181
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
181 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13511 readers
1155 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This tweeter was asking in bad faith, but genuinely, why did this start on bougie campuses? I realize that stufents from wealthy backgrounds arent necessarily all monsters, but its not a group I would have expected to take point on a potentially revolutionary action
Because college kids have time, money, and access to information.
This is basically the argument Castro makes in "My Life" as to why revolutions tend to start with someone that is a descendent of the capitalist class (Castro - father was a plantation owner; Lenin - father was a state councillor and appointed to the hereditary nobility; Mao - father was a moneylender and one of the wealthiest farmers in the region)
Good stuff to remember in discussions about class traitors.
Related, also why so many revolutionary movements begin with providing education to the people, and why liberated societies often begin building their new society by building robust education and scientific institutions
There's a good point there but I think it's even a bit more nuanced. Castro's father did not come from old money. From what I understand he was born a poor peasant in 1875 and spent the first quarter of his life doing hard labour and military service. Fidel wasn't a pure bourgeois class traitor - he was from an upwardly mobile family that hit a limit. There's an interesting bit in a book about this:
Well, Castro actually talks about that as well.
He argued it was important to be the child of a bougie, not a grandchild so as not to be desensitised through normalcy (note: every example given above were the child of "success", not the grandchild.)
Further education is very heavily linked with approval for left-wing policies. There's some big correlation between learning stuff about the world and being politically left-wing. When that information floods to an otherwise very sheltered group, I guess you're likely to see reactions.
Funny how knowledge does that
This is not entirely true
More education correlates higher with voting Democrat but once you start taking into account anti-war sentiment, progressive economic policies, etc.
Education starts having an inverse relationship with support for the aforementioned
I'm lazy but there's tons of pills on Americans to support this if you look them up
I would be interested to see papers. Because when googling I can only find studies that conclude somewhere between a mixed and significant link between education and supporting left-wing policies.
So the reason why this movement specifically is tied to these “big” schools is twofold:
The “divest” part of BDS is directed at wealthy private schools like Harvard and Yale who have large financial stakes in the defense industry and Israeli companies. Their schools are, through their investments, much more complicit than Podunk State.
These elite schools are recruiting and/or research institutions for the military/industrial complex, and are therefore more involved than other institutions. Schools like Stanford are integral to the maintenance and perpetuation of the war machine, and therefore the actions of the student body are in response to that context.