• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

If that wasn't dogmatic guff, I'd bother to reply to it, but it is.

I would start by explaining how most property owners get to be property owners nowadays (post-Marx's era). Most don't have it gifted to them. Most work hard, spend less in order to save up a deposit, and then take out a giant risk called a mortgage. This is true even if the property is not for themselves to live in but to rent to others, either for business or residential purposes. Most are part of the new middle class that capitalism allowed the expansion of.
Marx wrote thousands of pages on this. You haven't read any of it, and have no intention of doing so, but you know that it's something vaguely threatening to your worldview so it has to be "dogmatic guff".

My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.
Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites, who purchase homes they have no intention of living in and intentionally profit from the basic human requirement for shelter. This activity amounts to placing oneself between a person who needs something to live and the object of their need, and using the coercive power of the state to extract profit from that person. Landlords are the perfect example of capitalism's moral failure to provide people with the resources they need to live. They only exist because we accept that a person may acquire something they have no desire or need to use for themselves, purely in order to deprive others of it unless they pay a fee.

If the goods and services of society were produced and distributed democratically, with the aim of meeting human wants and needs rather than siphoning money into the accounts of people who place barriers around human necessities.

Well, to be fair, you don't read many business books! Secondly, landlords provide an important service: they provide housing for people who either can't afford to buy or don't want to buy. It's not good for people to buy homes if they don't have the cash flow to afford (see 2008/09 crash). Secondly, it isn't economically smart to buy a house unless a person intends to live there for 5 years or more. Many local people today are extremely mobile, moving place to place to pursue their careers. They let landowners shoulder the up and down RE values.
 
You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work.

Yeah, so? That disparity isn’t necessarily a feature of capitalism, i.e. an employer willing to negotiate with an applicant because his last name is Rockefeller the 5th, isn’t necessarily because of capitalism.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because consent is a function of symmetrical information and power. It always is. Because accepting any less is solipsism, which is an efficient race to hell on earth.

How is it possible to have two equally empowered parties?
 
Because consent is a function of symmetrical information and power. It always is. Because accepting any less is solipsism, which is an efficient race to hell on earth.

How is it possible to have two equally empowered parties?

That's not what I said, so try asking again.
 
You, me, and most of the Western world have been lied to our entire lives. I suggest you do some actual research. This page is an excellent place to start. Another one, larger but less organized (Google docs), can be found here. If you're averse to educating yourself on this topic, ask yourself why, and recall:

View attachment 23188

To me, that image is ironic, coming from you, and I have no idea why it includes a photo of your head. :)

First, it's obvious and does not need stating. Second, of the two of us, I am clearly the one whose views are more flexible, reasonable, realistic, achievable and moderate. :D

Plus, I am probably much better informed about (and have more sympathy with) leftism than you imagine. Of course I'm aware that I've been bombarded my whole life with capitalist/consumerist/whiteist/bearded male propaganda and I am cynical about and suspicious of it. But equally there's nothing in that very one-sided anti-capitalist polemic you linked to that surprises me much at all.

I just haven't, like you, bought myself a dreamy Marxist dogma hobbyhorse to ride around on because it makes me feel all good and righteous. I'm still smiling at your pov being so incredibly blinkered and presumptuous that you thought it accurate to describe me as neoliberal. That you even thought that should be a bit of a red flag for you, imo. It certainly is for me, listening to you. Seriously. When you get to the point of thinking that only you and people like you are right and everyone else is wrong, you need to pause for thought, especially if you're merely critiquing something (and sometimes a caricature or extreme version of it) and only have a hypothetical to offer as an alternative. Hypothetical 'better worlds' are two-a-penny and very, very easy to get a big hard-on about.

I'm still waiting for that example of out-and-out socialism working better and more stably on a large scale than a mix of socialism and capitalism. Not that it's a deal-breaker, it might merely have not just happened yet and would be fab, but it would help your case. Otherwise, how am I or anyone else to know that you're not just a well-meaning fantasist with a superficially attractive and noble but very harmful (and possibly out-of-date) idea?
 
Last edited:
You, me, and most of the Western world have been lied to our entire lives. I suggest you do some actual research. This page is an excellent place to start. Another one, larger but less organized (Google docs), can be found here. If you're averse to educating yourself on this topic, ask yourself why, and recall:

View attachment 23188

To me, that image is ironic, coming from you, and I have no idea why it includes a photo of your head. :)

First, it's obvious and does not need stating. Second, of the two of us, I am clearly the one whose views are more flexible, reasonable, realistic, achievable and moderate. :D
Just not in any way you care to demonstrate. Ruby, you haven't actually addressed a single thing I've said in this thread or any other, beyond just labeling large swaths of analysis as 'dogmatic'. You're not interested in a good faith discussion, so I'm not going to have one with you, as much as you keep piping up to goad me into one. If you want to take that as a concession, have at it. And by the way, most leftists I know recognize Slavoj Zizek when they see him.
 
Lenin, Stalin, and Brezhnev are on a train, which comes to a sudden stop.

Lenin says, "Organize the passengers to take over the train!"

Stalin says, “No, just shoot the conductor.”

Brezhnev says, “No, just close the curtains.
Now,everybody pretend that the train is moving.”
 
Ruby, you haven't actually addressed a single thing I've said in this thread or any other, beyond just labeling large swaths of analysis as 'dogmatic'.

I admit I have engaged in a bit of slagging off (as I am sometimes wont to do when talking to those I consider extremists of any sort) but to say I haven't addressed anything else is nonsense.

Plus, I asked for evidence that your idealist, pure Socialism system might actually work better than existing mixed systems which work pretty well. You're one to talk about not addressing things.

