because their "worth" is determined by their students' performance on these tests.

I'm not saying private schools are any better. At least in the South, they're little more than places ultra-conservatives send their kids to keep them out of the "leftist" public school system. I'm just saying that we shouldn't glorify the public school system that exists under capitalism, because frankly, it's probably the biggest obstacle to revolutionary change that exists--at least in America.
In my experience, having lived and gone to school in the American South, the kids are even more reactionary than the teachers. If you want to bash public education, you might as well line up the kids' parents against a wall and pull the trigger, because that's where the real hardcore programming starts.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 02:07

My school taught me a fairly balance education. We read John Reed's books, Shakespeare's plays, and whatnot which was to bring up both our literary knowledge and reading comprehension. I learned Chemistry, biology, mechanics, history which was fairly eurocentric I admit and pro-capitalist, Politics class which taught apathy rather than engagement.

Public Education is something I am glad I received, I learned many skills I used later on in life. I follow this Arabic Proverb, Seek Education even if it means going to China. And I would recommend going to China in a airplane powered by coal and aerosol cans.

If you had recieved the same education during your time in jail, (as many people do) would you be praising jail?

The capitalist primary education system does not give children a balanced education. In public school, did you learn to tie rope-knots, stitch clothes, bandage wounds, fire a gun, fight with a knife or sword, treat diseases with medical herbs, make love, ride a horse, sail, navigate by stars, grow food, find water in the wilderness, identify edible plants in the wild, start a fire without matches, use a loom, forge useful objects out of stone, wood, metal, glass etc. or any of the hundreds of other skills needed for a revolution?

At the same time, did you need public education to learn chemistry, mechanics, Shakespeare, etc.? Especially when you can check books out on all these subjects at the library for free. I say if a youth is serious about being a mechanic, she should drop out of public school and become an apprentice.

No communist should go to public school. It is a significant waste of time that could otherwise be put towards accomplishing political or personal goals, or at the every least enjoying life. You don't need to "go to China" to receive the education you get in public school. And revolutionaries should not support the existing capitalist educational infrastructure because it "educates" people. Rather, we should be trying to create our own channels of education. Because it behooves us in no way to have millions of people taught political apathy" and eurocentric history. (Noice how you brush over that as if it's no big deal, when in fact it is cruicial to the perpetuation of capitalist society)

The education system is the enemy and we must mobilize against it.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:10

In my experience, having lived and gone to school in the American South, the kids are even more reactionary than the teachers. If you want to bash public education, you might as well line up the kids' parents against a wall and pull the trigger, because that's where the real hardcore programming starts.

Ah, but who programmed the parents?

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 02:13

you might as well line up the kids' parents against a wall and pull the trigger

Spoken like a true Stalinist.

Good to know that you Marxist-Leninists support the capitalist state's "right" to force "authoritarian" and "reactionary" parents to send their kids to public school, and take their kids away from them and place them in a "foster care" gulag if the parents misbehave. (Nothing like punishing a kid for her parents' behavior by forcing her out of her home and family and into an uncaring procrustean bureacracy)behavior)

There are just as many asshole teachers as there are asshole parents.

Teachers, like cops, are given positions of authority by the capitalist system, and can use those positions of authority to harass, oppress, marginalize, and dehumanize those they rule over, in order to deal with their own stresses they've accumulated due to life under capitalism. Teachers are also unlike cops in many important ways, but that doesn't change the fact that forcing children to wallow away in a capitalist bureaucracy in no way solves the problem of their "reactionary" parents.

How is piling the school-system's Social Democratic indoctrination ontop of the parents' reactionary indoctrination contribute in any way towards education as communists would envision? We need to create an alternative to both

(also, not all teachers are Leftists or liberals. That's just a stupid positive stereotype. Many are reactionary assholes)

khad

25th July 2009, 02:13

Ah, but who programmed the parents?
Their parents and so forth. Play this chicken and egg game back far enough, and you'll arrive at a generation that didn't attend public schools.

Spoken like a true Stalinist.

Good to know that you Marxist-Leninists support the capitalist state's "right" to force "authoritarian" and "reactionary" parents to send their kids to public school, and take their kids away from them and place them in a "foster care" gulag if the parents misbehave. (Nothing like punishing a kid for her parents' behavior by forcing her out of her home and family and into an uncaring procrustean bureacracy)behavior)

Get over yourself. I said that in facetiousness. Only someone like you would take it seriously.

(also, not all teachers are Leftists or liberals. That's just a stupid positive stereotype. Many are reactionary assholes)
I went to high school in the American south. I knew many reactionary teachers. The student body, however, was more reactionary.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:19

I went to high school in the American south. I knew many reactionary teachers. The student body, however, was more reactionary.

Interesting. I also went to high school in the South, and I must say, the teachers (with one or two exceptions, who were marginalized for their dissent) were far more reactionary than the student body, about a two-fifths of which I would describe as liberal or leftist. I suppose it depends on the school.

khad

25th July 2009, 02:20

Interesting. I also went to high school in the South, and I must say, the teachers (with one or two exceptions, who were marginalized for their dissent) were far more reactionary than the student body, about a two-fifths of which I would describe as liberal or leftist. I suppose it depends on the school.
How far South? I was in Georgia.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:24

How far South? I was in Georgia.

Just south of Atlanta (which, admittedly, is a somewhat less reactionary region than other parts of Georgia).

khad

25th July 2009, 02:28

Just south of Atlanta (which, admittedly, is a somewhat less reactionary region than other parts of Georgia).
Aah, you might have lived in a more urbanized place. I was in the metro region, but in a more upper middle class area, one of those places which fight tooth and nail any plan to expand public transportation for fear of black folks. I was one of the poor kids in my school.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 02:28

Their parents and so forth. Play this chicken and egg game back far enough, and you'll arrive at a generation that didn't attend public schools.

That's your argument?

Hey, guess what?

"Play this chicken and egg game back far enough, and you'll arrive at a generation that didn't" participate in mass-communication. Therefore the capitalist press, television news, etc. has no negative effect on the socio-political consciousness of the masses.

Hey, guess what?

"Play this chicken and egg game back far enough, and you'll arrive at a generation that didn't" live under the class-dynamics of capitalism. Therefore all these people who ***** about the negative effects of capitalism should just shut up. They should really just blame their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmothers. :rolleyes:

Perfect pot-head logic.

I said that in facetiousness.But it revealed your more-than-facetious belief that state hegemony has a right to infringe in parental autonomy.

And your comments that students, as a class, are "more reactionary" than teachers, were not facetious. They were serious. Regardless of who is more "reactionary", the teachers, administrators, etc. are the ones with the power in the situation, and the children are the ones that are powerless. The children are the ones who have no say over how they spend there time, where they go during the day, what their daily environment looks like, who they spend most of their time with, etc. The teachers and administrators are the ones who have the power to punish and remediate the children if they resist assimilation and indoctrination.

Regardless of who, in your experience, is "more reactionary", materialist analysis shows that children are oppressed by the educational system. We should therefore support all youths who drop out of compulsory education, and provide as much material solidarity for these people as possible. We should also be part of the "home-schooling" movement and champion for parents who stand up to the educational system, regardless of how "reactionary" those parents are. We should also recognize that, for example, if youths burnt down their school-building, on a weekend, when no one was inside, this would be equivilant to an attack on a police station, a jail, an army recruitment center, a munitions factory, or any other institution that perpetuates capitalism. We would have to respect it as an understandable, spontanious, grass-roots outlash against capitalist alienation and oppression, and we would be obligated to give the youths legal/prisoner support. And of course, since the school administrators are capitalists and the teachers exploited workers, we must support the workplace struggle of the teachers, which does not necessitate collaboration with mediationist unions.

I went to high school in the American south. I knew many reactionary teachers. The student body, however, was more reactionary.So? It doesn't matter. I support prison riots even if many of the prisoners are "reactionary". You're obviously letting your elitist, classist grievances with your fellow students stand in the way of denouncing your material oppressors, the school administrators.

Edit: I also am from the South and I find your comments about how "urbanized" areas of the South have intrinsically more "progressive", less "reactionary" and "racist" populations, to be highly bigoted and self-loathing.

Charles Xavier

25th July 2009, 02:30

I think Education should be compulsory up until age 22 and free and public. 18 you get to graduate from High School and from there on you specialize for your career.

khad

25th July 2009, 02:33

So? It doesn't matter. I support prison riots even if many of the prisoners are "reactionary". You're obviously letting your elitist, classist grievances with your fellow students stand in the way of denouncing your material oppressors, the school administrators.
Shut the fuck up, asshole. Why don't you side with the upper middle class white twats at my former high school, all of whom were richer than I was, and many of whom were much more privileged than their teachers will ever be?

You can get started shouting down other schools for being "ghetto" from the back of some jock's pickup.

Your assheadedness in this thread illustrates the absurdity and intellectual vacuousness of your anarkiddie worldview.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 02:34

I think Education should be compulsory up until age 22 and free and public. 18 you get to graduate from High School and from there on you specialize for your career.

You should be restricted to OI for endorsing capitalist oppression.

Then again, were I the autocrat of RevLeft, I would have the entire Stalinist faction deported to OI for refusing to support the class struggle as it develops organically in countries that claim to be "socialist" or "communist". (Iran, Turkestan, Tibet, Venezuela, etc.) But that's neither here nor there.

Then again, what is here or there in a thread *****ing about the political beliefs of the freakazoid who plays Harry Potter in the shitty film adaptations

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:35

Aah, you might have lived in a more urbanized place. I was in the metro region, but in a more upper middle class area, one of those places which fight tooth and nail any plan to expand public transportation for fear of black folks. I was one of the poor kids in my school.

It was relatively urbanized (urbaniz-ing, more like), and whites only slightly outnumbered blacks. Also, I only recently graduated (last year, in fact), so cultural generation gaps might play some role. The anti-communist hysteria of the past few generations has started to die down some; in fact, there were three self-described anarchists (who weren't punks) at my school and one self-described Marxist. None of us were ever attacked for being "reds".

khad

25th July 2009, 02:36

You should be restricted to OI for endorsing capitalist oppression.

Then again, were I the autocrat of RevLeft, I would have the entire Stalinist faction deported to OI for refusing to support the class struggle as it develops organically in countries that claim to be "socialist" or "communist". (Iran, Turkestan, Tibet, Venezuela, etc.) But that's neither here nor there.

Then again, what is here or there in a thread *****ing about the political beliefs of the freakazoid who plays Harry Potter in the shitty film adaptations
Hey, you're the one who supports upper middle class elitist pricks in their "student rebellion" against "oppressive" school administrators. No one takes your opinion seriously.

It was relatively urbanized (urbaniz-ing, more like), and whites only slightly outnumbered blacks. Also, I only recently graduated (last year, in fact), so cultural generation gaps might play some role. The anti-communist hysteria of the past few generations has started to die down some; in fact, there were three self-described anarchists (who weren't punks) at my school and one self-described Marxist. None of us were ever attacked for being "reds".

Out of 3000+ students, there were perhaps 50 or 60 black people, maybe 100 other latino/asian/etc. The rest were white and fairly well off. Any claim that these privileged people are oppressed is beyond laughable.

Bright Banana Beard

25th July 2009, 02:38

school is good, it will be running by revolutionary teacher and professors union. I learned a lot of thing and I think it should be compulsory. Don't cry about being free.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:40

I think Education should be compulsory up until age 22 and free and public.

Free and public? Hell yes. Compulsory? Hell no.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 02:42

Why don't you side with the upper middle class white twats at my former high school, all of whom were richer than I was

ah, so you base your premise that all students are more reactionary than their teachers (and should therefore recognize their teachers as a source of legitimate authority and education) based on your personal experiences with a student-body that is wealthier and more socio-economically priviliged than 95% of the human race. You're also letting this highly unique personal experience (the vast majority of poor people, unlike yourself, do not have the [dis]pleasure of attending a public school for rich kids. Needless to say, regardless of how poor you are, you went to a good school, which likely explains your irrational belief that public education under capitalism is of high quality, that the teachers are "progressive", etc. Of course they're going to give the rich kids the best facilities, the, best, most committed, most understanding teachers, etc) pervert your understanding of youth struggle within the context of anti-capitalism

This just cements my accusations of your judgmental classism.

I hate to break it to you, but in the majority of schools, the teachers are more financially well-off than the students. Also, you seem to confuse "reactionary" with "wealthy" or "preppy" which further illustrates your vulgar Marxist misunderstanding of capitalist class-dynamics.

and many of whom were much more privileged than their teachers will ever be?

And you honestly believe this to be true of all students? You're assuming your highly priviliged and unique educational experience applies to everyone? How chauvinistic can you get?

You can get started shouting down other schools for being "ghetto" from the back of some jock's pickup.

I guess the kids at those "ghetto" schools love their teachers and the mandatory "education" they are recieving courtesy of Uncle Sam. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Your assheadedness in this thread illustrates the absurdity and intellectual vacuousness of your anarkiddie worldview.

