What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[Szdfan]

How many hours have you spent watching the Jan 6 committee hearings? The same hearings that you had this to say about those not taking it as seriously as you think they should.

I have no problem with people not watching the hearings. What annoys me is people who come on here to tell about all the ways the hearing is wrong and pointless, without ever bothering to listen to it.

I can’t quite see how requesting an abbreviated description is close to the behavior I accused others of doing. I want to know, and I’m willing to listen. I abhor watching videos, and almost never do so. A live proceeding, like the hearing, is one of the few times where I will watch something rather than find a written version.

It just seemed strange to me that you would watch hours of hearings that seem to bolster your views about Trump but you don't want to watch a 57 minute video that might be informative on another big issue of our day.

People are allowed to choose what they want to pay attention to.

[GaryK]

I have no problem with people not watching the hearings. What annoys me is people who come on here to tell about all the ways the hearing is wrong and pointless, without ever bothering to listen to it.

I can’t quite see how requesting an abbreviated description is close to the behavior I accused others of doing. I want to know, and I’m willing to listen. I abhor watching videos, and almost never do so. A live proceeding, like the hearing, is one of the few times where I will watch something rather than find a written version.

It just seemed strange to me that you would watch hours of hearings that seem to bolster your views about Trump but you don't want to watch a 57 minute video that might be informative on another big issue of our day.

People are allowed to choose what they want to pay attention to.

I fully agree. I was responding to something he wrote in another thread

[Falco Underhill]

Can someone, Falco maybe, explain to me what marxism is, and also neomarxism?

"Slice," I appreciate the interest, but I'm afraid at the moment "explaining" marxism and neomarxism in 3 sentences is a taller order than I can fill. I may try to address the differences in a future post, but it would likely be longer than 3 sentences.

Maybe someone else will give it a shot.

There are many short definitions out there on the internet, some very good ones. I'm sorry but I really couldn't sum it up better than these.

Respecting neomarxism I found these two Wikipedia articles to do a good job for short summaries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism

[Falco Underhill]

I've never met one, nor have I ever read anything any of them have ever written. So they are irrelevant to my life and not something I bother thinking about or having an opinion on one way or the other.

You sure seem to have lots of opinions about it for a person who has no opinions about it.

But as for this "neomarxist" critical theory stuff you keep going on about by citing 50 year old writings from long dead leftist authors? None of that has any relevance to education today. I doubt, for example, that even one in a thousand educators even know who Herbert Marcuse is, much less can coherently describe his writings.

Let me quote from a Wikipedia article on the topic of neomarxism:

Toward the end of the 20th century, neo-Marxism and other Marxist theories became anathema in democratic and capitalistic Western cultures, where the term attained negative connotations during the Red Scare. For this reason, social theorists of the same ideology since that time have tended to disassociate themselves from the term neo-Marxism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

CRT theorists are some of those "social theorists of the same ideology" who studiously avoid making any direct references to Marcuse when discussing their influences, but anybody not wearing blinders can see it plain as day.

Another name for neomarxism is Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is simply Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm convinced CRT is a school of thought within the tradition of neomarxism, despite their clear intentions to keep that secret.

[Sliceitup]

Can someone, Falco maybe, explain to me what marxism is, and also neomarxism?

"Slice," I appreciate the interest, but I'm afraid at the moment "explaining" marxism and neomarxism in 3 sentences is a taller order than I can fill. I may try to address the differences in a future post, but it would likely be longer than 3 sentences.

Maybe someone else will give it a shot.

There are many short definitions out there on the internet, some very good ones. I'm sorry but I really couldn't sum it up better than these.

Respecting neomarxism I found these two Wikipedia articles to do a good job for short summaries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism

Those Wikipedia pages were filled with so much stuff about this person’s idea and that person’s idea, and disagreement over which was correct, but never seemed to actually say what the ideas were!

But joking aside, I think I get the idea. Correct me if I’m wrong. Marxism is the idea that society is profoundly shaped by the situations within that society. That there are tensions between people that will inevitably lead societies in specific directions because of those tensions.

