Educated people won’t stay obedient. That’s why reactionary powers historically avoid aiming for truly educated masses—they prefer a controlled education system that reinforces their ideology, not one that fosters critical thinking or revolutionary action.
China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote? True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures, but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.
As Marxist theory teaches us, the ruling class controls not just the means of production but also the means of ideas. The flex here is not in building ‘education power,’ but in demonstrating the capacity to shape minds for the future workforce, ensuring stability within their system of production and governance. In this context, the plan isn’t just about making smarter citizens; it’s about making a more compliant society under the guise of progress.
Damn sometimes I forget how intellectualizing Americans will talk about the largest socialist country on the planet. Literally doing the “at what cost” meme lol
I’ll say it, even if what you’re saying is true, it’s true of all states, and it’s good and proper that the PRC reinforces a socialist worldview through it’s education. What’s the alternative?
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?
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?
Meanwhile, the liberals are screeching unintelligibly about… tankies?
I take increasing amounts of pleasure in watching reality take a shit on liberal faces every single time.
