Leftyschool

For people still in High School or College how woke are the people and teachers in your school.

Have you guys had the same luck as me?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

French teacher in Junior High was clearly an out and out commie looking back. Wore the Hammer and Sickle proudly. Never went full rant, but every once in a while he'd made a comment or something that showed he knew his shit. At the time I wasn't old or smart enough to actually get the distinction, (ie to understand what the fuck communism was beyond RUSSIA) but now I can see how based that dude was.

i went to a catholic school

Was the only commie.
Got some people anti-cap but they never really got it

I go to a public university in Brazil, in a humanities department, and these places are known throughout society for attracting leftist and advancing progressive theories.

And in a sense, the stereotype is true, I very rarely met someone in there who wasn't on the Left in the political spectrum, and most of my friends there declare themselves socialists and anti-capitalists. Most of my teachers are, at least, widows of the old, "real" Worker's Party, and most of the students lean further to the Left than that.

But it's the sort of socialism that if you have any political instinct you immediately realise won't really go anywhere. They've mastered all the catchphrases and soundbites of revolutionary movements of the past but absolutely none of the spirit, and you can tell that although the student organizations can talk about Marx and Marighella all the time they still hold on to a pretty "common sense" leftism that was never really challenged by theory.

The outcome of this is that the kinds tend to overestimate the role of student organizations (who are sort of a big deal in Brazil, at least on paper, not sure what their equivalent in the US is) and keep mishing together anything that is vaguely progressive. The average college radical is as likely to be into Marxism or Socialism as be into Astrology, Slam Poetry or something they read on Buzzfeed. And it's very lifestylist, everyone dresses weird and all that. The whole thing is widely understood by society to be a phase the kids go through, and we're not perceived as a threat at all.

In general, it's a good place to visit and spend time in if you want to realise how useless it is to have numbers if the proper theory and the right discipline are not diffused together with the message.

My history teacher knew nothing about Marx but pretended they did. One time said that Marx was very utopian and described communism a lot.

I have one prof who is a legit ☭TANKIE☭, the rest are either liberals or weird pomo type Marxists.

...

Were they down with liberation theology?

via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

No.

Marxism-Irenicism Detected! The Swiss Guard have been dispatched to deal with your heresy!!!

More like Christian anarchism. But thanks for telling me about Irenicism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

how is this even possible? marxism is strictly modernist

america was a mistake
only you can fix it

It's almost like ideas evolve and merge with new ideas over time or something.

Are you familiar with the term "Cultural Marxism" "Revisionist Scum"?

doesn't change what marxism is though, even if some pomo heroes were influenced by it
take modernism out of marxism and you end up with not-marxism

Isn't possible to fundamentally be a Marxist but also accept the insights of postmodernism, specifically that texts are always interpreted, and that it's impossible to perfectly understand an author's intent?

Eastern European Catholic conservatives

mostly SJWs and feminists and one extremely butthurt conservative reactionary

This is just common sense. The PoMo approach would be to claim that the author's intent is completely irrelevant to the intrepretation, and that the text should be freed from the tyranny of the author.

No, for most of human history authorities have claimed to understand texts perfectly, and would damn dissenters as heretics. There were official interpretations and commentary that weren't allowed to be questioned.

common sense of today is not the common sense of yesteryear
Platoists held the world hostage until modernism, of course they believe in divinely inspired 'single true meaning' behind a text

We are of course free to interpret things however we like, but in order to effectively communicate, we should do our best to understand what our communication partner is intending to say.

Did I just express a PoMo position or not?

I don't think postmodernism is particularly interested in what is 'effective communication', rather in what the implications of words and structures of language have in our understanding of the world, deconstruction of language etc.

Haha!

Well that's all very important, don't you agree?

How someone who who hates >muh duhgwenazi you sure seem to have a lot of degenerate webms

...

no. noumenal material reality is defined by material reality, not how we talk about it, and definitely not by the hidden meanings and implications behind our language.

No. Qualitative difference of "Modernism" (DiaMat) is that truth exists. It's just unlike idealism of previous era the truth is considered to always be "concrete" (context-dependent). Which is the basis of any conclusion Marxism comes to.

