211–220 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Jew' is not a race.
Yes it is. It's also probably got an easier claim to that word than 'white' does.
"White" is a skin colour, otherwise categorized as "race", which technically doesn't really exist anyways.
All that really exists is a diverse range of genetic differences, however, all humans can 100% interbreed without any issues.
> I grew up in an area that was 99+% white and 50+% Jewish. That's logically impossible. You group in an area that was majority Jewish, and minority white.
To put it another way ~ he lived in an area that was approximately 50% Jewish white people, and 50% non-Jewish white people.
I was a really young 18. Going straight into work would have been a baptism of fire.
I'm not sure my degree has helped a whole bunch, but I don't regret the time I was there.
University definitely broadened my mind. I grew up in an area that was 99+% white and 50+% Jewish. We literally had “the black family” with twins who were our top track stars. And a few Asian families who hid their Asianness. It was at University that I learned about Asian culture. It was the first time I used chopsticks. It was the first time I drank tea without sugar. It was the first time I ate Chinese food that w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make sense. Slavery is obviously a particularly bad form of taxation.
I hope you are trying to be funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it is. It's also probably got an easier claim to that word than 'white' does.
"Jewish" is a religion. "White" is a skin colour, otherwise categorized as "race", which technically doesn't really exist anyways. All that really exists is a diverse range of genetic differences, however, all humans can 100% interbreed without any issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But looking at it as a pie that needs to be divided is wrong. One of the core tenets of capitalism (well, in theory) is that wealth is created literally from nothing. It's not a zero-sum game. In practice, unfortunately, one needs certain prerequisites to be able to do this. So in my view, the problem is not that something is unequally divided, but that a class of people systematically aren't able to create enough we…
"wealth is created literally from nothing." Most of the real wealth I see being created has ultimately come from the exploitation of natural resources. Far from being 'nothing', most of these limited resources (which in another theory belong to all life on Earth) require underpaid 'human resources' to turn them into the highly-profitable 'nothing' of which you speak. Much of which winds up in the garbage. (E.g., here…
On average, the things you or I use consist of 6% exploitation of natural resources and 94% of labor after that. Natural resources are important, but now (as opposed to 19th century) they are a tiny part of what we make and use, they are not the main part of wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is literally the exact opposite. The ratio of leftist to right professors in university is 12:1, even more pronounced among faculty. 1 out of 5 professors in America identify as Marxist.
Marxist, so even more in favor of a ruling class above all.
The purpose of this period of working class rule is to eradicate the capitalist class and its ideology (not necessarily through violence, although in practice what ruling class yields to another without compulsion?), and develop the productive forces of the society in order to enable communism.
This last point is one of the big things that distinguishes Lenin's theories from Marx's, because Marx thought that revolution would naturally arise in the most advanced technological societies once the industrial base necessary for a transition to communism was already pretty much in place. As we know, the revolutions occurred in places with a lower level of development, thus requiring this theoretical modification and extending the period of rule by the working class beyond the brief duration that Marx envisaged.
The USSR, while it existed, always said they were "building socialism" and never said they had arrived at the destination, which is a classless society. The PRC says that it is "building socialism" and that the process might take a hundred generations. The purpose of their rule, according to their own theoretical framework, is to eventually give it up.
So no, Marxists are not "even more in favour of a ruling class above all."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you're just trying to be snarky, but how does that make any sense?
[flagged]
We can see it, for example, in the GDR, the former East of Germany where social sciences basically died. At the very same time, West-Germany developed a hugely influential discourse (...with a lot of Marxists, despite all the tensions).
One could say that specific individuals from academia might profit from having symbolic capital to convert into political power, but that's hardly an idea that could be universally applied.
Only the privileged can afford to go to college to “broaden their mind”. Most people go to college to compete in the market and get a job. It’s amazing how much push back I get about computer science degrees should teach marketable skills and people say they weren’t meant to be ”vocational degrees” and you shouldn’t go to college for “job training”. Just the idea that people are suggesting in some of the comments tha…
they need not be able to afford it, if society would recognize the benefit and find ways to finance it.
the moment something becomes a requirement, then it's the responsibility of those who defined the requirement to make sure that everyone has access to it. it is no longer an obligation of the student but a right.
also, whether you pay for the dormroom in a US college or in another countries is not going to make that big of a difference. and if the school requires you to go abroad, they also better make sure that the cost is covered in the tuition that you already pay.
universities in different countries can make deals with each other and agree to exchanges that make sure that students are not burdened with additional costs.