And then what I’m assuming is the key part: Marxism says that the forces at play in our society will eventually lead to socialism, because the peons will rise up against the Gates, Musks, and Bezos of the world.

And neo-Marxism is basically, the next overthrow hasn’t happened yet, so here’s more details about how it will be done.

I have a few questions.
1. Do people disagree with Marxism because of the idea that tensions and situations exist within a society and they inevitably lead to specific things? Like fuedalism leads to capitalism leads to communism?

2. Or do people disagree with Marxism because they agree that society has been shaped in the way that Marx said, but they disagree that communism is inevitable?

[Ken]

CRT theorists are some of those "social theorists of the same ideology" who studiously avoid making any direct references to Marcuse when discussing their influences, but anybody not wearing blinders can see it plain as day.

Another name for neomarxism is Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is simply Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm convinced CRT is a school of thought within the tradition of neomarxism, despite their clear intentions to keep that secret.

It's not that anyone is trying to keep things secret. It is that "Critical Theory" as certain academics write about it in esoteric academic journals (that no one reads) has nothing to do with the actual administration of public schools as school districts try to come to grips with a very real and ongoing legacy of systemic racism. Or for that matter what is actually taught in public schools.

If you are suggesting that this has anything to do with public schools than you are making the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem

For example, I could find plenty of conservative economic writings by economists and theorists who are fascists and promoting fascist ideologies and various other flavors of authoritarianism. Does that mean that conservative economics is tainted by fascism or that conservative Republicans are promoting fascism? Maybe they are, but citing obscure conservative economists who happen to be fascists doesn't make that case.

Or, to cite another example. There have been a lot of instances of child sexual abuse in certain Mennonite circles. And some churches have gone to great lengths to cover it up, hand-wave it away, or support the perpetrators over the victims. Does that mean that Anabaptism has a theology that fosters child sexual abuse? Maybe it does, but that argument doesn't make the case either.

[Falco Underhill]

CRT theorists are some of those "social theorists of the same ideology" who studiously avoid making any direct references to Marcuse when discussing their influences, but anybody not wearing blinders can see it plain as day.

Another name for neomarxism is Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is simply Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm convinced CRT is a school of thought within the tradition of neomarxism, despite their clear intentions to keep that secret.

It's not that anyone is trying to keep things secret. It is that "Critical Theory" as certain academics write about it in esoteric academic journals (that no one reads) has nothing to do with the actual administration of public schools as school districts try to come to grips with a very real and ongoing legacy of systemic racism. Or for that matter what is actually taught in public schools.

If you are suggesting that this has anything to do with public schools than you are making the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem

Ken, no offense, but if you notice the title of this thread, it's what do you think about CRT in the Church? Where did you get the idea my comments were about its place in public schools?

[Falco Underhill]

CRT theorists are some of those "social theorists of the same ideology" who studiously avoid making any direct references to Marcuse when discussing their influences, but anybody not wearing blinders can see it plain as day.

Another name for neomarxism is Critical Theory. Critical Race Theory is simply Critical Theory applied to Race. I'm convinced CRT is a school of thought within the tradition of neomarxism, despite their clear intentions to keep that secret.

It's not that anyone is trying to keep things secret. It is that "Critical Theory" as certain academics write about it in esoteric academic journals (that no one reads) has nothing to do with the actual administration of public schools as school districts try to come to grips with a very real and ongoing legacy of systemic racism. Or for that matter what is actually taught in public schools.

If you are suggesting that this has anything to do with public schools than you are making the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem

Since you asked, however, I will say this about it: my preference would be for them not to be in the public schools as well. That's because despite whatever benefits they may bring, I don't want my tax dollars going to support a neomarxist organization. Not only do I disagree with their overall philosophy - which contains a partial truth as dangerous as any other when taken for the whole - but they will use their influence on political matters in ways I do not support.

They were careful to remain neutral about BLM in public yet in personal interviews made positive references to them as well as to various other radical movements in a carefully worded and offhanded manner.

You won't find references to various other radical ideologies in their college curriculums yet students are assigned to read them and they discuss them in classes.

