Why are so many college students far-left liberals or socialists?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Marx wrote about how the workers should do X, Y, and Z (specific actions) to accomplish goals A, B, and C. Rules are set forth as to how society should be structured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples please. You do realize that in a true communist system as envisaged by Marx there is no State. Sound familiar?

[Case Closed]

This is one of the reasons I love good ol' WIU. I am a history major with a poli sci minor. I have had only one teacher who I would classify the classic preach liberalism and anti-capitalism stuff. But even then it's mostly pro-union stuff and anti-democrat anti-republican. (he's the green party adviser) Outside of that I have had teachers who have been fair to both sides of the issues and have given a wide variety of views. I may not leave WIU with the most prestigious degree, but I'll have a decent education under my belt.

As to the main OP. I am the president of the campus greens organization at WIU. There is a lot of hardcore leftists there. I think a lot of it comes from the natural appeal of socialism. It looks good it feels good, but later on in life they will change their mind. I am not a socialist myself, but I understand the appeal. But it just does not work. They'll come around, some will find a way to live insulated from the pressures that push people to free market ways.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

"Communism" doesn't "tell" people how to act, anymore than ACism does. Surely, we could say ACism 'tells' people not to initiate force against someone else, but this is just crude lexicon, just as it would be to claim communism "tells" people to revolt against the bourgeois.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communism doesn't just tell the populace to revolt, it tells them to revolt AND to put into place a new system. Public ownership of all industry (means of production, whatever) is the central tenant of communism, communism ain't communism without it. There is a stated end goal (classless, stateless organization), this is its doctrine, you cannot deviate from this and be communist.
Market economics on the other hand is a DESCRIPTION of how people act to further their own preferences. It makes predictions but does not state end goals, each individual decides for themselves when to take a course of action for their own preferences. This is not doctrine, the closest thing you could call doctrine is the concepts of property rights which is recognized by people who identify as Acists as being fluid, adjusting as individuals adjust their preferences and means of obtaining them.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, much of the ideology is predicated on revolution against entrenched powers that are themselves demanding obedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in order to further a different end.

[Ron Burgundy]

dvault,

I said that success in school requires and rewards obedience, and does not require or reward creativity. You then interpreted this to mean that I said anyone who is successful in school must not have any creativity. That's an incorrect and illogical interpretation.

I'll try to explain it another way.

People who are obedient enough to be very successful in school are more likely to be socialist (and I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of socialist. It should be obvious what the OP was talking about, even if he used the wrong terminology). They are also more likely to be attracted to, and qualified for, the profession of teaching.

Success in school does not neccessarily mean that you have no creativity. The successful students who also have those skills/talents are more attracted to jobs like software development, I-banking etc. Professors tend to be the ones who don't have the other skills to do those jobs well. Then they teach the students their socialist ideas, and I believe those socialist ideas are mainly a product of their obedient personalities.

The students in the professor's classes are more open to believing these socialist ideas, because the fact that they made it into a prestigious college, means they are at least somewhat obedient.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
dvault,

I said that success in school requires and rewards obedience, and does not require or reward creativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woah, wait. You said just a little more than this. To repeat what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
What does succes in school require? Creativity? Free thinking? Entrepreneurial talent? Any kind of real talent or skills? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's clear success in school requires 'real' talent and skill outside of obedience, a fact made clear when we consider that "obedient" people are everywhere and essentially provide little value to employers merely by their obedience, yet well-educated people have skills and talents the labor market DOES value.

So it's nothing but hand-waving to claim that all you said was "success in school requires and rewards obedience, and does not require or reward creativity", because you ALSO said success in school requires no real talent or skill. I think it's clear the labor market disagrees.

As others have pointed out, the very first thing many firms look for when filtering applicants for high-paid, valuable jobs they're offering is GPA. Given the almost indisputable fact that many high-paying jobs in the labor marketplace are predicated upon success in school, I think you're either forced to concede that success in school requires "real talent and skill" outside of obedience, or that obedience is in fact a valuable talent/skill in the marketplace, given that firms are willing to pay alot of money to their workers possess this skill.

