• CutieBootieTootie [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Theory? Marxism?

    If you engaged with these things in practice and not from a chair you’d understand that something like true education is nonsensical. What defines true 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 as true education has 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.

    • tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

        • tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            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?

            • tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I’m not sure I understand the disconnect. I don’t see my discussions as being lecture. I’ve only thought to participate and hope I haven’t broken some taboo.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                Your initial comment questioned how the PRC’s focus on education will look based on “entrenching compliance” as opposed to “liberating the working class.” This fundamentally presupposes that the PRC isn’t Socialist, yet without doing any legwork to bolster that claim. When pressed, you were even more vague, just saying we need to discuss it.

                The PRC is Socialist, ergo educating the Working Class isn’t out of “compliance,” but because it is useful for the Working Class in steering the revolution that already gave the Working Class supremacy over Capital.