How colleges/universities support the Bourgeoisie and the state

Colleges and Universities are tools of the Bourgeoisie, not only that but they ARE the bourgeoisie. Under this semi-capitalist system, in order to get a job that you can feed yourself with, if you don’t go to college and try to apply for a job, you will likely get rejected if it is a job you can feed yourself with. But all the colleges care about is gaining capital and reputation (so they can get more capital). In order to get into many of the “Good” colleges, you need to do well in Primary Education. Whats in primary education? State and Bourgeois propaganda, at least if you go into a public school. There have been many times where the bourgeoisie has paid politicians in order to make the education system to benefit them. This commonly happened with factory workers who would pay politicians to teach them not to question the system and to obey. The idea for them was that since factory work was the most common job in the 1800 and 1900’s, and if their employed these people, they would not have to teach them. And in the United States of America and I would belie most countries, you are taught at a young age that you are “free”, though I dont think I have seen them explain HOW exactly we are free. To be honest, we are not free. Under this Semi-Capitalist State system we will never be free. They make you take classes about which country you are in so they can show you how great it is, sometimes they will say how we used to be bad so they can say how much better they are now. And in Private schools, there may be less state, but there is almost always more bourgeoisie. Private schools are owned by individuals and are making profit, so they would want you to think good of the system as well. Home school or Unschooling may be better, but they still would probably make you answer a bunch of questions that would have required you to study propaganda to “prove” you were educated.
You need to go through one of these paths because most governments force you to go to a school, and you need to do well in order to get into one of those “good” colleges. In order to do well in school, you often need to have a lot of time. If you do not have a lot of money, you often can not get many of the resources you need to do as well as someone who is much richer than you. This means that the bourgeoisie has a much easier time getting into colleges and staying at the top. The less rich people cant afford to get into the college, and since they did not do as well in school they are not offered a scholarship. Rich families can afford tutoring, study manuals, gifts for the teachers, bribing the people high up, and the kid not having to spend all their time doing work for the family. These are all advantages the bourgeoisie has that the average person does not. Many financial aid programs such as Grants are just ways for the state and bourgeoisie to get a favourable opinion from you. And colleges themselves suck, the stuff they teach you is becoming more and ore useless, and the prices are insanely high. The colleges are super rich, they have more money than many countries and some like Harvard, could pay their tuition for over 100 years. These institutions are almost fully tax free, even private ones, and sometimes even receive money from the state, even private ones once again. So even someone who did not go to college has to pay for colleges. You can bet there is some corruption going on. Even if you did somehow happen to make it into college, you would probably be taught a bunch of propaganda, stuff you already know, stuff you dont need to know, and more. Lots of the stuff in fact, I am sure you could learn on Udemy or Skillshare or something similar. Colleges make you take a bunch of general education classes and prerequisite classes just to take the class you want to take. This is a way for them to squeeze propaganda and and your money. After you are done you are left with huge amount of debt that will last you decades. This makes it so you will be owing tonnes of money to lenders and so you have to work harder in your job, benefiting your boss. If you are in debt, you cannot safely go on strike, or start your own business, so you would not be able to compete with your boss, making you largely a slave of them. So you would end up working in school and going to college just to spend your whole life working for a bourgeois. It is almost impossible to become rich with all that debt you have, so the bourgeoisie, stays the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, stays the proletariat. If that individual had a family, since they would not be rich because they maybe still had debt or since they could never rise up, just never got that much money, then the cycle would repeat, making the new child just like their parent. This is what happened in the middle ages and this would repeat over and over again. This system also provides justification for adults to control the lives of minors. I am almost 16, and go to a pretty basic school named El Modena High School. They are so controlling of me, and they work with parents rather than the student themselves. If you do poorly academically, your parents would often punish you or tell you how to run your life, if you did something the school did not like, even if it was something perfectly fine like talking back, your parents would punish you. Parents use this system to justify them being able to control their children. I do not support this as a victim of this system. I do not think they are making my life much better, and do not think it will make a lot of difference in the future because I , and probably anyone else, will probably revert back to their old ways after they leave their parents and do poor in college. While many people are told that this system is great. The bourgeoisie and state benefit from this system, the people who come out of college are poor and will need to boot lick their boss, and have done well in all the propaganda, and will get money from all the loans the student needed to take out. While the student is just making it by, having to work really hard to support themselves. The state benefits by forcing propaganda and having a few less homeless and questioning people. Colleges limit the amount of people they can accept for a reason, they want to keep their reputation so they can get more money and charge people more to be admitted. This allows for the bourgeoisie to get the best of the bunch and the college to make money. The idea that people had to cheat to go into a good college or university (like the scandal a few months ago) just shows how highly the system is failing and how selective these schools are and how little they actually care. Grades are just a way to judge how good people are so the colleges and bosses know, its an outdated system meant to favour the elite.