Again, the hiring behavior of firms in the legal, finance, and software industries (just to name a few) contradicts the notion that success in school requires no real talent or skill, QED. Either that or the labor market is completely irrational.

[ QUOTE ]
People who are obedient enough to be very successful in school are more likely to be socialist (and I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of socialist. It should be obvious what the OP was talking about, even if he used the wrong terminology).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so you're sure that you're claim is correct, yet you won't even define your conclusion? Your claim is completely meaningless then.

Similarly, I could claim that people who are obedient enough to be very successful in school are more likely to be quarks...but I'm not going to get into a debate about the definition of quark. Is this a meaningful claim for you?

This doesn't fly. If you refuse to define what you mean when say "socialist", then this just became alot more inane.

[ QUOTE ]
They are also more likely to be attracted to, and qualified for, the profession of teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since you won't define what a socialist is in your world, I guess socialists could be attracted to or be repulsed by teaching. Who's to know?

[ QUOTE ]
Professors tend to be the ones who don't have the other skills to do those jobs well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe they just like pedagogy and research.

Do you have kids? Nephews? Nieces? Ever taken them to a baseball game? Like to teach them about the game? Does that make you some kind of socialist?

The strat forums are full of people who like to "teach". Are they all socialists?

Some people get a satisfaction out of teaching people other things. Some people like working with youthful, inquisitive minds. I don't get what's so special about "teaching" that makes teachers inexorably more likely to support egalitarian wealth distribution schemes.

[ QUOTE ]
Then they teach the students their socialist ideas, and I believe those socialist ideas are mainly a product of their obedient personalities. The students in the professor's classes are more open to believing these socialist ideas, because the fact that they made it into a prestigious college, means they are at least somewhat obedient.

[/ QUOTE ]

So teachers become teachers...because the only skill they possess is an inherently obedient personality. They then teach their 'socialist' ideas to students, because this what their inherently obedient personalities compel them to do.

The students, who are only at college because they themselves are inherently obedient and were able to succeed by appeasing other obedient-personality type teachers they had in the past -- they are able to continue succeeding at school because of their aforementioned inherently obedient personality?

Did I catch that correctly? Let me know if I've "misinterpreted" anything. I want to be clear on this before I continue.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Communism doesn't just tell the populace to revolt, it tells them to revolt AND to put into place a new system.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really doesn't "tell" people to put into place a new system anymore than ACists "tell" people to put into place a new system when they the state should be dismantled, anymore than feminists "tell" people to put into place a new system when they demand social equality.

[ QUOTE ]
Public ownership of all industry (means of production, whatever) is the central tenant of communism, communism ain't communism without it. There is a stated end goal (classless, stateless organization), this is its doctrine, you cannot deviate from this and be communist.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Public" ownership is a loaded word; communism seeks to have the products of labor "owned" communally. Some socialists/communists would seek to have the means of production controlled directly by the state, while others would prefer the means of production were controlled by worker councils at individual firms. So when you say "public ownership of all industry is the central tenant of communism", that's a bit of a misnomer, particularly if you mean "state ownership of all industry is the central tenant of communism". As TOAFK pointed out, many communists see the eventual dissolution of the state as an end.

But again, none of this, however, suggests that communism is an ideology focused on "obedience". There's no special value placed in communism on obeying orders from others. But, in fact, for many communists, a special value placed on disobeying orders from capitalists and other so-called oppressors. There's really no theoretical value in communism placed on "obedience", except for the fact that yes, many communists are consequentialists and value ends.

Would we say feminists are focused on "obedience" because they see equality for women as an end? Again, one of the foundations of feminism is to create changes in the social order; and yet they seek to "further an end". Are feminists valuing "obedience", despite the fact much of their ideology is focused on a repudiation of the oppression they claim to encounter in society?

