Political curriculum a cultural revolution tactic

[Kamerat Voldstad]

The ordinary western guy/girl doesn't understand or care a shit about politics and ideology. While he/her grows up, h/h is not encouraged to think indepently or critically or beyond the limits of the said and found that is to be learned without question. The moral, philosophical and political views that h/h comes to have is a result partly of social/cultural rules transmitted by the previous generation, partly from how the system is, partly from his/her own smallish interests in our individualistic, commersial society, and ALWAYS within the limits of what the (political/social/cultural/juridical) system allows and what the majority feels and says like their "truths" are the most natural and obvious (for example, that there MUST be poverty, that there MUST be war, that social injustice is NECESSARY or UNAVOIDABLE; one does not start out with nothing and search for an answer, one starts out with an answer [the bourgeois one] and goes out of one's rational way to try to justify it), precicesly because one is not taught to think critically, independently, and outside the systemic fence (not only does one not WANT to think outside this fence, because it entails lonelyness, responsibility and work, one CAN NOT think outside that fence because it is the only level of consciousness one has been taught), and because one is not taught to seek truth or justice and accept the responsiblity ideals entail.

Of course, the carelessness of our western guy/girl is a problem so complex that we need a thourough cultural revolution; and I have explained the matter far to simply and inprecise.
But I think a very good starting point for this cultural revolution would be a systemic change to allow for more free, critical, independent thought, and I think one way to do that is to implement a political curriculum: to vote, you have to read a list of certain books. This way, people will learn to think critically and independently, and they will actually udnerstand what politics is, and their vote will have a rational meaning.
I don't think this will happen, but it is an interesting idea (though a bit sofa revolutionary - sitting here discussing totally inpractical ideas for the amusement of it) and we may learn something of the discussion of it about how a cultural revolution or evolution can happen concretely.

So, what do you think?

And, whether you like the idea or not, if you were to set up this curriculum, which books would it consist of?

The list should definitely not be too long.

I suggest the following books, though it is not necessary to read the whole books:
Rousseau: The Social Contract
Smith: The Wealth of Nations
Mill: Utilitarianism
Lenin: The State and the Revolution
Rawls: A Theory of Justice
Hitler: Mein Kampf (just to be fair)

[encephalon]

...


Hitler: Mein Kampf (just to be fair)


Fair to whom? Nazism? Fuck that.

More importantly, requiring a person to read a certain set of books before they can vote prevents the large majority of the working class from voting; it's a tactic that's been used many times before, including the disenfranchisement of black men in women in the Southern US.

When you can work 12 hours a day of hard labor, deal with your kids and make sure that you and those you care about have enough to eat and a shelter over their heads; and then read that list of books merely to vote for someone that more than likely doesn't represent you anyhow, I'll pay attention.

Moreover, who decides which books are to be read? A Vanguard? The people that can already vote? (which means that they are a vanguard, for all intents and purposes, and the reading list keeps them that way).

I'm rather surprised by the myopic nature of this proposal.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:20 PM
...


Hitler: Mein Kampf (just to be fair)


Fair to whom? Nazism? Fuck that.

More importantly, requiring a person to read a certain set of books before they can vote prevents the large majority of the working class from voting; it's a tactic that's been used many times before, including the disenfranchisement of black men in women in the Southern US.

When you can work 12 hours a day of hard labor, deal with your kids and make sure that you and those you care about have enough to eat and a shelter over their heads; and then read that list of books merely to vote for someone that more than likely doesn't represent you anyhow, I'll pay attention.

Moreover, who decides which books are to be read? A Vanguard? The people that can already vote? (which means that they are a vanguard, for all intents and purposes, and the reading list keeps them that way).

I'm rather surprised by the myopic nature of this proposal.
Yeah, I was really kidding about mein Kampf. Why be fair when we can supress what we know to be wrong? we're not relativists, we're socialists. let's suppress as much as we can as long as it doesn't hurt our cause in the long or short run.

And yes, for this curriculum to have a substantial meaning it must entail certain assurances that everyone has an equal opportunity to read and understand them.
I was thinking it could be a part of the general education.

Who decides which books? That's a circumstantial question. It depends on the actual, concrete conditions who's gonna end up deciding it or attain enough support. As socialists, of course, we must fight for our side's theoretical representation. But I believe ALL sides, participating in such a debate, would recognize the need for a common, truth seeking, as objective as possible discourse to determine a neutral list.

[redstar2000]

Reminds me of Mark Twain. :)

He once postulated a "happy republic" where people had various numbers of votes depending on the number of years of formal schooling they had completed.

No school = 1 vote
One year of school = 2 votes
...
Ph.D. = 20 or more votes

Regrettably, there does not appear to be a perfect correlation between the amount of schooling one has endured and political intelligence.

Something that Twain was evidently aware of...as he once remarked that someone "had graduated from Harvard but it didn't seem to have done him any visible harm". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:58 AM
Reminds me of Mark Twain. :)

He once postulated a "happy republic" where people had various numbers of votes depending on the number of years of formal schooling they had completed.

No school = 1 vote
One year of school = 2 votes
...
Ph.D. = 20 or more votes

Regrettably, there does not appear to be a perfect correlation between the amount of schooling one has endured and political intelligence.

Something that Twain was evidently aware of...as he once remarked that someone "had graduated from Harvard but it didn't seem to have done him any visible harm". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Come on, don't caricature me - besides, I amt even sure about the idea myself :unsure:

And the positive result from the caricature and its negation is to allow threeyearolds to vote, because preknowledge doesn't seem to count.

And anyway, the curriculum must be equally read, if not, the whole idea is empty and elitist.