My Economics Teacher

[JAH23]

So I'm in Economics and my teacher is real nice, but when he starts teaching, my bones cringe.

For example, he stated that globalization of the economy is a good thing, as it allows for cheaper production of goods. I wanted so badly to refute him, but I was so pissed off, I couldn't have formed a rational argument.

Now, he can go about and think this crap all he wants, but the problem I have is that HE IS TELLING THIS TO UNEDUCATED KIDS-indeed, kids that will accept this way of thinking and be forever infiltrated with the capitalist mindset.

Also:

Student: "So, globalization is good, right?"
Teacher: "Yes, very good. People can make goods cheaper."
Student: "Oh, okay".

:scared:

I'm sure you guys have had similar experiences.

Are all Econ classes this bad??

[GPDP]

Heh, my Macroecon professor said that Marx invented the concept of the "command economy" (meaning a top-down state-managed economy like the USSR's) to which I spoke up, and said Marx wanted an economy controlled by the people, not by bureaucrats. She then proceeded to ignore this, and just "responded" by saying Marx's vision has never been fully realized (as in a perfect "command economy" with no market influence, not a democratic worker-controlled economy).

Trust me when I say Economics classes tend to be quite full of shit. It's not surprise, either, considering how close the discipline is to bourgeois ideology and business interests.

[which doctor]

Why is globalization bad for the economy?

[Kléber]

Globalization is progressive, capitalism is not.


But underlying this interlocking, its very base, are changing social relations of production. When a big enterprise assumes gigantic proportions, and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organises according to plan the supply of primary raw materials to the extent of two-thirds, or three-fourths, of all that is necessary for tens of millions of people; when the raw materials are transported in a systematic and organised manner to the most suitable places of production, sometimes situated hundreds or thousands of miles from each other; when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of processing the material right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when these products are distributed according to a single plan among tens and hundreds of millions of consumers (the marketing of oil in America and Germany by the American oil trust)-then it becomes evident that we have socialisation of production, and not mere ‘interlocking'; that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period (if, at worst, the cure of the opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed.

[RHIZOMES]

I agree with which doctor, it's not if globalization is useful for capitalism or not - it is. It's how fucked the system is in the first place when globalization is the best option for the global ruling class with the massive damage it causes.

This is why I don't take PolSci and Economics though, as GPDP said it's really closely tied to bourgeois ideology. Sociology is better if you want to learn the wider scope of things such as globalization, since Economics purely looks at how much profit something gives.

[GPDP]

I'm actually a PolSci major, but I kinda lucked out, since the department is stacked with left-liberals, progressives, and even socialists. :D

Oh, also majoring in Sociology, btw. That department is great as well. :)

[Kléber]

Globalization, ie the integration of the world economy, has been happening since the start of history, and it has always been increasing the productivity of labor. It breaks down the national boundaries which have disunited workers and combines them more and more into a single international class. It ensures that economic and political crises happen on an international scale, and the bourgeoisie of various countries can not therefore focus all their efforts on resolving one.

Like the industrial revolution of the 1800's it is an ugly, brutal process, but it must be understood as a historical step toward socialism. No country has been able to build "socialism" alone and stand up to the world capitalist economy. The globalization of capitalist production relations ties all the goods up in a bundle for the proletariat to snatch.

[Sendo]

I'm actually a PolSci major, but I kinda lucked out, since the department is stacked with left-liberals, progressives, and even socialists. :D

Oh, also majoring in Sociology, btw. That department is great as well. :)

please be a HS history teacher. I see this for us, as Mormons see missionary work. Not in it is our duty to preach truth, but rather one way for us to give our youth and energy to the movement, to engage people, make them think, dispel the corporate lies they're fed by the idiot box and help give the working-class students some pride. It's also a sacrifice since the wages are much lower than they should be (in the USA at least), but it's a great opportunity to be part of a union and be among the people. They aren't the workers yet, but they will be after their graduation or after college.

Socialist profs in college are great for giving us research-based courses and the flexibility to have sabbaticals and write books, but most people will never take more than one history course at the college level.

I'd like to get certified for teaching in America myself.

[GPDP]

Actually, they mandate two History and two Pol Sci courses at my uni.

I do plan on teaching, but I was thinking of staying at the college level... I dunno, though. I just don't think I'd have enough flexibility at the HS level.

[bcbm]

Why is globalization bad for the economy?

globalization isn't bad for the economy of the first world nations who carry out the policy, but it is bad for the economies of the third would countries facing globalization and it is especially bad for the people in those countries, especially the underclasses.

---


Globalization, ie the integration of the world economy, has been happening since the start of history, and it has always been increasing the productivity of labor.i don't think this a very good analysis, or at least, it isn't talking about globalization in the context being used here. i think it is also important to ask what is meant by "productivity" and who is benefiting from it.


It breaks down the national boundaries which have disunited workers and combines them more and more into a single international class.national borders are an extremely recent development, as is the entire idea of a nation. prior to the creation of these borders there was a great degree of solidarity between the underclasses, because they all had the same enemy.


It ensures that economic and political crises happen on an international scale, and the bourgeoisie of various countries can not therefore focus all their efforts on resolving one.the birth of capitalism basically coincides with the first major economic crises in europe. in most cases the crises don't weaken the position of the bourgeoisie, but in fact strengthen it.


Like the industrial revolution of the 1800's it is an ugly, brutal process, but it must be understood as a historical step toward socialism.i think this is actually a very horrible way to view history. i don't think the suffering and deaths of millions upon millions of human beings are necessary to establish a communist society. i think the development of capitalism can actually be looked at as a counter-revolution by the ruling classes against a rising tide of underclass revolutionary energy that was pushing towards communism.

