Public Schools Must Go!

[Capitalist Lawyer]

With government schools you are going to get one-sided education favorable to the government. But what really keeps the students dumbed down and pliable for the demagogues is the near total lack of education in economics. Maybe the purpose of public schools as outlined by the Communist Manifesto was to dumb them down for which was to make sure future comrades were dumbed down about economics thus paving the way for the "Revolution". Even more important, not teaching them to think in the first place. Thinking with our emotions has worked just fine for eons, just ask the clergy.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 03:25 PM
Maybe the purpose of public schools as outlined by the Communist Manifesto was to dumb them down for which was to make sure future comrades were dumbed down about economics thus paving the way for the "Revolution".
What? Where does it say that? I thought it said free education, not dumbed down education.

And besides, if public schools are giving a pro-government education (a ludicrous statement), then private school s are giving a pro-ideology-of-those-running-the-school.

[Guerrilla22]

While public schools in the US are not living up to the standards they should, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that kids attending private schools are any better educated. We need to put more money into education and less into the military.

Case in point, I have attended public schools all my life and now I attend a public University (Unv. of Colorado) Aside, from the Ivy Leauge schools and MIT, the students at my school can stack up to those at any other school and the nation.

[Max Born]

We need to put more money into education and less into the military.

Yeah, good idea. Let's take money away from the military at a time when we have 6th century zealots, bought and paid for by key nations who support terrorism, waiting to decapitate our nation's people, it's leaders, and the institutions that support our democracy. It's no accident that the American and European left are highly sympathetic to the extremely caustic brand of Islam that seeks to destory us. It's no wonder that Al Qaeda is seeking to launch an attack that will swing the results of the U.S. Presidential election. The left and Fanatical Islam's goals are one and the same.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Max [email protected] 12 2004, 05:56 PM
The left and Fanatical Islam's goals are one and the same.
Congratulations. You've posted a moronic statement.

Now prove it.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 05:25 AM
With government schools you are going to get one-sided education favorable to the government. But what really keeps the students dumbed down and pliable for the demagogues is the near total lack of education in economics. Maybe the purpose of public schools as outlined by the Communist Manifesto was to dumb them down for which was to make sure future comrades were dumbed down about economics thus paving the way for the "Revolution". Even more important, not teaching them to think in the first place. Thinking with our emotions has worked just fine for eons, just ask the clergy.
In your opinion, do public schools right now (using textbooks that were "approved") teach us to be pro-government? I am not talking about the teachers as much as I'm talking about the books themselves.

But before you answer that, I recall a conversation I had with one of my history teachers:

Me - If you know these are lies, why are you teaching them to us, especially when it comes to socialism, patriotism, etc. ? Why aren't we being taught about the many dictators that we have aided? Why is Pol Pot mentioned as a lunatic murderer when we funded his activities? Why isn't THAT mentioned?

Teacher - Because the History Regents [state-wide test given after two years of global history] expects you to answer the questions in this way. Remember who is writing and approving these books.

Me - Why, after two years, have I not learned anything about African civilizations? If it weren't for the reading I do outside of school, I wouldn't even think that Africa ever was more than a bunch of people swinging off of vines.

Teacher - I understand this. The school teaches you from a very Eurocentric perspective.

[Louis Pio]

A private school will just teach the kids from their own perspective. But of course if one sees the state as the great satan I see the point, I would however suggest that person to get a grip and not live in paranoia land.
Public Schools is simply a way of getting everybody an education after some national standards. Education should be considered a human right, not a commodity to make profit from.
Now am well aware that the US public schools are underfunded, but with people like capitalist lawyer that is no surprise.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 12 2004, 01:32 PM
In your opinion, do public schools right now (using textbooks that were "approved") teach us to be pro-government? I am not talking about the teachers as much as I'm talking about the books themselves.

But before you answer that, I recall a conversation I had with one of my history teachers:

Me - If you know these are lies, why are you teaching them to us, especially when it comes to socialism, patriotism, etc. ? Why aren't we being taught about the many dictators that we have aided? Why is Pol Pot mentioned as a lunatic murderer when we funded his activities? Why isn't THAT mentioned?

Teacher - Because the History Regents [state-wide test given after two years of global history] expects you to answer the questions in this way. Remember who is writing and approving these books.

Me - Why, after two years, have I not learned anything about African civilizations? If it weren't for the reading I do outside of school, I wouldn't even think that Africa ever was more than a bunch of people swinging off of vines.

Teacher - I understand this. The school teaches you from a very Eurocentric perspective.
Brooklyn,

I am by no means racist, but it seems to me that, for a non-black, you seem really into hip-hop and african studies ton the point of being afro-centric.

May I ask why? Or am I way off target here?

[New Tolerance]

With government schools you are going to get one-sided education favorable to the government. But what really keeps the students dumbed down and pliable for the demagogues is the near total lack of education in economics.

So are you saying that private schools will not give biased pro-corporation education?

Elaborate your arguement on lack of education in economics.


Maybe the purpose of public schools as outlined by the Communist Manifesto was to dumb them down for which was to make sure future comrades were dumbed down about economics thus paving the way for the "Revolution". Even more important, not teaching them to think in the first place. Thinking with our emotions has worked just fine for eons, just ask the clergy.

...and maybe George Bush is having an affair with Mike Jackson. Maybe they have sex with 6 boys, 6 times a day. Maybe this... maybe that... maybe those... maybe these...

This is pointless fantasizing (do you have any evidence for this arguement?). If not, this is trolling.

[The Sloth]

I am by no means racist, but it seems to me that, for a non-black,
you seem really into hip-hop

Out of all the music that I've listened to, it is my opinion that hip-hop (not that mainstream garbage) is the most poetic and expresses being better than any other genre. Growing up in New York City, attending an urban and half-black high school, being exposed to it is very natural. I am definitely not the only non-black that feels this way.

