Should young revolutionaries go to university as long as possible?

[Lokomotive293]

As the title says, is higher education a privilege and everyone who has the opportunity to should pursue it, because only educated people can make a revolution? Or should we better get a job at, say, a large car manufacturer, or anything large and strategically relevant really, in order to organize the workers there?

[Ro Laren]

Considering my personal experience and that of a number of people I work with, college doesn't really mean you're not going to end up at a shitty, low-paying "strategically relevant" job anyways...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I'm of the opinion that if people have the opportunity to pursue higher education then they should go for it if that's what they want, if only to keep them out of work for a bit longer and maybe to learn something new about themselves or the world. However it doesn't follow that only educated people (and by 'educated people' I'm assuming you're alluding to 'people with a piece of paper that shows they have a degree') can make revolution. It's the conditions that capitalism creates that makes revolution possible and not select individuals.

[Blake's Baby]

As the title says, is higher education a privilege and everyone who has the opportunity to should pursue it, because only educated people can make a revolution? ...

That's not what the title says. The title asks a perfectly reasonable question, the text provides a stupid reason. Why do you think that 'only educated people can make a revolution'?


...
Or should we better get a job at, say, a large car manufacturer, or anything large and strategically relevant really, in order to organize the workers there?

No you shouldn't. Both your options are idiotic.

Go to university; or go to work in a car plant if you can. But not so you can 'organize the workers'. That's not your job in either of those situations. Your job is to shut the fuck up and learn some humility. The working class doesn't owe you anything, we don't need you to lead us thank you very much, we need you to try and understand what your role is. Hint: it isn't Supreme Commander of the Proletarian Brigades.

[Counterculturalist]

I would recommend that young revolutionaries who are inclined to attend university put it off for awhile.

As someone who started university later in life, after years of blue-collar work, my observation of "university leftists" is that even the most radical of them have a very poor understanding of class. In fact, the majority of them don't even acknowledge class. It's all about identity and individual choice for them.

Like Blake's Baby said, if you can get a good factory job (they don't come easy any more) do it. Not to go in there and act as some savior to the workers, but to gain some perspective on what life is really like.

And once you do get a chance to go to back to school, you'll appreciate it all the more. One thing about attending university is that it really soured me on the idea of working for a living. If it were financially feasible for me, I'd spend the rest of my days getting one degree after another.

I'm a few sheets to the wind so hopefully this isn't too incoherent.:lol:

[Sewer Socialist]

Can you even learn much about Marxism or anarchism at universities? I haven't been, but I've learned quite a bit from reading books on my own, joining reading groups, and asking questions on forums such as this one. Generally, people who have been to university have a very poor understanding of radical politics, and I think that those who don't didn't get their understanding from classes, but student associations, or maybe outside of the school altogether.

That said, I barely made it through high school, but I'm glad I did. You can probably learn a good bit at university, and hopefully figure out not to swallow the bourgeois parts and balance it with some learning of your own initiative.

Also, try working in a factory before you make a decision you might regret. Factory work is shit. I keep getting repetitive stress injuries, hints are dropped that I might be fired, I can't afford a real place to live, and it's all stressing me out. I've had enough and I'm going to start school this fall to get a better job where I can sit on my ass more.

[motion denied]

You can learn a lot about radical politics in universities. But that's because of good libraries and some radicals. It's not like you'll have a "Dictatorship of the proletariat 101" course.

Then again, some Marx (or Gramsci, Poulantzas, Frankfurt School etc marxists less associated with proletarian revolution*) may appear sooner or later depending on your area.

* I mean every academic hack has something to say about Gramsci, "non-ideologically," erasing any (or most) subversive potential he might have had.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

For what it's worth, University exposed me to my first positive reading of Marxism and my first brush with radical politics. Whereas before I had largely dismissed Marxism, I was exposed to Marxist film theory, placing films within the context of the material conditions that produced them, and it was the only theory that really made sense on all levels (as opposed to some of the post-modern theories which are kinda bullshit on some levels) and one of my lecturers was a former member of the Spanish Communist Party. Also I went along to a student protest against the raising of tuition fees (cos a girl I fancied was going, admittedly) and a cop barged into my little group of friends on horseback and in the following few months there was an occupation of the campus' administration building and Billy Bragg came along for an improptu live performance and I became more committed to the ideas. So... yeah, Uni gave me the groundwork for my current understanding of revolutionary politics (even if, looking back, it was clearly some weak politics and naive positions at the time).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think it's really fucking arrogant to think you can walk into a manual job and, like some deity-manager-god, start to 'organise the workers'.