And your behavior, and the behavior of your comrades, illustrates that you do not oppose capitalism in any real, practical, or valuable sense. Then again, this is illustrated by your support for regimes such as the Soviet Union, the PRC, the DPRK, Cuba, etc.

"anarkiddie" = anyone mature enough to actually challenge the social basis of bourgeois class-rule.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 02:42

Free and public? Hell yes. Compulsory? Hell no.

this is where being so far on the left puts you on the right...

without compulsory education, there is no education for most workers. I myself didn't finish school so I could go earn money for my family. that would be the lot of all working class children if school wasn't compulsory.

It's an example of the state carrying out a progressive task for us :)

khad

25th July 2009, 02:45

I hate to break it to you, but in the majority of schools, the teachers are more financially well-off than the students. Also, you seem to confuse "reactionary" with "wealthy" or "preppy" which further illustrates your vulgar Marxist misunderstanding of capitalist class-dynamics.
I'm afraid that you're being a bourgeois idiot. Are you just saying this to rationalize away your class privilege?

"anarkiddie" = anyone mature enough to actually challenge the social basis of bourgeois class-rule.
More like someone who likes doing the work of reactionaries for them.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 02:47

Hey, you're the one who supports upper middle class elitist pricks in their "student rebellion" against "oppressive" school administrators.

Do you honestly think that all students, on even a global scale, are "upper middle class elitist pricks"? Just based on your experiences with one school?

Notice how the people who actually went to ethnically diverse, working-class schools, (such as Richard Williams) with a student body that more accurately represents the masses, are the ones denouncing the educational system? Your experience with the educational experience is unique. In many ways you were very lucky.

It's almost as if you got sent to some white-collar, minimum-security prison, and came back and was like "yeah, prisoners are all a bunch of preppy, spoiled, upper-middle class elitists. Prison guards, on the other hand, they're just regular Joe Six-Packs!"

No one takes your opinion seriously.Two or three other people have already commented in support of my opinion. So, you're wrong. The only people who don't take my opinion seriously are the Stalinists such as yourself who want to prolong capitalist domination.

Out of 3000+ students, there were perhaps 50 or 60 black people, maybe 100 other latino/asian/etc. The rest were white and fairly well off. Any claim that these privileged people are oppressed is beyond laughable.

I guess the black, latino, and asian kids weren't opressed by the school-system either...

Revy

25th July 2009, 02:48

You do realize that the entire Harry Potter series is a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory, right?

And what was that shit bashing public education in the previous film?

Have you read the books? I've read all of them. It's not about Britain at all. It takes place in Britain but there is no "OMG British " theme. Also, it takes place in the 1990's. Hardly "old Britain in its imperial glory".

khad

25th July 2009, 02:50

I guess the black, latino, and asian kids weren't opressed by the school-system either...
Nope, I almost kicked this one filipino kid's ass for flashing his rolex and refusing to shut his mouth about his designer clothes. It's a quite well-off district.

Of course, this is just "Stalinist thuggery" to you. The bourgeois must enjoy their individual freedoms too.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 02:52

this is where being so far on the left puts you on the right...

without compulsory education, there is no education for most workers. I myself didn't finish school so I could go earn money for my family. that would be the lot of all working class children if school wasn't compulsory.

It's an example of the state carrying out a progressive task for us :)

This is a valid point in favor of compulsory education in a capitalist society (not in an anarchist or communist society), but I don't think it outweighs the negative effects brought on by the highly regimented, highly pro-capitalist atmosphere of most of our schools. "Education for workers" means nothing when that education teaches them that their working-class status makes them intellectually inferior to their capitalist masters. It just serves as a justification for exploitation.

And besides, you just said you didn't finish school. You turned out alright, didn't you? You're a revolutionary leftist now, after all!

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 03:03

I'm afraid that you're being a bourgeois idiot.

Ah, as usual, once a member of your faction is argued into a corner, you resort to infantile namecalling, "bourgeois" being your favorite insult to mindlessly throw around

Are you just saying this to rationalize away your class privilege?

Haha, I pointed out how, (going off of autobiographical information you willingly, and foolishly, provided on a public Internet forum) despite being one of the poorer students in your school, your experience is completely different than that of the majority of the human race. You then, as a knee-jerk defense, decided to randomly declare I have "class privilige". Considering I, unlike you, am not foolish enough to provide auto-biographical information on public Internet forums, have not disclosed my material circumstances, you would have no accurate way of guessing my "class privilige". Unless you borrowed Harry Potter's crystal ball! :lol::lol:

If all you have to contribute to the debate is mindless ad hominem, I'll declare myself the champion once again and move on. It was good verbally thrashing y'all once again, just like I did in the Tibet thread.

More like someone who likes doing the work of reactionaries for them.

I also agree with reactionaries in opposing the state's desire to sieze weapons from individuals, in opposing the state's desire to kick farmers off their property using eminant domain for the cnstruction of capitalist mega-projects such as I-69, etc.

You and your WWP/PSL friends sure do love doing the liberals' work for them in regards to your involvement in the anti-war/anti-globalization/immigrant justice movements.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 03:07

It's a quite well-off district.

So once again, how do your experiences in any way relate to the experiences of an average student? (Either in the US or globally) Do you honestly believe every school to be like the one you went to? How can you still claim that I am the one whose argument reeks of "class privilege"?

Do you still honestly maintain that all or most students are more reactionary and wealthy than their teachers, based on your unique experiences going to school in a "quite well-off district", an experience the vast majority of the human race will never have the (dubious) privilege of "enjoying"?

How can you still, after all this, insist that your experience with the public school system should somehow serve as a mold and a ruler for approaching the question of youth struggle/youth liberation as it relates to anti-capitalist existence and the modes of education (or more accurately indocrunatiing) imposed by capitalsm?

The bourgeois must enjoy their individual freedoms too.Ah, so in addition to ad hominems, you are now resorting to strawmen. Such an obvious failure in Internet sociology this debate has been. Good night.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 03:30

Before I retire, (tripple-post, i know) I'd like to share some of my experiences with the public education system.

my 3rd grade teacher docked 25 points off an essay I wrote because I wrote it "on the wrong side of the paper".
my 2nd grade teacher used to spend the whole school-day yelling at the top of her lungs at her entire class. Other teachers would find the noise disturbing, and would walk over and close our classroom door. (Without interrupting her verbal assault, of course)
the same teacher also once told me that I should be quiet because I was going to "confuse the other kids" when I pointed out there were other political parties in the US besides the Republicans and Democrats.
the same teacher once insisted that fish were not members of the animal kingdom, and yelled at me when I corrected her, refusing to admit she was wrong.
My 4th grade teacher forced us all to color a Xeroxed, black-and-white illustration of a cardinal, the state-bird of Virginia, red, as part of a "civic education". I was reprimanded for using "Razzamataz" a Crayola crayon color that was a sparkly, pinkish red-variant, even though it was the only red crayon in my personal posession. (Since I didn't think I needed crayons to learn about civics)
the same teacher once "educated" us on Buddhism: "they worship a god who is a fat Asian man"
the same teacher ordered everyone in the class to put down "Caucasian (Not Hispanic)" on a standardized test even though there was an Indian child in the class. The teacher then became angry when multiple students corrected her
my 1st grade teacher believed that there were no detrimental physiological or psychological effects from children being allowed to consume obscene amounts of cheap candy, and her pedagogic practice reflected such philosophy. As someone with a vata dosha constitution, this very negatively effected my psychological disposisson and set me on a course of stimulant addiction.

Needless to say that, although I went to a very poor school district, my experiences as a white student and as a student who got good grades paled in comparison to the exploitation, degredation, and humiliation that my peers received on a daily basis.

Fuck school.

Edit: Also, in the state of Virginia, there is something called "D.A.R.E.", in which the educational system teams up with the law enforcement apparatus to brainwash children to "resist" drugs and violence. (obviously not the state voilence committed by the law enforcement apparatus, or the drugs given to me by my 1st grade teacher) This means that on any given day there would be a fully-armed, off-duty police officer hanging out in the cafeteria. Other students thought it was cool, I just found it scary.

So, yeah, fuck school.

More Fire for the People

25th July 2009, 03:40

I knew the peak of Harry Potter was Book 5 and book 6 a pitiful low but I didn't know it would be true for the cast of the hp films as well.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 03:44

Before I retire, (tripple-post, i know) I'd like to share some of my experiences with the public education system.

my 3rd grade teacher docked 25 points off an essay I wrote because I wrote it "on the wrong side of the paper".
my 2nd grade teacher used to spend the whole school-day yelling at the top of her lungs at her entire class. Other teachers would find the noise disturbing, and would walk over and close our classroom door. (Without interrupting her verbal assault, of course)
the same teacher also once told me that I should be quiet because I was going to "confuse the other kids" when I pointed out there were other political parties in the US besides the Republicans and Democrats.
the same teacher once insisted that fish were not members of the animal kingdom, and yelled at me when I corrected her, refusing to admit she was wrong.
My 4th grade teacher forced us all to color a Xeroxed, black-and-white illustration of a cardinal, the state-bird of Virginia, red, as part of a "civic education". I was reprimanded for using "Razzamataz" a Crayola crayon color that was a sparkly, pinkish red-variant, even though it was the only red crayon in my personal posession. (Since I didn't think I needed crayons to learn about civics)
the same teacher once "educated" us on Buddhism: "they worship a god who is a fat Asian man"
the same teacher ordered everyone in the class to put down "Caucasian (Not Hispanic)" on a standardized test even though there was an Indian child in the class. The teacher then became angry when multiple students corrected her
my 1st grade teacher believed that there were no detrimental physiological or psychological effects from children being allowed to consume obscene amounts of cheap candy, and her pedagogic practice reflected such philosophy. As someone with a vata dosha constitution, this very negatively effected my psychological disposisson and set me on a course of stimulant addiction.

Needless to say that, although I went to a very poor school district, my experiences as a white student and as a student who got good grades paled in comparison to the exploitation, degredation, and humiliation that my peers received on a daily basis.

Fuck school.

Would you have preferred to have been sent to work in a sweatshop at a young age? You're quite lucky compared to the children in many other countries.

For the record, I have never said, nor have I seen it suggested by others in this discussion that school is not repressive or in some ways reactionary (for a much better critique than has been presetned here, see Padraig Pearse's The Murder Machine). But as Marxists, we do not analyse compulsory education on its own, but its relation to other social forces.

Compulsory education was fought for by the workers movement. It was a tremendous step forward where it was introduced. It also represents the maturation of a contradiction in capitalism, that modern society requires more education for social production.

khad

25th July 2009, 03:46

More Fire for the People

25th July 2009, 03:57

People are forgetting that the school is a place of class struggle and that they are ignoring the agency of the student and the agency of the teacher. A class war of ideas is taking place in your classroom. Like society at large, bourgeois values are passed as the norm but as human agents we interpret these values and either accept or reject them. So even if schools are a bourgeois institution, it is no different than the factory, in that class consciousness and class struggle still plays a role.

gorillafuck

25th July 2009, 04:00

Did you write that with black eyeliner?
How about you shut the fuck up?

khad

25th July 2009, 04:04

How about you shut the fuck up?
Oh look, another kid who squeals about "fascist" oppression from school administrators.

None of those sob stories impresses me in the least. Reminds me of why I outgrew my anarchist phase.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 04:06

Would you have preferred to have been sent to work in a sweatshop at a young age? You're quite lucky compared to the children in many other countries.

Yeah, tell me about it, some of those kids even have to spend eight hours a day at the sweatshop and eight hours a day at school.

Wait, now that I think of it, some of my friends who are high-school students in the US do the exact same fucking thing.

(By the way, I'm not a third worldist moralist, so the "think of the people in other countries" line doesn't work on me. Kids in Africa by don't get their bellies filled by me finishing the rest of my sandwich, and kids in Southeast Asia don't get liberated from sweatshops by me staying in school. They get liberated from these things by overthrowing capitalism, something you and your friends seem to forget about at every corner.)

But as Marxists, we do not analyse compulsory education on its own, but its relation to other social forces.

I didn't suggest that compulsory education could be understood outside of its relationship to other social forces.

However, to me, the war between the liberal educational establishment and capitalist opponents of public education (the Christian right, institutes of private education, etc.) is a gun-battle between the foreman and the boss. That's the only thing that set you and your friends off, the idea that workers need not side with the foreman.

But then again, that's what the statist left has always done - begged us to side with the foreman; with the administrators and teachers' unions in the educational struggle, with the bureaucratic middle-managing "unions" in the factory struggle, with the Islamists in Iraq and Palestine, with Milosovic in the Balkans, with the engineers and technicians in the ecological crisis, with the "opposition party" parliamentary representatives, and so forth...

Compulsory education was fought for by the workers movement.

Yes and workers also fought in the US for alcohol prohibition.

It was a tremendous step forward where it was introduced.