From the 1619 Project to several other ways their effect on education would be deleterious.

They don't believe in objective truth. They think science is racist. They believe teaching classical philosophy is racist.

Moreover, in the name of intersectionality (a vital CRT concept) they support every kind of minority issue that "intersects" with racial minority issues. These include LGBTQ issues, women's rights issues (including abortion rights) transgender school issues, and a host of other issues (and on a global scale) in ways I wouldn't support.

In my opinion, we don't any need more radical leftist bureaucracies with a globalist vision feeding off the American public trough to add to the countless others already doing so.

A school of thought that would address legitimate racial/minority issues from a pro-Western angle would be preferable to me.

[Ken]

They don't believe in objective truth. They think science is racist. They believe teaching classical philosophy is racist.

. . .

But who is this "they" you keep talking about and what power do they actually have outside of various graduate schools where they publish their esoteric and impenetrable writings?

And even that I have to question. Probably the most "lefty" college here on the entire west coast is Reed College in Portland. And what is it most famous for? It's hard sciences and its classics department. By far it's weakest departments would be social sciences like sociology. And they don't even do things like "women's studies" majors. So even in the epicenter of liberal academia the actual focus is on hard sciences and classics. And the students who get degrees in things like economics? What do they do? They don't become Marxist revolutionaries. They mostly get MBAs or graduate degrees in economics and go on to work for corporations or finance firms like Goldman Sachs. Marxist professors buried in the dusty corners of academia are amongst the least powerful folks in academia.

Or take, for example, the University of Washington where my daughter currently attends and where I got my degree. All the money and resources are pouring into engineering, computer science, business, healthcare, and the hard sciences. Those are the popular degrees, the departments getting brand new buildings and facilities. And they are what is driving the school. Most certainly not lefty social science stuff or anything remotely Marxist.

This is where the money is going on campus:

Business school: https://www.hoffmancorp.com/project/fou ... expansion/
Life Sciences: https://perkinswill.com/project/life-sciences-building/
Computer Science: https://lmnarchitects.com/project/bill- ... tes-center
Public Health: https://facilities.uw.edu/projects/hans ... ion-health

And definitely not Marxist studies of any kind.

[Falco Underhill]

They don't believe in objective truth. They think science is racist. They believe teaching classical philosophy is racist.

. . .

But who is this "they" you keep talking about and what power do they actually have outside of various graduate schools where they publish their esoteric and impenetrable writings?

And even that I have to question. Probably the most "lefty" college here on the entire west coast is Reed College in Portland. And what is it most famous for? It's hard sciences and its classics department. By far it's weakest departments would be social sciences like sociology. And they don't even do things like "women's studies" majors. So even in the epicenter of liberal academia the actual focus is on hard sciences and classics. And the students who get degrees in things like economics? What do they do? They don't become Marxist revolutionaries. They mostly get MBAs or graduate degrees in economics and go on to work for corporations or finance firms like Goldman Sachs. Marxist professors buried in the dusty corners of academia are amongst the least powerful folks in academia.

Or take, for example, the University of Washington where my daughter currently attends and where I got my degree. All the money and resources are pouring into engineering, computer science, business, healthcare, and the hard sciences. Those are the popular degrees, the departments getting brand new buildings and facilities. And they are what is driving the school. Most certainly not lefty social science stuff or anything remotely Marxist.

Perhaps I'll address some of your objections in a later post. I have no time now. Again, public schools were not supposed to be the topic of this thread.

In the meantime, let's be clear that Neomarxists are not "Marxist revolutionaries" in the sense advocated by Karl Marx. Aren't you aware of that, or do you just think I am not aware of that?

They advocate revolution by ideological dissemination, not violent overthrow of government. They support revolutionary politics, not revolutionary war. (Though their support for BLM suggests they don't mind using it within political "dialectics.")

Let's stop confusing classical Marxism with Leftist neomarxism. One of the distinctive things about Neomarxists is they rejected Marx's idea that government be should be overthrown by violence to a achieve a social vision. Capish?