Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I'm trying to figure out the cause of this.
That's circular though. You are saying people more educated in history are more educated in history.Better than whom? The average person? Because they are more educated, and that because you got to be educated above average to have a meaningful knowledge on a fringe ideology like Marxism.
Case closed
That's circular though.
Irony is not your strong point?
[For the record: While that declaration has been taken literally by some of the more wood-brained Marxists, it was essentially a rhetorical flourish on Marx's part. Marx's own writings, for example his discussion of the 1848 Revolution and Louis' Bonepartes' coup, or those of anti-deterministic Marxist historians such as E.P.Thompson or Christopher Hill, stand as proof that it's not as one dimensional a body of theory as that. I certainly agree that a lot of the orthodox historiography is flawed- the entire concept of "feudalism", for example, is basically arse- but for reasons more complicated than just being flat-out wrong.](The key concept of Marx that all history is the history of class struggles doesn´t really provide valid theses for much of history as we know it.)
I am saying people educated in fringe ideologies tend to be more educated in general and hence also more educated in history (unless it is Randism ). What is circular about that?That's circular though. You are saying people more educated in history are more educated in history.
I think people often don't *appreciate* the ideas of Marxism without a significantly more detailed (in at least some areas) knowledge of history than is often taught. Without that knowledge of history it's harder to understand why anyone would want or need something outside the common political/historical tradition.
So to really understand communism, you need a higher education than the average person
I dunno. A library card might be a lot more useful.
So to really understand communism, you need a higher education than the average person, which you typically can only afford if you are significantly wealthier - wealth likely accumulated as an "oppressor" in a capitalist market economy. Strange how the world works.
Personally, I don't have an opinion, but I'm pretty sure at least one historian on these boards would dispute the OP's claim if he cares enough to.