But then again, I have Radiohead, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, the Strokes, White Stripes, the Vines and Remy Shand in my cd player just as well. I don't listen to ONLY one genre, but of course I have preferences like anyone else.


and african studies ton the point of being afro-centric.

I've recently been studying African history, yes. What does this have to do with afro-centricity, though? If I were to study European history, would I also be considered ethnocentric? I don't "particularly" focus on African history...my area of focus since I've picked up reading is radical political literature, especially American. And, alas, almost every important, famous radical or activist in America leading "freedom movements" was black -- Malcolm X, George Jackson, Assata Shakur, Mumia-Abu Jamal, Huey P, etc. This naturally leads to me hearing complaints about how African history is never taught, and when I examined this statement, I found it true. The next logical thing would be then to pick some books up on the topic.

Remember -- September will start my last year of high school, and my twelfth year of formal education. However, out of these twelve years, the only African civilization that I've covered was Egypt and the textbooks seemed to "seperate" it from the rest of Africa. Out of ignorance on the topic, I was forced to pick up books on the subject, and I hope everyone else that has never been taught about a particular thing would take the time to study it. Wouldn't you agree?

Other than what I've just mentioned, I'm not any more "afro-centric" than anyone else on this board, nor am I any more "afro-centric" than the next person that has an open-minded taste in music, literature and a well-rounded interest in all topics of study.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 12 2004, 05:47 PM

Out of all the music that I've listened to, it is my opinion that hip-hop (not that mainstream garbage) is the most poetic and expresses being better than any other genre. Growing up in New York City, attending an urban and half-black high school, being exposed to it is very natural. I am definitely not the only non-black that feels this way.

But then again, I have Radiohead, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, the Strokes, White Stripes, the Vines and Remy Shand in my cd player just as well. I don't listen to ONLY one genre, but of course I have preferences like anyone else.



I've recently been studying African history, yes. What does this have to do with afro-centricity, though? If I were to study European history, would I also be considered ethnocentric? I don't "particularly" focus on African history...my area of focus since I've picked up reading is radical political literature, especially American. And, alas, almost every important, famous radical or activist in America leading "freedom movements" was black -- Malcolm X, George Jackson, Assata Shakur, Mumia-Abu Jamal, Huey P, etc. This naturally leads to me hearing complaints about how African history is never taught, and when I examined this statement, I found it true. The next logical thing would be then to pick some books up on the topic.

Remember -- September will start my last year of high school, and my twelfth year of formal education. However, out of these twelve years, the only African civilization that I've covered was Egypt and the textbooks seemed to "seperate" it from the rest of Africa. Out of ignorance on the topic, I was forced to pick up books on the subject, and I hope everyone else that has never been taught about a particular thing would take the time to study it. Wouldn't you agree?

Other than what I've just mentioned, I'm not any more "afro-centric" than anyone else on this board, nor am I any more "afro-centric" than the next person that has an open-minded taste in music, literature and a well-rounded interest in all topics of study.
That all makes sense.

I respect your initiative in the acquisitiion of knowledge and history of any kind outside of the standard public school assignments and resources.

Good shot.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So are you saying that private schools will not give biased pro-corporation education?

No, they'll teach whatever the customers want.


But before you answer that, I recall a conversation I had with one of my history teachers:


While public schools in the US are not living up to the standards they should,

In other words... Marxism isn't fully ingrained in our student body by the current education system... therefore, it's biased and not living up to it's standards.


Elaborate your arguement on lack of education in economics.

People are going through schools and not being taught about the free market. I wasn't really making an argument, I was just stating a fact.


Actually maybe the US Educations system does work? If you're unable to find the United States on an unlabeled map it isn't because the school system is broken. It's because your stupid ass didn't pay attention in social studies.

The majority of our problems are due to everyones inability to take responsibility for our their actions. Regardless whether I was in public or private school, I used to watch my friends come home from school and explain to their parents that the reason why they're failing physics is because the teacher is horrible. Thats utter nonsense. They failed because they cut class and didn't do their homework. Regardless the parent was wealthy or middle class, their child couldn't possibly have failed the class. It was always someone elses fault.

[New Tolerance]

No, they'll teach whatever the customers want.

Who are the customers? -> The kids. But who will make the decision on what they are taught? -> Their parents. I'm talking about grade schools here. So how are the customers getting what they want in this case?


People are going through schools and not being taught about the free market. I wasn't really making an argument, I was just stating a fact.


Actually maybe the US Educations system does work? If you're unable to find the United States on an unlabeled map it isn't because the school system is broken. It's because your stupid ass didn't pay attention in social studies.

The majority of our problems are due to everyones inability to take responsibility for our their actions. Regardless whether I was in public or private school, I used to watch my friends come home from school and explain to their parents that the reason why they're failing physics is because the teacher is horrible. Thats utter nonsense. They failed because they cut class and didn't do their homework. Regardless the parent was wealthy or middle class, their child couldn't possibly have failed the class. It was always someone elses fault.

Isn't the idea of free market taught in politics class?

Yes I agree with the denial part, but still, couldn't that self-denial also happen in private schools?

[DarkAngel]

of course.... its only fair to teach ignorance and biased information to the youth.... *sarcasim* <_<

[Capitalist Imperial]

If nature hadn&#39;t intended us to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve heard them all before...

[pandora]

Originally posted by Max [email protected] 12 2004, 11:26 AM

Yeah, good idea. Let&#39;s take money away from the military at a time when we have 6th century zealots, bought and paid for by key nations who support terrorism,
Yeah like the U.S. and the Caryle Group.

Have you studied how the U.S. sent arms to Iraq and Iran in the Iran/Iraq war and Iran Contra at all, or was that skipped over in the private school for bigots you attended.

Honestly, it&#39;s this sort of ignorance endorsed in pockets that puts in bold relief why state run education is so vital.

When you open your mouth to speak are you smart or are you ignorant?
Please learn. IRAN CONTRA, read about it.

