1
   

realpolitik Western behaviour veiled by liberalism

 
 
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 04:38 pm
I need a bit of help on this subject. I need three examples of Western behaviour that seems liberal and is actually realpolitik. So far I only have one example, which is free education. Free education trains people so that the government can collect taxes from them later on.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,409 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
sunlover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 05:22 pm
No, the free education is so they don't become criminals and steal from others then end up in prison, or go on welfare.
Either way, it's gonna cost taxpayers.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:40 pm
No, the free education is to mold them into unquestioning conformists who fit nicely as cogs in the vast and terrible engine of the power elite. It instills in our young the dominant ideology while, ironically, placating the lower classes with the illusion of economic advancement based on merit.
0 Replies
 
sunlover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 09:26 pm
Mills, what should be the ideal reason for providing needy people a free education, instead of realpolitik?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:26 pm
Quote:
No, the free education is to mold them into unquestioning conformists who fit nicely as cogs in the vast and terrible engine of the power elite.


Huh? That makes no sense at all. If there's one group of people who challenge the political elite, it's the academic elite.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 04:12 am
sunlover wrote:
Mills, what should be the ideal reason for providing needy people a free education, instead of realpolitik?

In order to claim that either the manifest or latent functions of free public education are based on realpolitik, one must concede the existence of a ruling class in whose interest the government primarily works.

The ideal functions of education are to help people realize their full potential as human beings, teach them the tools necessary to create and maintain a system of government more closely approximating actual democracy, and to help them achieve social consciousness.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 04:16 am
stuh505 wrote:
Quote:
No, the free education is to mold them into unquestioning conformists who fit nicely as cogs in the vast and terrible engine of the power elite.


Huh? That makes no sense at all. If there's one group of people who challenge the political elite, it's the academic elite.

On which planet? While a few rascally academicians have emerged as champions of the bewildered herd, the tendency of the intelligentsia is to refine and promote the ideology of the dominant class.
0 Replies
 
alias404
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 09:25 am
Well, those work too. I don't think there's only one correct answer. I'll add that in though.

Does anyone have other examples?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 10:19 am
pluralism, especially in conjunction with a liberal immigration policy, facilitates recruitment of skilled labor, although this approach might be on the wane.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 02:03 pm
Mills75 wrote:
No, the free education is to mold them into unquestioning conformists who fit nicely as cogs in the vast and terrible engine of the power elite. It instills in our young the dominant ideology while, ironically, placating the lower classes with the illusion of economic advancement based on merit.


So what is economic advancement based on?? Do you suggest ending free education??
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 06:33 pm
Personally I wouldn't neccesarily turn my back on the arguments for that without giving them due consideration.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2005 10:54 pm
John Creasy wrote:
So what is economic advancement based on??

Social class is quite stable. Members of lower socio-economic groups who elevate their status and members of higher socio-economic groups who decline are the exceptions, not the rule. What social advancement there is for lower socio-economic group members is based primarily on luck of circumstances and access to higher education, not free public primary and secondary education.

Quote:
Do you suggest ending free education??

Of course not; a free high quality education (primary, secondary, and college or trade school) should be a human right and available to everyone. I simply promote ending our (the U.S.'s) educational system's harmful functions.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 10:48 am
Mills75 wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
So what is economic advancement based on??
What social advancement there is for lower socio-economic group members is based primarily on luck of circumstances and access to higher education


That's funny, I thought it was based on hard work and the will to succeed.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 11:59 am
John Creasy wrote:
Mills75 wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
So what is economic advancement based on??
What social advancement there is for lower socio-economic group members is based primarily on luck of circumstances and access to higher education


That's funny, I thought it was based on hard work and the will to succeed.


in some circles, your line of thought is refered to as the "Horatio Alger myth."
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 03:03 pm
yitwail wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
Mills75 wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
So what is economic advancement based on??
What social advancement there is for lower socio-economic group members is based primarily on luck of circumstances and access to higher education


That's funny, I thought it was based on hard work and the will to succeed.


in some circles, your line of thought is refered to as the "Horatio Alger myth."


Yes I know, but I would disagree that it is a myth. It happens all the time. I've seen it.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2005 10:14 pm
John Creasy wrote:
That's funny, I thought it was based on hard work and the will to succeed.

