As I was cleaning up my notebooks (read: throwing them in the trash) from high school I came across my social sciences notebook from 2 years ago, when I knew jackshit about politics. I found this graph which I copied over from the blackboard.
The reason I had to do it in MS paint instead of just posting a picture is because it's not in english.
Anyone else learned really dumb shit about socialism in school?
socialism -> utopian socialism -> anarchism is correct
marxism -> revisionist socialism -> social democracy is also correct
The middle branch is where it gets absolute batshit. However, you learned more about this than I did. I think the only marxist thing we ever looked at was the a graph about a council communist system as it was proposed by communists during the German Revolution in Weimar. The teacher said that this was supposed to be the "third way" between socialism and social democracy, lmao
if we're talking about proudhon then sure, but I'd classify kropotkin as a scientific socialist
You know what we learned in burger school?
Jesus christ, that actually made me angry.
Bakunin and the anarchists after him all adopted historical materialism.
Well, it's not very nuanced but it's not actually wrong really — it's surprising they even mention anarchism at all. I've come across much worse during my high school years.
The teacher never elaborated on any of it, he just had us copy the graph and that's that.
We just had the usual communism means totalitarianism, anarchism means terrorism and socialism is like free education bullshit.
That's right but was there even an anarchist before Proudhon? Considering he was sort of the founding figure of modern anarchism I'd say that branch is still more or less correct, but then anarchism should be connected to marxism as well, resulting in something like "scientific anarchism" or anything of the sort.
kek, that's exactly how my entire social science/history classes in school were. The teachers always had their personal favorite thing which they wanted to talk about, but the curriculum demands that you at least formally introduce liberalism and socialism so you hand the pupils a weird graphic over with no explanation whatsoever. As if learning politics and philopshy is the same as learning the citric acid cycle in chemistry.
A teacher once told the high school history class that the reason why there was so much controversy around Belgian rule in congo was "foreign jealousy", unironically. No mention of the slave labor, severed hands or millions dead. We had a portrait of every king and queen Belgium had since its foundation in the main hall, including Léopold II.
That happened less than ten years ago by the way, not in 1908.
Jesus Christ. That's like if Germany had a portrait of Hitler in the lobby of every school
Maybe he was talking about Kurt Eisner. As a member of the USPD he mediated between SPD and KPD and wanted to keep a council system along parliament.
from which country are you that you are taught stuff like this in high school?
You're actually quite right. That teacher just regained my respect.
Same tbh, my whole history class in high school was western propaganda
not teached in my school. Like unironically 0% teachings about leftist ideas
apparently in GCSE history they taught you about the german revolution and Rosa luxemburg because it was relevant to hitler's rise to power but i didn't do it myself so im not sure.
this is ridiculously good for a US high school
...
Rosa Luxemburg is quite mystified in Germany, because she was shot before she could actually do something. If she actually did something, you can bet your ass we would learn about how she was a totalitarian stalinist. But yeah, Rosa Luxemburg is the only communist revolutionary I know off that the ruling ideology considers a good person.
i remember my geography teacher talking about mao saying he was a tyrant when we were learning about the one child policy. I was an ML LARPER back then and almost showed the class my little red book.
Wtf? You actually brought the little red book to your school?
yeah had it on my desk but no one noticed
Why not? School can be fucking boring you might as well read.
Jezus, je zat echt op een kak school, Floris-Jan. Ik heb met maatschappijleer nooit wat over het socialisme geleerd.
However, it's true that the belgian Congo is the scapegoat of colonialism; everyone know how much Léopold II was a dickhead while the anglo colonisation is way less criticized
The one child policy was started by Deng Xiaoping in 1979, it's a shame how ignorant a teacher could be.
American here.
Obviously our education is the worst, but a little known embarrassing fact about me in particular is that I didn't even know the word "Marxism" until I stumbled upon this board. I don't even know how people can claim that our education is """Culturally Marxist""" when half of us don't even know the fucking word.
My teacher managed to mention Mother jones and bunch of other socialists and communists without ever mentioning socialism or communism at all. They also didn't mention the IWW or the party that mother jones founded. When they talked about the triangle shirt waist factory fire they mentioned the one lady was talking about a "soviet" system and everyone else disowned her.
basically we were taught to uphold Cenk Uygurist thought
I took AP European history. I was excited for the WWII section, as I was hoping to learn more about the Yugoslav Partisans and learn about Tito. Basically it all boiled down to Murica helped won the war and learning about the Horse Shoe Theory. Tito was mentioned once without a picture of him.
Ik ook niet, Gerrit.
If you ask Holla Forumsacks the way "cultural marxism" works is by nobody being aware of it.
I seem to recall it just always being presented as something lofty and largely ridiculous. Because I live in the US and discussions about socialism can't seem to move past it just being "bad" and muh freedoms, etc.
We read the Manifesto in school and had some brief explanation of mid-late 19th century workers movements, but it was all horribly oversimplified (enough so that the 1848 revolutions were only discussed as an extension of the nationalist factions and events like the Paris Commune weren't even brought up). No mentions of anarchism either except for the McKinley assassination and perhaps a paragraph mentioning Propaganda of Deed. After that everything in regards to socialism was framed through the lens of "Bolshevik/Soviet plots for domination." That included explaining how the Red Scares were absolutely justified, that violently antagonizing union workers is a legitimate strategy, McCarthyism was hysterical witch-hunting but simultaneously entirely necessary, and propping up right-wing dictatorships world wide was somehow more "democratic" than anything offered by potential left-wing revolutionaries or even DemSocs-led governments.
Not really, as that would imply that anarchism (ie Proudhon, if we are to assert he was the first "modern" anarchist) inherently drew more from utopian principles than Marx did; both were influenced by the theoretical developments of their time and both rejected utopian principles. What WOULD be more appropriate to say is that modern anarchism and Marxism emerged from the "general" socialist tendency and utopianism was its own offshoot that would later influence certain traditions (primarily ones that did not pull influence from most of the classic anarchist theorists we tend to think of like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc) of anarchism rather than the whole branch being derived from utopianism. If we were to go that route though and were to expand the chart, anarchism and various branches of Marxism would cross-influence eachother quite frequently, including Proudhon's own influences on original Marx.
Your education was better than mine.
I was taught that communism was when the government did everything so that everyone would be equal and communists don't care about freedom. However, because communism goes against human nature, they needed a totalitarian dictatorship to get people to behave selflessly.