Anyways, YES THE LEADERS OF INDUSTRY ARE TRYING TO END FREE AND EQUAL EDUCATION ON A WORLD WIDE BASIS OF THE WORLD&#39;S POOR, BECAUSE WHEN THE POOR BECOME EDUCATED THEY ASK QUESTIONS AS TO DISENFRANCHISEMENT&#33;

This is why the WORLD BANK and IMF have been forcing nations to privatize education as part of their new repayment plans. Stopping countries from Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Haiti from teaching and spreading critical pedagogies to the masses that teach the truth and self actualization.

In Europe and North America all the fine arts and higher level literature reading and writing programs are being cut in the K-12 classrooms and social studies is next to endorse factory to work programs that are work based and crowd out higher levels of understanding.

ALSO: THE LEADERS OF INDUSTRY ARE TRYING TO STOP UNDERSTANDINGS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL STUDIES PROGRAMS ON A DEEPER BASIS AS TO HIDE THE EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON THE PLANET.

OUr planet is becoming uninhabitable, large sections of the ocean will die from overfishing with trollers and due to green house effects SOON if things continue.

I worked in the fishing industry in ALaska three years and at hatcheries, I&#39;ve seen it first hand. I speak with Marine Ecologists, we&#39;re fucked people.

There is going to be a lot of death on this planet when these resources fail.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 07:56 PM
If nature hadn&#39;t intended us to eat animals, why are they made of meat?


suprisignly never heard that one *adds to list of ignorant things said by cappy pigs*

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:10 PM

I worked in the fishing industry in ALaska three years and at hatcheries, I&#39;ve seen it first hand. I speak with Marine Ecologists, we&#39;re fucked people.

There is going to be a lot of death on this planet when these resources fail.


Where in Alaska did you work?

I worked with the Kodiak fleet for a while. Salmon, Crab, Halibut, and a tug.


OUr planet is becoming uninhabitable, large sections of the ocean will die from overfishing with trollers and due to green house effects SOON if things continue.

Oh, come on, the trollers aren&#39;t that bad. It&#39;s the draggers that have messed things up so bad. They are way to indiscriminate.

[Sabocat]

Off the coast of New England, the draggers have turned the Georges Bank bottom into a desert. There is speculation that it may never come back.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Same in parts of Southern Alaska, although that area is so rich and viable as an ecosystem that I like to maintain hope that it will come back some day.

[Invader Zim]

I feal i must admit that during my time in eductation I have attended both types of institution.

In state schools I found that the material we studied was near identical. However the atmosphere is completely different. I must say that I prefered state school, the rich seam to have a major issue with bulling. State school of course had its share, but I personally did not see it as wide spread as private.

I am glad that I changed, I did not fit it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:42 PM
suprisignly never heard that one *adds to list of ignorant things said by cappy pigs*
You can&#39;t really call an obvious joke "ignorant".

Perhaps you are ignorant of the definition of the word.

[redstar2000]

But what really keeps the students dumbed down and pliable for the demagogues is the near total lack of education in economics.

Did you ever consider that there might be a reason that economics is not taught in public high schools?

It is, after all, a potentially dangerous subject. No matter how carefully the kids are indoctrinated with bourgeois ideas about economics, it could provoke "unhealthy" curiosity.

And, as you know, that&#39;s not what public high schools are for...they exist to train people in servility.

Elite private schools in the U.S. actually are quite a bit superior; better teachers, a smaller teacher-pupil ratio, better science labs, etc. The kids who are sent there have already been raised by their parents with a confidence in their inherent "superiority"; when they walk through the doors of such schools, they get the immediate message that they are there to be taught how to rule.

The private schools available to ordinary people are either Roman Catholic or protestant fundamentalist...and are no better than public high schools and in some cases considerably worse. A massive dose of superstitious bullshit hardly prepares one to live in the 21st century.


The majority of our problems are due to everyones inability to take responsibility for our their actions.

Is this what happens when engineers try to write on subjects outside their field?

Not only is the sentence barely coherent...but the statement itself is just plain dumb. It sounds like something you&#39;d hear from Rush "junkie" Limbaugh.

One of those guys who lost his job at Bosch...it&#39;s his own damn fault?

Bullshit&#33;
:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[insurgency03]

ur logic sucks man.

if not for public schools their wouldnt even be a prayer of hope for education for most americans, and if you dont believ me go to any bordertown in texas and youll see the benefits of public schooling, and just take a step across from there into mexico and see how much life sucks because schooling is only offered up to 8th grade. public schools are also one of the few sources of solace for the homeless children of amerika, seeing that they&#39;re is indoor plumbing, heating systems, and free meals.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Rush "junkie" Limbaugh.

Hey, fun is fun, but that was just a plain cheap shot.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 10:15 PM
You can&#39;t really call an obvious joke "ignorant".

Perhaps you are ignorant of the definition of the word.
*sarcasim* :blink: :rolleyes: :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

oh, ok, my bad

[Professor Moneybags]

And besides, if public schools are giving a pro-government education (a ludicrous statement),

If the government is doing the funding and allocating the budgets, what kind of education do you think they are going to get ?


then private school s are giving a pro-ideology-of-those-running-the-school.

Maybe they like the ideology of the people running the school.

[Professor Moneybags]

Did you ever consider that there might be a reason that economics is not taught in public high schools?

It is, after all, a potentially dangerous subject. No matter how carefully the kids are indoctrinated with bourgeois ideas about economics, it could provoke "unhealthy" curiosity.

Yeah, they might realise it has to be worked for and made, as opposed to "redistributed" and "shared".


And, as you know, that&#39;s not what public high schools are for...they exist to train people in servility.

I agree, although not in same sense as you.


if not for public schools their wouldnt even be a prayer of hope for education for most americans, and if you dont believ me go to any bordertown in texas and youll see the benefits of public schooling, and just take a step across from there into mexico and see how much life sucks because schooling is only offered up to 8th grade.

