Posted on 11/16/2004 12:12:11 PM PST by Republicanprofessor
Battling liberal analogies on Communism and Affirmative Action.
I've just had my first class discussion on Communism (as related to Humanities, but I got off the subject to discuss politics with my liberal class.) We had a good discussion and many realized the dangers of Communism.
But I got a few comments from students with which I could not argue very well. (As I said, this is not my subject of expertise.) So if any of you can come up with some good responses, let me know.
One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory but that it hasn't found the ideal environment yet in which it could succeed. All the countries which tried it (Russia, China, etc.) were backward countries. She thought it might work in more working class countries. (To the credit of other students, they disagreed. And I countered this too, by saying that Communism depends on force to exist and that human nature resists being limited to being equal to others instead of striving to do better. But I'm interested in what you all have to say.)
And we drifted into Affirmative Action a bit, because I wanted to demonstrate the abuse of repeating lies over and over until they become the truth. (And I expect we may get some pubic hairs on the coke can lies again soon....) So I said that many believe Republicans are racist because it is repeated so often in the press. I noted that it may be because Republicans are against Affirmative Action and quotas.
So one student gave me this analogy from another teacher as an argument for Affirmative Action. Two boys are running. One is doing his very best at 8 sec. per 200 yards. The other needs to learn proper form but is doing his best at 8 1/2 secs. Which one gets the chance to be coached by the best? The one who has already reached his peak or the other who could improve much more after learning proper technique?
Now, I don't think that any of us ever peaks at total capacity, but beyond this, let me know what arguments you might come up with. It seems to be a narrow and silly analogy, but I need a definitive argument with which to knock it down.
Thanks.
Note the presupposition here: That higher education is more about "being coached by the best" than it is making efforts to excel. Granted, this premise is partially true, but only partially.
If a student is going to make this assumption, then rewind that assumption into that same 8.5 second student's high school endeavors. If the 4-year high school academic performance was primarily (or more) about who was collectively coaching this student and less about (if anything) their individual academic performance, then this student's contention constitutes a direct slam vs. the high school educators of these students.
Is she implying these students haven't been working with the best of high school educators? If public schools are the great equalizer, as the educrats claim, then isn't equalized access to the great equalizer an equal opportunity for allhigh school students to open the college door for themselves with their high school records?
Affirmative action is not a bad thing - seeking to increase minority participation. However, by instituting quotas and set asides, one then end up applying discrmiantory practices upon the group in order to end up with achieved results.
Bump for later reading.
Great suggestions from FR as usual.
Please do all future students a favor and NEVER become a teacher.
You have given the crappiest advice I can imagine.
I can imagine your first day in class "Students, spit back everything I say without critical examination, and you will get A's. Otherwise, I'm gonna bi%ch slap you all into oblivion." You would be no better than those on the other side.
Interesting statement on Republicans being racist............
So I said that many believe Republicans are racist because it is repeated so often in the press. I noted that it may be because Republicans are against Affirmative Action and quotas
When in fact.
If we look at the political record for the 1964 Civil Rights Act we find that 82 percent of Republican Senators voted for it as against 69 percent of Democrats. The contrast with the House of Representatives was even more striking: 80 percent of Republicans voted for the Act as against 61 percent of Democrats. And yet the likes of Ronnie still accuse Republicans of being racists.
http://www.brookesnews.com/republicans.html
But the opposite continues to be said in the MSM. Take this weeks Joe Klien Time Magizine lie as an example.
"The Democrats have paid a heavy and honorable price for their support of equal rights—first for African Americans "
They actually opposed civil rights legislation. far be it for Joe Klien to write the truth and call Republicans and their voters racist.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,782067,00.html
This was Leon Trotsky's belief also. He took it to mean that a fully capitalized society was one in which to implement Communism.
Of course, the concept of private property, private companies, and private investment would not fit that scenario. And, we all know how state run companies fare throughout the world. Marxist ideology cannot withstand the concept of capitalist competition. In fact, Marxism cannot withstand competition in any arena without crushing it. ~So much for individuality, self-determination and entrepreneurial innovation.
I'm pulling from knowledge acquired 40+ years ago.
There have been several American communist experiments with some success but mostly failure. incliuded are the Onida and Amanna colonies. Here locally the experiment was/is called Shekinah and has slowly evolved away from the original purist founders concepts.
Equality is a mental construct that doesn't exist and people come to resent artifical constraints that constantly benefit some with the work others.