This system is filled with things you do not want and is highly optimised for the bourgeoisie and state. I mean, do you want to have to work hard in school and have to be controlled by your parents just so you can work for some bourgeois for the rest of your life?

Here is a Solution
None of these issues would happen in anarcho-communism. In anarcho-communism, there is no centralised state to give you propaganda. There is no bourgeoisie to find people to exploit. In anarcho-communism, everyone has an opportunity, everyone would get a good education if they wanted it, they would then be able to do higher education if they wanted that. People would not probably be forced to do any education if they do not want to, but it would be encouraged so you can better contribute to the commune and do something you may be interested in, like making tools or building something. You would not be taught a bunch of stuff you do not want or need to know. The teachers would not be teaching you to get a paycheque, but rather because they like teaching. The teachers would work with the student, grades would have no reason to exist. Parents would have almost no involvement in your life because you dont need them because you can manage your self and are not in a harsh semi-capital statist would that would make you dependent on them. Colleges would exist to teach you new skills that you want to learn, you would be doing it not because you will be homeless if you don’t, but because you want to. And work hours would probably be lower because with everyone working together, they could probably make everything they need in 5 hours a day. This would mean you have plenty of time to study and do well. And after you are done, you would not have a huge debt, you would just contribute as normal or maybe a little more. No Propaganda, no useless stuff, no debt, no restrictions on who can get in. They may teach about anarcho communist principles, but this would mainly be so they dont revert back to the previous system.

I will be submitting this to the Anarchist Library and other Radicle Libraries, I would suggest you read it there because this site often has issues. I will provide a link to some of the accepted ones.

 

Why Implicities are useless

Has someone ever implied you know to do something or implied you knew not to do something?It kinda sucks when they are angry at you or stop you from doing something because you did not follow a something implicit.

But another question, what is the point of using implications? They seem to only save little amounts of time if they work and seem to create lots of confusion and issues if they fail. People assume you know something that you do not. They do not take “you never told me” or “you never said” and an answer when the thing is, if they had told them, then this would not of likely happened, and they would of done it better.

I have no shame taking advantage of these implications most of the time. If they never said not to do to do something, and it benefits me, I often do it. I often also use it to avoid doing work. In Fact, this may be one of the steps we need to take to get rid of Implicities.

Some implications can be ok and may have a use, but are often not. One example is if you tell someone to do something and want them to do something else, and the 2nd thing you want them to do absolutely has to be done for the 1st thing to be done. But this can still have an issue if the 2nd thing does not HAVE to be done or the person you are giving the task to finds away around it. Also another one is if you include a word the other person does not know in a face-to-face or instant chat conversation. This CAN be ok because they an just tell you the word they don’t know. But this still can be annoying and it is often better to just use simpler vocab if you can. It is still better to not use this one.

Tough Love vs Paternalism

Both of these philosophies are used in controlling organisations to try to justify them controlling you. Both of them have egoism involved as we have already discussed. By The way, ADHERING TO SOMEONE ELSE’S EGOISM IS NOT EGOISM, and is not good in my opinion. But what exactly is the difference between tough love and paternalism?

When someone is doing paternalism, they are also doing tough love, and vice versa, I will explain how after I have covered them both.

