Articles and Archives
Most recent posting below. See other articles in the column to the right.
14 comments - Last on 12/30/2009
Che Lives?
Two weeks ago I published an article about a Marxist journal that has seized authority in the education world. The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) is published by 
the UK-based Institute for Education Policy Studies (IEPS), “an independent Radical Left/Socialist/Marxist institute for developing policy analysis and development of education policy.” It takes its cues from Che Guevara and Paulo Freire.
Articles from JCEPS are required reading in some ed schools, and the editorial advisory board has representatives from universities in eighteen countries. In posting the NAS article on JCEPS, I thought that simply calling the journal what it is would be enough to discredit it. I wrote:
While it is appropriate to study the now discredited but historically important ideas of Marxism in political science, philosophy, and economics courses, education schools have no need for radical ideology. Ed schools should be preparing teachers to train the minds of the next generation, not to arm them with socialist politics. To do so cheats both future teachers and their future students out of the sound, unbiased education they deserve.
I assumed that most people would agree that Marxist politics have no place in the classroom, and that the JCEPS folks would be reluctant to own their radical left agenda. I was wrong. Since the article appeared on the NAS website, apologists for the journal have been coming out of the woodwork. We seem to have secured the attention of some of the last remaining Marxists on earth. One commenter, who seems not to be a native speaker of English, wrote:
Definitely, education should be explicitly involved in struggles for equity and justice, especially at the current situation. Therefore, it’s very meaningful to arouse teachers and students’ critical consciousness, as Professor Peter McLaren does.
School and society shouldn’t be separated. No matter it is in John Dewey’s mind “school is society”, or in other scholar’s essay “society is school”, schools have close relationship with society. George Counts once insisted that it was a great ideal that people should mainly focus on educating the children and care little about others, however, he thought that schools and teachers had to think about the injustice since the then unequal society greatly influenced teachers and students in 1930s.
As for the current situation which is much worse than in 1930s in many aspects, the “ivory tower” ideal had gone and would never come back, colleges and universities are more and more involved in the society economically and politically, students have to fight for the equality, and teachers are forced to fight for their right they deserved.
There are inequity and injustice in society, so it’s teachers’ responsibility to arouse their students consciousness to seek for the equity and justice. Those behind it are the ones who give up their responsibilities or the ones who own privilege, because they dare not to change the society or don’t want to give up their privilege. [emphasis mine]
Another person, ironically self-nicknamed “Cassiodorus” after the devout Christian who kept alive the flame of liberal learning after the fall of
Marxism isn't discredited anywhere, education isn't unbiased, and "radical" refers to the notion of examining the roots ("radical," from the Latin radix, or root) of everyday practice, something which should be done more often in schools. The rest of this is a rather amateurish collection of soundbites on a number of subjects, the least understood of which is critical pedagogy. [emphasis mine]
This is a delightful bit of self-delusion. Marxism isn’t discredited anywhere? Marxism is discredited just about everywhere, but if “Cassiodorus” needs a for instance, I can testify firsthand that Marxism is discredited in
“Ferlaz” also chimed in:
In
This article only serves to confirm that we are on the correct path of struggle. This educational movement is not intended to build ideological blocs but returning to education because their political neutrality is also a way of doing politics.
This article ends endorsing own knowledge of the dominant classes, their ideologies and worldviews deny the possibility of conflict as natural and accepting the hegemonic discourse.
From
The grammar here is too shaky to figure out exactly what is making “ferlaz” so excited. Che, the murderous thug of the Cuban revolution, is fortunately long dead. He enjoys only the kind of immortality conferred by T-shirts and dorm-room posters.
It does seem to me of absorbing interest that the great folly of Marxism—having burned through the twentieth century as a fire that killed more than 90 million people, enslaved countless others, and brought more misery and oppression into the world than any other political doctrine in human history—still has its proud defenders. And they are in schools of education.