Yes, that whole era of history was a tremendous step forward, for the capitalists

Where would the capitalists be without the New Deal, labor laws, Social Security, the AFL-CIO, etc.?

It also represents the maturation of a contradiction in capitalism, that modern society requires more education for social production.

Just because something creats contradictions in capitalism does not mean it's progressive. By that same argument, George W. Bush is progressive because of the massive "contradiction" he created. (ie: the anti-war movement)

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 04:08

Oh look, another kid who squeals about "fascist" oppression from school administrators.

None of those sob stories impresses me in the least.

Way to be completely dismissive of the struggles of an oppressed group of people.

Did you write that with black eyeliner?

SMASH THE STATE! ABOLISH CAPITALISM! KILL THE EMOS! :rolleyes:

khad

25th July 2009, 04:11

Way to be completely dismissive of the struggles of an oppressed group of people.

SMASH THE STATE! ABOLISH CAPITALISM! KILL THE EMOS! :rolleyes:

Man, grow a few years. You'll see that all this school angst, is, well, kid's stuff. There's school and there's real life.

gorillafuck

25th July 2009, 04:15

Oh look, another kid who squeals about "fascist" oppression from school administrators.
I never said that. I do think public education is better than no education.

But what if I did wear eyeliner? Is there a fucking problem with that?

khad

25th July 2009, 04:19

I never said that. I do think public education is better than no education.

But what if I did wear eyeliner? Is there a fucking problem with that?
Well, I agree with a lot of your ideas, so I'll be civil. I was using the eyeliner as a synechdoche for the angst-ridden mindset of certain middle class youths. It was flippant and perhaps in bad taste--"blood and tears of inconsolate woe" might have worked better.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 04:30

Did you write that with black eyeliner?

Ah, exactly as in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1498535&postcount=22), where a restricted anarcho-asshole tries to dismiss every ideology that ever referred to itself as "Pagan", or every ideology that ever identified with the historical European witches, on the basis that some people who call themselves Pagans dress like hippies, and all people who happen to look like hippies are automatically middle-class and liberal

Here, you are using a sub-cultural/asethetic stereotype (disaffected middle-class kids wear black eyeliner) rooted in idealistic/subjectivistic, Weberian, personalized criticisms of capitalist class, rather than those that are genuinely objective, materialistic, Marxian, and scientific.

What if, after a day of toil at the elementary school, instead of going home and putting on black eyeliner, I instead drank Natural Lite and listened to Tupac? (I, in truth, did neither) Would that make my argument more or less rational? Would that make my argument more or less logical?

You have some nerve angsting over this shit

:laugh: :laugh: Cute, you actually thought I was brooding over some long-repressed psychological trauma? Damn girl/boy, you are gullible.:lol:

The actual traumatic shit that happened to me, and to the people I love, I don't have the nerve to post that shit on message boards, trust me.

Now, if you actually have the gall to engage in serious, adult, constructive dialogue, I will tell you the real reason I posted that list of personal anecdotes. Because they illustrate the exploitative nature of the public school system. When my 2nd grade teacher told me fish weren't animals, it didn't traumatize me, I just laughed. However, it did make me realize that it is a total waste of my time having me sit there an adult who knew less about and was less interested in zoology than myself. It made me realize that the only reason she was there was because she needed to earn a paycheck to survive and that the only reason I was there was because my parents needed a place to stick me so they could go out and earn a paycheck for me to survive. Thus, as with all aspects of society under capitalism, capitalist education is arranged by the dictates of capital.

There's no educational value in Xeroxing a boring black-and-white picture of a bird and have 4th graders fill it in with red crayon - but it does have economic value in that it gives "unproductive" members of society such as young children busy-work to distract themselves with, so they don't distract more productive members of society from their production. It also psychologically prepares children for their future "productive" lives engaging in alienated labor that doesn't satisfy them, benefit them, or help them grow in any way.

to me when the fact is that you are privileged.

Grow up. We're on the Internet. I could claim to be a purple giraffee wearing a tutu. You have absolutely no basis of knowing who I really am. I could be a CIA or NSA agent, on the dime, getting paid to dick around debating with clowns like you while I download Internet porn and play computer solitare, laughing as you willingly give up secrets of your personal past to total strangers on the internet while simultaniously claiming to be "revolutionaries", writing bogus reports to my bosses about the "illegal conspiracies" of the "red menace" to obscuscate the laxidasical nature of my work and the sheer lack of menace Internet commies pose to state security.

However, if we're both going to take each other at face value, you've admitted to going to school in a "very rich district", whereas I have admitted to going to school in a "very poor" one? So who is the priviliged one. Me or you? Who has recieved a standard educational experience under capitalism? Me or you? Whose experience better reflects what the working class is typically offered by school? Me or you?

I won't leave that for you up to decide. I'll leave that up to our fellow RevLeft'ers. I'm the type of person who likes to see those little green dots on the top-right corner of my posts grow in number without relying on my one or two buddies to "thank" every single post I make in a tedious, lengthy flamewar, under the conditions that I do the same for them.

I may be an Internet addict, up way past my bed-time having conversations that never go anywhere. But at least I don't take myself seriously, unlike yourself and other members of the "privilige" police.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 04:32

Yeah, tell me about it, some of those kids even have to spend eight hours a day at the sweatshop and eight hours a day at school.

Wait, now that I think of it, some of my friends who are high-school students in the US do the exact same fucking thing.

(By the way, I'm not a third worldist moralist, so the "think of the people in other countries" line doesn't work on me. Kids in Africa by don't get their bellies filled by me finishing the rest of my sandwich, and kids in Southeast Asia don't get liberated from sweatshops by me staying in school. They get liberated from these things by overthrowing capitalism, something you and your friends seem to forget about at every corner.)

I didn't suggest that compulsory education could be understood outside of its relationship to other social forces.

However, to me, the war between the liberal educational establishment and capitalist opponents of public education (the Christian right, institutes of private education, etc.) is a gun-battle between the foreman and the boss. That's the only thing that set you and your friends off, the idea that workers need not side with the foreman.

But then again, that's what the statist left has always done - begged us to side with the foreman; with the administrators and teachers' unions in the educational struggle, with the bureaucratic middle-managing "unions" in the factory struggle, with the Islamists in Iraq and Palestine, with Milosovic in the Balkans, with the engineers and technicians in the ecological crisis, with the "opposition party" parliamentary representatives, and so forth...

Yes and workers also fought in the US for alcohol prohibition.

Yes, that whole era of history was a tremendous step forward, for the capitalists

Where would the capitalists be without the New Deal, labor laws, Social Security, the AFL-CIO, etc.?

Just because something creats contradictions in capitalism does not mean it's progressive. By that same argument, George W. Bush is progressive because of the massive "contradiction" he created. (ie: the anti-war movement)

So skip school and ship the wee uns off to work?

Those are the real world options.

oh, and btw, while we're on the topic of reactionary anarchist dogma, alcohol prohibition wasn't all bad. :) More children probably went to bed without being beaten, and maybe a few more got some food in them :) I wouldn't advocate the policy myself, mostly because it's unworkable, but I don't agree with you Rightists who think prohibition was evil because it contradicts liberal philosophy.

I know, I know...individual liberty to get drunk and ruin children's lives and all that :rolleyes:

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 04:36

(By the way, I'm not a third worldist moralist, so the "think of the people in other countries" line doesn't work on me. Kids in Africa by don't get their bellies filled by me finishing the rest of my sandwich, and kids in Southeast Asia don't get liberated from sweatshops by me staying in school. They get liberated from these things by overthrowing capitalism, something you and your friends seem to forget about at every corner.)

Interesting comments.

Btw, my friends you refer to, they didn't forget about overthrowing capitalism at every corner. Many of them actually fought and died to overthrow exploitation and oppression.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 04:39

Man, grow a few years. You'll see that all this school angst, is, well, kid's stuff. There's school and there's real life.

I imagine you're right. When I've aged a few years, I'll be further removed from all this "kid's stuff", and it won't bother me as much. Just as men are removed from the struggles of women against patriarchy, whites are removed from the struggles of minorities against racism, and capitalists are removed from the struggles of workers against capitalism, my ability to empathize with the kids' struggles against an authoritarian school system will decrease as I grow less connected to it.

That doesn't make it any less authoritarian, and it doesn't make the students' struggles any less legitimate.

khad

25th July 2009, 04:40

By the way, I'm not a third worldist moralist, so the "think of the people in other countries" line doesn't work on me. Kids in Africa by don't get their bellies filled by me finishing the rest of my sandwich, and kids in Southeast Asia don't get liberated from sweatshops by me staying in school. They get liberated from these things by overthrowing capitalism, something you and your friends seem to forget about at every corner.Oh shut up. I've gone to public schools all my life, and I've been accused of cheating in the past (more than once) on account of racism and teacher cretinism. That beats all your bullshit by a mile. PRC-UTE can probably tell you stories from Catholic school that would curdle your blood (if you're that freaked out by 25 pts on a test).

If feeding candy to you in first grade constituted class oppression, then you are just pathetic.

That doesn't make it any less authoritarian, and it doesn't make the students' struggles any less legitimate.

Statistics show that young people tend to be the most right wing and jingoistic out of all age categories. They supported the Vietnam and Iraq Wars more than any other age category. Perhaps it's because they haven't learned enough.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 04:45

So skip school and ship the wee uns off to work?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ever heard of the term "false dichotomy"?

Did you vote for Gore, Kerry, and Obama by chance?

Those are the real world options.Oh, I guess communist revolution is no longer a "real world" option

Time for us all to shut this message board down and get 401(k)s

Your capitalist apologism is obvious. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I guess that what happens when "being in the revolutionary left" means wasting time on message boards. Nothing grander than *****ing on the Internet is "realistic".

oh, and btw, while we're on the topic of reactionary anarchist dogma, alcohol prohibition wasn't all bad. :) I agree. It wasn't. For black-market capitalists and police who needed to meet their quotas.

More children probably went to bed without being beatenSober people beat their kids too, asshole

and maybe a few more got some food in them :) People still drank and wasted their kids' food money on booze during alcohol prohibition, dummy. What, you think no one in the US wastes money on weed right now because that's illegal too?

I wouldn't advocate the policy myself, mostly because it's unworkableThe point of communism is not to "advocate" for "policies".

but I don't agree with you Rightists who think prohibition was evil because it contradicts liberal philosophy.

Again with the strawmen. I'm one of the most vocal advocates of liberalism and bourgeois democracy on this forum. Grow up and realize that strawman arguments just make you look like a clown.

I know, I know...individual liberty to get drunk and ruin children's lives and all that :rolleyes:I think any healthy society will take a strong stance against alcoholism. However, elliminating alcoholism is not the same thing as prohibiting alcoholic beverages. Many people enjoy alcoholic beverages in moderation without ruining their childrens' lives. Some children even enjoy alcohol in moderation with absolutely zero adverse psychological or physiological effects.

None of the capitalist prohibitions on alcohol curb alcoholism. The US is one of the most uptight regions of the capitalist world in regards to alcohol, and we're also one of the most alcoholic. We have laws about selling alcohol on Sunday, selling it past midnight, selling it to minors, etc. Here in Virginia it's technically illegal to run a bar. (All the bars are "restaurants", legally speaking, that try to sell cheap greasy food to meet their food-to-beer ratios) We also have breathalizers to weed out the drunk-drivers (even though some people can get totally plastered and not show up on a breathalizer, and hardcore alcoholics are worse drivers when they're going through withdrawl) whereas similarly reckless automotive behaviors (such as driving while sleep-deprived, holding in one's shit/piss, talking on a cell-phone, sending a text message, etc.) are overlooked. But are we any less alcoholic?

Under communism, the commune would deal with alcoholism, not the state.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 04:47

Statistics show that young people tend to be the most right wing and jingoistic out of all age categories. They supported the Vietnam and Iraq Wars more than any other age category. Perhaps it's because they haven't learned enough.

Or perhaps it's because they've spent their entire lives being indoctrinated by a combination of reactionary parenting and a capitalist/statist educational system that glorifies nationalism and military violence.

khad

25th July 2009, 04:52

Or perhaps it's because they've spent their entire lives being indoctrinated by a combination of reactionary parenting and a capitalist/statist educational system that glorifies nationalism and military violence.
And doing away with public education and shipping the kiddies off to a sweatshop is supposed to make this better somehow?

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 04:59

And doing away with public education and shipping the kiddies off to a sweatshop is supposed to make this better somehow?

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy. No, I do not think shipping kids off to any regimented, oppressive institution is a good idea, whether it is a sweatshop, a school, or something else.

khad

25th July 2009, 05:00

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy. No, I do not think shipping kids off to any regimented, oppressive institution is a good idea, whether it is a sweatshop, a school, or something else.
This is not a false dilemma. This is precisely what would happen. This has been what happened in history.

LuÃs Henrique

25th July 2009, 05:01

I very much enjoy the Potter series, and have no problem with Rowlings being a right-winger or whatever.