The wealth to fund it doesn&#39;t exist, that&#39;s why. Perhaps you ought to ask why this is.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Is this what happens when engineers try to write on subjects outside their field?

Not only is the sentence barely coherent...but the statement itself is just plain dumb. It sounds like something you&#39;d hear from Rush "junkie" Limbaugh.

One of those guys who lost his job at Bosch...it&#39;s his own damn fault?


Take your anti-American nose out of the air for a few minutes to look at the example you&#39;ve given Redstar. You&#39;ve put the Bosch employee into a scenario where he/she is dependent on another variable.

A students education, on the other hand, is soley dependent upon himself. He has available to him a text book, teacher, course plan, public library, school library, peers by which to ask a question, and more likely then not access to the internet.

If a student chooses to ignore all of those things why should I give a shit? More important to your ignorance, if a student chooses to ignore all of those things now, what exactly do you suppose will entice a kid to learn, taping physics lessons to the tits of a stripper?

[kidicarus20]

Economics isn&#39;t even a rational science yet, and it&#39;s only applicable to markets. It&#39;s interesting to learn how property is &#39;competed&#39; for and how it&#39;s distributed under capitalism, but even those theories are based mostly on guessing games.

Economics is about the intellectual equivalent of book-keeping. God, what an idiot. The schools should continue to focus on math, science, English, and reading.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:51 AM
While public schools in the US are not living up to the standards they should, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that kids attending private schools are any better educated. We need to put more money into education and less into the military.

Case in point, I have attended public schools all my life and now I attend a public University (Unv. of Colorado) Aside, from the Ivy Leauge schools and MIT, the students at my school can stack up to those at any other school and the nation.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments against private education that I have ever seen. You state in no uncertain terms that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that kids attending private schools are any better educated...then to emphasise your point, you say that the kids in at the University of Colorado stack up against any other school in the nation except for the kids in those damned private schools..

You certainly have a way about you when it comes to driving home a point.

[redstar2000]

Take your anti-American nose out of the air for a few minutes...

Be glad to...just as soon as you remove yours from between ruling class buttocks.


A student&#39;s education, on the other hand, is solely dependent upon himself. He has available to him a text book, teacher, course plan, public library, school library, peers by which to ask a question, and more likely than not access to the internet.

I&#39;m not sure what the point of your observation is.

You presume all these things are available to everyone...which is clearly not the case.

Item: many textbooks are extremely bad and also extremely expensive; in some poorer school districts, kids have to share texts and in others, kids have to buy their own texts...or do without.

Item: many teachers are, shall we say, less than adequate. The really good ones are recruited into the elite private schools...and ordinary kids get the leftovers.

Item: public libraries vary widely in quality...wealthy states have pretty good ones, poor states don&#39;t. School libraries are worthless...at least that&#39;s what I found to be the case in the high school I went to (in a poor state).

Item: depending on your peers for knowledge can be a case of the blind asking the blind for guidance.

But I agree that the internet is potentially "the great equalizer" (very bad news for capitalism).

If a kid can get connected and can muster up the curiosity of a cat, s/he will learn some amazing things.

The internet does not confer credentials, so you can&#39;t use it to learn a trade. But it does provide a way to find out what is really happening...and one that is not too difficult to master.

Welcome to Che-Lives.com&#33; :lol:

I suppose, as an abstract observation, that it is not unreasonable to suggest that people ought to be self-motivated when it comes to their own education.

But the question here seems to be one of asking why the wealthy live in a social atmosphere that promotes serious learning...while everybody else has to "scratch" as best they can.

Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, capitalist ideologues were pretty honest about this stuff. Too much learning for the working class was forthrightly condemned...it would make them "unfit" for the life of mindless toil that lay ahead of them. (Woodrow Wilson actually made a public speech to this effect.)

Now, we have the pretense of "equality"...but the practice is steadily retreating to that of earlier years, at least in the United States.

The gap is steadily widening between a high school diploma from Exeter (an elite private high school for ruling class kids) and one from even the best suburban public school...and between the latter and an "inner-city" public school lies an abyss.

I have to say that for most young people, the internet is probably their only hope.


If a student chooses to ignore all of those things, why should I give a shit?

You shouldn&#39;t, of course. Under capitalism, looking out for number one is "Job One"...and the rest of the human species can just go eat shit and die.

It&#39;s a legitimate point of view, I suppose.

But watch out for those "unintended consequences". :D


...what exactly do you suppose will entice a kid to learn, taping physics lessons to the tits of a stripper?

Hmmm...some interesting fourth-degree equations involved there. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Max [email protected] 12 2004, 07:56 AM

Yeah, good idea. Let&#39;s take money away from the military at a time when we have 6th century zealots, bought and paid for by key nations who support terrorism, waiting to decapitate our nation&#39;s people, it&#39;s leaders, and the institutions that support our democracy. It&#39;s no accident that the American and European left are highly sympathetic to the extremely caustic brand of Islam that seeks to destory us. It&#39;s no wonder that Al Qaeda is seeking to launch an attack that will swing the results of the U.S. Presidential election. The left and Fanatical Islam&#39;s goals are one and the same.
Wow, I&#39;m impressed, you are capable of repeating mindless rhetoric, congrats.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:18 AM
Wow, I&#39;m impressed, you are capable of repeating mindless rhetoric, congrats.
I would be interested to know which parts of his statement that you feel are mindless and the reasons you think so. I have noticed often on this board that people (especially the leftists) will say "mindless" "rhetoric" "propaganda" etc and then move on as if such statements were actual arguments and stood on thier own merit... If you are going to call a statement mindless, you should be prepared to demonstrate exactly how it is mindless..

So...you have made the claim...elaborate please.

[DaCuBaN]

Let&#39;s take money away from the military at a time when we have 6th century zealots, bought and paid for by key nations who support terrorism

How many terrorists have you met? The definition of a &#39;terrorist&#39; is absurd anyway, and it&#39;s literal definition is even worse "One who causes terror"

I can think of no better &#39;terrorist&#39; then than the USA, the UK and every other nuclear capable nation.

