Capitalist propaganda in education

[RedQuarks]

As I prepare to finish off high school, I have become increasingly aware of capitalist propaganda that is quite prevalent in the American schooling system. The propaganda is quite pathetic and never quite lies, per se, though it does misinform students. There are three types in my experience:

1.) Uneducated teaching staff -- I don't intend to bash other proletarians, as they too are victims of poor education, but I do expect educators to read on a topic before teaching it. My experience has been that many educators lack a correct understanding of socialist and communist thought. Several months ago in a history course we had been discussing the Soviet Union under Stalin, which of course was not even an attempt at any form of socialism. The difficulty came when the teacher decided to "interact" with the class. The first error was made in describing the USSR under Stalin as a communist society, but that could be allowed to slide. The second error, which made it evident that the teacher hadn't even read Marx, was when the teacher asked a student something along the lines of "How would you feel if you did more work than somebody else and received the same pay?"
This is flawed in assuming the use of traditional currencies in communist society, let alone understanding that the systems of hierarchy and abstractions that exist today and necessitate such a labor system would disappear -- it isn't about the same reward, accumulation of wealth simply wouldn't occur. I have found from other students that such attitudes and ignorance is quite common in the United States.

2.) Textbooks -- Many textbooks, in a similar manner to educators, tend never to go in depth on Marxist theory and rather tend to claim that all regimes that called themselves communist were indeed that. Still ignoring the fact that a communist society cannot have a traditional state, much less oppress the people more than a capitalist! My favorite example was the great heading of a textbook section on the Soviet Union entitled "Communist attempts at thought control." This implies that the USSR was a communist nation and that communists indeed would attempt to control a population (details of revolution aside).

3.) The grading system -- It is first important to note that this is not a bitter critique over past clashes with said system. I have played it well and received excellent marks, though I still oppose it vehemently. This system combined with the attitudes of parents and educators creates an atmosphere of fierce competition and drills into the minds of many that competition is necessary. Not only to single numbers fail to quantify an education, nor is a curriculum based system very effective (such has been abandoned at Ivy league colleges), but empirical evidence has shown in nearly all circumstances that cooperation is more effective at producing desirable results! Imagine if students were willing to assist eachother, and were passionately interested in subjects rather than striving for a number!





TL;DR: Read the headings and first paragraph.



I felt it necessary to share my experiences with propaganda and would love to hear what others have found. Propaganda in education seems to be the most powerful form of propaganda, as it comes from a trusted source and is drilled in from infancy to childhood.

(To all Stalinists: Instead of debating this, please read Trotsky and abandon the Stalin cult)

[John Nada]

As I prepare to finish off high school, I have become increasingly aware of capitalist propaganda that is quite prevalent in the American schooling system. The propaganda is quite pathetic and never quite lies, per se, though it does misinform students. There are three types in my experience:Schools are designed to make future workers, soldiers and parents of the former two. Capitalists demand that school prepares future workers and that the curriculum be practical towards in a cost-benefit analysis. Since the funding comes from them via taxes and donations, it bends things towards a capitalist's point of view so as not to loss the tax dollars.
1.) Uneducated teaching staff -- I don't intend to bash other proletarians, as they too are victims of poor education, but I do expect educators to read on a topic before teaching it. My experience has been that many educators lack a correct understanding of socialist and communist thought. Several months ago in a history course we had been discussing the Soviet Union under Stalin, which of course was not even an attempt at any form of socialism. The difficulty came when the teacher decided to "interact" with the class. The first error was made in describing the USSR under Stalin as a communist society, but that could be allowed to slide. The second error, which made it evident that the teacher hadn't even read Marx, was when the teacher asked a student something along the lines of "How would you feel if you did more work than somebody else and received the same pay?"Under capitalism, you'll likely do more work than somebody(the bourgeoisie) for less pay. But you don't figure that out till it's too late.:(

Technically, it was a capital C "Communist" country, since it was led by the Communist Party. Although Stalin never claimed to have achieved full communism or the "final victory of socialism", just the "victory of socialist construction". I think he was seriously attempting it, not that one person's wishes or motives matters. But I digress.

