Why are there so many socialists and communists in prestigious colleges and universities?

That was the sound of any semblance of credibility leaving the building.

So we have a plan for suicide posts.. What about alzheimer’s? Any number we can post?

Quantify. What is “so many”? I have an answer to your question, but before I jump in with it, I’m trying to get my hands around what “so many” means and and what point you would not be so concerned.

If you can’t quantify, then I will read your question as a reactionary rave that has no basis in fact.

Is the question deliberately deceitful or do you actually believe this?

As per usual, I will say if you believe this, prove it. Show your work.

As per usual I expect you won’t. Because you can’t.

Please specifically quantify “Communists” in this context. Are these “so many” people members of the communist party and how do you know?

But, just off the top of my head, I would posit that there are a large number of well-educated critical thinkers at so many of these fine universities. Is that how you categorize “communists” and “socialists”, then? Erudite critical thinkers with open minds who are willing to explore new ideas, pursue scientific breakthroughs, and varying social perspectives?

If the question is, as you state, devoid of political context, you need to clarify your terms, as “communist” and “socialist” are most often, these days, used as political definers. By you.

The same reason the republican party is composed of 99% nazis, the rest are worse.

Because when you’re young and idealistic, you think these ideas can work great for everyone, then you grow up and usually move on after learning details and history. College is the best place to expand your mind and find out more about what interests you. But based on Cuba, N Korea, Russia and China- it depends on your pov. Some see successes, some see failures.

“a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

The mole in the Trump campaign had taught at both Oxford and Cambridge and was a registered communist.

There are many outspoken College profs in the Ivy League schools who are Communist.

If true then it is to benefit from the organization (the system) and the to help those who believe in law and order. That the cream of the crop rise to the top of the barrel.

@yellowdog what do you get from typing vague accusations? You don’t name names. You don’t cite any figures or documentation.

Is it just for the attention?

It’s a good question, and one of the more troublesome quandries that has been very effectively dealt with by the nation’s elite who want their children in elite universities, but not necessarily exposed to “great thinking.”

I have to hand it to you. You’re beginning to ask the RIGHT questions. And I am very interested in why you think so many brilliant leftists just happen to be concentrated in the best universities. And when you’re mulling this over, do yourself a favor and try to drop the word communist from the discussion. Try Marxist-it’s more accurate (and honest).

So, Scandinavia, really?

Social Democrats, such as Scandinavians were historically the strongest opponents of Communists such as Marxists.

In fact US Central Intelligence Agency financed Finnish Social Democratic Party because the socialists were eating away from the supporters of communism.

But you are right—the correct term should be Marxist and not Communist. And there are a lot of them in Universities.

You really should understand that most of the systems calling themselves communist are in fact perversions of what Marx had in mimd.

Stanley: Was I wrong when I said you were right,

—or was I wrong when I said US Central Intelligence Agency financed Finnish Social Democratic Party because the socialists were eating away from the supporters of communism.?

I don’t know what you mean by socialists and communists, but I suspect it’s not what I (or the people you’re talking about) would mean if they used those terms. I don’t identify as a socialist or as a communist, but I sure have been called it a lot in anger by people on Internet forums who seem to think they’re the same sort of derogatory label as Nazi, when all I did was talk about some alternatives to hard-core conventional US capitalism.

Given that, I’m going to assume that whatever you are referring to, given the locations you mention (universities, particularly prestigious universities, which would describe most of the places I studied), that probably it has something to do with things they learned there, exposure to a wide variety of well-written and well-thought-out intelligent ideas and discussion of those ideas, and their own curiosity, open-mindedness, intelligence, capacity for critical and creative thought, and their compassion and understanding of many things.

That “wrong again” popped up in the wrong place. your fingers are faster than mine.

Well, you are right—Marxist is a better term, and I’m sure there are many varieties in universities. I do not mean it as a derogatory label—there are just a lot of them in academia,

@Yellowdog Maybe it is an attempt to avoid blue collar work? To join the elite?

@Yellowdog why do you think that is? And do you believe such a situation is a threat to capitalism?

I would doubt if figures are kept on socialists in universities any more than on gays in universities.

I’m sure the people are bright and maybe have good ideas if not idealized.

But I know that when I was in seminary, churches put the radicals in teaching positions because they didn’t get along with the more conservative people in the churches or in the mission field—sometimes the guise was to expose students to new, challenging, and unfamiliar ideas.

You know why Marx should be required reading for ALL of us, yet is barely mentioned in high school or college curricula?

Easiest way to train a new generation

We must be living in the 50s.

There are at least 20 different types of Communist. Can you be more specific??

The eleventh kind.

Is it that leftist academics can’t get real jobs?

Any critical thinker (not a Trump sheeple) equals a socialist professor.

We must be living in the 50s.

There’s a Roy Cohn protege in the White House.

I thought there’d be some of you that respected Marxism.

Its NOT an ugly word (I said Communism, but Marxism is a better description).
It is NOT a perception from an opposition party.

Hell, there are Marxist ‘liberation theology’ Christians in most mainline Christian denominations.
Some of this brand of politics are indeed mindless and militant radicals.
Others are smooth and intelligent intellectuals.
The promise is Utopia but the usual result is more like Venezuela.