On the subject of zealots? Evidently you missed the quote in my sig from a US intelligence general. Worrying you at all?


waiting to decapitate our nation&#39;s people, it&#39;s leaders, and the institutions that support our democracy

Again, how many terrorists have you met?
On a side note, you do not live in a democracy. it&#39;s representative democracy at best.


It&#39;s no accident that the American and European left are highly sympathetic to the extremely caustic brand of Islam that seeks to destory us

Define &#39;the left&#39;. What makes you think everyone on this imaginary construct of yours supports Islamic fundamentalism?

Most of us don&#39;t: We&#39;re merely forced into &#39;picking a side&#39; - and the US is the bigger danger.


It&#39;s no wonder that Al Qaeda is seeking to launch an attack that will swing the results of the U.S. Presidential election

You mean like Bush did to help swing his own popularity? Wait, I forgot: He wasn&#39;t elected by the US majority, he was elected by god to burn heretics, right?


The left and Fanatical Islam&#39;s goals are one and the same.

There you go with your imaginary constructs again&#33;

Generalise, Generalise, Generalise. Why are you still here?

[Pale Rider]

I can actually see the irony dripping from the very idea of a communist accusing someone else of refering to an "imaginary construct"...

This is such a fun place...

[DaCuBaN]

I can actually see the irony dripping from the very idea of a communist accusing someone else of refering to an "imaginary construct"...

You can certainly consider it amusing, but you&#39;re going a long way to reinforcing the stereotype that americans simply cannot fathom irony :D

Now that&#39;s ironic. ;) and I&#39;m not even a communist&#33; :lol:

I also find it amusing that in other threads you accuse Comrade RAF of not addressing the issues and simply attacking other members, or attempting to use humour to ridicule them. I smell double standards...

[Pale Rider]

You can certainly consider it amusing, but you&#39;re going a long way to reinforcing the stereotype that americans simply cannot fathom irony

irony - n - Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs:

anyone who supports communism (an entirely imaginary construct) and then call left or right an imaginary construct certainly constitutes irony.


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:38 PM
I also find it amusing that in other threads you accuse Comrade RAF of not addressing the issues and simply attacking other members, or attempting to use humour to ridicule them. I smell double standards...

Ahhh...but if you want to discuss an idea, I will be happy to delve into it as deeply as you care...I am not afraid of genuine conversation...

If you have looked at my posts since I got here, that should be abundantly clear.

[Morpheus]

Government & corporate schools are capitalist indoctrination centers. Of course they should be abolished. Capitalism would collapse within a generation without them indoctrinating people to believe in private property, etc. The public school system evolved for this purpose, see John Gatto&#39;s Underground History of American Education.

[Pale Rider]

How many terrorists have you met? The definition of a &#39;terrorist&#39; is absurd anyway, and it&#39;s literal definition is even worse "One who causes terror"

I can think of no better &#39;terrorist&#39; then than the USA, the UK and every other nuclear capable nation.

On the subject of zealots? Evidently you missed the quote in my sig from a US intelligence general. Worrying you at all?

I never met a native of Papua New Guinea either…are you suggesting that they don’t exist because I haven’t met one? And terrorists don’t exactly walk around wearing “terrorist union 101” T-shirts to advertise their affiliation…

Sorry, you don’t get to set your own definitions…and remain credible anyway.

One quote, from one man? Would you like to see some quotes regarding Marx? Does the fact that people made disparaging quotes about him mean that anyone who discusses communism is simply spouting mindless rhetoric..(bad example...actually the answer to that one is yes...but you get the point)


Again, how many terrorists have you met?
On a side note, you do not live in a democracy. it&#39;s representative democracy at best.

Again, I never met lots of people..does that actually mean something to you?

And I live in a representative republic…democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. … mob rule in a tuxedo.


Define &#39;the left&#39;. What makes you think everyone on this imaginary construct of yours supports Islamic fundamentalism?

Talk about “imaginary constructs” define communism…Perhaps communists shouldn’t use terms like “imaginary construct”..it makes you look silly. If you really don’t know the difference between left ideology and right, I will be happy to explain to you when I have more time.

The opposition to doing battle with terrorists and the ever present anti Israel drumbeat in the back ground are pretty good indicators.


You mean like Bush did to help swing his own popularity? Wait, I forgot: He wasn&#39;t elected by the US majority, he was elected by god to burn heretics, right?

The darling of the left “slick willie xlinton” deliberately blew up an asprin factory and all of its employees to divert attention from his legal problems over a weekend…GW jumped through the hoops with the UN, Congress, and the Senate for 14 months knowing that it was going to damage his popularity…he did it because it needed being done…and slick willie xlinton “darling of the left” never got a majority vote either..so what?


There you go with your imaginary constructs again&#33;

There you go with imaginary constructs again…at least left and right are real…they are definable and can be seen in the real world…your construct is entirely fabricated from whole cloth and has not been seen in the entire recorded history of the world…talk about imagination.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

RedStar2000 wrote:


You presume all these things are available to everyone on an equal, quality basis which is clearly not the case.


I certainly did not. All these things are adequately available to everyone in all US schools. Most high schools in Arkansas certainly won&#39;t have the same quality materials as the Jericho High School, which I graduated from, but they&#39;ll have adequate access to text books, teachers, internet, & libraries.




Item: many textbooks are extremely bad and also extremely expensive; in some poorer school districts, kids have to share texts and in others, kids have to buy their own texts...or do without.


You&#39;re listing rarities in the US School system which doesn&#39;t address the problem. The vast majority of the people who can&#39;t find Texas on a US map HAVE adequate text books. Certainly the lack of textbooks in some districts is a concern but what about the majority of children who have textbooks?