You're not interested in a good faith discussion...

Am too, if the other person has a balanced and reasonable and non-dogmatic pov.

And by the way, most leftists I know recognize Slavoj Zizek when they see him.

Good for them. I did not say I was a leftist. Or a neoliberal. By golly your perception of politics is simplistically binary. See also: dogmatic.
 
Last edited:
Lenin, Stalin, and Brezhnev are on a train, which comes to a sudden stop.

Lenin says, "Organize the passengers to take over the train!"

Stalin says, “No, just shoot the conductor.”

Brezhnev says, “No, just close the curtains.
Now,everybody pretend that the train is moving.”

I don't think that socialists are lazy. IMO, they just don't understand business and what it takes to be successful. They don't understand that what drives success is incentives. Most successful people are grinders. They work long hours often for nothing. The average entrepreneur makes nothing for years as they develop their companies. They make great sacrifices. But here's the deal, grinders aren't going to grind without incentives.
 
Getting back to the OP topic with an update, the curriculum was not accepted, they will revise and present again next year.

California’s widely criticized ethnic studies plan to be revised | EdSource

Probably a good idea coming on the 30-year anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin wall. East Germany still hasn't recovered from being denied capitalism and freedom even after 30 years.

But at least they were anti-fascist! They were also woke avant la lettre for demonstrating that women's sport could be just as masculine men!
 
If anyone was taking this seriously, don't; the governor killed this unilaterally. No surprises there. Though I suppose tswizzle might be disoriented a bit by agreeing with Gavin Newsom about something. God forbid we teach our high school students a bit of critical thinking. :rolleyes:
 
If anyone was taking this seriously, don't; the governor killed this unilaterally. No surprises there. Though I suppose tswizzle might be disoriented a bit by agreeing with Gavin Newsom about something. God forbid we teach our high school students a bit of critical thinking. :rolleyes:

https://www.unz.com/estriker/why-did-governor-gavin-newsom-veto-a-critical-race-theory-education-bill/

While AB 331 was passed in January 2019, Newsom’s veto has the optical misfortune of coinciding with Donald Trump’s current campaign seeking to put an end to critical race theory in federally funded institutions. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Jose Medina, lashed out at his fellow Democrat, calling the Governor’s move “a failure to push back against the racial rhetoric and bullying of Donald Trump.”

So why did he do it?

The answer lies in Newsom’s donors, who also happen to be members of prominent Jewish ethnic lobbies. For example, the American Jewish Committee responded to news of his decision with a “Bravo.”

Jewish groups protested AB 331 because, while they agreed with the anti-white message, they also resented the lack of an exemption for Jewish students. Under the law, Jews would be considered “white” and not allowed to choose Jewish Studies for their credit.

Roselyn Swig, a billionaire heiress, wrote an op-ed reflecting this sentiment four days ago. In the piece, she urges that the bill be altered.

According to Swig, critical race theory is “crucial to ensure a tradition of tolerance, understanding and respect – three of my core values – for future generations, while advancing justice for marginalized communities.” However, she furiously contested that “[An] initial draft of the educational plan had both excluded Jews and antisemitism education, and included anti-Jewish tropes in lyrics and anti-Israel boycotts.”


Rich jews in high places really get stuff done fast in the grand old USA.

As soon as these concessions are made it will probably be passed.

This is Roselyn Swig's editorial

https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2020/09/inclusion-of-jews-in-ethnic-studies-curriculum-is-essential/
 
If anyone was taking this seriously, don't; the governor killed this unilaterally. No surprises there. Though I suppose tswizzle might be disoriented a bit by agreeing with Gavin Newsom about something.

Don't worry, Newsom made up for it with the reparations bill.

All the bill does is set up a task force. When they make an actual recommendation... he can simply veto that as well. Hardly a revolution.
 
What is "Ethnic Studies"?

And what is the "requirement" on students to take those classes?

If "Ethnic Studies" is restricted to Left-wing ideology only, and everything else is excluded, then there should be no requirement to take such courses.

But if it is broad enough to include all kinds of alternative political theories, or philosophies, or belief systems of different cultures or traditions, then maybe it's OK.

If it intends to find other cultures than the White European Western Civilization culture, then it's just a way to increase knowledge, or extend knowledge beyond the current Western understanding.

Western Civilization knowledge will probably come out looking pretty good compared to all the alternatives out there. It's appropriate to say to the students -- Do some studying into philosophy or history or culture beyond just that of the White European culture.

I see nothing wrong with requiring all students to take one class in some alternative knowledge than that of Western Civilization culture. As long as this includes everything out there, or ALL other ethnicities and cultures, and is not limited to just the current Left Wing ideology, or to any one race doctrine, like BLM, etc.

The key is INCLUSIVENESS. If it's truly inclusive, to include ALL the alternatives, then it sounds legitimate. From the examples we've seen so far, it's not clear that it's really inclusive.

Also, there's some confusion about including Marxism along with "ethnic" studies. Marxism is just another White European ideology already taught throughout the universities, along with Descartes and Hobbes and Locke and Adam Smith and Nietzsche, and the empiricists and existentialists and so on. To call it "ethnic studies" should mean alternative cultures to that of the White European culture which Marx belongs to.
 
Non white people are not oppressive to their neighbors and have never committed genocide.

Neither have the Jewish people (stories in the bible do not count since is is all bullshit like most religious texts) who have objected to not being included in the cirriculum. Instead there is some focus on Palestinians instead.

Twitter hashtag #JewsNotIncluded

https://twitter.com/hashtag/JewsNotIncluded?src=hashtag_click
 
D’oh! Yes. In this day and age my sarcasm detector is in the shop with my irony meter.
 
Back
Top Bottom