2w ago

China unveils plan to build 'strong education nation' by 2035

www.channelnewsasia.com China unveils plan to build 'strong education nation' by 2035

BEIJING: China issued its first national action plan to build a "strong education nation" by 2035, which it said would help coordinate its education development, improve efficiencies in innovation and build a "strong country". The plan, issued by the Communist Party's central committee and the State...

World News @beehaw.org

schizoidman @lemm.ee

2w ago

China unveils plan to build 'strong education nation' by 2035

www.channelnewsasia.com /east-asia/china-plans-build-strong-education-nation-4877026

3 0

World News @lemmy.world

schizoidman @lemm.ee

2w ago

China unveils plan to build 'strong education nation' by 2035

www.channelnewsasia.com /east-asia/china-plans-build-strong-education-nation-4877026

96 21

World News @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

2w ago

China unveils plan to build 'strong education nation' by 2035

www.channelnewsasia.com /east-asia/china-plans-build-strong-education-nation-4877026

1 0

You're viewing a single thread.

74 comments

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?
  
  What do you think a Proletarian state looks like?
  
  Am I crazy or are these comments clearly written by AI too lol
  
  I'm almost certain they are, but for onlookers that alone isn't enough to make them wrong, which is why I went for addressing the clear gap, their assertion that China isn't Socialist without backing that claim up.
  Either way it's a very silly comment that doesn't say much of anything.
  
  I’m not AI, just someone who isn’t a native English speaker. I rely on translation tools, accessibility features, and autocorrect for help, especially on theoretical topics. That might explain why the style seems a bit off?
  
  Honestly real, can't even blame u for that
  
  Now I can see it too, no real liberal says "in a marxist context"
  
  Again, which class rules in the PRC? Name it and give justification for your position
  
  Theory? Marxism?
  If you engaged with these things in practice and not from a chair you'd understand that something like true education is nonsensical. What defines true 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 as true education has 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?
  
  I'm not sure I understand the disconnect. I don't see my discussions as being lecture. I've only thought to participate and hope I haven't broken some taboo.
  
  Your initial comment questioned how the PRC's focus on education will look based on "entrenching compliance" as opposed to "liberating the working class." This fundamentally presupposes that the PRC isn't Socialist, yet without doing any legwork to bolster that claim. When pressed, you were even more vague, just saying we need to discuss it.
  The PRC is Socialist, ergo educating the Working Class isn't out of "compliance," but because it is useful for the Working Class in steering the revolution that already gave the Working Class supremacy over Capital.
  
  Tell me how that wasn’t frustrating & exhausting work 🎖️
  
  The PRC being socialist would require that it aligns with the Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and revolutionary progress. Evidence suggests that the PRC's actions often prioritize state control and compliance instead of working-class emancipation. We shouldn't fall to beliefs, religion is the opiate of the masses after all
  
  I have a better question. What specific part of Chinese education do you believe is so problematic that it undermines socialism?
  Because otherwise we are just blowing smoke clouds past each.
- This text has the same LLM slop formulation as two days ago when you made China out to not be socialist 🥱
  
  The claim that the comment "is slop" might overlook socialism and the role of education in class struggle. According to Marxism, socialism is about dismantling class structures and empowering the working class to control production and governance. Education under socialism should awaken revolutionary consciousness, not simply train workers to serve the system.
  Marx warned that the ruling class controls both production and ideas to maintain power. A true socialist education system would encourage people to challenge these structures, not support them.
  
  I don't like accusing people of being bots, but damn is this comment written in chatgpt's writing style.
  
  Some users keep claiming the theory is just "AI slop" which is disheartening. I've already replied to a few.
  
  I see, if you are not a native English speaking, then I apologise (this is partly why I don't like bot accusations).
  
  The problem isn't just with the style, it's with the actual content and meaning though. What makes it AI slop is that there is no coherent logic behind the statements. It's like somebody asked a LLM to write up why China isn't socialist and then pasted it here.
  
  I mean, to be fair, I've seen more substanceless paragraphs from liberals.
  
  also true
- China’s ambitious education plan seems to promise quality and accessibility, but we must ask: what kind of education will it promote?
  Why ask questions when you intend to answer them yourself and are most likely (speaking from experience) going to ignore any answers received?
  True education awakens class consciousness and challenges power structures
  The first part is true but the second part is not. The second part presupposes that whatever power structures are in place must always be challenged. You are imposing your own ideology in education. And I know that you are not talking about criticizing or improving the power structures, but rebelling against them because of your next sentence.
  but education shaped by the state can become a tool for reinforcing conformity, obedience, and the status quo.
  Basically, you want chinese education to become a tool for your euro-centric ideology to forment civil disobedience, in service of your euro-centric goals.
  As Marxist theory teaches us
  What Marxist theory theory actually teaches us is that we must be critical of everything, including our own biases and circumstances. You are applying your own ideology, developed under the experience of capitalist dictatorship to a socialist society.
  
  I think there's a misunderstanding. I’m not claiming to have any answers, and I’m being critical of my own biases too. Marxism teaches us to question everything to see if they serve the working class or just maintain power.
  When I say ‘challenge power structures,’ I mean education should help people understand class struggle and how to improve society, not just obey the system blindly. This isn’t about imposing some ‘Euro-centric’ idea but asking if education is helping build socialism or just keeping things the same. It's an universal issue.
  
  Marxism teaches us to question everything to see if they serve the working class or just maintain power.
  But this power itself could very well be working class power. Maintaining such power would not be a problem, and indeed should be the goal of socialist education.
  When I say ‘challenge power structures,’ I mean education should help people understand class struggle and how to improve society, not just obey the system blindly.
  Again, teaching children to blindly obey authority figures is not something you can accuse Chinese society of doing without actually compiling and analysing data/evidence.
  This isn’t about imposing some ‘Euro-centric’ idea but asking if education is helping build socialism or just keeping things the same. It’s an universal issue.
  Universalism itself is a rather euro-centric idea. The European colonists were eager to declare their ideas as universal and to apply them to other societies.
  The only way to actually address issues in Chinese society is to first investigate into specific details in Chinese societies. Making general claims/questions is not helpful. Especially not when they are made against a country with one of the richest surviving marxist traditions.
- What is the ruling class in the PRC? Very important question to answer if you think investing in education will weaken the PRC, not strengthen it.
- They can indoctrinate for a while, but education (as opposed to vocational training) inherently encourages critical thinking skills that make people progressively more resistant to the indoctrination.
- What's your argument? That they should implement the "American Way" - crush education and paywal it so only the elite can have it while the rest of the nation lives in ignorance?
  Because if they end up with a highly educated, liberal population, mankind may actually have a chance to avoid extinction...
- 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.
  Your LLM knows it. China education good

74 comments