That's funny that you thought that. If that were all it took, the upper middle and upper classes would contain a considerably larger portion of the population than they do. The belief that the U.S. is a meritocracy is a facet of false consciousness. It helps placate the masses by instilling self-blame; they come to believe that their lot in life is primarily of their own creation when the hardships of the lower classes actually result from a vastly unequal distribution of resources and power. Members of the upper classes pay lip service to the ideology of individual merit because it provides justification for their grossly disproportionate share of society's resources and power, but if they really believed that hard work and a will to succeed were the primary ingredients for success, they wouldn't expend so much of their resources providing their own offspring with every advantage.

The socio-economic class you are born into is the single most important factor determining what socio-economic group you wind up in. Are some members of the lower classes permitted membership in the upper classes from time to time? Sure; the illusion of meritocracy could not be maintained otherwise. The number, however, is not large or even significant relative to the size of the population. If you see upward advancement happening all the time, it's most likley because success stories sell better than stories of failure.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 03:30 pm
First who is doing the "permitting" of people into "social classes"?. Is there some secret board of directors that approves or disapproves every job change and every new business that opens? Are they checking out every family that moves into a new "upscale" neighborhood to make sure they belong to the right social class? The lines of so called "social class" in this country are often very blurred.

Who is stopping anyone from getting 2 or even 3 jobs? Who is stopping them from going to college?? It's not money because I'm middle class and I get plenty of financial aid. Of course it's hard to move up from the bottom to the very top, but it's not that difficult to become "middle class" and living comfortable in the suburbs with the white picket fence and a dog.

BTW, what qualifies as upper class? How about middle class, or upper middle class?

I have a friend who started out dirt poor living in a tiny one bedroom apartment with a wife and two kids. He had no education(he still doesn't really) but he managed to save up a few thousand dollars and he took what he learned from his job and started his own business. He now makes about $300K a year. What class is he in? Who permitted him to "join" this class?
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2005 11:03 pm
It's interesting that you would pass right over a little chestnut like this
Mills75 wrote:
The socio-economic class you are born into is the single most important factor determining what socio-economic group you wind up in.

to focus on the word "permitted." You will, I'm sure, forgive me for passing over
John Creasy wrote:
I have a friend...this class?

since anecdotal evidence has limited, if any, value.

There are numerous factors hindering people from the poorer classes in achieving social mobility. First, our social class tends to be reflected in our environment--poor people tend to live in poor areas, middle class people in middle class areas, and wealthy people in wealthy areas. The quality of primary and secondary education (elementary and high school) available to children is usually a reflection of the economic condition of the community it's in. Thus poor children tend to go to underfunded schools while the wealthy children tend to go to state-of-the-art schools. The seeds of class disparity are fertilized heavily early on; poor children tend to be less prepared for entry into college than middle class and wealthy children; lower quality of education manifests itself as lower scores on college entrance exams; fewer scholarships are available or their existence is unknown; etc. The children of the poor are less likely to have college presented to them as a viable option, and they're unlikely to see, much less have personal contact with, many examples of college educated adults outside of their school. Put simply, the children the poor simply don't tend to be steered towards college or provided the resources to enable them to get into college. Financial aid is available, but a student must know where to go for it, how to apply, etc.

Those few children of the poor who do make it into college are much more likely to drop out due to their often inadequate preparation or financial pressures. Of course, this failure plays directly into our culture's fetish of meritocracy--the kid just couldn't hack it; we'll ignore all structural obstacles hindering him or her.

Those few of the poor who manage to graduate from college face additional obstacles. They don't have the same networks assisting them in finding employment or gaining admissions to graduate programs as middle class and wealthy graduates tend to have. In addition, most financial aid comes in the form of student loans that come due shortly after graduation. So while graduates from the middle and upper classes usually start out their professional lives with no substantial debt and, indeed, often enjoy further financial assistance from their families as they start life after college, graduates from the poorer classes usually begin their professional lives on their own economically and with a substantial financial burden.

How are members of the poorer classes hindered from achieving upward mobility? A preponderance of obstacles not faced by members of the other classes, that's how.

