Marxism in Education, The Conglomerate of Liberalism and the ideological pluralism of Marxist doctrine
Some introductory food for thought...
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted"
- Vladimir Lenin
"Marxist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism... Most of the people who graduated in the 60's are now occupying positions of power in the Government, civil service, business, mass media, and education system. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information."
- Yuri Bezmenov
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them"
- George Orwell
The 'Conglomerate of Liberalism' as a result of the ideological state apparatus?
To use a Marxist idiom, the ideological state apparatus encompasses the power of the State in matters concerning perspective control, i.e. how people think intergenerationally and their views toward certain topics; the apparatus being the Educational system, Media texts, licensing etc. These apparatus make up the State's power to influence the overall judgement of its citizens, particularly in a way that subverts the threshold of scepticism toward the general person, and applied correctly to the scrutinised control of educational curriculum, exploits the somewhat tribal and innate trust of youth in their surrounding elders. The employment, too, of the various psychologies, more distinctly, the behavioural psychologies, throughout a child's life in State education until late adolescence, indisputably has a tremendous effect in moulding the perspectives of every individual, more so on those who continue up until their early adulthood. Then, it is by no accident, that after an evident phase of conditioning and socialisation, the prerequisite to the life of this society, that almost every household, street corner and vehicle is bombarded with devices of media. It is true, is it not, that the the development and widespread proliferation of the Television, just as the radio had done, had every household open their door for the State to lull them with ideology for hours each day, masked of course by entertainment and emotional drama, but, of course, still enforcing ideology.
How exactly then, does any of this relate to the 'Conglomerate of Liberalism'. Well, what I call the Conglomerate of Liberalism broadly refers to a kind of informal coalition of Liberal and progressive ideologies, prevalent to the new Western political sphere that appears, by my estimates, to have resulted from an elaborate, yet conceivable process of indoctrination within the educational system, and secondarily, (Corporate) Media institutions and the technological era. What I mean by this is that the ideological state apparatus in Education and Media has manipulated the youth into ideologies, that unwittingly to them are totalitarian in nature, whilst in a deceptive duality, are Utopian and idealistic in appearance, which draws the naivety of youth, especially when nudged, close to them.
Not only am I speaking from a first hand experience of this process of ideological subversion, but now, becoming more aware of it, and its intentions, this also comes from first hand witnessing of the process as a 17 year old student at a college (UK). For, you see, there had been a period of time when I was around the age of 13-15 perhaps, that I had fallen prey to the idealism of Socialism, Communism and internationalism. I had seemed to go through a phase of 'awakening' if you will, where my mind, almost arbitrarily, appeared to become intellectually stimulated (this was when I began writing poetry) and through that process, my 'awakening' was hijacked by the previous subversion of my intellect and thus I seemed to shift to the radical ideologies that I mentioned, of Liberalism and proggressivism, that also, and by no coincidence, align with the intentions of Globalists, prominent NGO's and multinational corporations, who've already established the institutional foundations for internationalism (EU, UN, etc) and Socialism (Welfare State, Interventionism, Globalisation, outsourcing, etc) and the process now relies upon preparing the ideological foundations, which begins with children. Is it any coincidence, I ask, that we have been taught books of Socialist and Feminist authors, lectured to about race relations and 'toxic masculinity', shown only the negative depictions of our history, and the brutality of so called Capitalism? I wonder why the State would manipulate the curriculum in or order that generations grow up into ideologies that favour the increased power of the State?
When I speak of the Conglomerate of Liberalism, this means that most, if not all Liberal groups and ideologies are linked in some way by similar aims, activity or tenets. For example, a women who adheres to Feminism will also likely come into contact with the various other groups surrounding that, i.e. Race relations or Socialist groups, by numerous matching or similar tenets of ideology (gender pay gap - wealth/class disparity, patriarchy - racism). They have similar tenets, which means that when in schools, where children are subversively exposed to Liberal ideologies, they will likely then become exposed to many more, and the genius of this (from first hand experience) is that they will think they have to come to their conclusions about the world and formed their opinions ON THEIR OWN. I have noticed that there is a proportion of girls I know that are now self proclaimed Feminists, and through that gateway, from those of which I've spoken to, they have also fallen to the ideological snares of Socialism, Communism and internationalism, as I had done. This 'theory' if that's the right word to use, I have mused on for a great length of time and has broadly been constructed from experience and observation primarily, rather than hypotheses.
Duality and Pluralism within Marxist Doctrine...
How does one trick, on such a large scale, people down rabbit holes whose pits are bare, and when the cage is sealed above their heads, have them cheer in droves as the key is tossed firmly away into the mud? Well, by the genius of a pluralistic manner of words whose face holds smiling principles that fool those by it's simplicity; 'equality'. And who might share such values as longing for days where men are equal? All do. And it is by this that it is the broadest bear trap of all ideological snares, for on the face of it's words, who can refute it's principles?