But then, when I want to read about politics or economics, I read Marx or Luxemburg, not Rowlings (or whatever other fictional writer).

Luís Henrique

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 05:03

This is not a false dilemma. This is precisely what would happen. This has been what happened in history.

Compulsory education isn't the only way to keep children from being sent to sweatshops; therefore, it is a false dilemma. Ever heard of child labor laws or, better yet, a socialist revolution?

(As a side note, do you think education should be compulsory in a socialist society as well?)

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 05:09

I've gone to public schools all my life, and I've been accused of cheating in the past (more than once) on account of racism and teacher cretinism.

And yet you're still defending the capitalist school-system. What excuse can you have? You might as well just commit seppuku.

That beats all your bullshit by a mile.

Ah yes, I see khad has once again borrowed the "imperialist", "reactionary" Harry Potter's crystal ball to learn about the personal lives of her/his Internet adversaries. :laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol:

PRC-UTE can probably tell you stories from Catholic school that would curdle your blood (if you're that freaked out by 25 pts on a test).

As I've said, the actual psychological traumas are not something I would want to share. I can only feel profound sorrow and empathy for the trauma and abuse PRC-UTE most definitely endured, all the more reason why I encourage the abolition of all forms of compulsory, bureaucratic "education". (whether theocratic or secular) If I were PRC-UTE, I would feel any stories of personal trauma I chose to disclose with you would be cheapened by your pathetic attempt to use them as fodder in novice appeals to emotion and macho "oppression olympics" during sophomoric flame-wars.

The only reason I shared the anecdote regarding the -25 points was because I wanted to illustrate the procrustean nature of capitalist educational policies, not generate sympathy for myself. The anecdotes I shared were intentionally light-hearted in nature because I wanted to point out how capitalist education doesn't make sense from a purely practical rather than ethical sense. Capitalist education is certainly not the most practical way to educate children, but it is the post practical way to psychologically condition them for their adult lives, which will consist of hours of mindless paper-work. (All the more reason to know which side of the paper to write on)

If feeding candy to you in first grade constituted class oppression, then you are just pathetic.

Yeah, you're right, obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes (all of which blacks are at least 10% more likely to get than whites. Most of my classmates were either black, Latino, or Asian, dumbass) aren't forms of class oppression.

Let's just load them all up on the school-buses with high fructose corn syrup-laced snacks after we establish the Socialist People's Pepublic of the Southeastern US.

Statistics show that young people tend to be the most right wing and jingoistic out of all age categories.

1) What do you mean by "young people"? 8 year olds? 10 year olds? 12 year olds? 14 year olds? That's who I'm talking about, not teeny-boppers and twentysomethings. Are you honestly giving a 10-year-old shit for having a less educated view of the world than an adult?
2) You can't just cite unnamed, unsourced, unspecified "statistics" as if "statistics" was the name of some sort of ancient god.
3) Most statistics are conductive unscientifically, and only exist to further the financial livelihood of statisticians.

They supported the Vietnam and Iraq Wars more than any other age category.

Are you kidding? The anti-Vietnam War and anti-Iraq War movements among Euro-Americans were filled with nothing but stupid young people who had absolutely no idea what they were doing...

Perhaps it's because they haven't learned enough.

Well, there's no "perhaps" about the question of whether you have learned enough. As much amusement as this pointless debate has provided me (and all around Harry Potter, somehow) I must finally retire for the evening. Your buffoonish amusement has distracted me long enough from my much-needed sleep.

Have fun highlighting exceprts from Harry Potter to find the subliminal reactionary conspiracy. Keep looking, it's in there somewhere....

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 05:12

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ever heard of the term "false dichotomy"?

Did you vote for Gore, Kerry, and Obama by chance?

No, and I didn't vote for the closest thing my country has to them, either.

It's not a false dichotomy- quite interesting that you say that, yet do not follow up with what other options are available to youth aside from school or work. Please, do tell.

Oh, I guess communist revolution is no longer a "real world" option

Time for us all to shut this message board down and get 401(k)s

Your capitalist apologism is obvious. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do you think humanity is on the verge of global revolution?

Fuck me, that's great. Time to go dig up that hidden cache of armalites :lol:

I guess that what happens when "being in the revolutionary left" means wasting time on message boards. Nothing grander than *****ing on the Internet is "realistic".

I'm after recovering from a serious injury, and not working, so I'm spending more time on here than I used to. Regardless, I was active in revolutionary politics before there was an internetz and still am.

Sober people beat their kids too, asshole

Tautology. But drunk ones do so more often.

People still drank and wasted their kids' food money on booze during alcohol prohibition, dummy. What, you think no one in the US wastes money on weed right now because that's illegal too?

"Per capita alcohol consumption went from about 2.50 gallons in the 1906-1915 era to .90 in 1920-1930 (during prohibition). After prohibition was repealed in 1934, alcohol consumption swiftly climbed in one year to 1.20 gallons per person, and by 1942-1946 it had reached 2.06"
Lender and Martin, Drinking in America: A History, pp 196-197

Weed's not a comparative example for a number of reasons.

The point of communism is not to "advocate" for "policies".

Like many things you post on here, I'm not quite sure what to make of this.

Of course, communists and working class fighters have been advocating policies since their struggle began...like that crazy bearded Prussian fellow, I have spent a lot of time in meetings discussing policies.

Again with the strawmen. I'm one of the most vocal advocates of liberalism and bourgeois democracy on this forum. Grow up and realize that strawman arguments just make you look like a clown.

Will do.

I think any healthy society will take a strong stance against alcoholism. However, elliminating alcoholism is not the same thing as prohibiting alcoholic beverages. Many people enjoy alcoholic beverages in moderation without ruining their childrens' lives. Some children even enjoy alcohol in moderation with absolutely zero adverse psychological or physiological effects.

None of the capitalist prohibitions on alcohol curb alcoholism. The US is one of the most uptight regions of the capitalist world in regards to alcohol, and we're also one of the most alcoholic. We have laws about selling alcohol on Sunday, selling it past midnight, selling it to minors, etc. Here in Virginia it's technically illegal to run a bar. (All the bars are "restaurants", legally speaking, that try to sell cheap greasy food to meet their food-to-beer ratios) We also have breathalizers to weed out the drunk-drivers (even though some people can get totally plastered and not show up on a breathalizer, and hardcore alcoholics are worse drivers when they're going through withdrawl) whereas similarly reckless automotive behaviors (such as driving while sleep-deprived, holding in one's shit/piss, talking on a cell-phone, sending a text message, etc.) are overlooked. But are we any less alcoholic?

Are you coming up with these "facts" by using the force?

Alcoholism seems pretty low in the United States compared to Europe... hence why Americans will ask "How many drinks are you having tonight?" Like the comedian Tommy Tiernan says, I don't understand this question :laugh:

khad

25th July 2009, 05:18

Are you kidding? The anti-Vietnam War and anti-Iraq War movements among Euro-Americans were filled with nothing but stupid young people who had absolutely no idea what they were doing...Is there any point to argue with someone who will deny the most basic facts? FYI, the largest student movement in the 60s was Campus Crusade for Christ. Young people were the most jingoistic age category by far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/politics/18web-elder.html

Forty-eight percent of Americans 18 to 29 years old said the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, while 45 percent said the United States should have stayed out. That is in sharp contrast to the opinions of those 65 and older, who have lived through many other wars. Twenty eight percent of that age group said the United States did the right thing, while 67 percent said the United States should have stayed out.

A review of the March poll suggests Mr. Mueller has a point. Overall, 34 percent of Americans said they approved of the way the president was handling his job, and 58 percent disapproved. But younger Americans were more approving than older Americans. Forty percent of 18-29 year olds said Mr. Bush was doing a good job, while 56 percent said he was not. While 29 percent of people 65 and older said they approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling his job as president, 62 percent said they did not.

A look back at the Vietnam years showed a similar divide between young and old. Older Americans were defined as 50 and older, but the comparison is still apt. In October 1968, when Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and George Wallace were running for president, a Gallup poll found that about half, 52 percent, of people under the age of 30 supported the war in Vietnam. But among those 50 and older, 26 percent supported the war.
As I've said, the actual psychological traumas are not something I would want to share. I can only feel profound sorrow and empathy for the trauma and abuse PRC-UTE most definitely endured, all the more reason why I encourage the abolition of all forms of compulsory, bureaucratic "education". (whether theocratic or secular) If I were PRC-UTE, I would feel any stories of personal trauma I chose to disclose with you would be cheapened by your pathetic attempt to use them as fodder in novice appeals to emotion and macho "oppression olympics" during sophomoric flame-wars.

The only reason I shared the anecdote regarding the -25 points was because I wanted to illustrate the procrustean nature of capitalist educational policies, not generate sympathy for myself. The anecdotes I shared were intentionally light-hearted in nature because I wanted to point out how capitalist education doesn't make sense from a purely practical rather than ethical sense. Capitalist education is certainly not the most practical way to educate children, but it is the post practical way to psychologically condition them for their adult lives, which will consist of hours of mindless paper-work. (All the more reason to know which side of the paper to write on)No one has time for your privileged bourgeois ramblings. Go chew some candy and cry about oppressing yourself.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 05:27

As I've said, the actual psychological traumas are not something I would want to share. I can only feel profound sorrow and empathy for the trauma and abuse PRC-UTE most definitely endured, all the more reason why I encourage the abolition of all forms of compulsory, bureaucratic "education". (whether theocratic or secular) If I were PRC-UTE, I would feel any stories of personal trauma I chose to disclose with you would be cheapened by your pathetic attempt to use them as fodder in novice appeals to emotion and macho "oppression olympics" during sophomoric flame-wars.

Having gone to a school run by clergy years ago and gotten smacked around is not exactly news worthy or unique. Most could have probably guessed that without me mentioning it off-hand. Which wasn't even a complaint; I was contrasting it with your complaints about US public schools being so terribly oppressive.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 05:30

No, and I didn't vote for the closest thing my country has to them, either.

You were smart enough not to for the "we need realistic options!" excuse on election day. Why do you fall for it now?

It's not a false dichotomy- quite interesting that you say that, yet do not follow up with what other options are available to youth aside from school or work. Please, do tell.

If those are the only two practical options, then work is the better of the two.

This is because under work, you earn a wage, and can save up that wage to buy things that will further your personal and political goals.

Under school, you exhert as much energy, experience as much stress, waste as much time, and earn €0.00 in the process.

(If you make the "but with a degree you have a better chance of earning a secure, high-paying, satisfying career", then I'll know for a fact you are an unapologetic capitalist like your comrade khad. As it stands I might have hope for you.)

Really, the way you act as if wage-labor is such a much more terrible existence than toil in capitalist school is, to be frank, such irrational crap, rooted in your preference for "public", state-monopolized capitalism.

But there is another option. It's called communism and the overthrow of capitalism.

Do you think humanity is on the verge of global revolution?

"Global revolution" as Marxist-Leninists and "class struggle anarchists" imagine in is rooted in petit-bourgeois Utopianism. That doesn't mean that all "realistic" options are found in embracing capitalism.

Tautology. But drunk ones do so more often.

Not nessicarily. Not all drunk people are violent. And people who tend to get violent when they're drunk are violent people to begin with. Stop stereotyping everyone who has a horrible medical condition. Also stop stereotyping perpetrators of child-abuse.

blah blah Lender and Martin, Drinking in America: A History, pp 196-197

Am I honestly supposed to believe that accurate statistics exist on prohibition-era alcohol consumption? Anyway, I'm pretty sure a book entitled Drinking in America: A History is a secondary source. I'm sure the authors are biased...

Of course, communists and working class fighters have been advocating policies since their struggle began...like that crazy bearded Prussian fellow, I have spent a lot of time in meetings discussing policies.

The difference is that Karl Marx spent most of his later life commenting on the policies of revolutiony parties, not the capitalist state. As for the young Marx, he was a reformist fuck. As your comrade khad pointed out, younger people tend to be less educated.

Are you coming up with these "facts" by using the force?

Wait, which facts are you calling into question?

Alcoholism seems pretty low in the United States compared to Europe... hence why Americans will ask "How many drinks are you having tonight?" Like the comedian Tommy Tiernan says, I don't understand this question

Alcoholism is a massive problem here, likely as bad here as in Europe, if not worse. Stand-up comedians do not always make accurate sociological observations. As I said before, we're really uptight about alcohol. We like to be more behind-closed-doors about our alcoholism, hence the likely explanation for Tiernan's assumption.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 05:33

Having gone to a school run by clergy years ago and gotten smacked around is not exactly news worthy or unique. Most could have probably guessed that without me mentioning it off-hand. Which wasn't even a complaint; I was contrasting it with your complaints about US public schools being so terribly oppressive.

As I've said before, I did not list those stories as examples of "oppression" but as examples of how the public education miseducates, and how public education in many ways doesn't even pretend to fulfill its claimed social role of educating children. It's more of a massive baby-sitting daytime-prison.

