Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism

—   Ed - Ek   —


EDUCATION
[To be added...]
        See also below, and:
GRADE POINT INFLATION,   HIGHER EDUCATION

“Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture.” —Mao, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (Feb. 27, 1957), SW 5:405.

EDUCATION — As a Dialogue
Throughout history many wise people have recognized that education is a dialogue between between student and teacher, and the better this dialogue is, the more effective is the instruction.
        Education may also be viewed as a dialogue in another sense; as a continuing interplay between different and competing views. There is some considerable truth here too. For example, to really understand and fully accept a correct idea you must also come to deeply understand why competing or conflicting ideas are incorrect.
        However, some people have tried to extend this second view in ways which apparently support the notion that there are no truly correct views at all! For them education amounts to no more than getting a small “taste” of different views about each and every issue without ever settling on one view in each case as being correct. This approach, akin to
postmodernism, has become more and more common in the so-called “social sciences” in modern universities.

“Education is a kind of continuing dialogue, and a dialogue assumes, in the nature of the case, different points of view.” —Robert M. Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago.
        [The reactionary liberal interpretation of this—which is likely the way it was meant—is that all points of view have validity, all are worthy of more or less equal consideration, and we can never really be completely sure of the truth.
        The Marxist dialectical interpretation of this remark would be that while one side of an argument is almost invariably superior to the other—and thus basically correct—there may still be something to the other side which is also worth considering as an amendment to that basic truth.
        Is this just a difference in emphasis? No, it is a whole lot more than that! It is a fundamentally different approach, based in part on the recognition of the dialectical interpenetration of opposites. —S.H.]

EDUCATION — As a Supposed Solution to Unemployment Caused by Automation
        See also:
DE-SKILLED JOBS

“Increased robot density [i.e. the increased use of industrial robots] does not seem to raise employment among any group of workers, even those with university education.” —“Free Exchange”, the Economist magazine, April 1, 2017, p. 70.

EDUCATION — As Correcting Deficiencies

“It doesn’t require any money to have an attitude change. That’s why it is so hard. We don’t grow things, we fix them. So our idea about education is that children are defective adults—they have to be ‘fixed’ in school—whereas more enlightened people like [Jean] Piaget and Jerome Brunner think of children as something you grow. They’re all right the way they are. What we try to do is grow them in a certain direction. But there’s nothing deficient about them. And the difference between those two attitudes is huge.” —Alan Kay, a bourgeois computer scientist, Byte magazine, Sept. 1990, p. 232.
        [Of course there is some truth to that, especially with respect to younger children.
        But Kay forgets that much present “education” is mis-education. Thus even if children are born “ok”, the adults they become are corrupted by a bourgeois society, to varying degrees. Therefore in many respects people do become deficient and in dire need of “fixing”. It is not wrong to recognize that we must fix both a deficient system and a deficient humanity that is the product of this deficient system; in fact it is crucial to understand this! And we must also fix that which is deficient in ourselves—as we (or others!) come to understand that—as well as for us to help others understand and fix what is deficient in them. Our standard of deficiency? It is simply any attitude or action which goes against the real collective
interests of the working class (and thus ultimately of humanity as a whole).
        An essential point here is that fixing a deficient humanity and fixing the present horrendous capitalist society, including its ghastly “educational system”, are interpenetrating processes, neither of which can occur in the absence of the other.
        A second point (in direct contrast to Kay’s view) is that one important means of growth and development lies precisely in the correction of present deficiencies. This is true in general and certainly in human society.
        The third point to emphasize here is that—to the extent that “fixing deficiencies” is a matter of contradictions among the people—this changing of attitudes and mutual re-education must be entirely voluntary and democratic. —S.H.]

EDUCATION — Positive and Negative

“A revolutionary party and the revolutionary people must repeatedly undergo both positive and negative education. Through comparison and contrast, they become tempered and mature, thus making sure of victory. To belittle the role of the negative teacher is not to be a thorough dialectical materialist.” —Mao, Nov. 6, 1967; SW 9:420.

