Is it true that lots of history professors are socialists/communists

Given that Marx himself was an academic, there's little surprise that it and other radical ideologies have been over-represented in academia. It's become much less common since the 1960s, mostly because Marxism is generally seen as refuted in academia (Marxists' credibility also took a hit as Stalin's crimes became widely known). It still skews left, but that's distinct from being Marxist.

>lots

There aren't a lot of Marxists left to begin with.

>>2304827

My history professors will sometimes make joking reference to the last marxist kooks at history conventions, they're a dying breed

don't let /pol/ fool you

>>2304827
It's a meme.

>>2304844
>Marxism is generally seen as refuted in academia
bullshit

>>2304844
>t. F. Fukuyama

File: 1485817011677.jpg (351KB, 1365x2048px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1365x2048px

>>2304844
>Given that Marx himself was an academic
He never had a job at any academic institution

>>2304973
I only did undergrad but I studied philosophy and poli sci and this is basically true. The ones who are Marxists are like the kooky weirdos and real academics know that it's silly

File: tmp_11577-1485794357234-528879126.jpg (1MB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x3000px

>>2304827
It's a complete utter meme, it's just something right wingers say to justify their massive anti-intellectualism

>>2304983
>philosophy and Poli sci

Anon, those careers are deeply influenced by the faculty you are in. In some universities you'll find more socialists, in others more capitalists, and those ideas will reflect in the curriculum. Not all unid are advocates of pluralism in academia. Your vision and experience are limited due to this

I guess the best examples are business schools, where Marxists economists definitely are a minority

>>2304978
>He never had a job.

>>2304827
Traditional Marxists are a dying breed. These days Marxism has evolved into Cultural Studies and Critical Theory, and as far as I know these are widely adhered to in a broad range of academic disciplines.

>>2305177
That's my experience as well.

>>2304985
>It's a complete utter meme, it's just something right wingers say to justify their massive anti-intellectualism
Maybe it's a regional thing. I've legitimately never met a professor who wasn't at least a socialist.

>>2304939
that was more true 20 years ago

>>2304827

Academia tends to apply the scientific method, work with rationality, apply critic of the sources, analysis and so on.

Working on buzzwords, memes, prejudices, 'this is x!' 'why?' 'because', unjustified assumptions and etc of teenage tier retardation doesn't, for the most part, work in Academia.

That doesn't make them all 'marxists', although marxism and marxist-derived scientific currents like historical marxism have contributed a lot to the advancing of most social sciences and many academicists may work, or at least partially recognize those views,

It simply makes them educated people that elaborate their views based upon the modern western system of the scientific method, critical analysis and reason as opposed to dogmatic, uncheckable, incontrastable, non reason-based system of beliefs and 'truths' ca

>>2304983
Marxian theoreticians of history =/= historians who are Marxists

>>2305002
>those careers are deeply influenced by the faculty you are in
Come on dude, I'm not an idiot. I didn't go to business school, I went to a hippy dippy leftist liberal arts college, and even there I didn't have a single professor who self-identified as a Marxist or a communist or even advocated Marxist ideas

>>2305177
>These days Marxism has evolved into Cultural Studies and Critical Theory,

This is /pol/ bullshit. Critical theory emerged in the 1940s and peaked in the '70s. The 1980s involved a major return toward traditional Marxist theory

>>2304985
>>2305274
hey, no serious posts allowed here

you're supposed to be posting /pol/ infographs about 'cultural marxism'

>>2305322
How is that first post you quoted "serious" in any sense? It's vacuous shitposting.

>>2305312
they just call it woman studies

100 years ago workers of all kinds were involved in the labor movement, not just history professors

>>2305309
Then your experience is not reflective of the norm.

>>2304827
College professors are basically the laziest people in modern society. They despise working, but love to command and exercise authority. As intellectuals, they believe it there right to preside over society and determine the functions of government. So naturally they will gravitate towards an ideology in which the intellectual is responsible for everything, where intellectuals in general are authorities and always well provisioned. It's pretty understandable.