You can't remove this basis and replace with "it's, like, your opinion, man" of post-modernism. Everything will fall apart. Marxism is not a set of opinions, it is a "guide to action". I.e. it has to be practically applicable. "The task is not to interpret the world, but to change it" as Marx wrote.

All actions of Marxists (which, mind you, includes nigh inevitable mass-murder) are based on an assumptions that they are objectively correct and it is the lesser evil. Post-modernism would paralyse Marxism with indecision - and destroy it, as it did paralyse and destroy Western "Left".

...

But our understanding of material reality, which is all we ever have to go on, is shaped by how we talk about it, and the effect of the design of our language.

One teacher in high school had us read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and while ever other student was focused on the disgusting packaging conditions for the meat, I was focused on the disgusting working conditions for the workers
He pulled me aside after grading my paper and said that I was the only student who understood the concepts behind the book

Truth exists, but it can never be perfectly understood, and language dramatically effects how we understand truth.

Wouldn't a Marxist say that the mass homicide of the bourgeois wouldn't be murder because it would be justified as self-defense ?

Sounds like he was a shit teacher if he didn't make those concepts clear to the class.

it is not the language or the structures of language that are defining of our understanding of the world, but the objects the language refers to
fuck i really don't want to get into this philosophy of language autism

justified to whom? we're not working within the legalistic paradigms of liberal-bourgeois society

Wrong. You are talking about Absolute Truth (idealistic conception of truth; the one I referred to as the truth of previous era).

Truth exists only in context. I.e. within the defined intent.

For example, you want to know how many oranges are there on the table (your intent is to eat some). The truthful (useful for you) answer would be "two". If the photographer comes and asks the same question (but with intent to make photo), the truthful answer - for him - would be "three" (there are two real and one fake).

As you see for both questions truth objectively does exist - even if it different in each case.

Within "legalistic paradigm" it is most certainly is murder - any Marxist would recognize this as a fact. However, Marxists do not operate with "legalistic paradigm".

I think that's naive. Try taking some psychedelics some time.

Linguistically, the word "murder" implies wrongdoing. "Mass killing" or "mass homicide" would be the appropriate term here.

I think we are, ironically, saying the same thing with different words.

No. In each context there is only one truth. Post-modernism is not based on this idea.

Yes, but there are infinite contexts.

No, there is only one context. The one in which you actually need the question answered. Every other context is wrong.

How do you determine which context that is?

You are basically asking "how do you determine what you want?"

I think the answer will not be qualitatively different from the way you determine this.

Do as you see fit. I've read a little bit about the philosophy of language surrounding this debate, all I have to say is: Universalism or barbarism!
I have, ego-death feels unpleasant more than anything. Interesting, sure, but I'm more of an analytical type than 'anecdotal' or 'life-experience' type.
We do what is necessary, not what is 'right'. The bourgeois will be removed only to the extent they pose a counter-revolutionary risk, not for some moralistic or legalistic nonsense.

I think you aren't giving postmodernism enough credit, although I agree that it's often abused by people who want to use it as a smokescreen to obfuscate obvious truths (like the exploitation of the proletariat), so that they can inject their own tyranny of bullshit into the situation (USE MY PREFERRED PRONOUNS OR IMMA REEEEE IN SELF DEFENSE). So that THEY can define the context for everyone, which is actually very ironic and anti-PoMo.

People are mostly fucking idiots in terms of politics in Denmark.
I think it's a combination of the high standards of living and the inequalities being minor and hardly noticeable compared to other countries, but people don't seem to care about it.