EFFECTIVE DEMAND
Demand for goods and services along with the ability to pay for those goods and services. A destitute starving person may strongly desire food, and may even demand it from passers-by or from the government; but this is not effective demand because the person has no money to actually go out and buy food. This term is especially common in Keynesian economics, but is also used by other economists including sometimes by Marxists.

EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS   [Bourgeois Economics]
1. The absurd bourgeois theory that capitalist “free markets” are maximally efficient from an economic point of view (i.e., with respect to the appropriate allocation of goods and services) since those who buy and sell are totally rational agents, and since the market incorporates all the relevent information about both supply & demand and relevant risks which goes to determine the appropriate prices.
2. The application of this theory to the stock market and similar sorts of gambling, where it claims that the prices of shares on the stock market are the best available estimates of their real value in light of their real levels of risk. Obviously this theory (at least in its strong form) discounts the possibility of widespread inside information; the possibility that some gamblers may have a better general sense than others of the real general direction of the economy at a given moment; and so forth.

“By the 1970s the Efficient Market Hypothesis had become conventional wisdom, preached from academic pulpits at the University of Chicago and elsewhere.
         “However, not everyone bought into it. A popular joke among economists neatly captures its logical absurdities. An economist and his friend are walking down the street when they come across a hundred-dollar bill lying on the ground. The friend bends down to pick it up, but the economist stops him, saying, ‘Don’t bother—if it were a real hundred-dollar bill, someone would have already picked it up.’” —Nouriel Roubini & Stephen Mihm, Crisis Economics (2010), p. 41.

“I’d be a bum on the street with a tin cup if markets were always efficient.” —Warren Buffett, billionaire stock market investor. Quoted in the Wikipedia entry on the “Efficient Market Hypothesis”.

EGO   [In Freudian Theory]
See:
FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS

EGOISM
        1. The view that an individual’s self-interest is (or should be) the only determiner of one’s actions.
        2. The ethical theory that morality is (or should be) based on individual self-interest.
Ayn Rand was one of the foremost proponents of this quintessentially bourgeois theory of ethics.

EGYPT
See also:
SUEZ CANAL

“EIGHT IMMORTALS”
The “Eight Immortals” (or in a more literal translation, the “Eight Great Eminent Officials”) were the leading Chinese capitalist-roaders, or revisionists, who from 1977 into the 1990s completed the transformation of China from a socialist country back into a capitalist country. (The phrase “Eight Immortals” is actually an allusion to a group of Taoist deities known by that name, and is sometimes viewed as being sarcastic in this context.) These despicable individuals are all now dead, and good riddance to the lot of them! The members of what to us Maoist revolutionaries were a very notorious group of traitors to the proletariat were:
       
Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997), the ring-leader, or “Paramount Leader”, Politburo Standing Committee member 1977–1987, Political Consultative Conference chairman 1978–1983, Central Military Commission Chairman 1980–1989, and Central Advisory Commission chairman 1982–1987;
        Chen Yun (1905–1995), Politburo Standing Committee member 1977–1987, Central Advisory Committee Chairman 1987–1992, Central Discipline Inspection Commission first secretary 1979-1987;
        Li Xiannian (1909–1992), Politburo Standing Committee member 1977–1987, President of the PRC 1983–1988, then Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference chairman;
        Peng Zhen (1902–1997), National People’s Congress Chairman 1983–1988;
        Yang Shangkun (1907–1998), President of the PRC 1988–1993;
        Bo Yibo (1908–2007), Central Advisory Committee Vice Chairman;
        Wang Zhen (1908–1993), Central Advisory Committee Vice Chairman;
        Song Renqiong (1909–2005), CAC Vice Chairman.
        It is said that under Deng Xiaoping’s “paramount leadership” all important Chinese government and CPP decisions were made in Deng’s own home by this group of eight leading revisionists.
        In today’s capitalist-imperialist regime in China those known as privileged and powerful “Princelings” are primarily descendants of these “Eight Immortals”. In the fashion of any feudal/bourgeois nobility, they are presumed to outrank other individuals within the now bourgeois “Communist” Party of China and have amassed huge family fortunes (as has been reported in detail by news sources such as the New York Times and Bloomberg). The families of the “Eight Immortals” are now the core of the capitalist class dictatorship in China.