Again, it's really fucked up to hear about your experiences. I saw kids get beat in public school too. The only reason I wasn't beaten was because I was white and I got good grades. I don't post on message boards to share psychological traumas, I was not trolling for sympathy, I was merely trying to establish an intellectual argument for the uselessness of public school.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 05:37

You were smart enough not to for the "we need realistic options!" excuse on election day. Why do you fall for it now?

Because voting for a reform candidate is not a realistic option- it is not as likely to create real change, which is usually a result of working class struggle. Whereas ending child labour in industrialised nations where children could be spared from labour was historically a reform worth fighting for. Aside from being a desirable outcome, it in turn strengthened the working class in their fight. I don't see how that's even deniable.

If those are the only two practical options, then work is the better of the two.

This is because under work, you earn a wage, and can save up that wage to buy things that will further your personal and political goals.

Under school, you exhert as much energy, experience as much stress, waste as much time, and earn €0.00 in the process.

(If you make the "but with a degree you have a better chance of earning a secure, high-paying, satisfying career", then I'll know for a fact you are an unapologetic capitalist like your comrade khad. As it stands I might have hope for you.)

Really, the way you act as if wage-labor is such a much more terrible existence than toil in capitalist school is, to be frank, such irrational crap, rooted in your preference for "public", state-monopolized capitalism.

But there is another option. It's called communism and the overthrow of capitalism.

Your rhetoric might be "communist" but it's to justify child labour so that the youth may be spared of receiving an education. Madness.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 05:39

Is there any point to argue with someone who will deny the most basic facts? FYI, the largest student movement in the 60s was Campus Crusade for Christ. Young people were the most jingoistic age category by far.

That quote's about 18-25 year olds. We were talking about public school children. You're full of fail.

I'm not arguing that young people aren't stupid. Stupid young people are why nothing good came out of 1960s, or out of the brief counter-culture movement that emerged around Bush. The PSL and WWP are symptoms of this problem.

No one has time for your privileged bourgeois ramblings.

Clearly you do. You have time to read them. You just don't have time to refute them because you can't. You can only use the word "bourgeois" like a parrot, hoping the Marxian sophistication of French academic terminology adds any more legitimacy to your sophomoric mewling.

Go chew some candy and cry about oppressing yourself.

Go laugh yourself to sleep thinking about black and hispanic kids growing up to have their legs amputated because their teachers got them addicted to white sugar and HFCS. ;) (after all, white sugar and HFCS aren't real addictive drugs, like alcohol and weed) Serves them right for having a "bourgeois" white classmate who dare grows up to question the Stalinist RevLeft mafia. ;)

I also love how your much more "manly" stories of schoolyard oppression are supposed to convince me that school is better than I think it is. You and PRC-UTE can go play good cop, bad cop with someone else for a while...

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 05:42

If those are the only two practical options, then work is the better of the two.

This is because under work, you earn a wage, and can save up that wage to buy things that will further your personal and political goals.

Under school, you exhert as much energy, experience as much stress, waste as much time, and earn €0.00 in the process.

(If you make the "but with a degree you have a better chance of earning a secure, high-paying, satisfying career", then I'll know for a fact you are an unapologetic capitalist like your comrade khad. As it stands I might have hope for you.)

Really, the way you act as if wage-labor is such a much more terrible existence than toil in capitalist school is, to be frank, such irrational crap, rooted in your preference for "public", state-monopolized capitalism.

I'm glad to see you've backpeddled from your odd comment about the choice between child labour or school being a "false dichotomy". My work here is done. :)

khad

25th July 2009, 05:43

Clearly you do. You have time to read them. You just don't have time to refute them because you can't. You can only use the word "bourgeois" like a parrot, hoping the Marxian sophistication of French academic terminology adds any more legitimacy to your sophomoric mewling.

Actually, I don't. I just pick out individual paragraphs because I don't have time for your angsty "woe is me" horseshit. You've already been refuted pretty conclusively throughout this thread, so I don't see why you continue with your cretinous position like and idiot.

It's funny that this thread has come full circle now. Look, whatever you say about me being an "unapologetic capitalist," YOU are the idiot attacking anyone who dares criticize Harry Potter and JK Rowling, even when she hobnobs with the arch-conservatives of British politics in her reactionary little social club.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 05:52

I'm glad to see you've backpeddled from your odd comment about the choice between child labour or school being a "false dichotomy". My work here is done. :)

Uhh, that block of text you quoted (or specifically, the part you removed) specifically says "there is a third option"

Is "your work" by chance the total pervasivness of intellectual dishonesty?

Your friend khad has given up on honest intellectual debate all-together. All she's really here to do is troll. In fact, her constant use of immature ad hominem and strawman arguments should be of concern to the moderators.

She's admitted to not even reading her opponents words before responding. I feel you are a more responsible contributor to the public debate, and should be keeping better company.

The thing that you originally wrote, before you edited your post, was more intelligent. I was planning to respond to it. But if you don't believe in civil, intelligent debate, that's fine, you can just join your friend khad in making asinine, juvenile comments about "angst" and "black eye-liner"...

But if you want, you can answer the question at hand: How is capitalist "education" more valuable than earning a living wage, especially if being supported by your parents isn't an option (which is the case of many queer, radical, abused, drop-out, etc. kids)

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 05:56

Uhh, that block of text you quoted specifically says "there is a third option"

Is "your work" by chance the total pervasivness of intellectual dishonesty?

Your friend khad has given up on honest intellectual debate all-together. All she's really here to do is troll. In fact, her constant use of immature ad hominem and strawman arguments should be of concern to the moderators

The thing that you originally wrote, before you edited your post, was more intelligent. I was planning to respond to it. But if you don't believe in civil, intelligent debate, that's fine, you can just join your friend khad in making asinine, juvenile comments about "angst" and "black eye-liner"...

But if you want, you can answer the question at hand: How is capitalist "education" more valuable than earning a living wage, especially if being supported by your parents isn't an option (which is the case of many queer, radical, abused, drop-out, etc. kids)

I didn't edit my post, I made another one.

It's more than a little ironic that you would lecture me about civil, intelligent debate. I have actually cited statistics from studies, whereas you have substituted bluster, insults (calling me an "asshole" and "dummy") and opinion for arguments.

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 05:57

Look, whatever you say about me being an "unapologetic capitalist," YOU are the idiot attacking anyone who dares criticize Harry Potter and JK Rowling, even when she hobnobs with the arch-conservatives of British politics in her reactionary little social club.

Haha, I can't stand the writing of JK Rowling, as I believe I've already mentioned, but her tripe is no worse of a read than the garbage the Proletkult used to churn out. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Goodnight, my friends...

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 06:11

I didn't edit my post, I made another one.

Oh, sorry, Im a little tired. Remind me never to post on RevLeft after midnight. I hope this whole thread gets moved to chit-chat.

I have actually cited statistics from studiesI honestly think "statistics" and 'studies" more often than not are a load of crap. I definitely don't think accurate statistics exist on the consumption, distribution, and sale of alcohol during prohibition. Considering that alcohol during prohibition was basically a collaboration between organized crime and lawe enforcement to make a shit-ton of money while appeasing the religious right, accurate statistics on the general pervasiveness of alcohol prohibition were likely suppressed.

As I've pointed out, you used a secondary source which is basically as bad as using no source at all.

I could spend all night Googling "prohibition alcoholism statistics" and find that half the Internet is fudging the statistics to make it seem like alcoholism was worse during prohibitopn and the other half before and after prohibition. What is gained? Instead, let's use common sense.

Does common sense tell us that prohibiting the consumption of a chemcically addictive substance decreases the chemical dependency of the drug? Does common snese tell us that the implicit individualism and greed of capitalist legal retribute offers a better solution for curing alcoholism than the communist method? No, absolutely not.

calling me an "asshole" Only after you applied that drunkedness was the cause of child abuse. You might as well start going on about how single mothers make terrible parents. Drunks have enough shit to deal with.

As for your previous comments, that I thought were deleted, I don't think of modifications the capitalist class makes to resolve crisis as "progressive". I think of them as I think of an enemy's move in chess. (Class-war is more like a game of chess, in that an opponent's move can strengthen your position in one respect, and weaken it in another, than say, a game of Super Mario Bros., where you just keep mindlessly jumping over hurdles in a perpetual, almost-infinite march forward) So I won't speculate as to whether the historical transition from child wage-slavery to child school-slavery is "progressive". There are other instances of compulsory education being imposed by the state that are definitely not progressive (for examle, the use of the educational apparatus in the brutal assimilation of Algonquians and Tibetans into the hegemony Canadian and Chinese states respectively)

Revy

25th July 2009, 07:15

Again, this bullshit about Harry Potter needs to stop.

Stalinists or whatever quasi-Stalinist out there apparently don't know how to appreciate literature. It's fucking Harry Potter, not Mein Kampf. If you're that dense you read some kind of imperialist BS into it, you're insane.

These are books about kids in a school for learning magic. It's like calling Sabrina the Teenage Witch imperialist propaganda because the show took place in America. WTF? Please. Just stop.

khad

25th July 2009, 07:18

Stalinists or whatever quasi-Stalinist out there apparently don't know how to appreciate literature. It's fucking Harry Potter, not Mein Kampf.
Literature is Flaubert or Balzac. Harry Potter is just pulp.

More Fire for the People

25th July 2009, 07:30

Agrippa

25th July 2009, 07:38

I disagree that JK Rowling is a reactionary. All her politics show her as a Labour / Liberal Democrat type. Her membership in an Imperial measurement affinity group is nothing more than a point. I oppose full conversion to the metric system in the United States. But I'm not Rothbard's lapdog.

However, I am willing to give the "Sun never sets on the British Empire" interpretation is possible but I'm not betting that's the common interpretation nor the author's intended interpretation.

Thank you! The tendency to see a "reactionary" conspiracy in every piece of popular culture is definitely a sign of Stalinist mental deterioration.

Rowling's literature is silly, but if we're going to take upon ourselves the equally silly task of analyzing its political message we should at least do an accurate job.

And I also oppose the the abandonment of the imperial system in the US. To me that seems like such a minor, irrelevant point to pick on someone for. Is Orwell also "reactionary" because in 1984 he uses the metric system and the decaying architecture of Victorian England to build his melancholic, totalitarian ambiance? (the Stalinists who slander Orwell as an "anarcho-Trotskyite" would say so)

Revy

25th July 2009, 08:12

More Fire for the People, exactly. She is a typical liberal. It's not like she's a communist, but she isn't some "right-wing reactionary" either.

To give an example on the subject of class, the Dursleys, an uptight middle class family are portrayed as abusive of Harry, who prefers to live with the poor but warm and friendly Weasleys. that's just one of many examples. there are also anti-authoritarian themes, such as when Dolores Umbridge (Hogwarts' own Pinochet) takes power over the school and Harry organizes an underground "army" of fellow students opposed to the regime. Multicultural themes, like the interracial relationships, and the fact that (according to Rowling) Dumbledore is gay. and on and and on and on.

It's not something I'm terribly sensitive about, but I just can't believe someone would say that it's a paean to old imperial Britain when it's anything but.

Module

25th July 2009, 08:42

What the hell is this thread :s
Did you expect him to be a communist?
Do you expect anyone to be a communist? :confused:

25th July 2009, 09:06

Could this thread be renamed as to reflect the content more clearly? This has long passed the topic of Harry Potter...

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

25th July 2009, 09:10

Who cares? I don't sit down in a movie theater after thoroughly studying the politics of each cast member. It would probably invalidate my entire movie-going experience.

I think Education should be compulsory up until age 22 and free and public. 18 you get to graduate from High School and from there on you specialize for your career.

The arguments to and for any compulsory education aside, a minimum of twenty-two is abysmal. I'm going to be a month shy of 21 when I graduate with a double major. Had I not enrolled in the education program, I would have been able to graduate at 20. Why force an excess of years attendance? As much as I might enjoy "quadruple majoring" in economics, mathematics, social studies, and history, that requires more resources than necessary. I have no intention of further specializing in any of those fields to start with. I just want to climb the ladder until I obtain a doctorate in education and coordinate district policy. But there is no reason someone who wants to become a movie director should have to stay until twenty-two.

On the flip side, some people don't want to participate in a career that requires post-secondary education.

Pogue

25th July 2009, 09:39

Harry Potter as a series is very political according to Rowling, who is a Labour party supporter for very confused reasons. Apparently she always intended it to have political overtones.

PRC-UTE

25th July 2009, 11:09

Harry Potter as a series is very political according to Rowling, who is a Labour party supporter for very confused reasons. Apparently she always intended it to have political overtones.

Actually, now that I think about it...didn't she say Dumbledore was gay, because she wanted kids to have a gay role model or something?

n0thing

25th July 2009, 12:29

NecroCommie

25th July 2009, 13:07

And the reason we need education is because the masses have been miseducated by, amongst other things, public schools.
Political "miseducation" or indoctrination can be undone with a proper upbringing by parents. Many subjects however cannot be infused with a political agenda, such as maths or physics.