Now, you did ask an interesting question--who's doing the "permitting" with regard to social advancement? It's the people who have the most influence over those social and political mechanisms by which social advancement could be either facilitated or hindered. Some social thinkers have used the term "power elite" to describe this social group and it's members are typically the wealthiest or most politically powerful members of society (frequently the wealthiest are the most politically powerful, but not always). This isn't a secret society out of some conspiracy theory; what makes them a fairly cohesive social group with common interests (economic, political, social, etc.) and relatively homogenous ideals and values is a tightly interlocking network of social circles. Our business and political leaders frequently either come from this group or rely heavily upon its support. We're a wealthy society and have the means to provide free quality education (including college, grad. school, etc.) and, thus, a relatively equal start in society to all our young, but those currently with the power will not do this (permit it, if you will). Make no mistake, the power to enforce their political will and promote their own interest exists within the poorer classes, but their members are too alienated from one another and too blinded by false consciousness to unite and take the power. Until that happens, social mobility will largely be controlled, or permitted, by that wealthiest minority who has the power to do so.
0 Replies
 
John Creasy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 09:11 am
Mills75 wrote:
The quality of primary and secondary education (elementary and high school) available to children is usually a reflection of the economic condition of the community it's in. Thus poor children tend to go to underfunded schools while the wealthy children tend to go to state-of-the-art schools. The seeds of class disparity are fertilized heavily early on; poor children tend to be less prepared for entry into college than middle class and wealthy children; lower quality of education manifests itself as lower scores on college entrance exams; fewer scholarships are available or their existence is unknown; etc. The children of the poor are less likely to have college presented to them as a viable option, and they're unlikely to see, much less have personal contact with, many examples of college educated adults outside of their school. Put simply, the children the poor simply don't tend to be steered towards college or provided the resources to enable them to get into college.


Of course there is truth to what you say about underfunded schools and poorer education, but this in itself is not a valid reason for not going to college. As far as college being "presented" to them, I'm pretty sure every teenager in America knows what college is. I'm they have seen them before. There's a little thing called community college that accepts everybody no matter what your entrance scores are. They don't need any resources to get in.

Quote:
Financial aid is available, but a student must know where to go for it, how to apply, etc.


C'mon dude, are you saying that these people are not clever enough to contact their local community college and be connected with the financial aid office?? That would be insulting to me. Just because they might not have a high quality education, does not make them idiots. A person who was not able to find a financial aid office would have to be considered such.


Quote:
Those few children of the poor who do make it into college are much more likely to drop out due to their often inadequate preparation or financial pressures.


There are all kinds of tutoring programs and other kinds of help provided at all schools free of charge. All they have to do is ask.

Quote:
Those few of the poor who manage to graduate from college face additional obstacles. They don't have the same networks assisting them in finding employment or gaining admissions to graduate programs as middle class and wealthy graduates tend to have.


I don't know what networks you mean, but the school itself can help with finding a job.

Quote:
In addition, most financial aid comes in the form of student loans that come due shortly after graduation. So while graduates from the middle and upper classes usually start out their professional lives with no substantial debt and, indeed, often enjoy further financial assistance from their families as they start life after college, graduates from the poorer classes usually begin their professional lives on their own economically and with a substantial financial burden.


I'm in community college now. When I finish school I will have a minimum payment of probably about $100 each month and I have 15 years to pay back what I owe. If they can't get a decent job, then yes I would agree that this would be a burden, but the point of a degree is to get a job that pays better. The school can help them do that.


Quote:
Now, you did ask an interesting question--who's doing the "permitting" with regard to social advancement? It's the people who have the most influence over those social and political mechanisms by which social advancement could be either facilitated or hindered. Some social thinkers have used the term "power elite" to describe this social group and it's members are typically the wealthiest or most politically powerful members of society (frequently the wealthiest are the most politically powerful, but not always). This isn't a secret society out of some conspiracy theory; what makes them a fairly cohesive social group with common interests (economic, political, social, etc.) and relatively homogenous ideals and values is a tightly interlocking network of social circles. Our business and political leaders frequently either come from this group or rely heavily upon its support. We're a wealthy society and have the means to provide free quality education (including college, grad. school, etc.) and, thus, a relatively equal start in society to all our young, but those currently with the power will not do this (permit it, if you will). Make no mistake, the power to enforce their political will and promote their own interest exists within the poorer classes, but their members are too alienated from one another and too blinded by false consciousness to unite and take the power. Until that happens, social mobility will largely be controlled, or permitted, by that wealthiest minority who has the power to do so.


