We must distinguish between good and bad. As authentic individuals and as political animals we don't have any other option. Add to my check list if you will. It took me about five minutes to compile what I did and no doubt it's incomplete.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:44 pmA couple of thoughts:Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:08 pmThere are many charlatans and worse, men who want to get power and wealth for themselves. The goal of education is to arm students with their own power to distinguish between good and bad. Students need to be as able as they can be to tell the difference between lies and truths, between superficial and deep, between reason and unreason, between thriving and failing, and between stagnation and progression.
Marxist theory is one heuristic and should be taught alongside others. For instance history of the past three centuries in Europe can be taught using the interpretations of both right wing and left wing historians. There is no place in schools, universities or even training institutes for mechanical engineers, for indoctrinators.
I am not sure if your definition of education is complete enough. It has become quite difficult to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' and, in my own view, so many things are confused because of very different (and confused, and conflicting) senses of good and bad and these compete.
In regard to Immanuel Can's perspective (one that I can understand because within my time-constraints I have examined some of the material he has examined) I strongly agree that neo-Marxism's influence today is extraordinary and I would say dangerous and also evil (it will result in very bad outcomes and these I term *evil* and it is now resulting in those things).
How is it that this assessment seems so obvious, and undeniable, but yet others have a completely opposed viewpoint? I would argue that if there were *proper education* that the bad that you identify as needing to be distinguished would be far more obvious and evident. The break-down in proper teaching (of proper materials) has led to the present situation where what is loosely called neo-Marxism gains inroads. An inner barrier is breached.
How this came about is rather complex. And what is needed to reverse it is also not easy to propose.
It is possible to examine Marxist theory and attempt to understand the viewpoints. But some aspects of these viewpoints are quite defective when examined closely. It is highly problematic, and always has been, when Marxism is made into a simplistic platform of activism.
I invite you to say briefly what you mean by Marxism.
What I mean by Marxism is : production of life's necessities is the basic motive force for the existence of societies.
To be fair to IC my own experience as an undergraduate (Humanities and education-related social science 1970s UK) was there was a detectable bias towards Marxism as I describe it, above.