Item: many teachers are, shall we say, less than adequate. The really good ones are recruited into the elite private schools and ordinary kids get the leftovers.

Many teachers might very well be less then adequate. What does this have to do with the majority though? Most children who do poorly have good teachers. What about them? Again, you&#39;re listing problems that certainly are a concern to the public but since they represents such a small group it has very little to do with public school children doing poorly.



Item: public libraries vary widely in quality. Wealthy states and districts have pretty good ones, poor states and districts don&#39;t. School libraries are worthless at least that&#39;s what I found to be the case in the high school I went to (in a below averaged district).


I&#39;ve been in many libraries throughout this country and almost every single one has Inter-Library book loans. What one library doesn&#39;t have can easily be obtained by filling out a simple form. I&#39;ve done this in public, private, high school, and college libraries.




Item: depending on your peers for knowledge can be a case of the blind asking the blind for guidance.


Choose friends more wisely then.



But I agree that the internet is potentially "the great equalizer" (very bad news for capitalism).


Yea, you&#39;re right. Capitalism is pretty hurt by the internet. It certainly hasn&#39;t redsigned the way companies do business and created billions of dollars in revenue.



If a kid can get connected and can muster up the curiosity of a cat, s/he will learn some amazing things. The internet does not confer credentials, so you can&#39;t use it to learn a trade. But it does provide a way to find out what is really happening...and one that is not too difficult to master.



No it doesn&#39;t "confer creditials" but it can confer the information you&#39;re covering in class so that if for some odd reason you don&#39;t have a textbook you can still pass the exam with very good marks.



I suppose, as an abstract observation, that it is not unreasonable to suggest that people ought to be self-motivated when it comes to their own education. But the question here seems to be one of asking why the wealthy live in a social atmosphere that promotes serious learning while everybody else has to "scratch" as best they can.


You don&#39;t have to "scratch" as best you can. Anyone can work has hard as they&#39;d like to go as far as they&#39;d like. I have plenty of very wealthy friends who are going through the motions but won&#39;t ever amount to anything worth mentioning. On the other hand you have people like Pres. Clinton who worked hard all their lives and obtained the title of "Leader of the Free World."

Certainly you don&#39;t believe a young Bill Clinton had access to the best schools, textbooks, teachers, & internet growing up in Hot Springs, do you? He worked hard and over came those things. Just as any innercity or country youth could do.



You shouldn&#39;t, of course. Under capitalism, looking out for number one is "Job One" and the rest of the human species can just go eat shit and die. It&#39;s a legitimate point of view


Having to share a textbook is hadly eat shit and die. Children who are actually in a situation where they have to share a textbook should be thankful. Afterall, money for that textbook was probably taken from a school like Jericho.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I guess I&#39;m right?

[New Tolerance]

Possibly right against Redstar 2000 (although I still have to read through all of this) But not necassarily against those other people&#39;s arguements. (There&#39;s way too much to read)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 06:32 PM
People are going through schools and not being taught about the free market. I wasn&#39;t really making an argument, I was just stating a fact.
Your defintion of economics is the kind of crap churned out by Von Mises, are you really supprised that they don&#39;t teach lies?

[redstar2000]

I appreciate your reply, CI, but at the same time I found your assertions to be...well, odd.

They seem to be on the order of "it&#39;s not really as bad as redstar2000 says it is".

Are you suggesting that educational achievement is not in direct proportion to the resources spent on it?

Or, for that matter, not in direct proportion to parental "socio-economic status" (the bourgeois term for class)?

Really, CI, there&#39;s been a ton of research on this stuff...all pointing in the same direction. The more money your parents have, the better your educational opportunities will be and the more likely you will take advantage of them.

That&#39;s just a plain social fact, period.

There are really only two reasonable explanations for this.

1. The "richer" a kid&#39;s life, the more likely s/he&#39;ll learn a whole lot of stuff.

2. Kids born to rich parents are "genetically superior" -- they&#39;re simply born "more intelligent" than kids born to poor parents.

The appeal of the second explanation to the ruling class is well-known. Does it also appeal to you?

Of course, there are exceptions...as you noted. A poor kid turns out to be so exceptionally bright that s/he wins a scholarship to a really good school and eventually makes it into the upper middle class or (rarely) even higher. And there are "rich kids" who flunk out of a whole series of good schools and end up never being able to find Texas on a map. (George W. Bush?)

But they don&#39;t amount to "nothing"...their inherited wealth, if sufficient and prudently invested, will preserve their status, if not their power.

Sam Walton&#39;s kids could be drooling imbeciles...and they&#39;d still be tied for fourth place on the list of America&#39;s publicly richest billionaires.

You can buy a lot of "dummycare" for 12 billion dollars.


I&#39;ve been in many libraries throughout this country and almost every single one has Inter-Library book loans. What one library doesn&#39;t have can easily be obtained by filling out a simple form. I&#39;ve done this in public, private, high school, and college libraries.

Indeed, the inter-library loan program is almost a model of communist distribution.

But there are limits. In my city, it costs &#036;1.00 per book...and they won&#39;t go outside the state (a poor one) for anything.

The interesting thing is that most people are completely unaware that the inter-library loan program even exists.

I&#39;ve been a voracious reader all my life...and I was well over fifty when I learned of it.

Now I use it to get scholarly works that the public library never buys...perhaps 20 times a year or more.

How many poor kids even know that there is such a thing?


Choose friends more wisely then.

Oh, an yer a hard man, CI&#33; :lol:

Don&#39;t you think proximity has a little something to do with how we choose our friends? Just how is some kid in Harlem supposed to "seek guidance" from some really bright and really rich kid at Exeter?


[the internet] can confer the information you&#39;re covering in class so that if for some odd reason you don&#39;t have a textbook you can still pass the exam with very good marks.

A kid whose parents can&#39;t afford textbooks is unlikely to have access to the internet.