The essence of redistribution of wealth (by wealth is meant power and by redistribution is meant divergence) is a process that involves the destruction of any kind of meritocratic society that may or may not have existed hitherto the point of a Communist State, which in principle means the abolition of the possibility for individual economic mobility or even freedom as one's ownership is not only collective, but through State intervention, is fixed, and by who should this be determined? Likely the one pointing the guns as demonstrated historically. Equality of opportunity, in it's literal and pure form means that all can attain the level of prosperity they choose, which therefor makes inequality an inevitable factor. The ever growing critique on Capitalistic society that it is a rigged system that deliberately favours the rich is both a right and wrong assertion. It would seem by my observations that many are confused, as today's western, even global economic system I do not believe is one of free market Capitalism, but of cronyism and a near quasi-feudal Oligarchy of corporatism that is able to manipulate the world economy through international organisations and think tanks like that of the EU, UN, IMF, ECB, CFR, etc, that in fact stifles any individual achievement or economic competition, but through a symbiosis of State and Business has completely reversed that. Instead increasing government power has entangled corporatism into the mix, allowing for the establishment of greater monopolies than ever before. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the local national economies of today's globalised society are more socialist than Capitalist. For example, in Britain, after the successive Fabianism of the last century we have more programmes resembling socialism than otherwise, as our industry (like most of Europe/North America) has been outsourced through free trade deals to the East with little protection on national produce, thus our industry becomes nationalised or is scrapped, leading to unemployment and reliance on a mostly service economy or the welfare state that is often abused. So, in the principle of equality of outcome, one's material and social value is ascribed for you on behalf of the state/now ruling class. There are many parallels to be drawn between direct slavery and communist society, a form of indirect slavery, and
this pluralistic principle is one, as the fruit of labour is collective and therefor anything you do in excess will not be your own. And with the ever depleting use of tangible currency and the shift to the technological age of computerised money, there is even more the plausibility for the disabling of personal savings, instead any disposable income could be removed algorithmically (this is hypothesis of course). That's if you are payed, or live out your days in the gulags as the Russians did. The money system can easily be substituted for another method of trade/wealth and have equal circumstance. The equality of outcome may appear on the surface a great ideal, however, that would be the cunning duality of Marxist doctrine, that unlike, for instance, Nazism that is well and publicly understood to be tyrannical in nature by it's clear rhetoric. Communism on the other hand, that has slaughtered as many, in fact more people, is fluffy, pluralistic and idealistic in it's rhetoric, and ideologically appeals to the now rebellious intellectuals (particularly youth) who've access to the technological age of ideas and increasing global cosmopolitanism. An education system that has taught us all from a young age that we are all together in the social body, getting medals for taking part, etc. Surely has had an influence on the level of Marxist discourse apparent today.
The primary claim of Communist doctrine is to create an equal, classless society. However, where such ideals have manifested themselves, it appears more an elimination of the middle classes. Rather than bringing everyone up, instead it tears everyone down, which then of course leaves a more clear cut division of society into a ruling and working class, or more simply known as totalitarianism. Whether it the Stalinist Bureaucracy or the modern day Dictatorship of Northern Korea, this is the ultimate reality of the establishment of a communist state, which is why it baffles me as to why such a format remains to have such a relatively large basis of adherents, despite the lessons of history. I simply quote George Orwell's interpretation of Communist principality contained in Animal Farm, that is "all animals are born equal, but some animals are born more equal than others". As a person who has grown up in state schooling I fear what will be the long term ramifications of a subversive curriculum I and many others have been exposed to that seems to push my generation, particularly of the more intellectual sort, further and further left. Books of socialist authors, Marxist sociological teachings and other subversive tricks placed into the curriculum, whilst those who fall for these tricks believe they have come to their own conclusions, and instead say that society teaches us to refute Communism and love Capitalism. The same people who would benefit from state control are the same people who choose the curriculum and control media outlets. Think, why would state education want children to support an ideal that gives ultimate power to the state? Strange. The biggest winners in communism are the Capitalists themselves, for to remove Capitalism is to remove their competition and thus solidify their monopoly making them the Oligarchs. The combination of a state where the liberty of individual attainment has been stripped, society is but a flat landscape of absolutist equality and where likely a network of oppression through state assets of control has been established and a system of loose, discriminatory law can target any groups or individuals that perhaps pose a threat is instituted, then you may have something that looks like Communism, because when you give absolute authority to a group, that's what happens (I would have thought people would've come to this logical conclusion by now anyway). Equality seems to be the word on people's tongues today, yet I must wonder if many have truly contemplated the depth of the word and it's variety of shapes. Völkisch equality, I do not believe many today would admire.
Privacy; ownership. What is the single commodity we own from the day we are born? Our labour. Now, if our one true ownership is that of our own labour and bodies then what happens to that under the circumstances that private ownership is abolished? That depends on the degree of tyranny, but more than likely a state of serfdom, enslavement to the collective. This was the plurality of language I am trying to communicate. Whilst many only see the principles of Marxism as consequences against the rich I feel people often miss the broad implications of a 'collective' society. African slaves also were not permitted private ownership for they themselves were owned. Among each other they were also equal and they were all provided for with equal resource and outcome, no opportunity though. Perhaps this is a better model for society than our so called Capitalism. In essence what Karl Marx created was a system of enslavement hidden behind high ideals, one so sickly ingenious that it would rally the people willingly into their own demise. And he was totally aware of this, being a psychopath himself, keeping his own housemaid as an unpayed, house bound slave, and not once did he step food in a working man's factory. Of course, when the time comes that it is wanted for a revolution by those who would have it so, we will be given our leaders to follow into despotism, as we are now. Some will attempt to redeem Communism by saying that it hasn't been tried properly yet. So how many more millions need to die before we truly establish how much it doesn't work? Though, I would say it works very well for what is was intended to achieve, which is a state of totalitarianism, tested in the Soviet system and the Nazi (National Socialist) experiment. And as Professor Jordan Peterson rightly points out, that for someone to make a statement like that, that the Soviet system wasn't "real communism" is the most arrogant statement someone can make, because that would entail that that person believes themselves to be the most upstanding archetype of moral virtue and that they would never be corrupted, even with absolute power.
To be barred from private ownership is the ultimate authoritarian ideal, the rule of law to overpower any ability to self-determination via possession. People have a great misconception of the workers taking back the factories, only to miss the owners take their liberties. In fact, I would say that it is quite a materialistic ideal, to prefer the means of production over the means of freedom.
- an essay by FabiusSideman