BEIJING: China issued its first national action plan to build a "strong education nation" by 2035, which it said would help coordinate its education development, improve efficiencies in innovation and build a "strong country". The plan, issued by the Communist Party's central committee and the State C
I haven’t researched how Americans talk about these topics specifically, but what I can say is that in a Marxist context, it’s essential to analyze how education serves the interests of the ruling class, regardless of the country. In reactionary states, the government controls the narrative to ensure stability and maintain political power, even if the education system appears progressive. Theory argues that true education should challenge existing power structures and develop class consciousness, but state-controlled education often aims to preserve the current system. So is there fostering of critical thinking, or merely reinforcing a controlled worldview, as any state does to maintain its authority?
What do you think a Proletarian state looks like?
Am I crazy or are these comments clearly written by AI too lol
I’m almost certain they are, but for onlookers that alone isn’t enough to make them wrong, which is why I went for addressing the clear gap, their assertion that China isn’t Socialist without backing that claim up.
Either way it’s a very silly comment that doesn’t say much of anything.
I’m not AI, just someone who isn’t a native English speaker. I rely on translation tools, accessibility features, and autocorrect for help, especially on theoretical topics. That might explain why the style seems a bit off?
Honestly real, can’t even blame u for that
Now I can see it too, no real liberal says “in a marxist context”
Theory? Marxism?
If you engaged with these things in practice and not from a chair you’d understand that something like
true educationis nonsensical. What definestrue education? Marxism is not concerned with that. Marxism is concerned with what’s effective at creating a better world, a better people, a better society. Something as abstract astrue educationhas no basis in Materialism because it is an idealistic way to view the world.I think it’s telling that you jump to assumption lumping in the PRC with reactionary states. It’s a chauvanistic way to view a very real and flawed but still developing and strengthening socialist project that shines as a beacon of hope in modern history for it’s ability to lift more than a billion people out of the most inhuman conditions.
Ultimately only time can tell the effects of this policy, but if hearts and minds are changed towards socialism again it will be because of it’s material successes, not the PRC’s ability to “brainwash” people.
Marxism doesn’t see education as some abstract idea of ‘truth’ but as a tool shaped by material conditions. The question isn’t whether education is ‘true’ but who it serves. Does it serve the status quo, teaching workers to accept their place in the system. In socialism, education should aim to empower the working class and build a society free of exploitation.
Marxism encourages critical thinking, not blind allegiance. If education in any state doesn’t help people understand and challenge class oppression, it risks serving those in power instead of the people.
Who is the ruling class in the PRC? What should the Proletariat do in China?
In the PRC, the Communist Party leads the state, but Marxism tells us to go beyond labels and focus on material reality. The ruling class is defined by who holds and uses economic and political power. If the Party and state genuinely reduce exploitation, improve living conditions, and build socialism, they fulfill a proletarian role. But if they prioritize maintaining power or allow inequality to grow, they act as a ruling class.
For the proletariat in China, their actions depend on their material conditions. If the system serves their interests, they should work to strengthen and improve socialism. But if exploitation exists, workers must organize, critically engage with the Party, and demand reforms that align with Marxist principles of dismantling class oppression.
It’s difficult to fully understand the proletariat’s sentiment in a context where opinions may need to be hidden and opportunities for agency could be limited. This makes critical analysis even more important to ensure that socialism actually serves the people.
This isn’t an answer to my question, though. You’re just vaguely gesturing at an imagined issue without doing any of the “critical analysis” you claim is important.
If you’re genuinely a Marxist, you should be following the adage “no investigation, no right to speak,” because all you’re doing is signaling that this could be a problem without doing the materialist analysis to prove it.
If you’re not a Marxist, why are you trying to lecture Marxists on Marxism?
I’m not sure I understand the disconnect. I don’t see my discussions as being lecture. I’ve only thought to participate and hope I haven’t broken some taboo.
Your initial comment questioned how the PRC’s focus on education will look based on “entrenching compliance” as opposed to “liberating the working class.” This fundamentally presupposes that the PRC isn’t Socialist, yet without doing any legwork to bolster that claim. When pressed, you were even more vague, just saying we need to discuss it.
The PRC is Socialist, ergo educating the Working Class isn’t out of “compliance,” but because it is useful for the Working Class in steering the revolution that already gave the Working Class supremacy over Capital.
I have a better question. What specific part of Chinese education do you believe is so problematic that it undermines socialism?
Because otherwise we are just blowing smoke clouds past each.
Again, which class rules in the PRC? Name it and give justification for your position