[RHIZOMES]

please be a HS history teacher. I see this for us, as Mormons see missionary work. Not in it is our duty to preach truth, but rather one way for us to give our youth and energy to the movement, to engage people, make them think, dispel the corporate lies they're fed by the idiot box and help give the working-class students some pride. It's also a sacrifice since the wages are much lower than they should be (in the USA at least), but it's a great opportunity to be part of a union and be among the people. They aren't the workers yet, but they will be after their graduation or after college.

Socialist profs in college are great for giving us research-based courses and the flexibility to have sabbaticals and write books, but most people will never take more than one history course at the college level.

I'd like to get certified for teaching in America myself.

I'm planning on becoming a qualified English and social studies high school teacher, if that counts. I hate Uni English (mostly due to the po-mo rubbish and having to read a novel a week) but English at the secondary level for me always came off as the most fun to teach, at least the NZ curriculum anyway, where you have a huge freedom in what texts you can choose.


Actually, they mandate two History and two Pol Sci courses at my uni.

I do plan on teaching, but I was thinking of staying at the college level... I dunno, though. I just don't think I'd have enough flexibility at the HS level.

Leftie academic! :O Actually, that's exactly why I stayed away from History, I would not have any freedom from the NZ imperialist view taught in our high school history classes. English is better for people who want flexibility in what they teach in NZ.

[Guerrilla22]

For example, he stated that globalization of the economy is a good thing, as it allows for cheaper production of goods

At the expense of workers in a lesser developed country.

[Pirate Utopian]

My old economics teacher was a jerk and a total capitalist sympathiser, my current one is okay though.

[RHIZOMES]

My HS economics teacher was a former communist social democrat so we got along

[Kléber]

national borders are an extremely recent development, as is the entire idea of a nation. prior to the creation of these borders there was a great degree of solidarity between the underclasses, because they all had the same enemy.
As I understand it, the origin of states was the formation of armed bodies for the defense of ruling class privilege. Although individuals and groups of humans must have fought each other over minor squabbles before that, there was no class struggle between participants in exploitative labor relations going on in pre-state/primitive-communist times.


the birth of capitalism basically coincides with the first major economic crises in europe. in most cases the crises don't weaken the position of the bourgeoisie, but in fact strengthen it.
Well, I meant more like the recent financial disaster.



i think this is actually a very horrible way to view history. i don't think the suffering and deaths of millions upon millions of human beings are necessary to establish a communist society.
True, there's nothing progressive about the casualties of capital accumulation. But by improving productivity and increasing the productivity of labor, capitalism has made the economic process of its own replacement with socialism a much simpler task.


i think the development of capitalism can actually be looked at as a counter-revolution by the ruling classes against a rising tide of underclass revolutionary energy that was pushing towards communism.
In the aftermath of national-democratic revolutions (or during them) the bourgeoisie has indeed tended to betray and/or defeat worker and peasant elements, but it is still "revolutionary" insofar as it seeks to abolish feudal and national restrictions on its own interests.

[Chambered Word]

So I'm in Economics and my teacher is real nice, but when he starts teaching, my bones cringe.

For example, he stated that globalization of the economy is a good thing, as it allows for cheaper production of goods. I wanted so badly to refute him, but I was so pissed off, I couldn't have formed a rational argument.

Now, he can go about and think this crap all he wants, but the problem I have is that HE IS TELLING THIS TO UNEDUCATED KIDS-indeed, kids that will accept this way of thinking and be forever infiltrated with the capitalist mindset.

Also:

Student: "So, globalization is good, right?"
Teacher: "Yes, very good. People can make goods cheaper."
Student: "Oh, okay".

:scared:

I'm sure you guys have had similar experiences.

Are all Econ classes this bad??

I do highschool economics as well. Our teacher pretty much admits that she's teaching us propaganda. Another Marxist and I have alot to say about the system in class and we end up winning debates. I just hope others in the class think long and hard about it.

I would say you should try and educate the other kids in your class too.

[Tablo]

My econ teacher taught that the Soviet Union collapsed because planned economies can't quickly respond to the needs of the people like Capitalism can. I was her least favorite students. ^_^

[JAH23]

Why is globalization bad for the economy?

Under capitalism, it is never good. Increases exploitation of workers, especially in poverty stricken nations. Globalization in a Socialist society would be a great tool, as I believe it would increase solidarity of workers.

And to GDPD: Communism is only taught as a "command economy" in the class. Also, it doesn't help the teacher fought in Vietnam to "protect your parents against the evils of communism". I can't wait to graduate



I do highschool economics as well. Our teacher pretty much admits that she's teaching us propaganda. Another Marxist and I have alot to say about the system in class and we end up winning debates. I just hope others in the class think long and hard about it.

I would say you should try and educate the other kids in your class too.

I don't usually share my opinion during class. I am in a very conservative school, with very conservative teachers and just plain dumb students, so I have given up being the radical who sits in the front row. However, I always discuss politics with my friends, whom all know I am a Socialist.

[Chambered Word]

And to GDPD: Communism is only taught as a "command economy" in the class. Also, it doesn't help the teacher fought in Vietnam to "protect your parents against the evils of communism". I can't wait to graduate

I'm not surprised that communism is poorly represented. It's the same here. :(


I don't usually share my opinion during class. I am in a very conservative school, with very conservative teachers and just plain dumb students, so I have given up being the radical who sits in the front row. However, I always discuss politics with my friends, whom all know I am a Socialist.Well hey if there are any open-minded kids, it can be rewarding to teach them. Ignoring the brainwashed fanatic types seems like a good policy to me, though.