Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

[Kasz216]

Mr Khan said:

Kasz216 said:

 

Except you know... your rant is more accurate then you'd expect.

Marx for example is actually considered one of the big three founders of sociology.

You can't actually get through a social sciences degree without being taught a lot of socialism... as there are various theories and branches that rely pretty heavily on it.  Sociology is currently basically a case of "The Liberals vs the Socialists." (Liberals in the classic sense... and socialists in the sense of the left wing/statist/democrats.)

It's less about "So and so should be treated the same" or anything like that, but more the base and the ways they went about it.  However to do so you need to read there works directly.  Meaning direct exposure to said ideas... which in general is predudicial even with a teacher who isn't particularly left leaning with no counterweight arguement.

Entire disciplines specifically teach left leaning theory automatically... and most teachers are more likely to believe in said left wing ideas... seems pretty obvious.  If you actually think political affiliation doesn't effect how things are taught...

Why don't we look at another field where nuetrality is supposed to be the rule.  News reporting.  In the US I can name on one hand the number of reporters who's political affiliation i can't tell just by watching them.  Well actually... I can't name one.  Even Anderson Cooper you can tell though he's best at it.

The only field you could argue specifically teaches right wing theory is economics... and even then not all economics do so.

Marx founded sociology as much as Freud founded psychology. The two of them laid out theories that had some good core ideas, but were not verifiable (though part of what failed Marx's predictions was his economic prediction that wages would remain stagnant even as industrial economies grew so that only the capitalists would see the benefit of growth), but their understandings were too simplistic for modernity

The key is the difference between disciplines and schools of thought. A discipline is nominally tone neutral, but a school of thought within that discipline is where the bias comes in. (e.g. you have "Economics" and then you have "Keynesian Economics" or "Neoliberal economics."), and schools of thought wax and wane in popularity, but no discipline is itself inherently set one way or another

The difference between Marx and Frued is that there is nothing that really contradicts Marx.

Unlike Pscyhology where Fruedianism is generaly looked down opon for it's unscientific methods vs the other 3 main schools. (Which ironically all 4 scientifically have the same success therapy rate wise.)

There is nothing much in sociology that actually contradicts Marx works... just some branches downplay the need for violent class revolution... which basically EVERYONE does now a days anyway... and which Marx himself was doing before he died.

Well outside of Eastern Marxist Sociology.... if that's even still around.

Marx, Durkheim and Weber were combined together.  Unlike Psychology where the big forms are all completely distinct and opposing forces.

The Marxist foundation is still in use, while the Fruedian one has long been abandoned by everyone... but fruedians.  Which are few and far between, and the general contempt shown towards Freudians is generally apparent and applied in the classroom. 

It's also very vocally apparent in methods courses.