Also, I don't know where you live, but at least the US education is plagued by teachers who are unprofessional by standards of many other countries. This is due to lack of university trained teachers.

How is being taught capitalist lies necessary for an education? Or for that matter, a revolution?
'sigh', Have you ever actually been to school? If yes, then you know that the political indoctrination is actually a very small portion of the curriculum. And you know that I dont view it as essential to the revolution.

I still await your suggestion on how to give the working class a proper understanding of maths, history, languages and geography. Pre-revolution!

I am a communist and am thus entirely uninterested in coming up with solutions within the monetary system.
Then how would you spark the revolution? It is idealistic and naive to think that we do not need to bother ourselves with anything before the revolution.

The majority of workers today are supporters of capitalism. They see no reason to join up with movements who do not care for them before some undefined revolution.

If you honestly think the "education" given by the public school system is of some sort of good quality, you have a bizarre idea of quality.
Our school system happens to differ from yours, so you are a fool to judge something you do not know. If your paricular country has a problem with the public school, it is most likely due to lack of funding = too low taxes. Your regional example however proves nothing.

Zurdito

25th July 2009, 13:28

so in other words, in relation to the society he lives in, he is relatively left-wing.

I don't think we should equate a party leadership with its supporters, I don;t care about Harry Potter but in general I don't see the point of a sectarian attitude with Lib Dem supporters, as the party is known to be a means to channel people discontented with the excesses of the right in Britain, so to walk away and say to the leadership "you can have them" seems self-defeating.

Matty_UK

25th July 2009, 13:59

I think it's true that Hogwarts is based on British boarding schools during the height of the British Empire (steam trains, boarding schools, etc) however I don't think this is a conscious attempt to glorify the British empire. What is true however, is that classic children's literature that a lot of kids are brought up on in Britain were written not only during the height of the British Empire, but by the literate, elite classes who went to boarding school. Harry Potter borrows concepts and images that have been integrated into culture as romantic and magical by previous children's books, and most of these are written by boarding school graduates and date from the height of the British Empire. Her membership of that imperial measurements society merely shows that she was brought up on books that glorified life in old England from the perspective of the rising bourgeoisie and the declining aristocracy, however in her mind there is no political implication in this minor position, other than considering imperial measurements somehow more "romantic." Aristocratic ultra-conservatives run this organisation for obvious reasons (nostalgia for the Empire) but Rowling's membership is politically neutral.

J. K. Rowling is clearly a mainstream left liberal who hates Thatcher and the Tories; similar to how Hogwarts as a boarding school draws on romanticisations of boarding school in past children's lit, her depiction of the Slytherin's draws on past negative depictions of the elitist British aristocracy (although possibly drawing on the perspective of bourgeois "mudbloods" who won access to elite schools, although this is not deliberate) merged with more modern depictions of racism, particularly Nazism. (the death eaters, who also represent latent reactionary forces within society - also the BNP) The elite Slytherin's in the magical world are parallelled by very much contemporary depictions of the real world middle class anti-immigrant Dursley's (who read the Daily Mail, paper emblematic of middle class armchair reactionaries, and their depiction is very much the stereotype which working class Britons hold of the Tory-voting middle class) which is almost certainly deliberate.

Not that her politics make any difference to how enjoyable the books are, and anyone who denies that they are excellent children's books is merely being a controversialist.

zerozerozerominusone

25th July 2009, 15:39

An A-list movie celeb enjoying the hollywood shangrilla of privilege and excess, completely alienated from the realities of working class life being warmly receptive to the capitalist status quo, who'd have thunk it?

Actually, the average Hooywood shit-for-brains-mere-entertainer seems to be pretty far left in that all they ever do is whine like sissies about how eville(tm) the USA is. They don't seem to complain so much, however, while cashing their checks. Who'd have thunk it?

zerozerozerominusone

25th July 2009, 15:40

An A-list movie celeb enjoying the hollywood shangrilla of privilege and excess, completely alienated from the realities of working class life being warmly receptive to the capitalist status quo, who'd have thunk it?

Actually, the average Hollywood shit-for-brains-mere-entertainer seems to be pretty far left in that all they ever do is whine like sissies about how eville(tm) the USA is. They don't seem to complain so much, however, while cashing their checks. Who'd have thunk it?

Charles Xavier

25th July 2009, 15:46

Who cares? I don't sit down in a movie theater after thoroughly studying the politics of each cast member. It would probably invalidate my entire movie-going experience.

The arguments to and for any compulsory education aside, a minimum of twenty-two is abysmal. I'm going to be a month shy of 21 when I graduate with a double major. Had I not enrolled in the education program, I would have been able to graduate at 20. Why force an excess of years attendance? As much as I might enjoy "quadruple majoring" in economics, mathematics, social studies, and history, that requires more resources than necessary. I have no intention of further specializing in any of those fields to start with. I just want to climb the ladder until I obtain a doctorate in education and coordinate district policy. But there is no reason someone who wants to become a movie director should have to stay until twenty-two.

On the flip side, some people don't want to participate in a career that requires post-secondary education.

Every country has different start times of a semester and finish times and the age they start and finish school. I know in south america holidays are in the during what is the northern hemisphere's winter months and their summer months. I am saying education should be free and compulsory up until someone completes their post secondary education. Whether that be a 2 year practical nursing program or a 5 year apprenticeship or an 8 year doctorate.

zerozerozerominusone

25th July 2009, 15:47

I am a communist and am thus entirely uninterested in coming up with solutions within the monetary system

OK, so how would you do it, assuming your conditions?

Искра

25th July 2009, 15:50

Ah, a discussion about Harry Potter... huge one indeed... :rolleyes:

zerozerozerominusone

25th July 2009, 16:07

Political "miseducation" or indoctrination can be undone with a proper upbringing by parents. Many subjects however cannot be infused with a political agenda, such as maths or physics.

One man's miseducation is another's erudition. One size does not fit all.

Also, I don't know where you live, but at least the US education is plagued by teachers who are unprofessional by standards of many other countries. This is due to lack of university trained teachers.

Having been a NYC school teacher and professor at CCNY, I can tell you that this statement is quite imprecise. Generally speaking, American teachers are as good, if not better than those anywhere else in the world. I can assure you that you will not find any who are more dedicated, on the whole. Not even in Finland. :)

The problem lies not with the teachers, but the framework within they must operate. Methinks this is far too large a topic to tackle here, but suffice it to say that that the laws under which the school systems must operate are very specifically designed to produce the poorest "educational" result possible.

'sigh', Have you ever actually been to school? If yes, then you know that the political indoctrination is actually a very small portion of the curriculum. And you know that I dont view it as essential to the revolution.

A problem with American schools is that they don't talk about politics nearly enough. Too much emphasis on math and science - important topics, but not for everyone to the degrees to which they are forced to "learn" (more like suffer through).

I know that many here will disagree with this, but I believe that every 12th grader should emerge from the commencement ceremony with the equivalent of an MBA. If every child had that sort of training in economics, etc., our congress would not be able to get away with even 1% of the things they pull on the painfully ignorant public.

Then how would you spark the revolution? It is idealistic and naive to think that we do not need to bother ourselves with anything before the revolution.

Sage words.

The majority of workers today are supporters of capitalism. They see no reason to join up with movements who do not care for them before some undefined revolution.

Very true. There must be a payoff. Going from relative freedom with property rights, among other, to comparative slavery without property and heaven knows what else, doesn't seem very appealing and that is why so few could care less about such things.

Our school system happens to differ from yours, so you are a fool to judge something you do not know. If your paricular country has a problem with the public school, it is most likely due to lack of funding = too low taxes. Your regional example however proves nothing.

Americans pay more in taxes toward public schooling than just about any other nation, yet the results are poor. It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the politics of maintaining an ignorant population as a tool of control.

I can think of no nation that has a decent educational system. Many, including the USA have rather good training facilities. Japanese kids can spout off all manner of information, useful or otherwise, yet they are poorly educated. China - the same. Europe - same. And the list goes on. Just because you know you math inside-out, it does not follow that you are therefore automatically well-educated. You are well trained. Training and education are not the same things, though they are related. Education subsumes training, which is nothing more than a tool to be used pursuant to educating. But this is not how it is used in public systems.

Can you define education? I'd almost be willing to bet that you cannot. Most people don't have a clue. They think that training == education. Wrong-0.

Pogue

25th July 2009, 16:26

Actually, now that I think about it...didn't she say Dumbledore was gay, because she wanted kids to have a gay role model or something?

Yeh, and apparently the Ministry of Magic was meant to represent beurecratic and inadequate government intervening in the education sector. Dumbledore is represented as the personification of liberalism, obviously in contrast to Voldermort who is meant to represent a sort of fascism, authoritarianism, predjudice etc.

Apparently theres meant to be all sorts. Ron Weasley's poverty is supposed to be a personification of class division, etc etc.

She claimed she's a benevolent egalitarian person so she gave loads of money to fund the Labour Party around the turn of the cntury. Makes no sense how such a great writer could be so thick.

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 16:37

'sigh', Have you ever actually been to school? If yes, then you know that the political indoctrination is actually a very small portion of the curriculum. And you know that I dont view it as essential to the revolution.

It's more than just political indoctrination that's the problem, though. The compulsory school environment (in the US, at least; I've only ever claimed to be talking about American schools) prepares people to be a part of the capitalist workforce by subjecting them to a highly regimented, highly authoritarian way of life that teaches them to do whatever their rulers command. Furthermore, it segregates the students into two classes (the "gifted" and the normal) immediately, and teaches the "gifted" students that they are better and more deserving than the normal students. The school environment itself is a form of political indoctrination.

That said, American schools are also abysmal when it comes to teaching math and science. Rather than teaching the reasoning behind various mathematical operations and scientific theories, they simply want the students to memorize them and accept them at face value. The result is to make both math and science incredibly dull subjects and to stifle many students who otherwise would be interested in them. As for language and geography, the schools hardly teach them at all, and when they do, they're as likely to teach the students incorrectly as they are to teach them correctly. In other words, American workers already aren't getting a thorough grounding in math, science, language, geography, and history (the "history" we're taught is probably the most explicit form of political indoctrination the schools have to offer and is the primary reason "communism" is such a bogeyman in the minds of American workers).

EDIT:

Could this thread be renamed as to reflect the content more clearly? This has long passed the topic of Harry Potter...

Perhaps someone should split all the posts relating to the compulsory education debate off into a new thread? They really have very little to do with the original topic.

Pogue

25th July 2009, 16:40

I think people should be able to leave school at 16. If I was in control of education I'd support more apparenticeships, I think they are the best form of education for alot of working class people, but obviously I'd stop them being exploitative relationships with awful pay, etc.

You can encourage people to carry on education with lots of options but you cannot force them, it just wont work.

berlitz23

25th July 2009, 22:07

I didn't know the mainstream media infiltrated revleft to report about this irrelevant news

Janine Melnitz

26th July 2009, 03:03

Muggles were like non-whites.
Yeah, this analogy is very bluntly put forward by the books, and it's telling that "muggles", apart from being too mundane to get much narrative attention in a story about wizards, have natural powerlessness as their defining characteristic; if the bad racist wizards want to be mean to them, it's up to the good, enlightened wizards to counteract these evil forces. I seem to recall any talk about "muggles" from the "nice" wizards being obscenely paternalistic, but it's been a while since I looked at those books.

The stuff about fancy boarding schools, imperialist nostalgia etc. is commonplace on the left, I thought, and pretty obviously true if you're not illiterate. It's also kind of trivial -- under capitalism all media are necessarily marked by bourgeois ideology, even the stuff that does an okay job of challenging it (which nobody would accuse kids' fantasy of trying to do) -- but getting a little overexcited about discovering reactionary ideas in popular media is a fucking fair sight better than pretending "It's children's entertainment! It's fantasy!" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Golliwogg1.jpg) makes anything neutral.

Revy

26th July 2009, 03:36

Yeah, this analogy is very bluntly put forward by the books, and it's telling that "muggles", apart from being too mundane to get much narrative attention in a story about wizards, have natural powerlessness as their defining characteristic; if the bad racist wizards want to be mean to them, it's up to the good, enlightened wizards to counteract these evil forces. I seem to recall any talk about "muggles" from the "nice" wizards being obscenely paternalistic, but it's been a while since I looked at those books.

The stuff about fancy boarding schools, imperialist nostalgia etc. is commonplace on the left, I thought, and pretty obviously true if you're not illiterate. It's also kind of trivial -- under capitalism all media are necessarily marked by bourgeois ideology, even the stuff that does an okay job of challenging it (which nobody would accuse kids' fantasy of trying to do) -- but getting a little overexcited about discovering reactionary ideas in popular media is a fucking fair sight better than pretending "It's children's entertainment! It's fantasy!" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Golliwogg1.jpg) makes anything neutral.