They're likely not uneducated, just not knowledgeable in Marxist economics/philosophy or Sovietology/Russian Studies. There's not much demand for either anymore(though demand for the latter is grown due to recent events), whereas the US government invest millions to study(and slander) the USSR and anything related to socialism during the Cold War. And postmodernism and neoliberalism are the mainstream's preference over Marxism. Even if they did study either(and that pool is close to retiring), it's unlikely they'd know the new archive research or possible even less biased. Hell, they might not have a degree in the relevant fields, such as unrelated science degrees that are more practical than Marxism for the capitalism.
This is flawed in assuming the use of traditional currencies in communist society, let alone understanding that the systems of hierarchy and abstractions that exist today and necessitate such a labor system would disappear -- it isn't about the same reward, accumulation of wealth simply wouldn't occur. I have found from other students that such attitudes and ignorance is quite common in the United States.Ruling class imposes their opinions onto the masses. No one can even imagine a world without rulers or using money, because American's tend to think empirically. That's the culture in the US, empiricism like John Locke's(US bourgeoisie's Marx). They've never experienced communism, therefor it's hard to think it's real. Trotsky noted this:
The empiricism of the American workers has given political parties great success with one or two slogans, single tax, bimetallism, they spread like wild fire in the masses.55 When they see the panacea fail then they wait for a new one. Now we can present one which is honest, part of our entire program, not demagogic, but which corresponds totally to the situation. Officially we now have thirteen, maybe fourteen million of unemployed, in reality about sixteen to twenty million, and the youth are totally abandoned to misery. Mr. Roosevelt insists on public works. But we insist that this, together with mines, railroads, etc., absorb all the people. And that every person should have the possibility to live in a decent manner not lower than now, and we ask that Mr. Roosevelt with his brain trust propose such a program of public works that everyone capable of working can work at decent wages. This is possible with a sliding scale of wages and hours. Everywhere we must discuss how to present this idea, in all localities. Then we must begin a concentrated campaign of agitation so that everybody knows that this is the program of the Socialist Workers Party.Bold Mine(and still true:)): https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/backwardness.htm
2.) Textbooks -- Many textbooks, in a similar manner to educators, tend never to go in depth on Marxist theory and rather tend to claim that all regimes that called themselves communist were indeed that. Still ignoring the fact that a communist society cannot have a traditional state, much less oppress the people more than a capitalist! My favorite example was the great heading of a textbook section on the Soviet Union entitled "Communist attempts at thought control." This implies that the USSR was a communist nation and that communists indeed would attempt to control a population (details of revolution aside).Texas is the largest buyer of textbooks. Because it's cheaper to just buy an already mass-produced textbook rather than 50 different ones, Texas get's disproportionate influence. Unfortunately, they tend to get right-wing creationists on their school boards that decide this. So everyone learns too much about Texas(whole fucking chapters wtf?) and how great 'Merica is, and not as much facts.
3.) The grading system -- It is first important to note that this is not a bitter critique over past clashes with said system. I have played it well and received excellent marks, though I still oppose it vehemently. This system combined with the attitudes of parents and educators creates an atmosphere of fierce competition and drills into the minds of many that competition is necessary. Not only to single numbers fail to quantify an education, nor is a curriculum based system very effective (such has been abandoned at Ivy league colleges), but empirical evidence has shown in nearly all circumstances that cooperation is more effective at producing desirable results! Imagine if students were willing to assist eachother, and were passionately interested in subjects rather than striving for a number!Ever heard that bullshit myth about the professor who flunked his whole class due to teamwork making everyone lazy, thus proving socialism is impossible?:glare:

In grade and high school there's a greater emphasis on discipline than critical thinking. If you work at Walmart or something this is thought to be all the student needs. Grades track the students' and teachers' productivity.
I felt it necessary to share my experiences with propaganda and would love to hear what others have found. Propaganda in education seems to be the most powerful form of propaganda, as it comes from a trusted source and is drilled in from infancy to childhood.It's amazing how much is propaganda, and how early it starts. They condition children to be workers or to support capitalism and the country, and it flies right over a lot of people's heads. It's like that movie They Live where "hoffmann Glasses" show the bourgeois aliens are secretly running things, and subliminal messages are everywhere. Getting the "hearts and minds" of the masses when their young is an effective way the bourgeoisie holds power.
(To all Stalinists: Instead of debating this, please read Trotsky and abandon the Stalin cult)Don't fall for that Trotskyite US propaganda!:lol: Even what they teach about him is not unbiased. Read his own words yourself. (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/decades-index.htm) Don't have to agree, but it doesn't hurt to hear the other side.

