Marxism is just another codified way to Aristocracy= out of world/human things

Where the Marxists gather? : media(priests), school(priests), state(controlling others)

Nothing of that stuff has to work against nature, physics.

Feel free. I’m only occasionally guilty of turning out good prose, so when it happens…?

I don’t know that it is necessarily Marxism that’s the cause of the issue. I think that Marxism is actually a symptom of a deeper-rooted problem, one that is actually behind the over-academization of life. I don’t know what the actual cause is, but I have been observing and dealing with the effects all my damn life.

Basically, the root of it all lies in the direction of humanity’s inability to effectively deal with things at an organizational level above that of the hunter-gatherer band, football team, or infantry squad. We manage to do just well enough to get something like NASA off the ground, but when the initial impetus and mission is over…? Institutions inevitably decay into dysfunction. Happened to the Romans, happened to the East India Company, and has happened to every single agency of the US government.

I think the solution is quite simple: Quit erecting these massive bureaucratic edifices that outlive their purpose and effectiveness, and start doing things in a more decentralized and ad-hoc basis.

Napoleon did military operational art and strategy the way I think we ought to approach problems that we’ve tended to bureaucratize. For Napoleon, the enabling trick was to have decentralized control and converge his subordinate commands on the target, overwhelming them with force in detail, then scattering his elements to forage until they were needed again. Instead of setting up these massive structures that can’t adapt to change, we need to set up small, polyvalent entities that can be repurposed and directed dynamically at problems as they arise. Instead of having a situation where you form up a massive structure to deal with a problem, decentralize and let the lowest level that encounters the problem take ownership and deal with it. The paradigm that we use to approach these things needs to change, so that instead of having your problems addressed by the structure and process of your organization, the problems are dealt with by the lowest level possible and in such a way that the guys solving the problem take ownership upon encountering it.

Too often, when you go looking at the question of “What the hell went wrong, that this happened…?”, what you will find is that there was someone down at the rubber-meeting-road point that saw the problem coming, reported it, and then was completely ignored by some set of idiots higher in the food chain of the organization. Instead of the guys at the low level being empowered and responsible, they were treated as though they were safely ignorable. These are the reasons why the academic/bureaucratic/socialistic approach to life simply doesn’t work–The guy who has his finger directly on the pulse needs to be the guy with the power to solve the problem, or he needs to be able to get the actual and effective attention of those who can.

The way we do things…? The guy whose finger is on the pulse is usually ignored, until the patient dies.

Can I quote this?

Many “educated” people flatly refuse to learn from practical experience and reality, even when surrounded by the ruins created by the application of their entirely theoretic knowledge. It’s amazing to observe, when it happens.

The most invidious thing about it all is this: Many “educated” people flatly refuse to learn from practical experience and reality, even when surrounded by the ruins created by the application of their entirely theoretic knowledge. It’s amazing to observe, when it happens.

The disconnection between the real world and the academy have severe repercussions, and we ought to be asking a bunch of questions about these issues, and figuring out how to fix them.

All the tutors at the college found this, so it wasn’t just me.

After leaving, I gradually began to run into students who had eventually found jobs and my question to them always was: how much did you learn at college and how much have you learned in the world of work? The answer was always that work — being out there and doing things — was a far better educator.

Perhaps they might one day go back to the classroom and see what they had been missing now they began to understand what life and work were and how people behaved.

Learn enough experience, then apply theory to experience.

Yes.

And Yes. Again.

I have always thought Greek geometry to be more an exercise in logical thought and using a rational thinking process.

Over 95% of engineering faculty are not registered to practice, and many cannot pass the licensing examination. (I did.) Moreover, virtually none of them do any consulting (I did), and they have little or no contact with the engineering profession. They also are not interested in teaching the topics the profession wants, and if it were not for the fact that practicing engineers control the accreditation process and specify minimum curriculum requirements, the undergraduate degree would not be helpful to new engineers.

Many modern engineering faculty do not like to be called engineers, whom they regard as bumpkins, and prefer the title “research scientist.”

Fortunately, engineers are immersed in the real world, and the pressure of succeeding in real world problems keeps the engineering faculty tethered.