If you're 'middle class' and try to proletarianise yourself you'll probably just end up looking like a hipster prick, as out of place as fish and chips is in a fine dining restaurant.

Do what is best for you, just make sure you have your guiding principles and you are involved in solidarity, meetings, and actions where possible. That is a good starting point for any socialist, IMO.

[Counterculturalist]

As someone who utterly despised every second of grade school and high school, I can attest to university being a million times better. However, people who go right from high school to university might not see it that way. I saw lots of bright young people stressing themselves out and killing themselves trying to pass courses that they didn't care about, just because their parents expected them to get a university degree, or some other bullshit reason.

I wouldn't recommend going to university just to learn about Marxism or leftist politics in general, although if you take something like political science or philosophy at a masters level it would probably be feasible. University is a place where you can have an excuse to deepen your understanding of whatever interests you, but it's not a substitute for doing your own, independent exploration.

For all the talk about universities being overrun with Marxist professors, that wasn't my experience. Out of about 40 or so professors I took classes from, there were three that I knew to be Marxists. Most left-leaning academics these days are obsessed with Foucault and think that he makes Marx irrelevant, which is frustrating - I mean I like Foucault as well as the next guy, but he's not the only philosopher out there, and his adherents tend to be antimaterialist identitarians.

[o well this is ok I guess]

no obviously not
this shit is expensive why should we get more debt

[Zanters]

I am in college for computer science. If you think you can improve your life with college, and you have the opportunity, then do it. But you must remember, while academics can help you understand yourself better, the emancipation of the working class will happen by it's own hand.

[Lokomotive293]

No, that's not what the title says. The title asks a perfectly reasonable question, the text provides a stupid reason. Why do you think that 'only educated people can make a revolution'?

Well just think of what you need for a large demonstration: You need to be able to analyze the political situation, you need the right marketing tools to get people there, you need lawyers, doctors,...

Also, if you think one step further, how will we build a new society if we know nothing about physics or engineering, about economics or psychology?



No you shouldn't. Both your options are idiotic.

Go to university; or go to work in a car plant if you can. But not so you can 'organize the workers'. That's not your job in either of those situations. Your job is to shut the fuck up and learn some humility. The working class doesn't owe you anything, we don't need you to lead us thank you very much, we need you to try and understand what your role is. Hint: it isn't Supreme Commander of the Proletarian Brigades.

I do not need you to tell me to shut up. Not sure why you're being so aggressive, either. Organizing is not really that much of an odd concept.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

There's a difference, Lokomotive, between stating that only educated people can make a revolution and suggesting that workers who have gone through university might provide revolutionary movements with a broader depth of knowledge. Did Marx think that the working class of his era were incapable of revolution because of their lack of access to university-level education? On the contrary, he spoke against such Blanquism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Your job is to shut the fuck up and learn some humility. The working class doesn't owe you anything, we don't need you to lead us thank you very much, we need you to try and understand what your role is. Hint: it isn't Supreme Commander of the Proletarian Brigades.

Supreme Commander of the Proletarian Brigades was a good game, but nowhere near as innovative as Total Annihilation of Counterrevolutionary Rabble.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying here but I would like to sound a note of caution; this attitude sometimes leads to tailism and "serving the People". Of course if you're smart you're going to learn from people who have been active in organising and similar actions longer than you have. And of course, if you're a student, or someone wealthy enough to be one, come down to the masses to dispense your infinite wisdom, you're a clown that represents everything wrong with class society. But it's not a bad thing to speak up sometimes.

I think a lot of Internet socialists basically act like space aliens around workers. Or rather, whenever workers are mentioned, they react like an alien completely unfamiliar with human society might. Workers aren't some mysterious magical exotic savages; they aren't perfect and unspoiled and they don't need you to tell them something as basic as the fact that they're being exploited. Basically this kind of separation between self-proclaimed socialists and workers is ridiculous and demonstrates the petit-bourgeois nature of much of ostensible socialism.

