3 ms·

The Cultural Revolution did not have theoretically smart, high-achieving young people. Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically s

The Cultural Revolution did not have theoretically smart, high-achieving young people. Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people"

computerthings 2y ago
I think the current idea is for the violence to be done by prison guards in El Salvador. The kind of person that thinks SV "built the modern world", and that they're part of a new tier of human being for having gotten rich for stuff like having worked on a game for kids 11 years ago, and therefore are entitled to co-rule the world from now on, are just useful fools that help to enable that.
motorest 2y ago
> Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people" No, most of the atrocities were done to eliminate political threats by targeting everyone who had a semblance of power and did not fell in line. Academia was targeted not because of an anti-intellectual push but because they could counter the influence of the new totalitarian regime trying to establish itself. There's a good reason why the leaders of said authoritarian pushes were lauded as the brightest minds in the land, whose writings should be consumed with a religious fervor.
- derangedHorse 2y ago
  > No, most of the atrocities were done to eliminate political threats by targeting everyone who had a semblance of power And what power did most of these professors have if not their minds? This does not go against my assertion, it sounds like a "no" just to say "no" Read what it was actually like: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001275005.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001275005.pdf
  - motorest 2y ago
    > And what power did most of these professors have if not their minds? You're completely missing the point. Their academic careers put them in a position where their role was literally to shape and influence the next generation. As they were not fervent supporters, their role posed a threat to the regime. They could be profoundly dumb or grossly incompetent professors for what its worth. It's just that they didn't lockstep with the regime and the regime didn't wanted to risk it.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Not at all - I feel like you're saying that since the Cultural Revolution was anti-intellectual, it was thus against "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people". But that analogy is even more apt for today - these young, energetic, just-out-of-school people want to tear down "elitist" institutions, just like students in the Red Guard did the same. One of the founders of the Red Guard who kicked off the Cultural Revolution was Nie Yuanzi, a Vice Chair of the Department of Economics at Peking University. I hope her Wikipedia page clarifies the analogy I was making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nie_Yuanzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nie_Yuanzi

The Cultural Revolution did not have theoretically smart, high-achieving young people. Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people"

computerthings 2y ago

I think the current idea is for the violence to be done by prison guards in El Salvador. The kind of person that thinks SV "built the modern world", and that they're part of a new tier of human being for having gotten rich for stuff like having worked on a game for kids 11 years ago, and therefore are entitled to co-rule the world from now on, are just useful fools that help to enable that.

motorest 2y ago

> Most of the atrocities were done by people who hated the "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people" No, most of the atrocities were done to eliminate political threats by targeting everyone who had a semblance of power and did not fell in line. Academia was targeted not because of an anti-intellectual push but because they could counter the influence of the new totalitarian regime trying to establish itself. There's a good reason why the leaders of said authoritarian pushes were lauded as the brightest minds in the land, whose writings should be consumed with a religious fervor.

derangedHorse 2y ago
> No, most of the atrocities were done to eliminate political threats by targeting everyone who had a semblance of power And what power did most of these professors have if not their minds? This does not go against my assertion, it sounds like a "no" just to say "no" Read what it was actually like: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001275005.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001275005.pdf
- motorest 2y ago
  > And what power did most of these professors have if not their minds? You're completely missing the point. Their academic careers put them in a position where their role was literally to shape and influence the next generation. As they were not fervent supporters, their role posed a threat to the regime. They could be profoundly dumb or grossly incompetent professors for what its worth. It's just that they didn't lockstep with the regime and the regime didn't wanted to risk it.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Not at all - I feel like you're saying that since the Cultural Revolution was anti-intellectual, it was thus against "theoretically smart, high-achieving young people". But that analogy is even more apt for today - these young, energetic, just-out-of-school people want to tear down "elitist" institutions, just like students in the Red Guard did the same. One of the founders of the Red Guard who kicked off the Cultural Revolution was Nie Yuanzi, a Vice Chair of the Department of Economics at Peking University. I hope her Wikipedia page clarifies the analogy I was making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nie_Yuanzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nie_Yuanzi