People in my high school mostly give the impression of typical sheeple.
Students cannot be bothered about politics cause they're busy swooning over kardashian ass, stressing about final exams or just fooling around, being miserable nihilists and cynics.
Overall it's either nothing or the snowflake flavour of polish nationalism, if not then liberal tendencies.
Exceptions are as few as I got to make acquaintances, terribly alone with no one left really.
There's a drop-out weeb keen on russian/soviet motives, seems to know a fair bit of russian too.
His asexual friend of bear-like posture which now has to repeat a year, the two I menaged to further make sceptical of capitalism.
There was my last relationship, a well read gal which put me to shame with her intellect. Basically a fujoshi fluent in japanese, read the manifesto from what she told me. Workaholic.
An eccentric girl before her, terrible familial issues, hardcore liberal, ended up in an art-school which promotes competativeness, restlesness and a general cult of self-destruction, another weeb.
A comrade from gymnasium/pre-high, healthy patriot, fool/bullshit/liberal-proof, opened him up to dialogue with leftist rhethoric but unlikely to have any other affinity than that for Piłsudski.
Daughter of a single-mother, hopped all over the world from Poland to Russia, USA and now mostly resides in France. Particularly fond of USA. Idiotic weeb, obnoxious and obnoxiously oblivious.
My past math tutor, heavy Zizek wibe, well read linguist, great intellectual, hardcore leftist, unhappy and alone alco/worko-holic.
Current math teacher assigned on individual/at-school tutoring, nationalism and bullshit-proof, no more no less.
At first delusional guy raised in a rich family, got him to think and open up to leftist rhethoric, little potential.
Stuck-up on status quo principal, somehow both aware of problems that education has yet refuses to acknowladge or adress them.
Heavily nihilistic english teacher, a good talk and critical of status quo but concerned only as far as taking care of family gets.
Guess I can throw in myself, struggling with education wannabe polyglote, unfulfilled artist and revolutionary, born pseudo-philosopher, dyscalculic demagogue, been told my writing is sometimes like that of schizophrenic speech.

Are you saying that Marxists reject ethics? Well then FUCK Marxism.

Join the anarcho-communist Revolution, comrades!

I had a Native American crypto-fascist (he thinks he's leftist but of course he does) as a professor once; besides that, basically everyone I know is either a liberal or a libertarian. There is one girl in a club I'm in, though, who's apparently in some anarchist GroupMe judging by a glimpse of her computer screen I caught once, but I'm pretty sure she thinks I'm some sort of a righty given that I was going through my Nazbol phase for a large part of my time in the club and still have more of a Greenwald approach to Trump rather than being upset about how he's "undermining the institution" or whatever,

Another Danefag here. I agree with this statement

Maybe. But I do not see what going post-modernist could add. For all intents and purposes DiaMat works good enough (for me, yes). For example, it was quite helpful in understanding theory of relativity (i did have problems dealing with the basic concept - horribly unintuitive). Also, works wonders with social/historical analysis.

Is that actually news for anyone? Technically, we reject Bourgeois ethics.

Trump means the downfall of American hegemony, which can only be a bad thing for capitalism, and a boon to the communist project, the Revolution!

How to into DiaMat?

That sounds like wholesale rejection of ethics as a philosophical discipline to me.

not all of them do. there are also humanist marxists, and I'll wager most people end up in the left by feeling disgust at the inequality and oppression of their fellow man. personally I came from a different direction
but ethics, at least deontological ethics are peak idealism
depends how you define ethics, really. any 'call to action' includes at least some kind of value or value-system, which is in the field of at least meta-ethics. marxism does not need ethics to work as a framework for understanding the world. contradictions inherent in capitalism don't contain any sort of moral judgement.

Well, some advice for you, I wouldn't use the term "mass murder of the bourgeois". It's not accurate, and bad public relations. My praxis is non-violent, by the way.

So I should change my election campaign slogan: "I will make Pol Pot look like Gandhi"?
thanks for the tip
good luck, I'm sure the bourgeoisie will be thrilled to give away their power.

The bourgeois are thrilled when will play into their hands, make their public relations case, by talking about "mass murder".

Well, I'm not an expert on "how to learn diamat fast and good" (for me it was all over the place), but Cornforth (three volumes of Dialectical Materialism; also arguments against Popper) would be a good start for Anglophone. Do note that it is Dialectical Materialism - we were primarily talking about Materialism vs Post-Modernism.

Alternatively, there are Marx&Engels themselves: German Ideology, Anti-Duhring, and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Not really. Transition to relativist ethics. Ethics are not unchanging and depend on particular situation. For example, it's not like it is a rude thing to scream on people if they are in danger and need to be warned fast.

fuck, now I finally see
I wonder if I still have time to stop the printing of my "socialism means killing everyone with more than 200 dollars to their name"-posters that I was going to distribute
thanks user, you saved the revolution, may Marx be with you