4 ms·

There’s definitely a Marxist undertone to the whole thing. What I really don’t get is the conclusion which suggests tearing it all down. Why not build more “Ivy

by harles 3y ago

There’s definitely a Marxist undertone to the whole thing. What I really don’t get is the conclusion which suggests tearing it all down. Why not build more “Ivy+” and attempt to lift others up rather than flip the table? Yeah, it’s a tall order, but much more practical (not to mention positive) than getting rid of top schools.

komali2 3y ago
> There’s definitely a Marxist undertone to the whole thing Because it argues for meritocratic rewards in society? Because it pointed out that capital is a gatekeeper? What makes it seem "Marxist" to you? > Why not build more “Ivy+” and attempt to lift others up rather than flip the table? I think the argument against subsidizing anti-meritocratic institutions such as Harvard is exactly this. The money is better spent on lifting up people regardless of their ability to get into Harvard. I find the ending ambiguous, less "Harvard should be burned to the ground" and more "Harvard shouldn't get subsidies." I think Harvard would survive just fine without subsidies. It's Harvard.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  It’s the same folk-interpretation of Marxism that always goes around. Now that Marxism is dead and can’t defend itself, it’s whatever anyone wants it to be. States that were far closer to Marxism, like the PRC during the Cultural Revolution, decimated their universities and dispersed their faculties over the countryside, or to labor camps. This article is not on the same planet as that madness.
  - komali2 3y ago
    Now I'm seriously confused - a major criticism, by communists, of the Cultural Revolution was the blow back against all intellectuals and the destruction of the education system in the PRC. In what was was that Marxist? I mean, I know the arguments the red guard made, but there were other Marxists that disagreed. Are you just saying the red guard interpretation was the correct one?
    - thebooktocome 3y ago
      I’m saying that on the continuum of Marxism, the PRC circa 1965 is somewhere to the middle-far-left and the article above (that OP claimed was Marxist) is all the way on the far right. I’m not super interested in whether or not their Marxism was “authentic”, and neither is anyone who goes around, as OP did, randomly labeling things they don’t like as Marxist.
grumpy_coder 3y ago
Meritocracy is not really Marxist. Marxism is more 'to each according to his needs' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi... A Marxist tone would be more focused on getting rid of the elite class doing the owning things part. (which has proved difficult...) Meritocracy is actually nearly as awful as aristocracy in practice. A better society would just be more equal across the whole population regardless of birth, merit or whatever. i.e. CEO pay is now 300 times average employee pay, something more like 5 times would be a very different society and still have room for some merit element And having wealth above a reasonable level shrink exponentially rather than grow exponentially through some kind of share ownership tax Then Harvard just wouldn't matter that much

by harles 3y ago

komali2 3y ago

> There’s definitely a Marxist undertone to the whole thing Because it argues for meritocratic rewards in society? Because it pointed out that capital is a gatekeeper? What makes it seem "Marxist" to you? > Why not build more “Ivy+” and attempt to lift others up rather than flip the table? I think the argument against subsidizing anti-meritocratic institutions such as Harvard is exactly this. The money is better spent on lifting up people regardless of their ability to get into Harvard. I find the ending ambiguous, less "Harvard should be burned to the ground" and more "Harvard shouldn't get subsidies." I think Harvard would survive just fine without subsidies. It's Harvard.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thebooktocome 3y ago
It’s the same folk-interpretation of Marxism that always goes around. Now that Marxism is dead and can’t defend itself, it’s whatever anyone wants it to be. States that were far closer to Marxism, like the PRC during the Cultural Revolution, decimated their universities and dispersed their faculties over the countryside, or to labor camps. This article is not on the same planet as that madness.
- komali2 3y ago
  Now I'm seriously confused - a major criticism, by communists, of the Cultural Revolution was the blow back against all intellectuals and the destruction of the education system in the PRC. In what was was that Marxist? I mean, I know the arguments the red guard made, but there were other Marxists that disagreed. Are you just saying the red guard interpretation was the correct one?
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    I’m saying that on the continuum of Marxism, the PRC circa 1965 is somewhere to the middle-far-left and the article above (that OP claimed was Marxist) is all the way on the far right. I’m not super interested in whether or not their Marxism was “authentic”, and neither is anyone who goes around, as OP did, randomly labeling things they don’t like as Marxist.

grumpy_coder 3y ago

Meritocracy is not really Marxist. Marxism is more 'to each according to his needs' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi... A Marxist tone would be more focused on getting rid of the elite class doing the owning things part. (which has proved difficult...) Meritocracy is actually nearly as awful as aristocracy in practice. A better society would just be more equal across the whole population regardless of birth, merit or whatever. i.e. CEO pay is now 300 times average employee pay, something more like 5 times would be a very different society and still have room for some merit element And having wealth above a reasonable level shrink exponentially rather than grow exponentially through some kind of share ownership tax Then Harvard just wouldn't matter that much