Add a Comment
RSS Feed 
del.icio.us 
Digg this 
Share on Facebook
A second article? AMAZING!!!!! I am going to rip off my Che t-shirt right now and have a new one made that says "Proud to be denounced by NAS!" I for one will not be intimidated by practices reminscent of McCarthy. If, you are threatened by class based analysis: don't study it. If you want to engage in a scholarly exchange of ideas --- do so. But, please don't pretend that this is a substitute for research, objective analysis (as if there was such a thing), or a credible academic discussion.
by DrKB Posted on 12/29/2009
Marx lives in the great heart of the working class -- world wide. The current crisis in capitalism is enough to bring us together.
by TCPITS Posted on 12/29/2009
Would you please count up the deaths of your fascist friends? Don't forget workers killed by capitalism.
by TCPITS Posted on 12/29/2009
Marxism...I suppose the proponents of this system depend on one of their hero's great statement: "A lie told often enough becomes truth"-- Vladimir Lenin.
by dksmith Posted on 12/29/2009
"Marxism...I suppose the proponents of this system depend on one of their hero's great statement: "A lie told often enough becomes truth"-- Vladimir Lenin."
Actually, it's Madison Avenue that depends on this wisdom.
by Dave Taylor Posted on 12/30/2009
Marxism is a philosophy and as such is interesting. Communism, and other such applications, are ideologies which have had horendous results and are therefore discredited. "Western Marxism" became the Frankfurt School to avoid the stigma. Terry Eagleton tried to bridge the gap and admittedly failed. He then wrote "After Theory".
The sad element of the above dialogue is the mindless blending of Marxism with Discursive Practices (the Critical whatever). This is what Eagleton tried and fell upon the rocks of economics vs cultural and absolutism vs relativism. He is quiet now. gseaver
by gseaver Posted on 12/30/2009
Terry Eagleton quiet???? Are your ears blocked? His new book "Reason, Faith, and Revolution" made a splash that even I noticed.
The problem as this amatuer sees it is that Marxist politics are easily confused with Marxism as a social theory, which is alive and well. Even American communists abandoned the party when Stalin came to power and showed us how brutal Leninism can be, and presumably Marx was spinning in his grave over that obscene use of his name. Economic determinisms, however, have no political party, and are heard as often from the Right as from the Left.
by Dave Taylor Posted on 12/30/2009
Marxists - Communists in the U.S. did not cease to support Stalin. See: John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev, SPIES: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE KGB IN AMERICA.
There are communists active in teacher training in the U.S. now, e.g. Bill Ayers at Northwestern University. These people think they are "critical thinkers," but they are not. The aim of communists is the infinite power of tyranny, and the utter failure of communism everywhere does not dissuade them from their dreams of tyranny.
by Athena Posted on 12/30/2009
"Marxists - Communists in the U.S. did not cease to support Stalin. See: John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev, SPIES: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE KGB IN AMERICA."
Sorry, you're guilty of the dolphin falacy. The best estimate is that 74% of members of the U.S. communist party quit when the extent of Stalin's horrors were revealed. You are focusing on the ones who did not quit. My point was that there is a huge divide between "dreams of tyranny" and domination of the market -- no, wait, that's exactly what we support.... Viva Madison Ave! I mean, a divide between"dreams of tyranny" and helping my poor Hispanic patients understand that when their church tells them that it's a really good thing to be poor and to give any extra money they have to the church, well, maybe not. In Latin America, suggesting "maybe not" is branded as communist insurgency, and gets people killed. If I understand the Latin American situation as 'class conflict' in which ideologies are promoted to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, am I also guilty of "dreams of tyranny"? If my plan -- as corporate documents reveal -- is to have all Latin Americans drinking 90% of their fluid intake per day in the form of Coca Cola, am I any less tyrannical, or simply pursuing the freedom of the free market? Oh, I know -- people have free will. Right.
by Dave Taylor Posted on 12/30/2009
Amazing how many Marxist apologists are out there. One acts like a professor interested in a scholarly exchange of ideas, but if he/she were in charge of a classroom you can bet the atmosphere would be one of ideological conformity. Another claims Marx is alive in the hearts of the workers due to some mythical “crisis” in capitalism, despite capitalistic countries not only out-producing communist ones, but also providing a higher standard of living compared to any communist nation. Most problems with capitalistic countries are because of government interference. Someone else falsely implies capitalists are fascists, when fascism is just the flip side of the communist coin; both being forms of socialism.
