Should Marx and Engels be required reading in high school?

[The Parkus Empire]

Yeah, that's a bit too radical as well now that you mention it.

Can't really have a situation where American students aren't exposed at least a little to the one of the FOUNDATIONAL documents of their own country now can we?

Nice try...

Exposing students to radical ideas is good, makes 'em think for themselves. What's wrong with that?

[God Kefka]

Can't really have a situation where American students aren't exposed at least a little to the one of the FOUNDATIONAL documents of their own country now can we?

Nice try...

Exposing students to radical ideas is good, makes 'em think for themselves. What's wrong with that?

Americans are pretty fragile people... especially their young people.

A lot of them somehow already find the reasons to start shooting people up WITHOUT a text telling them how the entire system is messed up, how they need to start a ''revolution of the proletariat,'' and how they have ''nothing to lose except their chains.''

Yeah I don't think we need to have them read this kind of rhetoric...

[Zottistan]

Exposing students to radical ideas is good, makes 'em think for themselves. What's wrong with that?

Americans are pretty fragile people... especially their young people.

A lot of them somehow already find the reasons to start shooting people up WITHOUT a text telling them how the entire system is messed up, how they need to start a ''revolution of the proletariat,'' and how they have ''nothing to lose except their chains.''

Yeah I don't think we need to have them read this kind of rhetoric...

I don't know what definition of "a lot" you're using, but it's wrong.

And, as was said many times, passages from the text would be selectively chosen for means of objectivity and pragmatism.

[The Rich Port]

Exposing students to radical ideas is good, makes 'em think for themselves. What's wrong with that?

Americans are pretty fragile people... especially their young people.

A lot of them somehow already find the reasons to start shooting people up WITHOUT a text telling them how the entire system is messed up, how they need to start a ''revolution of the proletariat,'' and how they have ''nothing to lose except their chains.''

Yeah I don't think we need to have them read this kind of rhetoric...

And you're supposed to be some kind of conservative beefcake Adonis impervious to facts?

Talk moar bullshit, plz.

And by that, I mean stop talking bullshit.

[Anachronous Rex]

Yeah, that's a bit too radical as well now that you mention it.

Can't really have a situation where American students aren't exposed at least a little to the one of the FOUNDATIONAL documents of their own country now can we?

Nice try...

You said radical = verboten.

Which precludes a document which calls into question the foundational logic of European governance for the last thousand years.

It would also preclude any documents relating to woman's suffrage, or the equal treatment of races.

[The Parkus Empire]

Exposing students to radical ideas is good, makes 'em think for themselves. What's wrong with that?

Americans are pretty fragile people... especially their young people.

A lot of them somehow already find the reasons to start shooting people up WITHOUT a text telling them how the entire system is messed up, how they need to start a ''revolution of the proletariat,'' and how they have ''nothing to lose except their chains.''

Yeah I don't think we need to have them read this kind of rhetoric...

You're quoting The Communist Manifesto, which is explicitly excluded in the OP. If you're afraid of kids being exposed to ideas because ideas are "dangerous", well then I'd say you're a good deal closer to the Stalinism you're frightened of than any kids would be from reading Marx.

A good deal of history is about revolutions, so we should stop teaching it altogether in case kids get any funny ideas?

[Edlichbury]

Americans are pretty fragile people... especially their young people.

A lot of them somehow already find the reasons to start shooting people up WITHOUT a text telling them how the entire system is messed up, how they need to start a ''revolution of the proletariat,'' and how they have ''nothing to lose except their chains.''

Yeah I don't think we need to have them read this kind of rhetoric...

You're quoting The Communist Manifesto, which is explicitly excluded in the OP. If you're afraid of kids being exposed to ideas because ideas are "dangerous", well then I'd say you're a good deal closer to the Stalinism you're frightened of than any kids would be from reading Marx.

A good deal of history is about revolutions, so we should stop teaching it altogether in case kids get any funny ideas?

But then we'd have to ignore the American revolution, which according to Kefka we can't do either.
So Kefka: should people be exposed to radical ideas, or should we not teach the founding of our nation (which was built upon on a revolution and then a peaceful overthrow of the new administration in case you forgot)? You can't have both.

[4years]

1. Marx and Engels are radicals...

2. impressionable high school students should not be made to read radical texts...3. they are dangerous are they not?

