The Instigator
Kefka
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Marxist teachings should be more focused on in high school curriculumns.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,953 times Debate No: 8277
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (7)

 

Kefka

Pro

Recently, within the year, I was introduced to the Communist Manifesto by my English teacher. From reading the Manifesto, examining the core beliefs and speaking to a professor of philosophy who has given Marxist seminars, I have concluded that if more people were to be open-minded about the idea of communism (in it's true form) that education could be improved with teaching styles like those of Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). First one must look at the belief system in it's simplest form and if it's achievable. To address the latter, yes, I do believe it is achievable. As to the former, my interpretation of Marx's and Engel's is as follows:
1. The distribution of wealth (monetary value) should be controlled, by the people, not the government (more on that in a second) for the reason that money in all societies has dictated who assumes positions of power and influence and those who were not so fortunate to be gifted with the ability to ascend others in intelligence or conveying of it (biological determinism, sort of) are inevitably doomed to be subservient the the people of the former. If society as one, could agree that one must contribute to society in the best way they could, that money would not need to be centralized on more 'important' jobs such as a lawyer, dentist, doctor, politician etc.
2. All man is equal in their state of being, no one person should rule over the other, or else tension will be emanated from a class struggle (ties closely to first core principal).
3. Government need not to exist. Once, from the observation and learning of history, man understands the negativity associated with a ruling entity of any kind, government will be abolished and will wither away because of people's ability to cooperate with one another without the need for someone to dictate how they should go about it. (i.e. Old Major's preached society within the farm. Animal Farm, George Orwell)

Although there are many more intertwined issues within these two very very general but solid and core principals, I believe these to be the most important aspects.
Any who wish, and hopefully so that I may learn, to refute my argument, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, use China, Cuba, or the Bolshevik Revolution as examples to diminish the ideals of Communism. Those were only the exploitation of the proletariat by demagogues wishing for power (i.e. Mao, Stalin, Castro, Lenin, etc.).

EDIT: To fix any unclarity of my argument, I am demonstrating my basic understandings of Marxism and argue for its merits so that it may be seen as acceptable in the school system, and the merits of the effect it could cause. It is a dual argument if you want to look at it that way, though without one , the other really would be dependent.
InfraRedEd

Con

I don't know if you want to do that.
To study Marx requires a study of Hegel.
That requires a study of Confucianism, Taoism and Chiang and Zen Buddhism.
Marx also wrote about mathematics:
http://www.marxists.org...
So did Hegel:
http://www.marxists.org...
OK here is your homework assignment:
How could Marx say what he did about religion being the opiate of the masses if he knew anything about Eastern religion?
Contrast and compare the views of Marx and Hegel on calculus with those of modern calculus.
Now wouldn't you rather study Marx on your own without some teacher's idea of what is important?
Debate Round No. 1
Kefka

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for posting his rebuttal.
I do understand that much of Marx's beliefs did stem from Hegel and HIS beliefs were from many other beliefs intertwined into his philosophy, but that is of, for this argument and in my opinion, another matter.

Now to address the statement "How could Marx say what he did about religion being the opiate of the masses if he knew anything about Eastern religion? "

The entire quote being -"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
Karl Marx is stating that religion is the opiate, or the stimulant drug to the people of the world; who in his opinion, use religion as a drug that calms them and gives them reassurance in life, from the belief that there is something greater than them and that the entity(ies) controls the universe and gives hope to the poor or weak of the world, and all of the beliefs associated with religion.

Eastern religion, Buddhism in particular, is more of a philosophy than anything. It focuses on the principals of life and the effects that can be visually observed. Such as the observation of someone being cruel to another, and that person being mentally/physically abused and all of the effects that follow (Karma). It very little attends to the idea of a higher 'God', and uses Buddha as an example of someone attaining the sought after state of being, Enlightenment. So, this is less of a religion than it is a philosophy. And I believe that Marx meant not the abolition of religion but the removal of the ignorant hope and subservience associated with it. Even though he did state that to attain true happiness, religion must be ostracized; though, in the age he lived, he, most likely, observed religion to be a tool for control and false hope.