The only judgement I am making about them is they are usually idealists with little real-world experience—its all academic. No work in the trenches, such as Missionaries or the Peace Corps might have.

Scandinavia’s form of Socialism is more Capitalist than Marxist.
There is a “Bernie Sanders” form of Socialism/Globalism that is emerging in California.

Get over it. Marxism is stronger than Socialism but its NOT an insult or an affront to you
THis is a GENERAL question and if you can’t be civil, like StanleyB Manly was, I will stop following. I am giving you all a chance to ANSWER

^Are you maybe confusing Socialism, communism, and liberalism?

There are certainly a majority of liberals in our nation’s universities. Many liberals have values, and ideas that have socialist elements, but I have never heard one call themselves a socialist. Usually, I hear this thrown around by conservative media.
As far as communists, I can honestly say that in all my political debates, and plenty of that with liberals, I have never once heard one person claim to be a communist. Or push communist propaganda, or agenda.

Every time I bring up universal health care, I do hear it from conservatives, calling it communism.

When I say we should distribute wealth to the poor, through taxes on the wealthy. I get the socialism word…

The big reason we should all read Marx is because he explains capitalism, and his explanation is so thorough and brilliant that it remains unexcelled to the present day. If you want to understand why stark poverty can persist in a nation with the wealth of the United States, Marx will tell you.

@MrGrimm888 That is indeed a working definition of socialism, but you will notice that the rich will ALWAYS claim to be overtaxed, yet somehow manage to grow richer under the supposed crippling taxation. This contradiction for some reason is never pointed out. The reality is that the rich increasingly shrug off ever more of the load, and in effect now loan money to the government, money they SHOULD pay in taxes is loaned to the government which the government doles out to the non rich, and the rich profit from the interest. So the rich in effect turn a profit on the poor and leave us holding the debt.

How do you explain this to conservatives? My inference, is that they think poor, and underemployed, are simply lazy, and trying to live in the lap of luxury without ever working…

That’s the line that’s always been spun to justify the status quo. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell the model of the poor as shiftless freeloaders while an ever greater percentage of the population rubs up against hard times. We are supposedly in a boom economy, yet contrary to the standard expectations of good times, there is a widespread and very palpable sensation of “struggling to get by” as the norm.

While ever more of us find our standard of living on the downslope as the stock market soars, the traditional “villains” loudly berated by the haves no longer pass the smell test. This is particularly true when it comes to blaming working people for their plight as the percentage of the workforce that is the “working poor” balloons.

Maybe it’s these leftward leaning individuals that made the colleges prestigious.

Anyone notice how there are no good right wing comedians?

there are a few, but they’re exceedingly rare. Dennis Miller & Jon Lovitz are the only 2 I can think of.

I loved Dennis Miller when he was young; but, I haven’t heard of anything he’s done in years so don’t know whether or not he’s still funny. Jon never really tripped my trigger but did manage to nail one every now & then. Once again, I couldn’t tell you anything that he’s done in years.

Marx is thought to be one of the founders of Sociology which is frankly more philosophy than Social “Science.” You will find a lot of people who are well read on Marx in the liberal arts side of most universities. What he says is dynamite on paper and there are some real valid points being made that deserve study by everyone. Application though… It’s interesting study and it draws people right in. I studied sociology quite a bit in school for that reason. With such audience it leads to the fact that there are far more sociologists and sociology majors than there is a need and publishing papers is a way to stay relevant. “Publish or perish” is a real thing and some of the material that gets published is quite good but a lot of it makes me cringe. It makes for a very negative reputation. You don’t see such a marxist, liberal political atmosphere in hard sciences, engineering, math, business or trade/career related departments that churn out working professionals. For the most part in prestigious universities you will find that while the reputation exists for it to be a nest of pinko commies the reality is it’s rather well mixed but divided along departmental lines. Many conservatives were once young liberal progressives but became conservative as they grew older. Young people are generally going to favor being liberal and you will find a lot of them in college. Kids who start conservative will be more likely to just enter the workforce so college is going to appear more liberal on the surface.

Perhaps august educational institutions, such as Memphis Theological Seminary, Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge, attract the brightest minds.

I wouldn’t put Memphis Theological Seminary in that category with Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Cambridge. But you probably do,

Probably to counter the propaganda of the fascists and Nazis in the government. And on “talk radio”.

It doesn’t surprise me that concentrations of people paid to think for a living might arrive at the conclusion that socialism is a more equitable solution for the distribution of wealth, and thus the “enlightened” remedy to the plagues of our society.

@stanleybmanly I would not say those people are earning their living then. It takes so little thought to dismiss the classical definition and application of socialism as it’s an ideal that cannot be met, is actually unfair and is little more than sexed up communism. It requires incorrectly attributing the means of production to “stuff” and not people. Seizing those means amounts to slavery, literally. A Laissez faire economy is as bad or even worse as it eventually leads to unsustainable inequality, is unfairly rewarding to those holding the purse strings and has no bound to the accumulation of power and wealth. It’s filthy, unforgiving and immoral. Finding that hybrid system where free markets stay free and equitable through strict and impartial regulation as was initially intended here in the states is where I think we should be. I think it’s almost an unrealistic goal as well but we can get damn close to it.