[RedWorker]

2.) Textbooks -- Many textbooks, in a similar manner to educators, tend never to go in depth on Marxist theory and rather tend to claim that all regimes that called themselves communist were indeed that

You are right. Consider the following; in the critique of the German Ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued:


he exponents of this conception of history have consequently only been able to see in history the political actions of princes and States, religious and all sorts of theoretical struggles, and in particular in each historical epoch have had to share the illusion of that epoch. For instance, if an epoch imagines itself to be actuated by purely “political” or “religious” motives, although “religion” and “politics” are only forms of its true motives, the historian accepts this opinion. The “idea,” the “conception” of the people in question about their real practice, is transformed into the sole determining, active force, which controls and determines their practice. When the crude form in which the division of labour appears with the Indians and Egyptians calls forth the caste-system in their State and religion, the historian believes that the caste-system is the power which has produced this crude social form.

Furthermore, they went on:


Whilst in ordinary life every shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is, our historians have not yet won even this trivial insight. They take every epoch at its word and believe that everything it says and imagines about itself is true.

The so-called historians of our age, our beloved bourgeois and idealist historians, make use of a flawed methodology older than what Marx had already criticized in 1845!

[RedQuarks]

Thanks for the replies, I apologize for the delayed response.
Juan, while I do agree with your analysis of my statements, and you make excellent points, I must respectfully disagree about Stalin. I appreciate the writings you have shared and have made use of them, though it is still possible that this is very well Stalin's propaganda. I am currently reading Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" and while Trotsky undoubtedly bashes Stalin unfairly due to the power struggle of the time, Trotsky makes valid points about Stalin. The most profound one is almost never covered in education -- Stalin initially supported the Kulak class and believed that he could obtain power via their control over rural peasants. When the Kulaks began starving cities demanding greater monetary reward, Stalin quickly changed this view and began the extermination of the Kulak. He then sloppily began his program of "collectivization" (which had already been going on) and effectively forced workers to meet greater quotas than they could ever produce with the shitty tools they had. Trotsky said at one point that Stalin never bothered to take the time to industrialize slowly and instead of a five year plan rather didn't have a "five month plan." Also note that Trotsky and the Left Opposition were deemed counter-revolutionary.


Ruling class imposes their opinions onto the masses. No one can even imagine a world without rulers or using money, because American's tend to think empirically. That's the culture in the US, empiricism like John Locke's(US bourgeoisie's Marx). They've never experienced communism, therefor it's hard to think it's real. Trotsky noted this:


On another note, I found your point about John Locke very interesting and I would like to add that the focus in schools tended to be on Voltaire, Locke, And Smith. I'm sure their intentions were fine, though they only advocated for a bourgeois freedom that they may or may not have foreseen. (I know Smith wasn't a capitalist, though he still did support a free market) I find it interesting that many schools never go in depth on Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau, who claimed


"“The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”

Having a small business co-owner in my family, I have learned very well as you have said that most people are too selfish, brainwashed, and close minded to consider anything greater than themselves and seem to believe that all freedom stems from the oxymoron of representative "democracy" and the ownership of private property and some form of societal construct that deems them "free" such as the American Constitution (and they ignore the distinction between personal and private property!).



Whilst in ordinary life every shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is, our historians have not yet won even this trivial insight. They take every epoch at its word and believe that everything it says and imagines about itself is true.

The so-called historians of our age, our beloved bourgeois and idealist historians, make use of a flawed methodology older than what Marx had already criticized in 1845!
I appreciate you having brought this up, as I was previously unaware that Marx had made such a criticism, though I am not surprised, Marx and Engels were intelligent men with plenty of time on their hands. This does appear to be very true indeed, in fact, if one were to gain a large following, construct a fascist society, and call it communist historians would likely call it just that, as was seen in Southeast Asia and arguably the Soviet Union.