But I believe we have digressed from the true meaning of this argument. My intention is to implement teaching styles of Paulo Freire or any other Marxist-oriented teaching (meaning the de-centralization of education towards certain classes (Reference: Jean Anyon's article of the Hidden Agenda of Education, any who are reading this should read this article) ). The type of education that digresses from the typical "Banking Concept of Education" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) and focuses more on the Problem Posing type of education in which the teacher and students are equal in that they both teach and learn equally. Mere memorization and regurgitation of thrown out, and instead the education brought in assumes this order of, 1. Teacher's stimuli to the 'student' in which they obtain information and process it. 2. The 'student' takes this information and analyzes it and compares it with their knowledge of the subject at the time and logically and assertively creates a new 'understanding' of the subject 3. The 'student' then converses and argues with the teacher of both of their understandings. 4. A possible new consensus or continuation of disagreement occurs. 5. The new understanding is applied to their lives and methods of understanding in any manner, by de-compartmentalizing (contrary to the regimented education where, and I know this personally, as I am still in school, students gain information and hinder it by compartmentalizing it into ONLY the specified subject and willfully ignoring any possibility of applying it to any other 'subject'.

Last but not least I want to address my opponent's statement of "Now wouldn't you rather study Marx on your own without some teacher's idea of what is important?". Are you poking fun at the fact that I first was interested in Marxism from the information I received from my teacher, which was the case at first, but I know independently research the virtues,beliefs, and merits of Marxism. Or are you addressing the fact that it shouldn't be taught at schools because some 'teacher' thought it was important that the students should understand it?
InfraRedEd

Con

Examining the Paolo F. model of interaction: we already have a science of how computers communicate which is readily adaptable to human communication by allowing that humans may be in several networks simultaneously.

A network of two is not very effective. One party will have an advantage over the other. Multiparty groups such as a moderated Yahoo! group might be the best way to go. Robert's Rules of Order provide an excellent paradigm of communication in re dispute resolution, at least in comparison to the present situation.

Behavioral Cognitive Science I think is where the study of the dynamics of communication would fall.

We need a classification system for classification systems.
Debate Round No. 2
Kefka

Pro

Please post a more detailed and articulate response, I do not mean to come off rude but I spent a lot of time on my response.
InfraRedEd

Con

Surely my opponent is joking. The teaching of Marx is illegal.

http://articles.latimes.com...

In fact this makes Christianity illegal, at least the Matthew 5:34 and James 5:12 part.

http://bible.cc...

That is where our presigious universities are.

Who knows where our high schools are.

Anyway, to continue on the Paolo Friere model of education, based on Marxist philosophy:

Examining what paradigms might be useful.

Entities appear, called "life," which are able to maintain a stable existence in a changing environment. Some of these are cognizant and form and adhere to worldviews, which exist in a very complex multidimensional imaginary metric space

http://en.wikipedia.org...

but still fall within our definition of "life." We can study the behavior of humans by studying the behavior of worldviews. They are motivated to grow, and compete with other worldviews for adherents. This activity can now be greatly accelerated because of mass media. They can now form protective information shields around themselves by forming them around their adherents using various mass media techniques. How does this change what happens when two worldviews collide? They spawn new worldviews. They attempt to assimilate one another. When a group of humans is formed, and I am tempted to call groups "contests," a new worldview is created. If these humans are in captivity, how will that affect the dynamics and worldview of the group?

Allowing any fragment of a worldview to be a worldview, we can probably establish a compact

http://en.wikipedia.org...

or at least locally compact group

http://en.wikipedia.org...

topology (in addition to the obvious lattice structure) on Idea Space using the finite set of human beings and, for example, the corresponding set of mutually relevant (or irrelevant) worldviews, and worldviews can be combined to yield new worldviews not only by collision but also by thought-experiment of studying the duality between them, yielding not only infinitely many new worldviews, but uncountably infinitely many.

Thus there are a number of mathematical group

http://en.wikipedia.org...(mathematics)

operations.

A locally compact topological group can form exotic mathematical structures such as Pontryagin duality

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and additionally has the lattice structure

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and is a metric space.

Mathematicians will have fun with this for years to come.

Depending of course on your definition of "fun."

Each group (contest) is itself an entity and may or may not have its own worldview.