>>2305389
So I am to assume you haven't ever entered a college, correct?

>>2305398
Incorrect

File: liberty2.jpg (84KB, 1442x1080px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1442x1080px

>>2304827

It depends whether the field is individualistic (right-leaning) or communitarian (left-leaning).

Economics tends to be right-leaning. Same with other subjects that attract individualists - mechanical engineering, petroleum engineering, things like that - perhaps purely because they attract more males, and males tend to be lean rightwards as a group.

Subjects that attract more females tend to attract communitarians. The humanities, the arts, social "sciences", caring subjects like nursing, etc.

History is a humanities subject and attracts a fairly high number of females. And it's not a subject that really attracts many hard-nosed individualists. So yes I guess it tends to attract many lefties - but that doesn't mean ALL history professors are necessarily left-leaning.

>>2304827
It was the case at some point, not any more.
What we have is a different kind of cancer, but Marxism proper is not the baseline even in sociology.

>>2305412
>source: my ass

>>2305421
You're only now asking for a source in this thread?

File: laughing-man.jpg (56KB, 800x547px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x547px

>>2305421
>translation: i disagree with you, but i lack the mental faculties to form a coherent, logical argument to defend my view

Lol

File: butthurt.jpg (304KB, 1191x1215px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1191x1215px

>>2305421

Also just to be clear the reason you are having this reaction is because you don't LIKE what I'm saying - not because it isn't TRUE.

If you think it isn't true, give me reasons why it isn't.

But you can't, because you're too stupid to do so. You're just whinging because I brought up the fact that men tend to lean right and women tend to lean left.

Sorry you can't deal with facts, kiddo.

>>2305389

The difference is that they gravitate around elaborated thesis which are the result of applying the scientific method and which are discussable to some degree as opposed to the kind of people that's the modern counterpart of those who dealt in terms of absolute truths and believed the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it because, although I don't have a fucking clue about astronomy, a) I like how that sounds desu, b) I love its implications, c) I love listening to Billy Bob the lardass pandering to it everyday on his radio show and d) It's in the Bible and I believe in Jesus.

Therefore that's it, the Earth is like that. Or at least it might be like that and it's a matter of opinion, and don't try to convince me otherwise, you goddamn intellectual commie liberals with your commie agenda.

>>2305525
>>2305532
Does "men = right, women = left" really need to be argued? Political views don't have a fucking gender.

And what the hell are you talking about "facts" and "arguments" for? As far as I can see, you merely stated what you THINK, now I'd like some statistics. (Especially interested in the one that says women are more likely to be lefties)

Since we are apparently so welcome to post unsourced claims, and basically just what we think might be case in this thread, I'll do so too.
Not a lot of history professors are Marxists, I'm sure some are, there's always a minority, but the VAST majority, like most professors, are probably just slightly left-leaning.

>>2305554
>Does "men = right, women = left" really need to be argued? Political views don't have a fucking gender.
>And what the hell are you talking about "facts" and "arguments" for? As far as I can see, you merely stated what you THINK, now I'd like some statistics. (Especially interested in the one that says women are more likely to be lefties)

How fucking stupid are you?

No, I'm not going to do your fucking homework for you.

Men overwhelmingly voted Trump - much more so than women. And this trend is apparent in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Go and look at some election stats, and you will women ALWAYS support the left slightly more than men.

>but the VAST majority, like most professors, are probably just slightly left-leaning.

Again you're fucking stupid because different subjects tend to have different political inclinations, and like I said, the ones that tend to attract males / individualists will trend slightly to the right compared to others.

Are you literally fucking 12 years old?

Are you seriously incapable of rational thought and analysis?

>>2305435
>>2305525
>>2305532
>economics
>an individualistic field

t. non-economist

File: tmp_24615-1480608475537-1881436945.jpg (4MB, 6800x3002px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6800x3002px

>>2305022
Being a journalist, labor organizer, activist and author are all jobs.

