- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- news@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
Investing in education is the mark of a rising nation. Imposing lifelong debt for it is the mark of a falling one.
US is screwed. 4 years getting wrecked by Trump is best case scenario at this point, but if he has his way it’ll all be fixed up so people don’t have to vote anymore and then the country is really doomed.
Weird that I would feel safer with China as the superpower instead of a Trump America.
So tempted to go to beijing for my PhD
Why not go, It would be an experience but I imagine you would need to speak Chinese.
My main concern with going would be that I can’t keep my mouth shut about politics… And I don’t fancy getting in trouble abroad
I understand, I wish you well either way 🙏
They’re just flexing on us at this point, aren’t they?
They don’t need to. What they’ve done with high speed rail in 15 years makes me want to cry. They built an entire national HSR network since the great recession. America is such a fallen empire.
Educated people won’t stay obedient. That’s why reactionary powers historically avoid aiming for truly educated masses—they prefer a controlled education system that reinforces their ideology, not one that fosters critical thinking or revolutionary action.
China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote? True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures, but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.
As Marxist theory teaches us, the ruling class controls not just the means of production but also the means of ideas. The flex here is not in building ‘education power,’ but in demonstrating the capacity to shape minds for the future workforce, ensuring stability within their system of production and governance. In this context, the plan isn’t just about making smarter citizens; it’s about making a more compliant society under the guise of progress.
What is the ruling class in the PRC? Very important question to answer if you think investing in education will weaken the PRC, not strengthen it.
Damn sometimes I forget how intellectualizing Americans will talk about the largest socialist country on the planet. Literally doing the “at what cost” meme lol
I’ll say it, even if what you’re saying is true, it’s true of all states, and it’s good and proper that the PRC reinforces a socialist worldview through it’s education. What’s the alternative?
I haven’t researched how Americans talk about these topics specifically, but what I can say is that in a Marxist context, it’s essential to analyze how education serves the interests of the ruling class, regardless of the country. In reactionary states, the government controls the narrative to ensure stability and maintain political power, even if the education system appears progressive. Theory argues that true education should challenge existing power structures and develop class consciousness, but state-controlled education often aims to preserve the current system. So is there fostering of critical thinking, or merely reinforcing a controlled worldview, as any state does to maintain its authority?
What do you think a Proletarian state looks like?
Am I crazy or are these comments clearly written by AI too lol
I’m almost certain they are, but for onlookers that alone isn’t enough to make them wrong, which is why I went for addressing the clear gap, their assertion that China isn’t Socialist without backing that claim up.
Either way it’s a very silly comment that doesn’t say much of anything.
I’m not AI, just someone who isn’t a native English speaker. I rely on translation tools, accessibility features, and autocorrect for help, especially on theoretical topics. That might explain why the style seems a bit off?
Again, which class rules in the PRC? Name it and give justification for your position
Theory? Marxism?
If you engaged with these things in practice and not from a chair you’d understand that something like
true educationis nonsensical. What definestrue education? Marxism is not concerned with that. Marxism is concerned with what’s effective at creating a better world, a better people, a better society. Something as abstract astrue educationhas no basis in Materialism because it is an idealistic way to view the world.I think it’s telling that you jump to assumption lumping in the PRC with reactionary states. It’s a chauvanistic way to view a very real and flawed but still developing and strengthening socialist project that shines as a beacon of hope in modern history for it’s ability to lift more than a billion people out of the most inhuman conditions.
Ultimately only time can tell the effects of this policy, but if hearts and minds are changed towards socialism again it will be because of it’s material successes, not the PRC’s ability to “brainwash” people.
Marxism doesn’t see education as some abstract idea of ‘truth’ but as a tool shaped by material conditions. The question isn’t whether education is ‘true’ but who it serves. Does it serve the status quo, teaching workers to accept their place in the system. In socialism, education should aim to empower the working class and build a society free of exploitation.
Marxism encourages critical thinking, not blind allegiance. If education in any state doesn’t help people understand and challenge class oppression, it risks serving those in power instead of the people.
Who is the ruling class in the PRC? What should the Proletariat do in China?
In the PRC, the Communist Party leads the state, but Marxism tells us to go beyond labels and focus on material reality. The ruling class is defined by who holds and uses economic and political power. If the Party and state genuinely reduce exploitation, improve living conditions, and build socialism, they fulfill a proletarian role. But if they prioritize maintaining power or allow inequality to grow, they act as a ruling class.
For the proletariat in China, their actions depend on their material conditions. If the system serves their interests, they should work to strengthen and improve socialism. But if exploitation exists, workers must organize, critically engage with the Party, and demand reforms that align with Marxist principles of dismantling class oppression.
It’s difficult to fully understand the proletariat’s sentiment in a context where opinions may need to be hidden and opportunities for agency could be limited. This makes critical analysis even more important to ensure that socialism actually serves the people.
This isn’t an answer to my question, though. You’re just vaguely gesturing at an imagined issue without doing any of the “critical analysis” you claim is important.
If you’re genuinely a Marxist, you should be following the adage “no investigation, no right to speak,” because all you’re doing is signaling that this could be a problem without doing the materialist analysis to prove it.
If you’re not a Marxist, why are you trying to lecture Marxists on Marxism?
What’s your argument? That they should implement the “American Way” - crush education and paywal it so only the elite can have it while the rest of the nation lives in ignorance?
Because if they end up with a highly educated, liberal population, mankind may actually have a chance to avoid extinction…
I’m not arguing. The American Way is already how the ruling class stifles the people
This text has the same LLM slop formulation as two days ago when you made China out to not be socialist 🥱
The claim that the comment “is slop” might overlook socialism and the role of education in class struggle. According to Marxism, socialism is about dismantling class structures and empowering the working class to control production and governance. Education under socialism should awaken revolutionary consciousness, not simply train workers to serve the system.
Marx warned that the ruling class controls both production and ideas to maintain power. A true socialist education system would encourage people to challenge these structures, not support them.
They can indoctrinate for a while, but education (as opposed to vocational training) inherently encourages critical thinking skills that make people progressively more resistant to the indoctrination.
