Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

Not a moment too soon.

The majority of attendees apparently were teachers mostly from Chicago.

One of the main side topics was

to celebrate the use of education as a mechanism to insert Marxism into public institutions. In one session, the idea of targeting their message to students, even over “the working class,” was debated.

Here Here !!

Lots of talk about the recent Chicago Teachers union strike too.

This Saturday, the Midwest Marxist Conference was held at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. The event was teeming with teachers who spoke about the new found bond between the radical socialists and their Teachers Union. The all-day event, which collected money to support Chicago Socialists and featured a communist bookstore, provided students on-campus along with the radical left community to plan the next phase in their activism.

Becca Barnes, a Chicago Teachers Union teacher and organizer with Chicago Socialists, proclaimed at the beginning of the conference that “the struggle here in the United States has entered a new phase. Nowhere have we pointed the way forward more clearly than here in Chicago with the teachers union strike.”

After the opening plenary, breakout sessions addressed more specific topics like the history of the Democratic party, education, and case studies in Russia. In these sessions, speakers continued to celebrate the use of education as a mechanism to insert Marxism into public institutions. In one session, the idea of targeting their message to students, even over “the working class,” was debated. ....

Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

Very long and informative article. Chock full of Marxist info.

What "threats" to society in general exist because of any "Marxist" influences in public schools and institutions?


And not without sinister secrecy and wild envy and jealousy....

The event itself, though advertised online as via social media, retained a sense of extreme secrecy. Attendees were told not to record video or audio unless they had express permission from organizers. Rather than traditional discussions in the breakout sessions, we were instructed to “raise your hand in a fist” in order to be first approved and then added by a moderator to a queue to speak. This orthodoxy resulted in extremely disjointed Q&A sessions where no one comment followed another and most questions went unanswered.

After attending the all-day event, which began at 11 a.m., I was singled out as “not in solidarity” by International Socialist Organization (ISO) organizer Dennis Kosuth around 4 p.m, and removed from the premises for “not being a Communist.”

Despite registering for the event, the group of socialists that removed me, including pre-school teacher Kirstin Roberts, social worker Alison McKenna, printer Eric Kerl, Socialist organizer Shaun Harkin, and others. They surrounded me at the edge of a staircase, proceeded to push their way closer to me to force me down the stairs, and hurled insults at me as I attempted to find a way to leave safely. Even after leaving the conference, the group continued to bully me, with one larger man saying under his breath that “you know what would happen at Teamsters meeting” inferring a more violent solution to my presence:

YouTube Caption:

Jeremy Segal "RebelPundit" of Breitbart.com was Tossed from Marxism Conference at Northwestern Journalist Center. Segal was a registered attendant of the event. However, after Segal had been peacefully observing breakout sessions from 10:45am to 4pm, Dennis Kosuth recognized Segal and asked him to leave because he did not share the same Marxist beliefs as those who organized the event. The event was ironically held at the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.

"Journalist Tossed from Marxism Conference at Northwestern Journalism School"
.....Watch the eyes and expressions

Oh, a douche bag with a camera. Having a hard time understanding rather simple concept of leaving.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Oh a douche bag with the first post having a hard time understanding that socialism doesn't work. Never has and never will and all I see is a bunch of arrogant kool aid drinking dummies who think they can change the world by controlling everyone else. Pretty pathetic.

If you don't like it, go be a teacher.

Glad to see the unions getting on the right (left?) bandwagon and not necessarily towards the democrats either.

reply to post by mark1167


Of course it doesn't work... or you could ask scandinavians...

good. I say let them run the country into the ground. The intellectuals are usually the first to go after the first few years of their necessary service is put to use.

Then come the years of tight belts. They never seem to end though. No communist country has a time of "prosperity", always new notches on its peoples belts that cut that much deeper into their "fat". Then Europe can do it and we can be rid of these ridiculous ideas.

It is like the measles. You just need to catch it to have a good defense from it.

The smart ones always seem to survive anyways. It's the self proclaimed idiotic intellectual class that gets eliminated.

At this point, let it be.

reply to post by xuenchen


What's your point? Marxist theory does have a salience in today's economic, political, and social environment. I might not agree with everything the man said or supported, but at least I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath. It seems many have a knee-jerk reaction to this type of thing, and really should consider the source and its relevance. You would benefit from understanding our current mentality as it pertains to the alienation of labor from Marx's economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. However, I will note that people (academics by far) will see this relevance as absolute truth and seek to promote him without considering who funded him, why they funded him, and what their plans were for the future. As with most things, people simply do not dig deep enough.

Why is socialism a dirty word in America? The basic meaning of socialism is this: equality.
People keep repeating 'it doesn't work, it doesn't work' but people with socialist ideals are not necessarily calling for strict Stalinist communism, just a more equal, fairer society. That's all.

reply to post by chinaski77


Dont you know, Americans are selective of the indoctrination they observe. . Also, and not to de-rail the thread, but are you a fan of Bukowski?

reply to post by chinaski77



too bad the people producing can never catch up to the ones enjoying the "equality". So you end up borrowing from the future on a system of "future" money you will have, and TADA! "debt" based economies you encourage all over the world.