Tough Love
Tough love is putting someone through a time they may not like because they may “benefit in the long term” or just “for their own good” and sometimes “morality”. The issue with this is that their is no best outcome, just whatever the person wants. If someone wants to do something, they often get punished by parents or some other organisation. If the punishment is time out, then this is most likely tough love, since it is often suppose to benefit the victim of tough love. We will talk about the disadvantages of tough love in this forum. The phrase originally came from a movie.

Paternalism
Paternalism is similar to Tough love. It is taking away a right for someones “own good” or “moral reasons”. Many of the same disadvantages are the same as with tough love. This would be shown if I stopped you from eating too much candy because I said you would get fat. This is flawed because if the person knows, then they are just choosing to eat the candy and do not care about your health, and its your life. I will talk about the disadvantages to this on this forum.
Paternalism comes from the word paternal meaning father, and means controlling someone in a fatherly way.

How they overlap?
Paternalism is taking someones right, tough love is putting someone through tough times, if you are putting someone in a tough time, then you are taking their right to the time and the ability to say no. If you take someone’s right, then you are putting them through a tough time. So they overlap.

The Egoism in Paternalism/Tough love

This is also going into the egoism section.

I am an egoist. I do what benefits me. I do not despise being an egoist, I encourage it. What I do not like though, is you following someone else’s Egoism for less benefit to you. This is what allows the state to exist. Paternalism and tough love are suppose to be someone doing harm to you or taking away your freedom so you will benefit from it in the future or because it is not in your best interest. This has many flaws and many ways Egoism can be involved in it.

First of All, Psychological Egoism states that everyone is motivated by self interest, even when they care about others. This argument can be used even when it does not appear the person using Paternalism/Tough Love is gaining anything, they have a greater change than not of having a way that they will benefit. Sometimes you can even see how the Paternalism or Tough Love can benefit. An example is a parent forcing you to do labour and saying it will benefit you later, even if you never plan on doing the thing you are suppose to be learning, and are just getting your time wasted and in a miserable way. You can most likely see how the parent would benefit from this, its less work for them, and they can say they are doing you a favour. John Stuart Mill disagrees with state paternalism saying “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” . He states that people knows whats best for them, and I agree. It is your life, and you should be able to do what ever you want, if you want to ruin your life, its your life. If the person does not appear to benefit from enforcing paternalism or tough love on you, that does not mean they cannot benefit at all. Some people may gain respect/reputation, they may get pressure from other paternalist if they are not paternalist. They may feel morally(for people who believe in that) just, or maybe sad if something happened to you if they have invested in you. Max Stirner in the Ego and Its Own covers why people stop crime that has nothing to do with them, one of the reasons he says is people’s morality tells them to. Morality is a flawed idea but many people still believe it. To some that is a benefit worth having. You need to be the egoist, you need to not let this happen, letting this happen is most likely not egoist. We must spread anti-paternalism and anti-tough love. None of them really benefit the victim to that great of an extent. Stop feeding into other people’s egoism, and be the egoist.

16 September 2019 Google Algorithm Update

On 16 September 2019, Google Annouced rel=”sponsored” and rel=”ugs” and well as some changes for rel=”nofollow” in the future.

Sponsored is supposed to be for paid links. They have similar value to nofollows to my knowledge and you can potentially be penalised for not using them.

UGS stands for User Generated Content, and is stuff like comments, forums, article submission sites, web 2,0 sites, and similar sites. It seems similar to sponsored, but we are still waiting for effects.

Nofollow links will now have more potential to rank and get your site indexed. This change will start in March of 2020 CE. In the past they were suppose to not have much if any effect on your ranking (mostly the latter), but now the “may” have effect on your rankings and indexing (they were used to an extent to stop indexing of a site). This has negative effects on some SPAMY strategies like Guerilla Satellites. You may also be able to switch rels for your spam (to mix it up), but they will still have similar effect.

It is still kind of unclear, but it does not seem site owners need to implement these new rels on their sites.

Over here at Asbestosstar we will not use these new rels. On default all likes will be dofollow. Down with these changes! They suck for seo.