EIGHT-LEGGED ESSAY
A highly stylized and formal type of writing which was demanded of officials during the Ming and Qing dynasties in China. Mastery of this ultra-formal style of writing was required in order to pass government exams and become a government official. Even in the 19th century reformers were condemning this sylized writing based on knowledge of the Confucian classics rather than the selection of officials on the basis of their knowledge of science, technology and modern languages. Although the “Eight-Legged Essay” itself pretty much died out with abolition of traditional civil service exams in 1905 (even before the fall of the Qing dynasty), Mao and others have criticized other stilted and poor writing styles of comrades by comparing them to Eight-Legged Essays.
        For further information see the entry:
“STEREOTYPED PARTY WRITING”

EIGHTY-TWENTY LAW
See:
PARETO’S LAW

EINSTEIN, Albert   (1879-1955)
A very important German-Swiss-American mathematical physicist who was probably the most famous scientist of the 20th century. In physics he is usually ranked in importance with
Galileo and Newton, and is best known for his creation of the theories of special and general relativity. With his 1905 theory explaining Brownian Motion he finally established the correctness of the theory of atoms and molecules beyond any further rational doubt. He was also one of the early pioneers of quantum mechanics. Einstein strongly resisted the growing trend by bourgeois scientists to interpret quantum mechanics in a philosophical idealist manner, and was perhaps the most materialist in his views of all the major physicists of his era.
        Politically Einstein was a socialist and it is said that he was an admirer of Lenin. He did not, however, play an active role in the world revolutionary movement.

EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
A famous
thought experiment in physics originated in 1935 in an article in Physical Review by Albert Einstein and two co-authors, entitled “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle quantum states of particles (e.g., their precise momentum or position) are supposed to be indeterminate until they are measured. At the same time, it is postulated in quantum mechanics that two particles can be “entangled” so that when one is measured the status of the other in the relevant respect will also be determined. But suppose, the EPR thought experiment proposes, we separate the two entangled particles so that in measuring the property of one there is no time for communication from that particle to its complement to occur even at the speed of light! In that case, the only way to make sense of the situation is to assume that both particles did in fact have determinate complementary states before the measurement, even though we had no way of knowing what those states were before the measurement. In short, the initial premise of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, of indeterminate states until measurement must be wrong.
        This conclusion, though pretty straight forward, has caused endless consternation among idealist physicists like Heisenberg, and a huge literature has developed to try to show that the EPR thought experiment does not prove what it appears to prove. However, it seems pretty clear that the “indeterminateness” of particles is not really an aspect of reality itself, but only a limitation on what can be known according to the mathematics of quantum mechanics before measurements are made.

EISENACHERS
Members of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany, founded in 1869 at the Eisenach Congress.

“The leaders of the Eisenachers were August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebnecht, who were under the ideological influence of Marx and Engels. The Eisenach programme stated that the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany consdered itself ‘a section of the International Working Men’s Association and shared its aspirations’. Thanks to the regular advice and criticism of Marx and Engels, the Eisenachers pursued a more consistent revolutionary policy than did Lassalle’s General Association of German Workers; in particular, on the question of German reunification, they followed ‘the democratic and proletarian road, struggling against the slightest concession to Prussianism, Bismarckism, and nationalism’ [Lenin, “August Bebel”, LCW 19:298]. Under the influence of the growing working-class movement and of increased government repressions, the two parties united at the Gotha Congress in 1875 to form the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, of which the Lassalleans formed the opportunist wing.” —Note 140, LCW 5:559.




Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index

MASSLINE.ORG Home Page