I recently read "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek. This book addresses this in detail. It was written in 1944 I think. It's considered one of the classic refutations of Socialist (Communist) ideology. When he speaks of Socialism, he speaking of the state owned and controlled central economy, not the slightly more capitalistic socialism of today. I'm sure someone else could offer a better overview.
Neither one.
Both are guilty of cheating by having rockets hidden in their butts.
It's funny, but you're not teaching them about communism, you're teaching them about totatlitarianism. There is a difference (in theory at least).
A lot of things sound good...in theory. The reason communism can't work as an effective, efficient form of government is because it is completely contrary to human nature.
Communism can't work because it is an ideal based on complete selflessness. That doesn't mean we are all selfish, but it does mean that we, as "individuals," have self interests...such as families and friends. Communism by its very nature must use fear and terror to coerce the population to submit to this selflessness, thus it will always be tyrannical.
Von Mises' "Socialism" is a devastating and exhaustive critique of central planning by socialists of either fascist or communist stripe.
I'd say the "The Road to Serfdom" probably the best for assigned reading to students. It's short and written for lay readers.
"Atlas Shrugged" is great, but it has a lot of Rand's objectivist philosophy that's unnecessary to refute the socialist idea.
If you have a country in which Communism ought to do well in that it has industry, jobs and money then you have a country that doesn't need Communism!
Russia was not really a backward country at all.
In spite of massive turmoil and an incomplete federal structure, it was certainly "modern" enough to kick Germany's butt right into the stone age.
An interesting analogy would be that of the US vs England.
We were less industrialized than England (or Russia in the WWII context) and still won, but Russia absolutely destroyed Germany, not to underestimate the other Allies, by any means.
And they didn't do that by being "backward."
The entire premise is flawed, therefore, no logical or scientific progression is possible.
I'll take that suggestion, thanks.
The Communist party has operated in France (a country that might barely squeeze into the non-backward, working class nation definition) since the era of Marx but despite their years of effort building a workers paradise, it hasn't happened.
"Times have certainly changed for the French Communist Party (PCF), once Western Europe's most powerful Marxist movement. In last month's nationwide municipal elections, the party that prided itself on a strong local presence lost nearly a quarter of the towns and cities it previously controlled, including its only major city, Nimes. The sharp decline in the PCF's fortunes is not only a risk to the party itself, but also to the hopes of France's ruling coalition of Socialists, Communists and Greens to carry the left to victory in legislative and presidential elections next year." link
Good questions. I don't really have an answer, but I do have thoughts on the matter.
US corporations, and related type enterprises, are run like tyrranies. Most people, for whatever reason, are terrified of the heirarchy and 'getting in trouble,' or heaven forbid, losing their jobs. Fear is the primary motivator for a lot of people, rather than achievment.
The truth, of course, is that the fear is largely unfounded: if in the worst case situation a person loses their job, they just go out and get another one.
A lot of managers tend to really flatter themselves, thinking that the power they exert over their staff extends outside the walls of the business, and indeed continues after the people leave their jobs. It's this fear (that many people just accept) that keeps people in line and helps make people fearful, which helps keep the business humming along.
This dynamic works at every level - the manager who is overbearing to their staff probably has several overbearing higher-ups, operating out of fear of being on the bad side of their own higher-ups. They tend to treat their staffs like they are treaeted and have been treated in the past. Most managers have been poorly trained from the get-go, so its not surprising that they make the same mistakes when they are given leadership roles.
Fear keeps the entire enterprise in line. Naturally, a non-fearful person isn't accepted very well in that type of environment. In truth, they just don't belong in that environment.
Most managers in my work experience were not very good (which isn't to say they are particularly bad, just that they were not notably very good). They just acted out their role in the heirarchy - since they are/were poorly managed, they just continue in that tradition.
So the result, among other things, is that many - possibly most - people are not satisfied at their jobs, and take on undue stress that has physical and personal impacts. That's a problem, but it seems to be just accepted. A shame.
As far as free market capitalism inside companies, it isn't practiced for the same reason that it's not practiced in the USA. People are people - they play favorites, develop self-protecting cliques, adopt a blaming mentality rather than take responsibility, etc. Because of this personal aspect, the best don't necessarily get rewarded. That isn't necessarily bad, though not necessarily good.
Require your students to read "You Can Trust the Communists to be Communists" by Dr.Fred Swartz. A quick read, very readable and down to the point. The idea of communism cannot be separated from a discussion of human nature and his desire to serve himself and his family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.