The education system is inherently corrupt.

submitted by CarlDung from self.200acres

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]CarlDung[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I believe that the current system rewards sociopathy.

That's true. Every era and society has rewarded different kind of people. I've always found it funny how deeply primitive we are in this sense. I mean, even when we want to tell ourselves how civilized we are, the most common form of dealing with injustice in our entertainment industry is to teach how physical demonstrations of strength will fix everything. Batman fixes organized crime by beating them up. Marvel superheroes beat up whatever seems to be threatening the order.

With Bill, it started in one sector, tech, and he progressively spread out into other sectors -- now he is literally trying to take over the whole world with his COVID-19 vaccine.

I'm not familiar with this, but I'll try to research this topic later.

We also need to figure out a new system of distributing money/resources. And I don't mean by socialism... I have been thinking maybe we should get rid of the minimum wage so that small business can afford to compete in the marketplace and make a pay cap of the highest paid person in a company can only make 20X more than the lowest paid person?

It feels weird, but we had this same issue a bit over a hundred years ago. Back then the ideas which were thrown around were communism or capitalism, and then those who advocated for "third way" i.e. something in between, which was usually distributism, social corporatism or fascism. I was once really interested about distributism, because it emphasizes the the spiritual aspect of wellbeing a lot.

But back to the original discussion that started this very interesting and thought provoking thread... I think it is too late to go back to the days of monoculture.

Well, before the national cultures of french, german, italian etc. there were other cultures. Usually people forget their culture when it doesn't offer anything for them, or when their culture becomes too impractical guideline to function properly in this world. Just like we are discussing about government structures. When the ruling culture has failed to integrate individuals to follow its founding principles, people tend to invent a new one. Sometimes these cultures take the form of political parties, and such thing happened e.g. in Russia, they truly tried to eradicate everything during the communist era that somehow reminded them of the time of Russian monarchy ruled by Tsar.

I personally believe cultures have a certain kind of lifecycles, which either can be rejuvenated with every new generation, or they can be denied by big catastrophes which shake down the old order. Founding a new structure takes a lot of energy, and revolutions are not always peaceful, and this is the reason why I don't necessarily like multiculturalism, it creates unnecessary uncertainty and ethnic as well as cultural tensions.

Thank you so much for this discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed it :)

Yeah, and thank's for you too! I has been really interesting talk!

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"I mean, even when we want to tell ourselves how civilized we are, the most common form of dealing with injustice in our entertainment industry is to teach how physical demonstrations of strength will fix everything. Batman fixes organized crime by beating them up. Marvel superheroes beat up whatever seems to be threatening the order."

AMEN!

"I was once really interested about distributism, because it emphasizes the the spiritual aspect of wellbeing a lot."

I am curious to hear more. I have just started thinking about this issue recently.

"such thing happened e.g. in Russia, they truly tried to eradicate everything during the communist era that somehow reminded them of the time of Russian monarchy ruled by Tsar."

Didn't the Communists eventually allow religion and some other cultural/history back in because they realized that the culture wasn't rich enough to satisfy (meaning effectively control through narrative) the people? Or do I have that wrong? Clearly, you are very knowledgable about history. I love history, but they don't teach much of it in the US, and what little they do teach is not necessary accurate.

"and revolutions are not always peaceful, and this is the reason why I don't necessarily like multiculturalism, it creates unnecessary uncertainty and ethnic as well as cultural tensions."

You have valid points about people being suspicious and fearful of others who don't think/do things the same as they do. But different does not mean bad, and I think this may be the sticking point we've had in our discussions.

[–]CarlDung[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am curious to hear more. I have just started thinking about this issue recently.

It begins from Pope Leo XII's encyclical letter "rerum novarum", but they didn't call it distributism. In that letter they mainly address the problem with capitalism and socialism, but without any concrete solution. I've read some short essays from "Distributist perspectives vol1", where most writers thought it would be best if everyone had the chance to work towards their own happiness without government meddling. It sounds a lot like what people in this subreddit talk about, trying to figure out how to live in a rural setting because governmental policies have made people miserable in big cities.

One interesting point was that originally, when industrial development needed more workforce, the government installed heavy taxes on goods produced in the countryside. In England this was the corn laws of 1846. In practice this mean that people had to sell their farms and move to big cities to work in factories, because they couldn't produce enough agricultural products live comfortably. Many people found out the living quarters were far worse, the infrastructure beginning from schools etc. couldn't handle the population surge, and created ghettoes and social problems, and one of the things dissatisfied population turned to was socialism. This also meant that a lot of people went to America, because they were advertised that they could continue their rural lifestyle without governmental meddling, but here we are again, government doing their nasty stuff again.

Didn't the Communists eventually allow religion and some other cultural/history back in because they realized that the culture wasn't rich enough to satisfy (meaning effectively control through narrative) the people? Or do I have that wrong?

I don't know for sure, but they used to allow different things during different eras. They started to open up during the 80s "glasnost" period. Some believe this was the reason why Soviet Union eventually collapsed, as the people became more knowledgeable about Western culture, movies and commercials, and became disillusioned about the achievements of the Soviet system. I hate to admit it, but monoculture in this sense also protects regimes like Soviet Union.

I love history, but they don't teach much of it in the US, and what little they do teach is not necessary accurate.

In some parts of Europe the state sponsors people to educate themselves. I think history is something deeply political, and it is impossible to be taught in an objective manner, so they don't want to touch the subject in fear of backlash.

But different does not mean bad, and I think this may be the sticking point we've had in our discussions.

True. Human societies have these recurring themes. Most people just want to live comfortably, but sometimes the emerging technology just makes the old way of life impossible. The same thing probably happens with the climate change, and it is yet to be seen where we end up.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you! This is very interesting info. I appreciate you for taking the time to write it. You've filled in a few gaps for me, particularly with the tax burden forcing farmers into the cities. I think because Europe is very old, people value history more than Americans do. Our country is only 300 years old, and we've essentially erased all history before the pilgrims arrived. I feel like in a lot of ways, Americans are arrogant teen-agers who think we know it all.

I read this last night and thought it was relevant to our discussion: "While mainstream "centrists" will acknowledge that our current way of doing things is unsustainable, they resist making meaningful change. This is because of a cognitive glitch humans have called status quo bias, which can cause us to fallaciously equate change with danger." Quote is from blogger Caitlin Johnstone.

[–]CarlDung[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I appreciate you for taking the time to write it.

No problem.

You've filled in a few gaps for me, particularly with the tax burden forcing farmers into the cities.

I have a bad habit of not explaining every detail in the process, and after viewing the wikipedia page, it seems to leave out that farmers had to pay toll when moving to a city to sell their products. The laws also blocked foreign grain imports, so the food prices went up without possibility to do much about it. Well, at least wikipedia doesn't hide the fact only big land owners profited from the arrangement.

I think because Europe is very old, people value history more than Americans do.

I have mixed feelings about this. Most European nations are just wallowing in self pity while every news media broadcasts how racist / colonial etc. we have been in the past.

"While mainstream "centrists" will acknowledge that our current way of doing things is unsustainable, they resist making meaningful change. This is because of a cognitive glitch humans have called status quo bias, which can cause us to fallaciously equate change with danger." Quote is from blogger Caitlin Johnstone.

That's a good quote.