[The Lizard]

Furthering your education is NEVER a bad idea.

[Sibotic]

As the title says, is higher education a privilege and everyone who has the opportunity to should pursue it, because only educated people can make a revolution? Or should we better get a job at, say, a large car manufacturer, or anything large and strategically relevant really, in order to organize the workers there?
Ugh, whatever, it's all just a means to get a job so if you have one already then you're basically the same but you've got one. If you want to organise workers you could become an actual manager of some form or something, that's sort of like organising them.


Furthering your education is NEVER a bad idea.
I think it's weird that the problem you had with the title was that part, nonetheless it seems obvious that a person could learn in various ways and most of these don't involve universities, which had a different purpose behind them in any case and have no necessary ties to accuracy. Whether or not degrees are worth the time or useful for anything else is a different issue, given how academia's been one can be sure that they generally aren't worth the ink they're printed on. Like someone can be in an economic course, for instance, or one on politics or frequently history - that's just taking time away from time they could spend actually learning about the past's economy. Association with such would never help one, but obviously it's weak and irrelevant and one needn't be harmed by it or take it seriously.

In any case 'furthering your education' is probably something one might say in a CV or interview, it's not a real reason that people apply for courses and things.


Your job is to shut the fuck up and learn some humility. The working class doesn't owe you anything, we don't need you to lead us thank you very much, we need you to try and understand what your role is.
That was the job of the working class generally, yes. That shouldn't be and isn't the case, nor was the point to 'understand' the role of the working class but to abolish it, which worked out.

[Decolonize The Left]

As the title says, is higher education a privilege

In many ways it is because it's so expensive, but it shouldn't be. Well, education shouldn't be in general--I object to the idea of "higher education" entirely.


and everyone who has the opportunity to should pursue it, because only educated people can make a revolution?

Revolutions are not events. They are not "made."


Or should we better get a job at, say, a large car manufacturer, or anything large and strategically relevant really, in order to organize the workers there?

If you're goal is to bring about communism then communize. You are looking at the whole situation backwards, which is understandable. It seems like you think that you need to fill a certain form to be a communist, when the truth is that communism is precisely the dissolution of forms as we know it. If you want to go to school and have the opportunity, do so. If you want to get a job and make a living, do so. You can communize in either situation.

[Blake's Baby]

...

That was the job of the working class generally, yes. That shouldn't be and isn't the case, nor was the point to 'understand' the role of the working class but to abolish it, which worked out.

I meant locomotive's role as a revolutionary was not to 'lead' or 'organise' the working class but primarily to learn from it. I really think that some people need to realise that they are not going to save the ignorant workers, but instead that the workers will save them - from the arrogance of assuming that they have something to teach the working class, if nothing else.

To my mind there are only really two questions revolutionaries need to understand the answers to: 1-what is the current situation? and 2-what is the role of revolutionaries in this situation?

The answer to the second is never 'assume we know better than the working class'.

[The Lizard]

I think it's weird that the problem you had with the title was that part, nonetheless it seems obvious that a person could learn in various ways and most of these don't involve universities, which had a different purpose behind them in any case and have no necessary ties to accuracy. Whether or not degrees are worth the time or useful for anything else is a different issue, given how academia's been one can be sure that they generally aren't worth the ink they're printed on. Like someone can be in an economic course, for instance, or one on politics or frequently history - that's just taking time away from time they could spend actually learning about the past's economy. Association with such would never help one, but obviously it's weak and irrelevant and one needn't be harmed by it or take it seriously.

In any case 'furthering your education' is probably something one might say in a CV or interview, it's not a real reason that people apply for courses and things.

According to you.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The answer to the second is never 'assume we know better than the working class'.

Assume? No. But sometimes we, that is communists, who are predominantly workers (one would hope) do know better than most of the working class.

Most of the working class votes for social-democratic and liberal parties, we know that won't work.

Most of the working class looks to bourgeois populists for an end to the current misery, we know that won't work.

And so on.

Of course that has nothing with student types coming into the factories to teach the poor benighted workers that they're oppressed.

