this is your brain on therapy discourse
Removed by modEDIT: I don't mean impostor syndrome isn't real, just that PMCs abuse it to excuse their position.
Almost as if legitimate psychological concepts can be abused for political purposes
Impostor syndrome is a real thing tho, a lot of academicians are affected by it.
implying the academy in the western world in the year 2021 contributes to society
(I'm not saying a hypothetical academy couldn't)
How does the academy not contribute to society? They teach topics that are(or rather can be) niche and/or complex. They also do a fair amount of research. What else does the academy need to do?
But now we are talking about the hypothetical academy. The one we have now in the real world is busy chasing money from corporations who want ways to make their products 0.01759% more efficient. If your research doesn't align with that, you have no future in the academy.
That's true for every prole in the world. We're all working for corporations chasing money, how are academicians any different? It's not like their research is meaningless because corporation benefit from it, we benefit too.
oh yeah, name 3 inventions from the last 40 years that have been a net benefit to the proletariat
There is a "communist" (I guess) position on imposter syndrome, but this isn't it. Gegenstandpunkt/Ruthless Criticism does critiques of various social sciences and shows their various issues/why they arise; people can probably suss out why imposter syndrome would arise in humanities majors from there.
e: For a funny example, 'Marxist philosopher' Althusser admitted once that he essentially had no real knowledge of Marx or Hegel when he became a professor, and that he would often assign essays on philosophers purely so he could learn while he was grading them. He even proudly proclaimed that he "learned by hearsay" and would tell colleagues this. Don't Do That!
I never said impostor syndrome wasn't real. What do you think is gross otherwise?
Petit bourg and labor aristocracy are different classes, though.
Is it a distinction without a purpose? I assumed OP was talking about the managerial class. Maybe my wires are crossed. Are managers workers? I am confused now.
You could argue both classes are similiar because they're both relatively privileged by their position within capitalism and thus incentivized to protect the status quo. But their relationship to production is different.
Petit bourg are small business owners, independent contractors, self-produced artists, etc. People who technically own the means of production but don't exploit much of others' labor to extract profit.
Labor aristocracy is a looser term. It refers to a section of the working class (people who own no capital and sell their time and labor for a wage) that benefits from the exploitation of other sections of the working class. Some people take this to mean all workers in the imperial core, others use it to refer to supervisors and managers and the like, and some use it as a stand-in for the PMC - doctors and lawyers and such.
No worries! Im not a fan of OP's take at all, but I definitely understand being frustrated with PMC jackasses.
I have heard it used this way though. By its nature it's not common to say it publicly though
apparently I'm the only one that found no problems with this post.
I get where they are coming from but you're criticizing PMC on chapo not making a dramatic youtube PSA. Whatever I guess.
the bribed proletariat of the imperialist core, sometimes only referring to the upper segments. personally I think it has a lot in common with the PMC
I meant that people don't realize that they benefit from systems of oppression, which is why they use this excuse instead.
I don’t know who you think you’re helping with this, but it’s definitely not people with imposter syndrome.