Because well, colonies are no longer available for exploit to maintain the life style everyone grew accustomed to, and becoming an equal PRODUCER is just out of the question. Equality only goes so far for freedoms, not the distribution of responsibility. When all else fails pass it along to future generations or "savages" you can colonize out of concern for their well being.

Hello guys. Yeah Bukowski was brilliant imho.
Some of the reactions I see toward socialism and Marx, you'd think he was a terrorist. Senator Mcarthy lives on it seems.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Everything sounds good, and works in theory. However, there is not an economic or political ideology that supersedes this, yet only few that can hide the true nature of their being longer than the rest. We all love to pursue our own beliefs and debate in fashions that would heighten our idealistic dreams, yet it is the reality of human behavior that leads us to destruction. That, my friend, cannot be hidden, no matter what institution you want to get behind.

reply to post by chinaski77


Ha, ya I feel the same about Bukowski. He is one of the few reads that makes me actually laugh out loud while reading. As for McCarthy, all depends on which side of history you side with. Terorrism is always relative.

There is nothing wrong with this. Workers want worker ownership, simple as that.

If you don't see how worker ownership is the future then you're too naive to even understand.

Yes, socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Marxism is simply a political path to that goal.
Whether you support the Marxist path to socialism, or not, there is still a lot can be learned from studying Marx. He wrote what is still one of the best critiques of capitalism.

Most of the nonsense written about socialism is based on the USSR, China etc., who were communist in name only.
Those governments simply used left-wing terms to take state power. None of them had any intention of giving the means of production over to the workers.

No political ideologies are needed when workers do this...

The workers of the just-formed New Era Windows cooperative in Chicago—the same workers who sat in and forced Serious Energy to back down on a hasty shutdown of their Goose Island plant a few months ago, and famously occupied the same factory for six days in December 2008—not only are putting together a bold plan for worker ownership, they are likely to move the entire subject into national attention, thereby spurring others to follow on. Though they have a powerful start, if the past is any guide, they will need all the help they can get—financial as well as political.

A New Era for Worker Ownership?

But workers do have to first realise what is in their best interest. What is in your best interest, wage slavery, or ownership? You also have to realise socialism is not the bad guy.

Shared ownership helps diversify rather than concentrate wealth – which is what we desperately need to do to revitalise our economy. It roots the value it generates in communities, keeping assets and resources from being transferred from local communities and low-wage employees to multinational corporations and their owners.

The key to global prosperity: worker ownership

reply to post by Banananananana


all I know is:
If you produce, you feed yourself. If you don't, others feed you.

If you owe, and you pay with IOU´s, then you owe more.

Human tendencies aside, math does not lie.

We could kill each other all day for real money, and then go home to food and shelter we provided for ourselves, even if we were savages.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Math does lie; it's simply another tool to facilitate an agenda. Furthermore, the entire idea of production is detailed in Marx's philosophy. Go ahead and read it, then you will understand why capitalistic societies do not facilitate the ability of everyone to produce their own utility.

I think some of you are looking at socialism from the construct of capitalism.

One of the biggest problems with capitalism is the need for the private owner to make profit, and their business to grow. Creating the need for ever expanding markets (in a limited system) and the never ending ups and downs of the unstable capitalist economy. If the owner is not making enough profit, they remove their contribution to the economy. The whole political and capitalist economic system is set up for a minority class to exploit the majority. Property owners exploiting none-property owners who only have their labour to sell.

Capitalism is an exploitative economic system based on property ownership.

Socialism, worker ownership, is an economic system based on the needs of the community. Instead of industry being a way for property owners to get rich, it is used to produce what our communities need. No one should go without in a system that can already produce more than we need.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

Artificial scarcity

So arguing socialism can't work based on the need to make capitalist profit, shows a lack of understanding.

reply to post by ANOK


Well said Anok! I would add that our ideas of what it is to be profitable have been skewed by such hardline capitalistic fiscal outcomes, that what we see as rational, are rather irrational in their own right.

reply to post by Banananananana


yes and in both socialism and any form of communism, the production is owned by the people, supposedly. Yet never has a wealthy class NOT owned the production their workers slaved in that operated under those systems.

"everyone" why would everyone have a right to owning production? Not everyone has the same ambitions, drive, talent, and ideals. Some people think too much wealth is a sin, others, that it is not fun to actually earn it.

Math does not lie. 1+1=2. If you give me 0 to my 1 we have MY 1. You can say that we actually have 2 all you want and then take half of my 1. But really you lied, about the math, the math is clear.

communism and socialism are exploitive since the power of acquisition is never yours. In capitalism, you work, save, sacrifice and then you can buy your business, and employ others that can do the same.

The mentality under capitalism is to grow and become your own boss. In socialism it is to stay a worker for ever.


edit:
one gives the illusion of ownership. the other gives an avenue of ownership.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


And when has capitalism not produced an overbearing class of monopolistic wealth? You fail to see that I am not supporting any political or economic ideology, but rather the truth of any therein. This is exactly the point I was making in by previous post in regards to human nature. All will be corrupted because all are corrupt. Your notion of math is simplistic; the manner in which it is used, abused, and coerced however, is not.