[John Nada]

Thanks for the replies, I apologize for the delayed response.
Juan, while I do agree with your analysis of my statements, and you make excellent points, I must respectfully disagree about Stalin. I appreciate the writings you have shared and have made use of them, though it is still possible that this is very well Stalin's propaganda. I am currently reading Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" and while Trotsky undoubtedly bashes Stalin unfairly due to the power struggle of the time, Trotsky makes valid points about Stalin. The most profound one is almost never covered in education -- Stalin initially supported the Kulak class and believed that he could obtain power via their control over rural peasants. When the Kulaks began starving cities demanding greater monetary reward, Stalin quickly changed this view and began the extermination of the Kulak. He then sloppily began his program of "collectivization" (which had already been going on) and effectively forced workers to meet greater quotas than they could ever produce with the shitty tools they had. Trotsky said at one point that Stalin never bothered to take the time to industrialize slowly and instead of a five year plan rather didn't have a "five month plan." Also note that Trotsky and the Left Opposition were deemed counter-revolutionary.Well, I'd imagine something written by Stalin might be a little biased towards Stalin.:grin:

Uh, spoiler:
The “friends” will want to dispute our figures? Let them give us others more accurate. Let them persuade the bureaucracy to publish the income and expense book of Soviet society. Until they do, we shall hold to our opinion. The distribution of this earth’s goods in the Soviet Union, we do not doubt, is incomparably more democratic than it was in tzarist Russia, and even than it is in the most democratic countries of the West. But it has as yet little in common with socialism.Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch06.htm#ch06-4 Trotsky thought the USSR was still a workers' state, progressive and in transition from capitalism towards socialism. In his opinion, the Stalinist era was something like the Thermidorian Reaction after the French revolution. A reaction after the revolution, but France is still capitalist and not feudalist. Stalin was just the personification of the victories of socialist construction in the eyes of his supporters, or of the bureaucratic reaction in the eyes of his opponents. And he thought the workers were going to put the revolution back on track eventually. At the time overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat and restoring capitalism was thought to come from outside invasions and influence, not from within. I think he thought that at the base of the USSR, it was in transition, just in the superstructure(state and culture) is what the proletariat needed to change.

On another note, I found your point about John Locke very interesting and I would like to add that the focus in schools tended to be on Voltaire, Locke, And Smith. I'm sure their intentions were fine, though they only advocated for a bourgeois freedom that they may or may not have foreseen. (I know Smith wasn't a capitalist, though he still did support a free market) I find it interesting that many schools never go in depth on Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau, who claimedI believe Marx was one of the first to term this modern system capitalism. He did right the book on it.:)

They were all capitalist, even if they didn't use the term. And in that era, they were progressive relative to feudalism. Smith wasn't as dogmatically "free market" as his supposed supporters claim, since he did support state intervention. But Locke was still an asshole (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/).

I wonder why a lot of US schools don't teach more about Rousseau. Rousseau was more influential on the French revolution than the US War of Liberation. All those other capitalist theorist were part of the English philosophical tradition that influenced the US. Also Rousseau's theory of the social contract, that consent to govern comes from the people collectively via the general will and a direct democracy is the only true expression of freedom. Whereas Locke's theory on the social contract is consent to govern comes from the desire of individuals to avoid the tyranny of a state of nature. Locke is more inline with the general ideology in the US of individualism and a federal republic rather than a direct democracy. Rousseau is more collectivist and inspired the French revolution which was a tyrannical democracy in the view of many slave-owning and Native American massacring Americans at the time. Locke seems like something Texas would want, not so much Rousseau.
Having a small business co-owner in my family, I have learned very well as you have said that most people are too selfish, brainwashed, and close minded to consider anything greater than themselves and seem to believe that all freedom stems from the oxymoron of representative "democracy" and the ownership of private property and some form of societal construct that deems them "free" such as the American Constitution (and they ignore the distinction between personal and private property!).They don't yet question their worldview, which is all they know. Some people can understand what's up if you break it down for a layperson. With others, likely there would have to be something that unmasks the illusion of freedom under a bourgeois "democracy".
I appreciate you having brought this up, as I was previously unaware that Marx had made such a criticism, though I am not surprised, Marx and Engels were intelligent men with plenty of time on their hands. This does appear to be very true indeed, in fact, if one were to gain a large following, construct a fascist society, and call it communist historians would likely call it just that, as was seen in Southeast Asia and arguably the Soviet Union.It goes the other way around too. In all likelihood if communists' gained a large following and actually made something closer to socialism this time, the bourgeoisie would say it's fascism. Because Communism=Nazism(National Socialism, duh) in their eyes anyway.:rolleyes:

[Hatshepsut]

The grading system....combined with the attitudes of parents and educators creates an atmosphere of fierce competition and drills into the minds of many that competition is necessary...