Yes, many public libraries do have internet terminals available to the public...but to use it productively takes time. Again, in my city, your time on the internet is limited to 30 minutes/day at the main library and one hour/day at the branches.

For anyone without prior internet experience, that is hopelessly inadequate.


Anyone can work has hard as they&#39;d like to go as far as they&#39;d like.

Back to mythology, eh? :D


Having to share a textbook is hardly eat shit and die.

I agree...which is why I didn&#39;t say that.

The point was made that...


If a student chooses to ignore all of those things, why should I give a shit?

And I responded...


You shouldn&#39;t, of course. Under capitalism, looking out for number one is "Job One"...and the rest of the human species can just go eat shit and die.

It&#39;s a legitimate point of view, I suppose.

But watch out for those "unintended consequences".

It&#39;s possible that you think that careful reading is not "really necessary" here.

But that&#39;s not true.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Are you suggesting that educational achievement is not in direct proportion to the resources spent on it? Or, for that matter, not in direct proportion to parental "socio-economic status" (the bourgeois term for class)?



Yes. I&#39;ve been extremely consistent in that educational achievement is in direct proportion to the effort put into it. If at this stage in the game you&#39;re still asking me what I think determines grades then close your browser because I&#39;ve found out why you weren&#39;t excepted into these elite schools - you&#39;re an idiot.


there&#39;s been a ton of research on this stuff...all pointing in the same direction. The more money your parents have, the better your educational opportunities will be and the more likely you will take advantage of them



So cite some of this research. Living in the United States, I have access to a public library so I should have absolutely NO problems in locating your references. You have to love the US Education system.


There are really only two reasonable explanations for this.

1. The "richer" a kid&#39;s life, the more likely s/he&#39;ll learn a whole lot of stuff.

2. Kids born to rich parents are "genetically superior" -- they&#39;re simply born "more intelligent" than kids born to poor parents.



So explain all the poor kids that attend Harvard & Yale?

Isn&#39;t it possible that theres a third explaination? On average wealthier families tend to place higher importance on education then poor families?



Of course, there are exceptions...as you noted. A poor kid turns out to be so exceptionally bright that s/he wins a scholarship to a really good school and eventually makes it into the upper middle class or (rarely) even higher. And there are "rich kids" who flunk out of a whole series of good schools and end up never being able to find Texas on a map. (George W. Bush?)


why argue something you clearly haven&#39;t spent time looking into?

The Ivy League is made up of mostly middle & lower class students. Browse the Fortune 500 lately? Obviously not. Look it up. Look up the bios of those who make the list. The majority of them grew up poor or middle class. Oprah didn&#39;t make her money because she was the daughter of the King of England. She worked hard.

Besides that, what does making it to the upper class have to do with education? Not everyone w/ a good education becomes wealthy. Not everyone with a poor education becomes poor. I&#39;m not entirely sure if Tom Cruise is all that intelligent but he&#39;s not hurting for cash.


But they don&#39;t amount to "nothing" their inherited wealth, if sufficient invested, will preserve their status, if not their power. Sam Walton&#39;s kids could be drooling imbeciles...and they&#39;d still be tied for fourth place on the list of America&#39;s publicly richest billionaires.



So what?

Sam Walton is a perfect example of someone who lived the American Dream. He wasn&#39;t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Through hard work he saw to it that all his children will be feed w/ silver spoons all their lives. But again, what does this have to do with education?

Why the heck would I want to provide a service for someone from the inner-city who probably couldn&#39;t afford to pay when I know that a kid from Exeter could?

Thats why my tuition is so high. Families like mine get stuck footing the bill for all of these inner-city kids you keep complaining about. I&#39;m certainly not against earned scholarships but why give financial aid to a student who could easily be replaced by a student who earned his spot in the school just the same and pay his tuition?

Tution in Georgetown is about &#036;35,000 a year. There are kids in my school who actually make a profit after financial aid&#33; Can you believe that? Not only does the government pay for their tuition, housing, and meal plans but they also give them spending money&#33; This is one area of the US Education system that does indeed suck&#33;

To make matters worse, guys like you who sit here and complain how tough a time poor kids have attending schools like Georgetown throw a shit fit if I actually receive a scholarship. God forbid if after my parents pay for everyone elses education their four children receive a small reward for good grades. That would just be immoral.


Indeed, the inter-library loan program is almost a model of COMMUNIST distribution.



You know how I found about inter-library loan? After an SAT course at the local library I asked the librarian if they had a particularly obscure book in stock. You&#39;ll have to excuse me if I don&#39;t care about these kids you keep talking about who are too lazy to even ask their librarians if they have books pertaining to the subjects they&#39;re studying in stock.

Its not like there was a secret memo handed out to rich kids telling them about inter-library loan. Everyone is privy to that information.



Don&#39;t you think proximity has a little something to do with how we choose our friends?



Nope. There are plenty of brilliant people who live in Harlemf you&#39;re so narrow-minded that you only believe intelligent people exist @ schools like Exeter, associate with them. With the telephone, email & Instant Messaging its easy.


A kid whose parents can&#39;t afford textbooks is unlikely to have access to the internet....For anyone without prior internet experience, that is hopelessly inadequate.



Yet every day children from these "poor" families walk into classrooms and receive good grades. Every day adults who had childhoods similar to what you describe walk into their good paying jobs.

These people didn&#39;t get there by luck. It was good old fashioned hard work.



Back to mythology, eh?



Anyone. Like I said, look up the Fortune 500. Theres a list of CEO billionaires who probably grew up poorer then you.

Clinton & Ronald Reagan are two men every person today should look to as role models. They both achieved more in their lives then most people can ever dream of. You&#39;d have me believe they were children of wealth though.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;ve been extremely consistent in that educational achievement is in direct proportion to the effort put into it. If at this stage in the game you&#39;re still asking me what I think determines grades then close your browser because I&#39;ve found out why you weren&#39;t excepted into these elite schools - you&#39;re an idiot.