[Rafiq]

It is a matter of commitment. You cannot assume that you are a Communist for all the right reasons. This is quite the problem - Why are you a Communist must be the first question. How seriously do you take such ideas? To be a Communist requires the maturity of being able to not fall back on moral abstractions like "because I want a better society" or "because I am against exploitation". To be a Communist is irreducible to this kind of rhetoric.

University can be useful, in some ways, in that - if you can afford it - it might be a decent place to search for like-minded individuals, obtain degrees that might (I cannot think of much) be useful for political work, and so on. The problem is that you cannot be a Communist as a student.

But no, going to university isn't going to give you the education necessary to constitute a "vanguard", in fact, as a committed Communist, if you go to university you ought to retain a mentality of critical vigilance in courses that pertain to social processes. You could try organizing your fellow students, for example - but how far could this extend? Student's loyalty to political causes is usually just a temporary idiosyncrasy, stages of their life until they go on to become yuppie scum. But, for example, if you might be able to help organize students whose prospects at paying off their college debt look dim, and so on. Besides that, you could try to organize students on political lines with no illusions of them constituting a basis of revolution, counteract reactionary ideas and so on. To fight the class struggle in domains outside of the direct class struggle, however, requires consciousness of the reality that you are not fighting as a student, or as an individual, you are fighting for something that is infinitely beyond you.

It is a matter of - as mentioned, acquiring a sense of humility. Immerse yourself in the theoretical tradition first, if you cannot do this, then your reasons for calling yourself a Communist are probably stupid.

[StromboliFucker666]

It is a matter of commitment. You cannot assume that you are a Communist for all the right reasons. This is quite the problem - Why are you a Communist must be the first question. How seriously do you take such ideas? To be a Communist requires the maturity of being able to not fall back on moral abstractions like "because I want a better society" or "because I am against exploitation". To be a Communist is irreducible to this kind of rhetoric.

Does this count? I find capitalism to be an inefficient system of distributing goods. It's very wasteful yet it still doesn't meet everyone's needs. I also believe that we reach our full potential when cooperating, not when competing.
Of course there are moral arguments I have too.

[Rafiq]

I find capitalism to be an inefficient system of distributing goods. It's very wasteful yet it still doesn't meet everyone's needs. I also believe that we reach our full potential when cooperating, not when competing.

These are moral abstractions, though - playing the utilitarian game assumes a substrate of morality. Capitalism is very efficient. Don't believe me? Look at how resilient, and how dynamic it has been in sustaining itself for the past one hundred years.

In addition, capitalism is very cooperative, as is every society - in fact, with the increased socialization of labor what we see in capitalism is the general reduction of inter-capitalist competition and even planning-esque mass cross coordination between different financial cartels, corporations, trusts, etc.

In a post-capitalist society, there is no reason to think there will be "less" competition, either. So these don't suffice - the reality is that anti-capitalism can only take a critical role: If capitalism does not have to exist, then one can only oppose it, for its existence is contingent upon the notion that it's the "best we've got". Of course everyone recognizes capitalism is "bad", always. The point is the superstition that constrains the conditions of possibility, in their minds.

[StromboliFucker666]

These are moral abstractions, though - playing the utilitarian game assumes a substrate of morality. Capitalism is very efficient. Don't believe me? Look at how resilient, and how dynamic it has been in sustaining itself for the past one hundred years.

In addition, capitalism is very cooperative, as is every society - in fact, with the increased socialization of labor what we see in capitalism is the general reduction of inter-capitalist competition and even planning-esque mass cross coordination between different financial cartels, corporations, trusts, etc.

In a post-capitalist society, there is no reason to think there will be "less" competition, either. So these don't suffice - the reality is that anti-capitalism can only take a critical role: If capitalism does not have to exist, then one can only oppose it, for its existence is contingent upon the notion that it's the "best we've got". Of course everyone recognizes capitalism is "bad", always. The point is the superstition that constrains the conditions of possibility, in their minds.

I see an economic system as a tool with the ultimate goal of producing as much as possible and tending to the needs as much as possible while wasting as little as possible. By this definition, capitalism is inefficient. It fails to meet everyone's needs yet it still wastes a ridiculous amount. A large amount of people do not have homes despite in a lot of places, there are plenty of empty homes. Plenty of people struggle just to put food on the table despite the fact that food gets wasted every day because no one bought it. One could say just to buy more food, however it's hard to buy food when you can not afford it. Now do you see what I mean? capitalism is VERY sustainable if it's running correctly however it is not efficient by the definition I listed.

