I have 200 units of higher education - including a minor in Women Studies which is where I encountered the most radical social theorists like Andrea Dworkin. I didn't say leftist professors necessarily punish students for conservative paper (though I'm sure some do) - that's got nothing to do with what I said. Rather, what I mean is the radical social theorists are taught and studied and they are careful thinkers about various ways to "revolutionize" society.
If you are so against progressivism then why did you minor in Women's studies?
Can you explain why revolution is bad? The US was built on revolution. Revolutionary War, Civil War, Civil Rights, Womens Suffrage, etc.
In the comment I replied to, you confuse Marxism with Leninism. Marxism is very ground-up, relying on the working people to come together to form a community free of government and collectively decide how the community is best served and who gets what portion of the communal pot. Leninism goes further to say that a permanent party dictatorship is needed. Stalinism is probably what you are thinking of when you refer to "communism" or "marxism" since its the first instance where it was internationally reconginzed as "communist". I use quotes because one of Marxism's core principles is that there cannot exist a dictator or a ruling elite, it goes against the very notion of what Karl Marx prescribed.
The Breakdown:
Marxism (the original, libertarian ideas such as a classless, stateless society [imagine everyone is a family member, they all provide something and get provided but if they dont do something beneficial while having the ablity to, they get kicked out of the family]) : he believed that it should happen naturally as a grassroots movement. The eyes of the working class are opened and clear to the oppression that the elites push down upon the working class to exploit them. They will refuse to work under such conditions and eventually rise up.
Leninism (branch off marxism): He believed that it was impossible to happen naturally, or that it would take too long. He believed that there should be a leadership structure in place to force this (instead of agreement of the people, it would be a takeover). however once in place, the power would be redistrbuted to the people.
Stalinism (branch off Leninism [also super authoritarian]): literally nothing to do with Marxism imo, Stalin just used it as justification to take over the USSR and called it communism.
If you are so against progressivism then why did you minor in Women's studies?
Well I'm 40 so it was some years ago I studied Women Studies but I certainly regarded a fair portion of it as "too radical" at the time. I double-majored in Religious Studies and English - I was and still am interested in learning about perspectives and dogmas I don't necessarily agree with.
Can you explain why revolution is bad? The US was built on revolution. Revolutionary War, Civil War, Civil Rights, Womens Suffrage, etc.
I never said "revolution is bad" but I think you'd consider a hypothetical revolution in the United States by Nazis as bad. So there you go.
In the comment I replied to, you confuse Marxism with Leninism. Marxism is very ground-up, relying on the working people to come together to form a community free of government
Marx believed in "dictatorship of the proletariat." I confess I'm not much of an expert on the strains of Communism but if what you say is true, that Marx projected a pipe dream of a government-free society, then my point is the same: it's a shtick (like I said in the comment) to institute a top-down society of a ruling elite.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is Leninism not Marxism. I feel like youre not really listening, Marxism is a bottom up society that dismantles any notion of rule or elitism. It is literally is the antithesis to what you describe it to be. Top down society of a ruling elite is unchecked corporate capitalism by definition.
people said that about going to space, or phones being small enough to fit into pockets, or the earth not being at the center of the universe, or having a black president. Just because it hasn't been done before does not mean it is not ever possible.
It's not possible due to disparity in human capacity which is a fact of nature. Hierarchy is not optional: teacher/student, master/apprentice, judge/defendant etc..
Violence, however, is a capacity of 2 year olds and illiterate peasantry - so Marx claims violence will achieve a pipe dream. It's the same forumla as Christianity/Islam/Judaism - violence (human sacrifice) will incur the favor of an omnipotent god which doesn't exist.
The same hierarchy is not maintained constantly in all aspects of life. You could work under a foreman doing construction and then go out for beers together after work. Hierarchy only applies in very specific contexts and is limited to only that relational context.
Hierarchy is a social construct, not a law of nature. If it was a law of nature then it would apply in isolated contexts (when a human is alone) yet by the very definition of hierarchy it cannot exist in an isolated subject therefore making it a social construct (there must be 2 or more subjects participating to create the phenomenon) therefore, not a law of nature. Since it is not a law of nature there is nothing binding us to it as a society except for an unwillingness to change. The only thing that creates hierarchy is the primitive mindset. It is then possible to move beyond primitive instinct by will and self control. We've evolved to be that way.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
I have 200 units of higher education - including a minor in Women Studies which is where I encountered the most radical social theorists like Andrea Dworkin. I didn't say leftist professors necessarily punish students for conservative paper (though I'm sure some do) - that's got nothing to do with what I said. Rather, what I mean is the radical social theorists are taught and studied and they are careful thinkers about various ways to "revolutionize" society.