For someone who uses "excepted" in place of the correct accepted, you possess a clear excess of gall calling anyone on this board an "idiot".

Your "argument" is stupid as well.


So cite some of this research.

Sure...


A family&#39;s socioeconomic status is based on family income, parental education level, parental occupation, and social status in the community (such as contacts within the community, group associations, and the community&#39;s perception of the family), note Demarest, Reisner, Anderson, Humphrey, Farquhar, and Stein (1993). Families with high socioeconomic status often have more success in preparing their young children for school because they typically have access to a wide range of resources to promote and support young children?s development. They are able to provide their young children with high-quality child care, books, and toys to encourage children in various learning activities at home. Also, they have easy access to information regarding their children?s health, as well as social, emotional, and cognitive development. In addition, families with high socioeconomic status often seek out information to help them better prepare their young children for school.

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/stu...ycld/ea7lk5.htm (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea7lk5.htm)

If you wish to learn more, just google "education + socio-economic + status".

Even you should be able to manage that.


So explain all the poor kids that attend Harvard & Yale?

Yes, every Cambridge resident complains about the horde of students with their begging bowls cluttering up the sidewalks there.

My estimate of your intelligence declines with every post you make.


The Ivy League is made up of mostly middle & lower class students.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Browse the Fortune 500 lately? Obviously not. Look it up. Look up the bios of those who make the list.

The "Fortune 500" is a list of corporations, dummy, not individuals.


Oprah didn&#39;t make her money because she was the daughter of the King of England. She worked hard.

All celebrities in the entertainment industry "make their money" by "working hard".

But most of the people in the entertainment industry work just as hard and don&#39;t make shit.

In fact, making a living as an actor, singer, television personality, professional athlete, etc. is one of the toughest things there is -- the odds against you are of lottery proportions...no matter how hard you work.

As for making (and keeping) a "great fortune", are there even 500 such people? Or even 50?

By the way, being dead helps your earnings potential quite a bit; Elvis Presley makes a lot more money now than he ever did while he was alive. Really "working hard", ain&#39;t he?


Besides that, what does making it to the upper class have to do with education?

Next best thing to being born rich.

Again, the correlation between higher education and lifetime earnings is well documented by bourgeois sociologists...do I have to do another google search for you or can you figure out how to do it yourself this time?


Sam Walton is a perfect example of someone who lived the American Dream.

Yes he was...the dream being how to accumulate fabulous wealth at the expense of tens of millions of your "fellow Americans" while ruthlessly exploiting millions of poor laborers in shithole factories in Central America, southeast Asia, and China.

Don&#39;t you wish you could "be like Sam"?


Why the heck would I want to provide a service for someone from the inner-city who probably couldn&#39;t afford to pay when I know that a kid from Exeter could?

Your general attitude suggests that you don&#39;t want to "provide a service" for anybody.

What you&#39;re really looking for is a racket...some way to extort money from people and give them nothing in return.

Try starting a new religion.


Thats why my tuition is so high. Families like mine get stuck footing the bill for all of these inner-city kids you keep complaining about.

Awww...poor baby&#33;

Did your Nanny quit because her paycheck bounced?

Are you down to a steady diet of rice and beans?


Tuition in Georgetown is about &#036;35,000 a year. There are kids in my school who actually make a profit after financial aid&#33;

Hey, it&#39;s their version of "the American Dream". Does it bother you that they are doing better at it than you?


To make matters worse, guys like you who sit here and complain how tough a time poor kids have attending schools like Georgetown throw a shit fit if I actually receive a scholarship.

Well, you have to remember that all we have here to judge your academic qualifications by are your posts...and I think Georgetown is a little "out of your league".

A business school in North Dakota or Wyoming would seem more suited to your abilities.


It&#39;s not like there was a secret memo handed out to rich kids telling them about inter-library loan. Everyone is privy to that information.

No, that&#39;s not true...and you just proved that with your own statement.

You&#39;re not told it exists unless you ask. How many people, especially poor kids, would have any reason to ask?

At my branch library (in a poor city), the staff refer to me as "the Inter-Library Loan guy"...suggesting that I may be the only person in the branch that extensively uses the service.

You assume that your class privileges are not only "available" but known to be available to "anyone".

It ain&#39;t so...on both counts.


There are plenty of brilliant people who live in Harlem...

No doubt...but "brilliance" is rarely a useful substitute for knowledge.

Which is in rather short supply in places like Harlem.


If you&#39;re so narrow-minded that you only believe intelligent people exist @ schools like Exeter, associate with them. With the telephone, email & Instant Messaging, it&#39;s easy.

Yes, those rich kids are really eager to make friends with poor kids...especially the ones who don&#39;t have a telephone, email, or instant messaging.


Yet every day children from these "poor" families walk into classrooms and receive good grades. Every day adults who had childhoods similar to what you describe walk into their good paying jobs.

These people didn&#39;t get there by luck. It was good old fashioned hard work.

This is an example of "good old fashioned" mindless oversimplification...not to mention taking no account of probabilities.

Your childish mantra about "hard work" is almost completely irrelevant to the sociological realities of class structure under capitalism.

You simply have no conception of how hard working class people work...and how little they receive for their labors.

Or what effects that has on most working class kids when they think about their future.


Clinton & Ronald Reagan are two men every person today should look to as role models. They both achieved more in their lives then most people can ever dream of.

Two political stooges for the American ruling class...who didn&#39;t even make all that much money for becoming hired war-criminals.

Role-models?

If you want to go down in the history books as a turd&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:28 PM
Government & corporate schools are capitalist indoctrination centers. Of course they should be abolished. Capitalism would collapse within a generation without them indoctrinating people to believe in private property, etc. The public school system evolved for this purpose, see John Gatto&#39;s Underground History of American Education.
A little late, but if anyone is interested, the book can be found online here. (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm)

I think Gatto&#39;s "unschooling" idea would be a great educational paradigm for a communist society.