WTF?

No, not at all.

The magic world is multiracial. They are not supposed to be white people. That's taking the metaphor for intolerance far too seriously. Most of the intolerance is directed toward "Mudbloods", wizards born to Muggles, since most wizards don't really know any Muggles. Hermione was called a mudblood a few times by Malfoy. But Hermione is part of the same magic community, in fact, she is one of the most excelled students in magic....:closedeyes:

Janine Melnitz

26th July 2009, 04:18

They are not supposed to be white people. That's taking the metaphor for intolerance far too seriously.
What? That's exactly how the metaphor is explicitly presented; Rowling outright stated it was a metaphor for racial intolerance/supremacy, which in the real world (the world being bluntly referred to by the metaphor) is uh. Racism typically has a racial character dude. Jeez, how is reading a metaphor for what it's explicitly said to mean "taking it too seriously"?? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Janine Melnitz

26th July 2009, 04:26

I mean, it's not even a metaphor! Muggles literally are "a race", they are a community with its own culture whose membership is determined by hereditary traits.

Come on!

Bilan

26th July 2009, 04:32

Janine Melnitz

26th July 2009, 04:35

I don't get it: who cares, and what difference does it make...to anything?
He is an actor, not a political scientist, sociologist, philosopher, or anyone who's thoughts are of any relevance or importance to anything.
Why does anyone care if his politics are as abhorrent as his roles?
This sort of contentless affectation that one is simply too cool to get "worked up" over such things is really obnoxious. Obviously nobody cares that much, we're not calling for a ban on Harry Potter, we're bullshitting on a message board.

Revy

26th July 2009, 04:42

Whatever you think about the books, trying to imply that they're racist is rather insane. They're not.

khad

26th July 2009, 04:42

Jimmie Higgins

26th July 2009, 05:14

You do realize that the entire Harry Potter series is a paean to old Britain at the time of its imperial glory, right?Really? How so? I thought that was "Lord of the Rings" that was glorifying the "native" qualities of the British - harry feet, round huts, and lots of good drink. (that's how I imagine the UK anyway: New Zeland full of Americans with fake British accents.

And what was that shit bashing public education in the previous film?Really? I saw it as a parody of "No Child Left Behind"-style teach to the test education.

Janine Melnitz

26th July 2009, 06:27

Whatever you think about the books, trying to imply that they're racist is rather insane. They're not.
lol good point

C'mon, I didn't say HARRY POTTER IS RACIST, I said the books (like every cultural product) have an ideological dimension. In this case, it's a mostly-liberal one, and yeah, a paternalist message of "tolerance" is downright anti-racist by liberal standards.

Bilan

26th July 2009, 06:43

This sort of contentless affectation that one is simply too cool to get "worked up" over such things is really obnoxious. Obviously nobody cares that much, we're not calling for a ban on Harry Potter, we're bullshitting on a message board.

Far from too cool, and more just confused as to why you've twisted your knickers so. The fact is that this is of relatively no importance to anything, at all, and never will be, lest the man in question assumes the role of Prime Minister, or some sort of position of authority in which his stupidity actually harms the working class. Alas, this is not the case. He is just dense, and the density of actors is hardly a fresh topic, nor overly outrageous or unusual.

Janine Melnitz

26th July 2009, 06:57

Far from too cool, and more just confused as to why you've twisted your knickers so.
Yeah, this was sort of my point. I'm sitting in front of a computer drinking a beer. Maybe the fact that you persist in imagining anyone in this thread is super-upset means you, in fact, are the one who needs to chill out? :ohmy:

Jimmie Higgins

26th July 2009, 07:09

"Harry Potter" is soooo cool. I wish I could go to a wizard school in Australia just like them. I'd be all like: "G'day gub'ner. "Ow'd you like a dingo on that crumpet by jove! Fancy some fish and chips and vegimite? God save Cromwell and Russel Crowe and all that rot".

Love,
An American

Josef Balin

26th July 2009, 11:55

Rather than focusing on a theoretically holistic and abstract approach to math, the capitalist education system just forces children to memorize meaningless statistics to prepare them for their future lives as white-collar workers.

How does forcing young children to learn math by rote going to encourage a passion for math? It will just make them hate it, as most of them do. How many graduates of highschool math class go on to be algebrists?

Pretty much none do, but pretty much none would anyway, and that's just because of the theoreticality and seemingly lack of utility of the subject that makes it arguable to cut that out of the required curriculum altogether.

And are you an algebrist? Something tells me you yourself have not tried "focusing on a theoretically holistic and abstract approach" and succeeded, having talked to several very math teachers who not only taught the curriculum well but were passionate about their job years into it.

Again, the "science" taught by capitalist education is entrenched in narrow-minded capitalist bigotry, and is usually taught in a way that has no practical application to the real world. Again, it's just a way to get kids used to sitting in uncomfortable chairs, inside an ugly office room, under florescent lights, etc. for their future adult lives as white-collar workers.

You're an idiot. I'm sorry but there's no way around it, I know this doesn't contribute to the conversation and could be labeled flaming, etc. but you're not smart and I think that's pretty clear.

How does that prepare anyone to be a revolutionary?

This makes it seem like you're only a lefty troll or stereotype, like you're only a leftist because you've got a stick up your ass.

So children should be forced to read whatever some random state-bureaucrat decides is part of the English literary canon? How is that going to impart on them a love of reading?

Something tells me you've never argued this with an English teacher? Mostly the fact that state-bureaucrats do not decide what is part of the English literary cannon, almost entirely local and some state commissions have a meeting that is pretty open and you yourself could be vocal in if you ever have a child/gain credentials in the education system.

And of course the interpretations of the literature will all be rooted in bourgeois ideology.

Only if the individual English teacher is bourgeois herself, and that could still happen in a socialist educational system.

Unless you're referring to learning basic English. Public education is one of the worst ways to learn a language. There are so many Americans who can only speak the level of French you'd expect from a French kindergartner with Down's Syndrome. Why? Because they learned French from the public education system.

Why do we need to learn French/Spanish? To reinforce that we're part of "western civilization"? So we can "travel to Europe"? And the system definitely teaches enough of English to get at least a basic understanding of the English language so that every individual who passes through it is capable of independently publishing high level propaganda, which is a huge gain at this point of time.

You left out, of course, history, Mr. Amaru. I wonder what capitalist public education curricula has to say about your namesake? They'd probably say he was a cannibalistic savage who stood in the way of technological progress.

History is something that's going to be skewed everywhere until the randomly created noun nations ("France", "Netherlands", "Britain/UK", "America", etc.) no longer exist. It's the last indoctrination class, mainly because if the people in control did not see it that way then, obviously, things wouldn't be that way. As Marxists/Class Struggle Anarchists, we all go a step further and assert they only "feel that way" because it is economically beneficial for them to do that, but the first notion that drags most of us to Marxism comes from that and I'm willing to bet a number of us are only here through debating with the mainstream and coming through Marxism through research rather than contact with a radical, as I did.

In short, they schools can't teach us shit. My people need freedom.

No, it looks like they didn't teach you shit.

Bilan

26th July 2009, 13:38

Yeah, this was sort of my point. I'm sitting in front of a computer drinking a beer. Maybe the fact that you persist in imagining anyone in this thread is super-upset means you, in fact, are the one who needs to chill out? :ohmy:

The fact this thread has this many pages is what concerns me.

26th July 2009, 13:48

The fact this thread has this many pages is what concerns me.

Daniel Radcliffe is an unashamed evil imperialist. :tt2:

Agrippa

26th July 2009, 16:42

Pretty much none do, but pretty much none would anyway

That's a pretty pessimistic view of humanity. I tend to think of humans as having a natural curiosity towards that sort of thing. So many people I know where turned off math by school, only to get into it after graduation because they realize it's so much more profound and poetic than how it's presented in school

I definitely don't think people need to be forced, especially by the capitalist state, to learn things that are valuable and useful. I think academic persuits should be rooted in personal interest, not compulsory education rooted in the bourgeoisie's desire to maintain state hegemony. What we get "taught" in school is precisely what the bourgeoisie bbelieves we need, from the perspective of us that the bourgeoisie has, a perspective that only views us as human capital, as livestock.

and that's just because of the theoreticality and seemingly lack of utility of the subject that makes it arguable to cut that out of the required curriculum altogether.

I have no interest in modifying or adjusting capitalist educational cirriculum any more than I have interest in voting for "the lesser of two evils".

And are you an algebrist? Something tells me you yourself have not tried "focusing on a theoretically holistic and abstract approach" and succeeded

Rational and logical fallacy. My interest in math or lack-thereof is irrelevant to the discussion.

having talked to several very math teachers who not only taught the curriculum well but were passionate about their job years into it.

Individual "passion" for wage-labor does not exonnerate capitalism, sorry.

I'm sorry but there's no way around it, I know this doesn't contribute to the conversation and could be labeled flaming, etc.

Then why bother say it at all, if you know how stupid it is, and how much it hurts your argument? I've gotten in the habit of reporting non-constructive ad hominem to the Commie Club, so watch it...

This makes it seem like you're only a lefty troll or stereotype, like you're only a leftist because you've got a stick up your ass.

Again, none of this is constructive analysis of my argument.

There's a difference between the "right" to "be vocal" and actually having power over situation. (Sort of like the "right" to vote versus actually living in a "direct democracy") The human race has never needed compulsory education to enjoy, identify, and appreciate good literature before.

[quote]Only if the individual English teacher is bourgeois herself

You're working under the assumption that only members of the bourgeois class can have bourgeois values. Which is populist rubbage.

Why do we need to learn French/Spanish?

Don't ask me. I'm the one attacking public school, not deciding what languages they should teach. The fact that you think learning French is somehow evil because it's a "western" language (I think knowing any two languages is better than only knowing one, but that's just me) does not change the fact that the US educational system educates its services teaching the French and Spanish languages, and in most cases, fails in adequitely providing this service.

Also, considering some of the poorest, most ethnically diverse countries in the world speak Spanish, I think your bigotries are unfounded. Public education would be just as shitty if they tried to teach us Wolof, Hopi, or Tagalog.

And the system definitely teaches enough of English to get at least a basic understanding of the English language so that every individual who passes through it is capable of independently publishing high level propaganda, which is a huge gain at this point of time.

uhhh....if you say so. There are better ways to learn the English (or any other) language. Rather than making up obtuse rationales for capitalist education, that glorify and fetishize our camp's lack of cultural influence, we should be setting up alternatives to capitalist indoctrination camps.

The military also gives people skills that are useful for being a revolutionary. However, you can also do a bunch of push-ups without joining the military.

No, it looks like they didn't teach you shit.

They didn't. Hence why I learned on my own. Others on this message board have a lot more to learn.

Agrippa

26th July 2009, 16:44

Really? How so? I thought that was "Lord of the Rings" that was glorifying the "native" qualities of the British - harry feet, round huts, and lots of good drink.

Except rather than promoting Victorian nostalgia, the Lord of the Rings denounces the ecological, degradation of knowledge and loss of social liberties experienced during the emergence of industrial capitalism. Tolkien, himself an anarchist, explicitly stated that if the Lord of the Rings was an analogy for WWII, there would be two sets of Saurons fighting to enslave the Hobbits and sieze the One Ring for their own use.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

26th July 2009, 16:57

Yeah, this analogy is very bluntly put forward by the books, and it's telling that "muggles", apart from being too mundane to get much narrative attention in a story about wizards, have natural powerlessness as their defining characteristic; if the bad racist wizards want to be mean to them, it's up to the good, enlightened wizards to counteract these evil forces. I seem to recall any talk about "muggles" from the "nice" wizards being obscenely paternalistic, but it's been a while since I looked at those books.

The stuff about fancy boarding schools, imperialist nostalgia etc. is commonplace on the left, I thought, and pretty obviously true if you're not illiterate. It's also kind of trivial -- under capitalism all media are necessarily marked by bourgeois ideology, even the stuff that does an okay job of challenging it (which nobody would accuse kids' fantasy of trying to do) -- but getting a little overexcited about discovering reactionary ideas in popular media is a fucking fair sight better than pretending "It's children's entertainment! It's fantasy!" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Golliwogg1.jpg) makes anything neutral.

Some people read way too into things. You are a class example. No pun intended.

More Fire for the People

26th July 2009, 17:14

Except rather than promoting Victorian nostalgia, the Lord of the Rings denounces the ecological, degradation of knowledge and loss of social liberties experienced during the emergence of industrial capitalism. Tolkien, himself an anarchist, explicitly stated that if the Lord of the Rings was an analogy for WWII, there would be two sets of Saurons fighting to enslave the Hobbits and sieze the One Ring for their own use.
Wait, what? I agree that capitalism is responsible for intensifying environmental degradation (a process that was already manifest, though) and consequently spread this system around the world. But what social liberties did we lose by passing from feudalism to capitalism?

redflag32

26th July 2009, 18:30

Just enjoy the film ye bunch of weirdos

Trystan

26th July 2009, 18:40

This reminds me of that Private Eye "story" from a few years back: "I'm a Lib Dem, admits gay MP."

