| detbuch |
03-04-2019 07:21 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
(Post 1163251)
Marxist academe you have such an active imagination https://www.econlib.org/archives/201...valence_1.html
Original, hard core Marxism has lost most of its followers, so it is surprising that as many as in your survey did consider themselves Marxist. And many that do consider themselves as true Marxian Marxists would probably rather not admit it. As the term is used loosely today, it is more accurately called Cultural Marxism. That was a movement begun in earnest in the U.S during the mid 20th century by European Marxists (the so called Frankfurt School theorists) who were disillusioned with the outcome of original Marxism and Communism but still believed in much of the fundamental political and economic ideology. They still adhered to the Marxist critique of capitalism and notions of class struggle as well as other notions in the Marxist canon.
But they, in conjunction with Post Modern theorists, went beyond Marx and, created the basis for deconstructing traditional Western political, social, and economic understanding. They helped transform traditional "Conservative" academia into a platform for the Post Modern notion that our reality is a social construction rather than a physical and biological imperative. This all spawned into various constructs such as political correctness, social justice as it is expressed by leftists, economic justice, reproductive rights, multiculturalism, and our current identity politics and personal gender identity over biological identity, etc.
As for your survey, I specifically referred to the "liberal arts." Your survey includes the STEM curricula which shows very few, or zero, who identify as Marxists, which is not a surprise since the STEM curricula deals in scientific and physical reality, not in intellectual nonsense. But for the liberal arts, the social sciences and the humanities, it shows 17.6 of those in the social sciences and 5% of those in the humanities do. It also shows 24% radicals and 20.6% activist in the social sciences, and 19% radicals and 26.2 activist in humanities.
Your article also states "if 18% of social scientists believe in Marxism, that too is a big deal. Why? Because Marxism is nonsense. Furthermore, if 18% of a discipline fully embrace a body of nonsense, there is also probably a large bloc of nonsense sympathizers – people who won’t swallow the nonsense whole, but nevertheless see great value in it. Suppose, plausibly, that there is one fellow traveler for every true believer. That would bring the share of abject intellectual corruption to fully 35% – and 51% in sociology."
So, granting that Cutltural Marxism, not original Marxism, promulgates the mainstream intellectual liberal view, using your author's formula as well as that there are not many activist and radical professors from the "right" in our universities and colleges (it is conceded by just about all surveys that Professors in the liberal arts are overwhelmingly "liberal"), and that radicalism and activism in our universities is usually the M.O. of leftist, Post Modern, Cultural Marxists, we can extrapolate further.
The total ratio of those in the social sciences that are either radical (24%), activist (20.6%), or Marxist (17.6%) is 62%. The total ratio of those in the humanities, 19% radical, 26.2% activist, 5% Marxist adds up to 50.2%. Then if we use the authors suggestion that we should add fellow travelers (as well as those who didn't identify as either of those three categories, but, being predominantly "liberal" so leaning to Cultural Marxism), we can surmise that a large majority of Liberal arts professors are "Marxist" in the loose use of that term.
So secret your presenter knows everyones Names. as I have said its just another spoon feed story for like minded people using Classic Conservatives Buzz words ... Communist she even used comrade a few times ..
|
"Secret" applies to the rank and file Democrat voter and the general population. The Communist Party does not hide its connection to the Democrat Party, and the Democrat hierarchy is not unaware, but it is purposely not broadcast aloud to the public for obvious reasons. Were you aware of the connection? It is an "open secret."--"An open secret is a concept or idea that is 'officially' secret or restricted in knowledge, but in practice may be widely known; or it refers to something that is widely known to be true but which none of the people most intimately concerned are willing to categorically acknowledge in public."--Wikipedia.
True investigative journalists would not find this hard to "discover." Fake news journalists would choose to disregard or not report it. |