If that is based on morals, then how should I attack capitalism?

[Rafiq]

I see an economic system as a tool with the ultimate goal of producing as much as possible and tending to the needs as much as possible while wasting as little as possible.

This is however, not only an anti-Marxist notion of economics, it is thoroughly apolitical. That is, the idea of an economic system as a "tool" is particular to the logic of technocratic neoliberalism. We Marxists, conversely, recognize rather the opposite - that it is men and their needs which are "tools" of a given mode of production, to reproduce it.

An "economic system" within the confines of capitalism can vary. A mode of production, which is the sum-total of relations to production, and the process of how things are produced and distributed, varies only on a historic level.


If that is based on morals, then how should I attack capitalism

By immersing yourself in the rich anti-capitalist theoretical tradition, first and foremost. The first step is recognizing that "capitalism" is not an entity, an idea, that is outside of us. It is absolutely constitutive of our lives, and our very being. The second step is recognizing that there are antagonisms that are also constitutive of our lives. What this means is that yes - capitalism does create a standard that it cannot abide by.

So the third step is recognizing what exactly these antagonisms are, and where their conclusion brings us. It is the job of Leftists to approximate these, transform them into real political language, and foster the growth of a Communist movement.

One does not need to do this by telling people how bad capitalism is. People know how bad capitalism - or should I say, their lives are. What they need is an alternative. In the absence of an alternative that genuinely speaks to them, they become entangled in reaction.

[Ritzy Cat]

Pretty lifestylist to imply its "better to take a academic/career certain path in your life" for the sake of "revolution".

Do what you want

[StromboliFucker666]

This is however, not only an anti-Marxist notion of economics, it is thoroughly apolitical. That is, the idea of an economic system as a "tool" is particular to the logic of technocratic neoliberalism. We Marxists, conversely, recognize rather the opposite - that it is men and their needs which are "tools" of a given mode of production, to reproduce it.

An "economic system" within the confines of capitalism can vary. A mode of production, which is the sum-total of relations to production, and the process of how things are produced and distributed, varies only on a historic level.



By immersing yourself in the rich anti-capitalist theoretical tradition, first and foremost. The first step is recognizing that "capitalism" is not an entity, an idea, that is outside of us. It is absolutely constitutive of our lives, and our very being. The second step is recognizing that there are antagonisms that are also constitutive of our lives. What this means is that yes - capitalism does create a standard that it cannot abide by.

So the third step is recognizing what exactly these antagonisms are, and where their conclusion brings us. It is the job of Leftists to approximate these, transform them into real political language, and foster the growth of a Communist movement.

One does not need to do this by telling people how bad capitalism is. People know how bad capitalism - or should I say, their lives are. What they need is an alternative. In the absence of an alternative that genuinely speaks to them, they become entangled in reaction.

I can definitely see your point but I would still argue that communism would do those things. (Maximize production, tend to the needs of everyone and waste as little as possible)


So we basically need to stop informing people that they are being fucked, and instead teach them about a system where they won't be fucked? (sorry for the vulgarity) That makes sense.

[Rafiq]

So we basically need to stop informing people that they are being fucked, and instead teach them about a system where they won't be fucked? (sorry for the vulgarity) That makes sense.


More specifically, offer them direction in a way that shows them an alternative is possible. This can only be done by engagement on political level.

[RedMaterialist]

That was the job of the working class generally, yes. That shouldn't be and isn't the case, nor was the point to 'understand' the role of the working class but to abolish it, which worked out.

The job of the working class was to abolish the working class? The job of the working class is to abolish the capitalist class, which isn't working out.

[RedMaterialist]

So we basically need to stop informing people that they are being fucked, and instead teach them about a system where they won't be fucked? (sorry for the vulgarity) That makes sense.

You need to explain who is fucking them, why they are being fucked and why it's not because of the "freedom of the market" that they are being fucked. And that in order to stop being fucked they have to kill the fucker.

[Tim Redd]

Furthering your education is NEVER a bad idea.