Marxism is not just a philosophy, but also a foundation of totalitarianism, and that is precisely the problem. If were to remain in the realm of abstraction perhaps it would be harmless, but tragically that is not the case. It’s not any better to excuse it as just a social theory apart from its political application.
And I doubt Marx would be ‘spinning in his grave’ over brutality justified in his name. Marx, the self-hating Jew and anti-Semite, wrote On The Jewish Question, also known as A World Without Jews. Max also believed Africans to be a lesser race, and even advocated genocide, as his close friend and financier Engels did. In The Lost Literature of Socialism, George Watson writes, "The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide." Watson observed, "for reasons implicit in its claims that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."
Indecently, Marx used the words communism and socialism interchangeably. He was also a man who spent most of his adult life as essentially a bum who borrowed money from family and friends. Rarely did he ever actually do any work, aside from writing bizarre and discredited theories.
Yet, despite its brutal history, there are those, primarily sheltered academics in ivory towers, who believe in the illusion of some utopian classless society; a worker’s paradise. To them, the tyrannical means justifies the utopian ends. Sadly, the ends can never be achieved, so all we are left with is tyranny.
by LibertyFirst Posted on 12/30/2009
Just when we thought that the 1997 publication of The Black Book of Communism surely must have eradicated any remnants of a romanticized notion of Marxist/Communist Theory, along comes "The Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies" (JCEPS). I decided to take a closer look at the November 2009 issue of the publication and got hopelessly stuck on one article in particular: "A Radical Redistribution of Capital", by Torie L. Weiston-Serdan, a professor at the Claremont Graduate University in California. Here are some quotes:
" The intent of this analysis .... is to propose a radical shift or redistribution in capital beginning with the educational system and through a dynamic and colletive consciousness in order to address the inequities."
Marxist jargon indeed. But it gets worse. True to communist doctrine -- a doctrine that aims at the destruction of individualism -- Weiston-Serdan elaborates on how to achieve an "education of samenes", which she views as central to the radical distribution of capital. The tool for educating for "sameness" is "constructivist teaching":
"Constructivist teaching focuses on a student-centered classroom in which students build their own meaning of the concepts presented. ... It does not assume that some students come with more than others or that some students need more than others; this kind of education understands that every student brings something with them and builds on that something. In this way a shift in the way that capital is recognized results in capital being more equally distributed."
Finally, and it could not be stated more clearly, the good professor underscores the crucial role of education in her Marxist vision of a new American order:
"The radical distribution of capital via the education system is a requirement for the reorganization of our current system. Education feeds all parts of the state apparatus and is crucial for any movement."
To my knowledge, the California Education Code forbids the teaching by avowed Communists or by individuals who actively advocate the implementation of Communist Theory. If Ms. Weiston-Serdan is not the former, she is at minimum guilty of the latter. God help America!
by ivorytowerreform Posted on 12/30/2009
Sad to say, this is par for the course at the School of Education that I am unfortunate enough to attend.
by Ed Posted on 12/30/2009
I write from South Africa. I think it is wonderful that you are discussing Marx, Lenin and Che Guevara. Of course you must have them in schools, and not only them. You must have Paulo Freire. I hope you will also have Christopher Caudwell who, in his essay "On Liberty" wrote "I am a Communist because I believe in freedom"
Why not. What are you scared of?
Don't forget that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote, in the Communist Manifesto, that the "the free development of each is the condition for free development of all".
by Domza Posted on 12/31/2009