File: tmp_24615-1480706233346-863947373.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>2305218
You should talk to more professors. You'd be surpised how many are complete right wing tards.

>>2305412
>Economics tends to be right-leaning. Same with other subjects that attract individualists - mechanical engineering, petroleum engineering, things like that - perhaps purely because they attract more males, and males tend to be lean rightwards as a group.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fca7/7467637de80ed58d4ab5e9a4b973fa42ad9d.pdf

File: tmp_24615-1481579754770-1179112550.jpg (652KB, 2254x3000px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 2254x3000px

>>2305177
>Cultural Studies and Critical Theory, a
Neither of these things have anything to do with Big Karl.

File: fuck you.jpg (64KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1920x1080px

>>2305612

Much more so than humanities and artsy subjects

>>2305646

Hm, no, I'm not going to read some fucking PDF

I didn't give you a long ass thing to read, I made concise arguments

If you can't do that then you don't deserve your views to be heard

>>2305591
Goddamn, could it be that all the women voted for the actual WOMAN in the election? And not Mr. Grablepussy? No no, of course it's because women somehow are inherently (????) left wing.

Yes, you are going to do my homework for me, because it's your outlandish claim, I'm sorry to say.

And let's now be civil, I am not calling you all sorts of things, but I definitely could, as far as I can piece together, this is your stream of thought:
>Women are left wing, the history teacher at my school is left wing, therefore history teachers are left wing.
Or is this wrong?

>>2305591

He asked for sources and actual verifiable data to back up your views. You provided none.

You classified certain disciplines as 'individualistic' and other as 'communitarian' without providing any meaninful insight on what that would mean and why and all based upon [because reasons] and assigned the role of 'individualistic' to preferentially males and 'communitarian' to females and backed up those claims with [ my ass lol]

Climb back up to the tree, johnny.

>>2305653
Alright you illiterate fuck, here.

Most economists vote Democratic (Table 4). The Democrat:Republican ratio
is 2.5:1. The 2.5:1 ratio is based on answers for all economist respondents.
Table 5 shows the ratios of democrat to republican voters for the various
sectors of economists—beware the dwindling sub-sample sizes.

The one fucking thing you did manage to get right was that sociology and other fields did vote far more Democratically, almost 16-1. But that makes fucking sense because they study social issues, and what is the party looking to fix most of the mainstream social issues? Democrats. Your """thesis""" is built on presumptions and interpretations of snippets of data without critical thought in any aspect.

>>2305274
marxism is science, anon

File: trump.jpg (31KB, 396x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x500px

>>2305660
>>2305667

Let me repeat myself, because you can't read:

>this trend is apparent in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Go and look at some election stats, and you will women ALWAYS support the left slightly more than men.

No. No I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Go and do it yourself.

I have no vested interest in whether you choose to believe false things or not.

File: tmp_24615-1483844713159-516383766.jpg (4MB, 3456x5184px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3456x5184px

>>2305669
>dems
>left wing

what's the deal with this kstew posting autist I see him in every other thread

>>2305680
>should we vote for the party that pledges to give us equal pay for equal work, have payed maternity leave, and have more female representatives of our gender or should we not?

If Republicans weren't chronically retarded maybe they could attract women and minority voters.
>>2305698
Don't hold us to Europe's standards, they'd kick our ass.

File: trump laughing 9.jpg (37KB, 720x547px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 720x547px

>>2305669
>The one fucking thing you did manage to get right was that sociology and other fields did vote far more Democratically

So I'm right.

That's all you needed to tell me.

File: trump laughing 2.jpg (108KB, 594x549px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 594x549px

>>2305719
>>should we vote for the party that pledges to give us equal pay for equal work, have payed maternity leave, and have more female representatives of our gender or should we not?
>If Republicans weren't chronically retarded maybe they could attract women and minority voters.

So, again, I am right.

You agree with me that women DO trend leftwards.

I told you so.