Furthering your education is a poor choice if doing so obtends (prevents) you from performing a task, or series of tasks, that critically advances the realization of events that accomplish revolution, and or revolutionary goals in general.

On the other hand if there are no such critical events in effect, stay in college. If you are already a Marxist revolutionary, disciplined college study can give you much (loads of, tons of) useful knowledge for making revolution. To paraphrase what Lenin says in What Is To Be Done?, Marxism is also a product of the best of bourgeois science.

[StromboliFucker666]

Well I just officially decided that I am not going back to college at least for now. Does that make me a hypocrite?

[Tim Redd]

Go to university; or go to work in a car plant if you can.

You should have a reason for doing either one or something else. If the workers need organization within the plant for workplace issues go to work in the car plant.


But not so you can 'organize the workers'. That's not your job in either of those situations. Your job is to shut the fuck up and learn some humility.

First of all why are you being such a full of it d**k by swearing at someone in your response? What's your psycho problem? 'Cause apparently there's something you're trying to work through with the lousy crap attitude.

Second if the workers need organization maybe someone not currently employed in the work place can help. Why wouldn't that be something to do? You're naive if you think that everything every struggle needs is always already present from the outset. When are all resources always or even mostly present from the beginning?


The working class doesn't owe you anything, we don't need you to lead us thank you very much, we need you to try and understand what your role is. Hint: it isn't Supreme Commander of the Proletarian Brigades.

If the guy is trying to help how is that thinking he thinks you owe him something? He doesn't say anywhere that he wants to lead, just whether or not he should give his time to one thing or another. It seems like you are super jaded and or cynical if you think someone saying what this person does is most often trying to goose step you to gulag archipelago.

[Observational Change]

Not if you cannot afford it. Autodidactic worker clubs of education can substitute the learning content unless you plan to be a professional worker. Those who can afford it should inter-learn with self-socializing education of workers-and-poors' clubs. Until universities are free they are a triple-burdens to workers who should only pay the cost of the upkeep by the free association of producers.

[Comrade V]

Assuming you have the means to go to college for years on end.

If you want? Has fuck all to do with the ideology and the money could probably be allocated to a better cause.

I grew up poor. Be very careful if you want to play that "Hero to the People" tune. I have a general disdain for the middle/upper classes that seems largely shared by others who grew up in my socio economic class. Hasn't changed with age.

[Anatoli]

I finished a four year course in 8 years. I was active in campus activism and spying for the Communist Party. The university fascists have that penchant of joining violent fraternities, starting fistfights and beating up suspected communists of rival fraternities. These are the kinds of military operations that I've been spying on to protect our comrades. Some die. Some become inutile because of beatings from baseball bats. Some get wounded by bullets from a gun. Nonetheless, I was able to influence some in ways that would have been aggravating if I've not interfered or succeeded in my spying. I court or woo daughters of cops to gather intel. I've bribed policemen to tell on fascists.

[Blake's Baby]

Well you're obviously a badass motherfuker.

[Anatoli]

Now I am Intelligence Chief of Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army. As the devil has said, "good is bad, bad is good"...:laugh:

[Tim Redd]

As the title says, is higher education a privilege and everyone who has the opportunity to should pursue it, because only educated people can make a revolution? Or should we better get a job at, say, a large car manufacturer, or anything large and strategically relevant really, in order to organize the workers there?

Get the knowledge. Organizing workers around economic issues and trying to move that to revolutionary consciousness is generally not as critical as taking part in a wide range of social and political issues to move them to revolution. In addition university education can provide high levels of organizational management knowledge and also the broad intellectual knowledge in which to frame thinking about the nature and goals of socialist revolution.

[Tim Redd]

I finished a four year course in 8 years. I was active in campus activism and spying for the Communist Party. The university fascists have that penchant of joining violent fraternities, starting fistfights and beating up suspected communists of rival fraternities. These are the kinds of military operations that I've been spying on to protect our comrades. Some die. Some become inutile because of beatings from baseball bats. Some get wounded by bullets from a gun. Nonetheless, I was able to influence some in ways that would have been aggravating if I've not interfered or succeeded in my spying. I court or woo daughters of cops to gather intel. I've bribed policemen to tell on fascists.

in what country if you can divulge?