Calling for strict adherence to doctrine isn't "obedience"; calling for strict adherence to an ideology isn't a command to "obey". "Strict adherence to doctrine" is nothing more than ideological discipline, and it's valued by ideologues or all stripes, be the communists or not. The recent debate among the ACist camp about the morality of voting for Ron Paul should demonstrate that. Can we conclude that ACism values "obedience" because ACists like tomdemaine and Nielsio are troubled by ACists who are supporting Paul? Are they "obedient to a piece of paper"?

All tom and Nielso are claiming is that if you support Paul, you're not a "true" or "legitimate" anarchist. Similarly, if you don't seek a proletarian revolution and a redistribution of the means of production, then most communists won't consider you part of their ranks. I don't see what this has to do with "obedience".

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
What does succes in school require? Creativity? Free thinking? Entrepreneurial talent? Any kind of real talent or skills? No. School rewards obedience. Success in school is based on a person's abilitiy to follow the directions the authorities give them without questioning the reasons or motives.


[/ QUOTE ]
ding ding ding.

Some people point to state education as a failure, but its been very succcessful at producing people who don't question the status quo, rely on groupthink, and obeying any authority. Hell, I remember a case last year where a kid wasn't allowed to wear a shirt that said "Question Authority", I mean, isn't that exactly what our founders wanted? Isn't democracy supposedly dependent on questioning authority?

And we wonder why the state uses fear mongering arguments (see Jogger's OP) to try to show we need state education for everyone (or you can go to a different school, as long as it meets the requirements of the state), it's ability to screw over the population is dependent on it.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
If you refuse to define what you mean when say "socialist", then this just became alot more inane.


[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is about college students who generally believe that: capitalism = bad, government = good. So that's what I mean by socialist here.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have kids? Nephews? Nieces? Ever taken them to a baseball game? Like to teach them about the game? Does that make you some kind of socialist?

The strat forums are full of people who like to "teach". Are they all socialists?

Some people get a satisfaction out of teaching people other things. Some people like working with youthful, inquisitive minds. I don't get what's so special about "teaching" that makes teachers inexorably more likely to support egalitarian wealth distribution schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most teachers at the elementary and HS levels believe that disobedient people are bad and should not succeed in life. They don't become teachers because they enjoy showing children new things. They enjoy weeding out the "bad seeds". They enjoy berating disobedient children. They enjoy telling the disobedient children that they will flip burgers or swing a hammer for the rest of their lives. They have a smug sense of superiority and believe they should be paid much more than the average person for performing this task (guess how well I did in school lol).

[ QUOTE ]
So teachers become teachers...because the only skill they possess is an inherently obedient personality. They then teach their 'socialist' ideas to students, because this what their inherently obedient personalities compel them to do.

The students, who are only at college because they themselves are inherently obedient and were able to succeed by appeasing other obedient-personality type teachers they had in the past -- they are able to continue succeeding at school because of their aforementioned inherently obedient personality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, but not necessarily. Some students have the motivation to succeed in school despite their non-obedient personalities because they want to get a job that requires certain education. Or for other reasons like pressure from their family to succeed in school, or because they want to avoid having to get a job for 4 more years.

[iron81]

Although I haven't heard the lectures, I doubt that any of your professors actually believe capitalism in general is bad. The lectures you guys heard where Professors bash an effect of capitalism do not prove that the professor is anti-capitalism. It is possible to believe in the overall goodness of a system and still point out its flaws, as I do when I talk about the US government.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Most teachers at the elementary and HS levels believe that disobedient people are bad and should not succeed in life. They don't become teachers because they enjoy showing children new things. They enjoy weeding out the "bad seeds". They enjoy berating disobedient children. They enjoy telling the disobedient children that they will flip burgers or swing a hammer for the rest of their lives. They have a smug sense of superiority and believe they should be paid much more than the average person for performing this task (guess how well I did in school lol).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, just wow here. Anything to link to back this up.

Cody