But as I said, you could look it up and see it for yourself. In every election, women vote more leftwards than men do. I have already seen the stats for myself. If you want to do so yourself, be my guest.

I am not going to get them because I am lazy, and because ultimately, I don't care if you believe false things.

>>2305722
>>2305731
Take whatever you will from the data, but the reality will always prevail over the falsehoods in academia. And it is academia that is responsible for near all the advances in science, medicine, and pretty much every other field aside from shitposting. You are just one relatively insignificant cog in a grand machine my friend, and no amount of shitposting will change that.

>>2305737
>translation: i have no argument but some academics said something and they must be right

Appeal to authority

That's a fallacy :^)

>>2305218
>I've legitimately never met a professor who wasn't at least a socialist.
How do you even end up talking about politics with your professor?

>>2305757
Appeal to authority isn't a fallacy? It can be, but definitely not in this context.

>>2305767
They're usually not making it a big secret. Just out of the faculty members I interacted with *this semester alone*, one wrote and directed an anti-Trump drama and a feminist comedy, one published a highly political paper on the importance of Ethics as a school subject, one had written a critical theory book on masculinity and another one cannot and will not stop crowbaring his political views into just about every single seminar.

I should maybe mention that I'm not American, so as I said before, maybe this is all very different in your neck of the woods, but at my university, outspoken left-leaning politics are indeed the norm among the teachers.

>>2305856
No. It IS a fallacy. If you want to argue for a thesis X, then saying "this dude said X and he's really educated!" isn't an argument.

Arguing for a claim requires reasons.

>>2304827
>look up Ferdinand Lassalle
>Jew
Fucking hell does this nightmare ever end?

>>2305856
>Appeal to authority isn't a fallacy?
Ugh, like, it totally is??

>>2305889
>Arguing for a claim requires reasons.
Like the reasons he provided in a pdf?

>>2305892
Why do you care you autistic little shit? I'd take a Jew over a subhuman like you any day

>>2305902
Yes Schlomo all goyim are subhumans good job outing yourself you retard hebe

>>2305907
Antisemites are, yes. They should be crushed out of existence.

File: quote-first-of-all-we-have-to-understand-what-communism-is-i-mean-to-me-real-communism-the-bobby-fischer-110-58-17.jpg (72KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 850x400px

>>2305892

>>2305899
I already said that his summary of the PDF essentially confirms my position, that economics is more individualistic / more right-leaning than social "sciences" and humanities.

>>2305893
Not an argument.

>>2305914
Look at this cocky oven dodger and his internet rough guy persona

>>2305945
And he also refuted that though. He pointed out that Democrats were the party of social issues, and social sciences are all about social issues. It makes more sense than what you are saying, and you don't have any source to back your claim.

All of my profs feel the need to mention at some point that they are anarcho-feminists, or anarcho-socialists, or anarcho-X. One prof said the other day that she has extra copies of a anarcho-socialist themed children's book if any other moms in the class wanted one.

>>2305892
What nightmare?

>>2305956
Not even a Jew. I just enjoy watching dumb goyim squirm.

>>2305979
Jewish leftist tyranny

>>2305984
>being proud of being a shabbos goy
You're Anglo aren't you?

>>2305973
There's nothing I wish to see more than seeing the state break down and watching all these anarcha feminists being traded on sex slave markets.

>>2305992
No. Anglos are prone to ignorance. They need leadership and emancipation.

>>2305902
>>2305914
>>2305984
Oy vey.

>There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

- Winston Churchill

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

TLDR - Churchill knew that Bolshevism was a Jewish movement.

>>2306038
Churchill was a drunk, racist, imperialist warmonger. Nothing he says should be taken seriously by anyone.

Even if it was Jewish I would support it. Reactionary goyim must be exterminated.

>>2306038
>- Winston Churchill
Disregarded. Decent wartime leader, wouldn't want him anywhere else though. Him and McAurthor.

>>2306046

Do you have a cuckold fetish by any chance? You just seem like that sort of guy.