1. Compared to whom? Because I have read some people that. Are Marx look moderate.
2. High school students. Will not. Attempt to launch a revolution. Because they read something Marx wrote. Get that through your head.
3. No, they are not.

[4years]

Well their works and names should be present in history books, but the books themshelvs? Meh

Though I guess verses could be used when explaining the capitalist economic system

Students will learn more reading Marx than reading about Marx.

[Vulpae]

Personally I say have them read far more than Marx and Engels, Read their works, Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and his works, as well as the book on investment morality by H.P. Morgan.
We should also include books on other causes, Idologies, and economic models.
Maybe call it Humanity 101?

We don't want to brainwash kids into any ideology, we want them to expand their horizons.

[Novikov]

Something short, like a Critique of Political Economy, would be good required reading in American High Schools, preferably alongside A Wealth of Nations to give good contrast between points of view.

[Rand al Thor]

The Communist Manifesto should at least. It's short and to the point, if the students take more in-depth history/economics classes then they should have to read Wealth of Nations,Common Sense, and some passages from other big political and economic powerhouses like Voltaire, von Mises, Keynes, Proudhon, Hitler, etc.

[Shaggai]

Personally I say have them read far more than Marx and Engels, Read their works, Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and his works, as well as the book on investment morality by H.P. Morgan.
We should also include books on other causes, Idologies, and economic models.
Maybe call it Humanity 101?

We don't want to brainwash kids into any ideology, we want them to expand their horizons.

Is that like H. P. Lovecraft, but as a banker? Because I think I read something that was kind of like that once.

[God Kefka]

You're quoting The Communist Manifesto, which is explicitly excluded in the OP. If you're afraid of kids being exposed to ideas because ideas are "dangerous", well then I'd say you're a good deal closer to the Stalinism you're frightened of than any kids would be from reading Marx.

A good deal of history is about revolutions, so we should stop teaching it altogether in case kids get any funny ideas?

But then we'd have to ignore the American revolution, which according to Kefka we can't do either.
So Kefka: should people be exposed to radical ideas, or should we not teach the founding of our nation (which was built upon on a revolution and then a peaceful overthrow of the new administration in case you forgot)? You can't have both.

Yes you can.

You teach them about America's history... and you stay away from those texts that advocate the overthrowing of the entire society (ex communism).

There's a difference between recognizing that once in a while revolutions are necessary, and advocating a position where you should have revolution against everything and everyone (state, class, money).

[God Kefka]

1. Marx and Engels are radicals...

2. impressionable high school students should not be made to read radical texts...3. they are dangerous are they not?

1. Compared to whom? Because I have read some people that. Are Marx look moderate.
2. High school students. Will not. Attempt to launch a revolution. Because they read something Marx wrote. Get that through your head.
3. No, they are not.

1. Compared to the center point of the political spectrum of ANY period in modern history

2. They can be encouraged to be more violent and anti-social. Something many American kids DON'T need additional help on... If there are already school shootings without people reading a text in school that advocates for a revolution against ''the system''...

3. Without Marx's works, millions of people would not have died in the revolutions and social experiments that were justified in the name of communism. So I'll say it IS dangerous...

[Rand al Thor]

But then we'd have to ignore the American revolution, which according to Kefka we can't do either.
So Kefka: should people be exposed to radical ideas, or should we not teach the founding of our nation (which was built upon on a revolution and then a peaceful overthrow of the new administration in case you forgot)? You can't have both.

Yes you can.

You teach them about America's history... and you stay away from those texts that advocate the overthrowing of the entire society (ex communism).

There's a difference between recognizing that once in a while revolutions are necessary, and advocating a position where you should have revolution against everything and everyone (state, class, money).

The American Revolution was a revolution against the state and class. Before America if you were a peasant you stayed there, part of the huge pull here is that there weren't rigid class structures in place, you could be a peasant in Europe and a wealthy man in America. Basically you're saying, "Well it might be different from what I think, therefore it's useless" and that is ignorance by definition and that is generally something one does not want their child learning

[God Kefka]

Yes you can.

You teach them about America's history... and you stay away from those texts that advocate the overthrowing of the entire society (ex communism).

There's a difference between recognizing that once in a while revolutions are necessary, and advocating a position where you should have revolution against everything and everyone (state, class, money).