And that competition is the motor that drives the application of torque to facts until the latter are spinning at 3400 rpm. For me, if my ever fuzzier memories of childhood still serve, competition began when that nice lady would go up to one pupil and press an adhesive gold star to the younster’s shirt. (For Kindergartners then, it was always a lady. Note the historical bourgeois twist on patriarchy in the evolution from male headmasters or sex-segregated schooling—for those lucky enough to receive education—to subordinated female labor in coed U.S. classrooms by 1940, each the most profitable arrangement for its time.)

While perusing A Critique of the German Ideology (Marx), we see that even philosophy had been put on the factory system: “The industrialists of philosophy...now seized upon the new combinations. Each with all possible zeal set about retailing his apportioned share. This naturally gave rise to competition...” (Idealism & Materialism).


Schools are designed to make future workers, soldiers and parents of the former two...[Teachers are] likely not uneducated, just not knowledgeable in Marxist economics/philosophy or Sovietology/Russian Studies. There's not much demand for either anymore...

I dare say there wasn’t much demand for it in 1975 when the USSR was still in business. I was told how “Breznev tells everybody where they will work,” as if Russians didn’t go out and apply for jobs pretty much the way people do anywhere else. :grin:

[Synergy]

OP, that's cool and all but have you considered that communism is pure evil from Satan and that capitalism is freedom given to us by God? Why do you hate freedom? Also, you should check out the amazingly delicious dollar menu at McDonald's ™ cause I'm Lovin' It ™

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Disclaimer - i'm a (History) teacher.

Your issues seem to be threefold:

1) that school teachers are not experts who have read a wide array of Marx. They are 'uneducated'.

2) Textbooks contain a lack of details. They call regimes that called themselves 'Communist' as communist.

3) The grading system is detrimental to students' progress since it encourages competition over co-operation.

I'll deal with each point separately.

1) re: uneducated teachers. This is a little unfair. Normally teachers are those who are to an extent subject experts. They will have a degree (maybe even a post-grad) in their chosen field and will probably have some expertise on a few areas within their field. However, school teaching is a wide-ranging job and it is important to recognise that school teachers are not academics. I agree that the best subject teachers have strong subject knowledge, but your claim here essentially seems to be a complaint that your teachers are not expert Marxists. Whilst our world may revolve around relatively obscure, antiquated political texts, it's unreasonable to expect that level of scholarship from a person who probably has to teach a dozen or more different topics to hundreds of students each year. Not only that, but whilst at university the lecturer's job is merely to impart knowledge to students (so all they need is the subject knowledge and a working voice!), the teacher's job encompasses a range of skills, of which subject knowledge is only one.

2) re: textbooks. In my department we almost never use textbooks with younger students (up to 14 years old) because the imprecision of their content is frustrating. At GCSE (14-16 years old) level we do a course that has a good textbook (Edexcel Schools History Project B) for most modules covered and we make regular reference to the textbook. However, the textbook should be used as a supplement. Like I said above, the role of a teacher is wide ranging. Not only should they impart knowledge to students, but should do so in a wide range of engaging ways, they should be able to promote discussion and debate, and be able to assess students' progression, both in terms of their subject knowledge and skills (i.e. can they write with appropriate technique?). A textbook is often not adequate for this because it is inflexible - if you simply follow the textbook you are basically not designing your own lessons and that will not lead to engaging lessons, nor the best outcomes for students.

3) re grading I totally agree. It is useful to have some sort of 'grade' or 'mark' occasionally to assess the absolute quality of your work, but there is tonnes of research that shows the most useful, motivational, and effective form of 'marking' is qualitative feedback, i.e. telling a student where they have done well, and how they could develop their work further.