>>2306080
Nope. This is pure projection from right-wing goyim who fap to blacked.

>>2304973
shut up

>>2305679
>2305679
LOL

>>2304827
History professors are more conservative or centrists. Marxists hang out in humanities and joke shit like african nipple piercing degrees.

>>2306227
History is part of the humanities, you dunce.

>>2306232
But marxists are march more prominent in stuff like philosophy.

>>2306046
is /his/ what happen when tumblr and /pol/ merge?

Don't know about Marxism specifically, but leftist ideology is usually pretty prevalent in academia

>>2306326
That's because most college students are leftists.

File: pareto.jpg (241KB, 626x787px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 626x787px

Intellectuals are communist because communism gives jobs to intellectuals. Who do you think staffs all those planning committes? Rednecks? No, they are staffed by educated people from universities, so it is in their own self-interest to support the ideology that will give more jobs to people like them.

>The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe's golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes. And since the tempo of the production of the literate is continually increasing, the prospect is of ever-swelling bureaucracies.

Eric Hoffer - The Ordeal of Change

>>2306347
Everyone will participate in economic planning.

>Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

>>2306363
>will

I'm not talking about the desires and projects of communists, I'm talking about the actual results of countries governed by communist political movements.

Why it is so hard for leftists to understand the difference between the planned future that only exists in their mind and historical reality?

>>2306369
Workers have far more of a say under any communist system through councils and local supervisors than any capitalist system.

Why is it so hard for rightists to understand that communism will not be implemented perfectly overnight? It will take a long time. Just as capitalism did.

>>2306383
I'm not talking about factory management either, I'm talking about economic planning on a national level.

Communist regimes usually employ more planning measures, which give jobs to intellectuals, and that's why intellectuals support communism.

The reason workers support communism, when they do, it's not more control over factory management, it's usually about labour rights and better pay, so when these were achieved in the West, workers stopped supporting communism and intellectuals, who still did, had to look for another revolutionary class.

>Why is it so hard for rightists to understand that communism will not be implemented perfectly overnight? It will take a long time. Just as capitalism did.

You shouldn't follow an ideology because of the idealized future it invented for itself. It's quite sick and mental unhealthy.

>>2306398
>You shouldn't follow an ideology because of the idealized future it invented for itself. It's quite sick and mental unhealthy.
All idealogies sold themselves initially on the prospects of future benefits.

>>2306408
Only revolutionary ideologies, like liberalism and communism do that.

>>2306415
Was Democracy not advocated on revolutionary principles?
Was Monarchies not once advocated on revolutionary principles?
Not one government has been in place since the beginning of humankind.

>>2306418
>Was Democracy not advocated on revolutionary principles?
>Was Monarchies not once advocated on revolutionary principles?

No to both. "Democracy" and "monarchism", if we understand then as political movements, were results of contingent issues, not a result of a plan for universal action.

Louis XI didn't strengthen the monarchy because he believed that the ideal world would be governed by a universal central government authority, he did because he wanted to fuck the nobles.

Even when monarchist ideologies appear, like the divine rights of kings, they are concerned with the present, not the future. Before the 18th century, the only people who believed ideal futures justified present actions were heretical Christians like the Hussites or the Anabaptists.

>>2305309
That's because people know that calling yourself a Marxist will immediately raise a flag in the minds of many people, but calling yourself a Democrat is more accepted and you can still have many of the same beliefs.
>>2306418
And yet there are plenty of governments that start with a foundation of what is known to work, generally with a hybridized set of rules, and perhaps with some innovative framework.

>>2306398
>it's usually about labour rights and better pay, so when these were achieved in the West
That is an illusion. Those rights were hard fought and are slipping away before our eyes. Capitalism will only grant these rights when workers force them to. And control over the workplace has always been part of communist, right back to the calls for the 8 hour day, syndicalism and the IWW in the 19th/early 20th century. Intellectuals are not only and simply intellectuals in a communist society.