26th July 2009, 18:41

Just enjoy the film ye bunch of weirdos

The last film was the biggest fail ever..
I cant undersand this whole conversation going on in here, it turned to lots different ones, way different from the OP, and i dont know if i should split to new threads as i would be in the middle to make more than just one new thread...
For the OP, not big deal, yeah good thing though that he is against prejudices and he is free about it, he says he had homosexual experience in his youth and as weirdly i know this sounds, some people in the world can really stop prejudicing because.. "harry potter does it".. but yeah thats fine with me if it has positive results once, from rich "stars"..
As for the HP story in general, and that its a racist book, its a book glorying englands imperialist times or whatever else heard in this thread, that i didnt read all of it as been too much, thats crap and far from truth.I have read all those books, and not just once, and i never noticed nothing like that, and i have the believe that i can see those things when they exist.. Its a decent story, it has some "political meannings" but it cant be given not even the "anti-racist" etc etc character some people give it, but hell you cant say that its meanings are bad.. most meannings are those that we usually support.. I
Bottom line is, its a book, a story, a fantastic story and some people are giving it way much seriousness that it actually has..

Fuserg9:star:

Agrippa

26th July 2009, 18:57

Wait, what? I agree that capitalism is responsible for intensifying environmental degradation (a process that was already manifest, though) and consequently spread this system around the world. But what social liberties did we lose by passing from feudalism to capitalism?

If we study the period of European history commonly referred to as "the primitive accumulation of capital", we see...

The infringement of midwives on the right to practice medicine (in regards to contraceptives, abortifacients, etc.) which was usually enforced with a penalty of being burnt at the stake, as part of the development of the patriarchal/centralized medical complex.
Intensification of homophobia (the term faggot originates from the tradition during the "burning years" of starting witches' fires with homosexuals, whereas in early periods of medieval European history, many feudal regimes had civil unions for homosexuals) and persecution of other "unproductive" romantic relationships (such as between young men and peri-menopausal/post-menopausal women)
The introduction of vagrancy laws
A purge of political radicals (witches, Christian Anabaptists, et. al) and the innovation of predecessors to treason laws, etc.)
The transition from artisan to industrial modes of production which severely deteriorated the quality of labor, hence spontaneous mass-resistance to the imposition of industrial modes of production. (the Luddites, et. al)
The destruction of the communal land via industrial development, and various restrictions on social liberties to facilitate this process. (Such as banning stool-ball, public feasts, etc.)

The ways in which industrial capitalism has further deteriorated our social iberties are, in my opinion, quite obvious. (Security cameras, fingerprint databases, DNA banks, ID cards, police cruisers, tasers, etc.)

Also, making the emergence of capitalism out to be entirely a transition from fuedalism to capitalism is a very Euro-centric perspective, which fails to take African, American Indian, Asian, and Australio-Polynesian experiences into account. These people would be the historical equivilants of the protagonists of The Lord of the Rings, colonized and occupied by Sauron

punisa

26th July 2009, 21:29

It sucked when I was 12 years old, now it's just :X (the worst bit is I know some decent folks who actually read it!).

These people need help.
Either explain them slowly that what they are doing is nonsense, or slip the communist manifesto inside Harry Potter's book cover.

26th July 2009, 21:35

These people need help.
Either explain them slowly that what they are doing is nonsense, or slip the communist manifesto inside Harry Potter's book cover.

Bullshit... Do you want to give me help for reading them?:wub: Or does anyone who reads a book of fiction needs help?Give us a break, and quit the patronizing attitude, and as said anyone who wants to give me the help i need, im open...

Fuserg9:star:

Josef Balin

27th July 2009, 00:47

Individual "passion" for wage-labor does not exonnerate capitalism, sorry.
Now you're looking at labour just as a capitalist does, we oppose capitalism because it makes people look at labour the way you do. It is entirely possible to have a career and enjoy it despite it being part of the capitalist system.

Then why bother say it at all, if you know how stupid it is, and how much it hurts your argument? I've gotten in the habit of reporting non-constructive ad hominem to the Commie Club, so watch it...
Oh no. The lefty with a stick up his ass has an itchy report button finger. Whatever shall I do?

There's a difference between the "right" to "be vocal" and actually having power over situation. (Sort of like the "right" to vote versus actually living in a "direct democracy") The human race has never needed compulsory education to enjoy, identify, and appreciate good literature before.
What the fuck are you talking about?

You're working under the assumption that only members of the bourgeois class can have bourgeois values. Which is populist rubbage.
I figured it was pretty obvious I meant bourgeoise in ideology, as there are practically zero economically bourgeoise public school teachers. But I guess you needed that spelled out, as you weren't "taught shit" in school.

The fact that you think learning French is somehow evil because it's a "western" language
Source, please. I'd love to see where I said learning French is "evil".

(I think knowing any two languages is better than only knowing one, but that's just me) does not change the fact that the US educational system educates its services teaching the French and Spanish languages, and in most cases, fails in adequitely providing this service.
To people who don't want to learn French and Spanish it does. I've never met a person who wanted to learn the language, took at least two classes in it (i.e.: Spanish I and Spanish II, French I and French II, etc).

Also, considering some of the poorest, most ethnically diverse countries in the world speak Spanish, I think your bigotries are unfounded. Public education would be just as shitty if they tried to teach us Wolof, Hopi, or Tagalog.
Source where I was "bigoted" towards either the Spanish language or Spanish speaking peoples. The students could be learning Chinese, which has many more speakers, or Esperanto. And what does "ethnic diversity" matter? Why would we care if they are "ethnically diverse"? Does that mean that of languages spoken in areas, if the people speaking said language are of the same ethnicity we should care less than if they were "ethnically diverse"?

uhhh....if you say so. There are better ways to learn the English (or any other) language.
Okay, get off of your ass and go teach English. If it's so easy and no one else has stumbled on it but you (and I'm sure your fringe organization), go out there and go teach some fucking English bro. But don't come on here like you've figured out what people have been trying to get better at for a long time and talk down to everyone. That just makes you an arrogant dick.[/QUOTE]
Rest is you rambling so I didn't respond.

khad

27th July 2009, 01:10

Oh no. The lefty with a stick up his ass has an itchy report button finger. Whatever shall I do?
His "reporting" consists of posting homophobic rants from 4chan and then insinuating that you said them. Too bad most board regulars can't stand his primitivist racist ass.

punisa

27th July 2009, 01:47

Bullshit... Do you want to give me help for reading them?:wub: Or does anyone who reads a book of fiction needs help?Give us a break, and quit the patronizing attitude, and as said anyone who wants to give me the help i need, im open...

Fuserg9:star:

Wtf???
What part of the "slip the communist manifesto inside Harry Potter's book cover" did you not figure out to be a joke? :confused:
I though the joke was too obvious and didn't require an addition smiley face for people to get it. Apparently you did not.

Can't believe I got negative reps for this.

27th July 2009, 02:27

Wtf???
What part of the "slip the communist manifesto inside Harry Potter's book cover" did you not figure out to be a joke? :confused:
I though the joke was too obvious and didn't require an addition smiley face for people to get it. Apparently you did not.

Can't believe I got negative reps for this.

You know its hard to tell behind a monitor when people dont see you?Thats why those things that called emoticons exist, to make yourself more understandable.If you worry about the rep, i will give you back...

Fuserg9:star:

punisa

27th July 2009, 02:32

You know its hard to tell behind a monitor when people dont see you?Thats why those things that called emoticons exist, to make yourself more understandable.If you worry about the rep, i will give you back...

Fuserg9:star:

I know, we're just a bunch of words wich come out right or wrong.
No hard feelings, I'll make sure to emoti-up my random comments. :engles:

bcbm

27th July 2009, 06:06

The fact this thread has this many pages is what concerns me.

Most of it is from an on-going conversation about public education which is actually a fairly decent discussion, not the OP.

Bright Banana Beard

27th July 2009, 06:11

Can a mod break up the topic of education and harpy potbird.

Janine Melnitz

27th July 2009, 07:04

^ Seconded

Janine Melnitz

27th July 2009, 07:05

(The movement to call it "harpy potbird" I mean)

NecroCommie

27th July 2009, 11:33

One man's miseducation is another's erudition. One size does not fit all.
if not better than those anywhere else in the world. I can assure you that you will not find any who are more dedicated, on the whole.

Americans pay more in taxes toward public schooling than just about any other nation,

Even if I disagree with lot of your points, it is these two that I find hard to even believe without further proof.

Jimmie Higgins

28th July 2009, 03:02

Even if I disagree with lot of your points, it is these two that I find hard to even believe without further proof.

He can't reply - because he's wrong and also because he's in OI now.

Here's some figures from the 1990s:

In short, US spends more than Japan but less than social-democracies in Europe.

For me the main point about school spending is the inequality in the US school system. Since the US ruling class has been on the offensive (beginning in the 1970s) and determined that guns and butter should be turned into butter for the rich, guns pointed at the poor (i.e. social spending went from New Deal and "great society" liberal projects to more prisons, more police, more military spending) a huge gulf between education for the rich and the education fro the rest has developed. The US ruling class simply doesn't see an educated workforce as a priority in the neo-liberal era and so the rich and professionals have pulled kids out of public schools and into private schools so that in most areas, public schools are more like holding centers than places of learning (rich neighborhoods still have nice public schools though)

From the PBS website I linked above:

In 1990, writer Jonathan Kozol visited the Woodrow Wilson Public High School in Camden, New Jersey. In his book "Savage Inequalities," Kozol describes a lab room with no equipment, a broken boiler, a computer room with 30 unusable computers-- they were melted by the heat, and a 58 percent dropout rate. At the time, the state-wide average was $5,000 yearly on each student. The Camden school received $4,000 per kid. The same year, nearby Cherry Hill spent over $6,000 and Princeton spent over $8,000 per child. One of the most extreme case of disparate school funding was in San Antonio, Texas, where in 1989 district spending ranged from $2,112 to $19,333. The richest district drew property taxes on wealth totaling $14 million per student, and the poorest district drew property taxes on wealth totaling $20,000 per student.

PRC-UTE

28th July 2009, 06:12

What the hell is this thread :s
Did you expect him to be a communist?
Do you expect anyone to be a communist? :confused:

No, I didn't expect him to be a communist.

Ron Weasely is another story though

PRC-UTE

28th July 2009, 06:13

I was just informed that Hermoine started a support group for exploited house elves.

Why didn't someone bring this up sooner?

khad

28th July 2009, 06:16

I was just informed that Hermoine started a support group for exploited house elves.

Why didn't someone bring this up sooner?typical liberal noblesse oblige. Pretty silly and somewhat grating, if you ask me.

PRC-UTE

28th July 2009, 06:18

typical liberal noblesse oblige. Pretty silly and somewhat grating, if you ask me.

That's quite a flippant way to speak of Comrade Hermoine :crying:

khad

28th July 2009, 06:42

That's quite a flippant way to speak of Comrade Hermoine :crying:
Oh LOL, didn't catch the sarcasm that time.

28th July 2009, 10:49

That's quite a flippant way to speak of Comrade Hermoine :crying:

You win the thread.

makesi

28th July 2009, 12:47

Haha, I can't stand the writing of JK Rowling, as I believe I've already mentioned, but her tripe is no worse of a read than the garbage the Proletkult used to churn out. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Goodnight, my friends...

На русском можешь читать? What proletkult writings have you coursed you way through?? My guess....None.

I'm reading this thread through (with my biases as a teacher and a member of the oppressing class [you know, we oppress the students, that is]) and I'm seeing a lot of confusion between libertarian and leftist arguments (especially from Agrippa).

ZeroNowhere

28th July 2009, 23:54

I have no idea what public schools are like in Britain, but I would imagine they aren't very different from public schools in the US: little factories designed to turn out loyal capitalist-loving drones or, in the case of the "gifted" students, the next generation of capitalists. They determine the "worth" of each child through standardized tests that measure ones ability to spit back every theory the testmakers want forced down your throats, the teachers go along with it because their "worth" is determined by their students' performance on these tests.

I'm not saying private schools are any better. At least in the South, they're little more than places ultra-conservatives send their kids to keep them out of the "leftist" public school system. I'm just saying that we shouldn't glorify the public school system that exists under capitalism, because frankly, it's probably the biggest obstacle to revolutionary change that exists--at least in America.Eh, most private schools here are better than public (but that's not saying much, these are Singaporean public schools we're talking about). They're still shit.

I'm reading this thread through (with my biases as a teacher and a member of the oppressing class [you know, we oppress the students, that is]) and I'm seeing a lot of confusion between libertarian and leftist arguments (especially from Agrippa).Eh, I generally don't call policemen members of the 'oppressing class', I don't see why you would be treated any differently.