The American Revolution was a revolution against the state and class. Before America if you were a peasant you stayed there, part of the huge pull here is that there weren't rigid class structures in place, you could be a peasant in Europe and a wealthy man in America. Basically you're saying, "Well it might be different from what I think, therefore it's useless" and that is ignorance by definition and that is generally something one does not want their child learning

Teaching them about the American Revolution shows them how hard their forefathers worked to establish the freedom in the country they presently live in. It teaches them about their historical roots and gives them a healthy identity that allows them to flourish and maintain the liberal democratic capitalist system they live in. It helps them adapt to society and live healthy lives...

Communism? No way man...

It just teaches people to hate the present society...

[Lemanrussland]

The Communist Manifesto should at least. It's short and to the point, if the students take more in-depth history/economics classes then they should have to read Wealth of Nations,Common Sense, and some passages from other big political and economic powerhouses like Voltaire, von Mises, Keynes, Proudhon, Hitler, etc.

Hitler's writings are shit Wahhh Wahhh historical relevance and prominence be damned.

I've read a good chunk of Mein Kampf, and yes it is poorly written and quite boring. However, it does offer insights into Hitlerite policy and thinking (it's not all just "those Jews sure are terrible", though that really is the main thrust of it, along with "those dastardly Communists ruin everything!"). Zweites Buch is more information dense as far as policy thinking goes. I also found things like Goebbels' memoirs/diaries and the transcripts of the so-called "Table Talks" more interesting and informative than Mein Kampf, at least when it comes to seeing how these people thought on a day to day basis.

[Edlichbury]

But then we'd have to ignore the American revolution, which according to Kefka we can't do either.
So Kefka: should people be exposed to radical ideas, or should we not teach the founding of our nation (which was built upon on a revolution and then a peaceful overthrow of the new administration in case you forgot)? You can't have both.

Yes you can.

You teach them about America's history... and you stay away from those texts that advocate the overthrowing of the entire society (ex communism).

There's a difference between recognizing that once in a while revolutions are necessary, and advocating a position where you should have revolution against everything and everyone (state, class, money).

Like the Constitution, that was (at least by the standards of the Articles of Confederation), a treasonous document usurping control of the country? Or how about Common Sense which advocated a forceful overthrow of Britain's control of the colonies and the Declaration of Independence which did the same?
So should we A) stop teaching the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Paine's Common Sense or B) Teach things that might say unorthodox things?

[God Kefka]

Yes you can.

You teach them about America's history... and you stay away from those texts that advocate the overthrowing of the entire society (ex communism).

There's a difference between recognizing that once in a while revolutions are necessary, and advocating a position where you should have revolution against everything and everyone (state, class, money).

Like the Constitution, that was (at least by the standards of the Articles of Confederation), a treasonous document usurping control of the country? Or how about Common Sense which advocated a forceful overthrow of Britain's control of the colonies and the Declaration of Independence which did the same?
So should we A) stop teaching the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Paine's Common Sense or B) Teach things that might say unorthodox things?

No because they are a part of American identity. Americans should learn their history...

Just because A and B have one thing in common doesn't mean that everything that applies to A applies to B. B might have a different characteristic you need to take into account.

[Rand al Thor]

The American Revolution was a revolution against the state and class. Before America if you were a peasant you stayed there, part of the huge pull here is that there weren't rigid class structures in place, you could be a peasant in Europe and a wealthy man in America. Basically you're saying, "Well it might be different from what I think, therefore it's useless" and that is ignorance by definition and that is generally something one does not want their child learning

Teaching them about the American Revolution shows them how hard their forefathers worked to establish the freedom in the country they presently live in. It teaches them about their historical roots and gives them a healthy identity that allows them to flourish and maintain the liberal democratic capitalist system they live in. It helps them adapt to society and live healthy lives...

Communism? No way man...

It just teaches people to hate the present society...

First off what makes you think I am a "man"? That's hateful towards women.

Second, many Americans are not descended from those who fought in the revolution. Hell, there are probably more Americans who came from Communist nations as immigrants than there are descendents of those who fought in the revolution. It teaches them about their historical roots and how far from them we've come, during the revolution we relied on help from European powers.