Groups will tend to form pairs, or "dualities."

There are stable and unstable pairs.

Here is an unstable pair:

http://www.finitesite.com...

Here is an unjust pair:

http://www.prisonexp.org...

They are not stable over the long run, so are really unstable pairs.

A group of more than two will tend to become a pair of "leader" and "everyone else".

The leader may be the group's own worldview, as in the case of groupthink.

http://www.psysr.org...

A duality implies there is a continuum between the two.

Studying the nature of a duality will give greater insight.

The study of the duality between Scientific Research and Society is called "Science and Technology Studies."

The study of the the duality between Technology and Society is called "Technology and Society."

All we have to do is discover who they are and what they have in common and what they do not.

Variations have been proposed, including activity theory, ethnomethodology, distributed cognition, actor-network theory.

I'm not clear how these relate but they are said to be "Marxist," and noting that they are not particularly about economic theory.

I think the "Marxist" point of view would hold that "Marxism," if there is such a thing, would have to be the study of everything and could not be conducted solely within the schools but wherever everything is.

The schools would be suitable mainly for studying schools.

The Communist Manifesto, published in February 1848, Engels claims, represents Marx's philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

but it may be a little too much focused on economic theory.

Besides it just puts me to sleep.

and quoting now from

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"As a scientist and materialist, Marx did not understand classes as purely subjective (in other words, groups of people who consciously identified with one another). He sought to define classes in terms of objective criteria, such as their access to resources. For Marx:

' The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.'
— (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1)"

Read "Labor's Untold Story" and you might think that it is. It certainly makes history come alive.

How many hours did you work today? Your grandfather worked eighteen. Your grandmother too, and when they were teens. Do you have a health plan? They didn't. Bring this book to history class and see what happens.

Additionally Marx allowed his views about religion to color his objectivity.

The notion that there is only the objective and no subjective contradicts not only Hegel but aforementioned Eastern philosophy.
Debate Round No. 3
Kefka

Pro

Yes, it is true that Communism is a economic ideal, as well as a philosophical ideal. My opponent's detailing of the idea of groups being defined by a 'leader' group, and that leader group sets the world view of the entire group, is interesting. Though, it really doesn't refute my argument. I don't feel like I need to prove anything that my opponent has said, wrong. A lot of what he said might have some merit to the conversation of Marxism, though it doesn't give insight into possible flimsy components of Marxism, or Marxist pedagogy in school systems.
InfraRedEd

Con

Establishmentarianism.
Debate Round No. 4
InfraRedEd

Con

That should be in your Marxist dictionary. Establishmentarianism not http://www.codeplex.com...
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I had voted PRO on this. I don't really see any reason to explain why, but will if requested. Onto your next debate.
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
I meant Rawr, like a monster..you know..rawr?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"The Libertarian view of Marxism and communism is especially warped. They argue that it is compulsory so they want none of it. But there are even communist anarchists such as Rosa Luxembourg.
"
So you're claiming these "Communist anarchists" would be quite content to leave my property alone? :)
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Go for it. :) I'll join in. Hope you can handle the juggling. XD
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
It's cool, I opened up another identical argument but someone else took it. If you want I'll open a third so i get 3 different possible perspectives.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
D'oh, sorry, got back late. Oh well, at least it should be a good debate. :)
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
Haha, when you first posted I assumed you were a typical ignorant citizen of America (similar to 90% of the population, imo). But now I see you have an actual intelligent refutation to my argument and hope that it will be a fun argument. Being less educated and less wise, in regards to age, will hinder me but I'll attempt to prevail in the end! haha. I like the links you have in your comments; this world is really messed up, and Marxism is a good starter for 'revolution' haha.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
This http://articles.latimes.com... is where the schools are now.
You have to walk before you can run.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
It is so rare to have a high school teacher with an intelligent attitude towards radical political philosophy, not to mention an even rudimentary understanding of it. It is a wonder he has not been lynched yet with the current and past attitudes.

The courts have held that the schools, like any employer, can even require a loyalty oath of the "are you now or have you ever been" type. This is odious. It's the worst word I know. Where then may one go to learn?
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
And here's
http://www.debate.org...
what I think of schools. Closem.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
KefkaInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70