I would agree that there are people making decisions that affect the population as a whole in regards to education and such but there is no one or nothing that can ultimately stop any one individual from advancing.

On a different note, not everyone is capable of the same achievements. You can offer all the free education in the world, some people are just not able and/or willing to take advantage of it. For example, you can't just take any joe schmo off the street and make him into a doctor. It doesn't work like that.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 11:12 pm
John Creasy wrote:
Of course there is truth to what you say about underfunded schools and poorer education, but this in itself is not a valid reason for not going to college. As far as college being "presented" to them, I'm pretty sure every teenager in America knows what college is. I'm they have seen them before. There's a little thing called community college that accepts everybody no matter what your entrance scores are. They don't need any resources to get in.

A poor education is not a reason for a person to decide not to go to college, it's part of a series of structural obstacles that work to hinder upward social mobility for members of the lower classes. Think of it as part of filtration system--certainly it doesn't prevent all young people from the poorer classes from going to college, but it works to prevent a lot more of the young people from the poorer classes from going than would otherwise attend if their primary and secondary educations were of higher quality.

Quote:
C'mon dude, are you saying that these people are not clever enough to contact their local community college and be connected with the financial aid office?? That would be insulting to me. Just because they might not have a high quality education, does not make them idiots. A person who was not able to find a financial aid office would have to be considered such.

How clever does one have be to look for something they don't know, and usually don't even suspect, exists? I'd say pretty damn clever. And if they find that there is such a thing as financial aid and a financial aid office, they still have to figure out how to fill out the forms, where to get the required information (when you're a poor kid, and need your parents' financial records, that can be a real pain in the ass), etc. Because of a variety of factors springing from the condition of the poor, many people from the lower classes simply conclude early on that they can't go to college, and no one corrects this self-defeating ideology.

Quote:
There are all kinds of tutoring programs and other kinds of help provided at all schools free of charge. All they have to do is ask.

So on top of the substantial course work of a college student, students who received inadequate educations have to also learn much the material they should have learned in elementary or high school. Most college students find just the normal course work challenging enough to keep up with.

Quote:
I don't know what networks you mean, but the school itself can help with finding a job.

Networks are socially interconnected groups of people. For example, a college graduate whose parents are upper middle or upper class more often than not have connections that will help secure their graduate more lucrative employment. The student with poorer roots will have only him or herself and whatever services the college may offer on which to rely. The bottom line is that the best paying jobs will tend to be filled by those graduates with higher class background while the lower class students will tend to occupy the lower paying jobs left over.

Quote:
I'm in community college now. When I finish school I will have a minimum payment of probably about $100 each month and I have 15 years to pay back what I owe. If they can't get a decent job, then yes I would agree that this would be a burden, but the point of a degree is to get a job that pays better. The school can help them do that.

Well I can't speak to the discount education you're apparently receiving, but the average college grad. who has student loans to pay off will be paying quite a lot more than $100 a month. But again, think of it as part of filtration system--$100/month for 15 years is $18,000; that's $18,000 less that you'll have to invest, build equity in property, or just throw in the bank than the graduate whose family paid the bill. It doesn't seem like much, but it's one more hindrance to upward mobility; it's one more obstacle to social mobility that not everyone will be able to shrug off.

Quote:
I would agree that there are people making decisions that affect the population as a whole in regards to education and such but there is no one or nothing that can ultimately stop any one individual from advancing.

They don't have to stop any one specific individual; they've rigged the game, but the rubes would stop playing if one of them didn't win at least once in a while. There is in place a large scale filtration system that prevents social mobility on a larger scale.

Quote:
On a different note, not everyone is capable of the same achievements. You can offer all the free education in the world, some people are just not able and/or willing to take advantage of it. For example, you can't just take any joe schmo off the street and make him into a doctor. It doesn't work like that.

College is certainly not for everyone, and some people are probably suited to nothing more than unskilled labor; why should we continue to allow the socio-economic status of the families we're born into be the most important factor affecting our social mobility? Not every 'joe schmo' off the street could become a doctor, but some certainly could.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » realpolitik Western behaviour veiled by liberalism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 02:54:33