Communism doesn't teach one to hate the present society. No ideologically or religion can teach someone hate. Hate is something you are born able to do. If we don't want to teach children to hate the present society then they shouldn't be allowed to learn about religion as most of what this nation stands for, minus separation of church and state, is opposed to the teachings of Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Buddha, etc. Clearly religion is evil and causes school shootings! Think of how many children are brainwashed with it! See how idiotic that sounds?

[Aeken]

Why not?

[Edlichbury]

Like the Constitution, that was (at least by the standards of the Articles of Confederation), a treasonous document usurping control of the country? Or how about Common Sense which advocated a forceful overthrow of Britain's control of the colonies and the Declaration of Independence which did the same?
So should we A) stop teaching the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Paine's Common Sense or B) Teach things that might say unorthodox things?

No because they are a part of American identity. Americans should learn their history...

Just because A and B have one thing in common doesn't mean that everything that applies to A applies to B. B might have a different characteristic you need to take into account.

Let's break this down for you. According to your position, we must teach the American identity but avoid anything advocating for the overthrow or usurpation of a government.
The Constitution, Paine's Common Sense, and the Declaration of Independence all are crucial parts of the American identity and founding. All three, whether directly or indirectly, advocate the overthrow or usurpation of the government.
According to your position, we must both teach these and not teach these.
That's contradictory, and therefore invalid.
Or in mathematical sense.
A =/= B
C = B
C = A
Therefore,
A = B.
One of the premises must be false, and we know it is not C = B or C = A. All that is left is A =/= B.
Revise your terms or you have no argument.

[God Kefka]

No because they are a part of American identity. Americans should learn their history...

Just because A and B have one thing in common doesn't mean that everything that applies to A applies to B. B might have a different characteristic you need to take into account.

Let's break this down for you. According to your position, we must teach the American identity but avoid anything advocating for the overthrow or usurpation of a government.
The Constitution, Paine's Common Sense, and the Declaration of Independence all are crucial parts of the American identity and founding. All three, whether directly or indirectly, advocate the overthrow or usurpation of the government.
According to your position, we must both teach these and not teach these.
That's contradictory, and therefore invalid.
Or in mathematical sense.
A =/= B
C = B
C = A
Therefore,
A = B.
One of the premises must be false, and we know it is not C = B or C = A. All that is left is A =/= B.
Revise your terms or you have no argument.

So according to you... something that goes along the line of this wouldn't make sense right?

Me: ''We shouldn't teach people to shoot at other people.''

You: ''But HEY that's CONTRADICTORY man! Because the POLICE are trained to shoot at other people in certain circumstances and so are the MILITARY MAN! You can't have A and B. Either you can teach people to shoot at other people or you don't.''

Me: ''Ok well see here... there are other factors you need to consider. Sometimes it is ok and sometimes it is not. When you are trying to train people to protect us, it's different from teaching this to kids-''

You: ''YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! YOU CONTRADICT MAN!''

Me: ''I didn't specify when I was first saying-''

You: ''I"M NOT LISTENING! I"M NOT LISTENING! SEE?! You can't teach people to shoot at other people and not teach other people to shoot at other people at the same time...


????

All I said was that as a general rule you shouldn't teach kids dangerous and radical thought such as Marxism at the high school level. NOT that you should never.

There are cases where that can be justified, for example in learning about US history this is practically necessary since the USA was founded on such things.

So there are exceptions...

[4years]

1. Compared to whom? Because I have read some people that. Are Marx look moderate.
2. High school students. Will not. Attempt to launch a revolution. Because they read something Marx wrote. Get that through your head.
3. No, they are not.

1. Compared to the center point of the political spectrum of ANY period in modern history

2. They can be encouraged to be more violent and anti-social. Something many American kids DON'T need additional help on... If there are already school shootings without people reading a text in school that advocates for a revolution against ''the system''...

3. Without Marx's works, millions of people would not have died in the revolutions and social experiments that were justified in the name of communism. So I'll say it IS dangerous...

1. I was joking.
2. Marx's works don't enourage people to be violent and anti-social, if anything the opposite is true. And the people that shoot up schools aren't going to do so or refrain from being so based on reading political/economic tracts.
3. Yes there would have been, they just would have been justified by other means. And by that logic, we shouldn't allow teens to read the bible as many more millions have been killed in events that Christianity is used to justify.