Education in a Communist society [Archive]

View Full Version : Education in a Communist society

Rusty Shackleford

25th June 2009, 03:53

ok i tried to find a thread on it, but i couldnt.

this question stems from a debate me and my friend were having about education in a communist society.

his argument was that since there would be no set board members or standardized system, that education would fall apart and be utter crap.
he also said something about how socialism couldnt support the infrastructure necessary to ensure education.:confused:
*that makes no sense to me since it would seem to be priority to ensure education and a decent infrastructire.

i tried to use the anarchist communes of spain during the civil war as an example but i couldnt find out about the quality of education.

So, the questions are.

How would education be handled in a communist society?

would a school board be recallable as would anything else?

would teachers assume control and throw out the need of a principal(like workers assuming the control of capital and getting rid of the need of a boss)?

and how would it be managed on a grand scale(centralized to some degree)? like a region the size of Ireland? *what i mean is would education be wholly left to the commune/community and not federated and somewhat standardized over a large area?

and also, how would Universities come into play?

Thank you for reading and any following responses

mel

25th June 2009, 04:23

It's pretty much impossible to tell exactly how things like this would play out in a post-revolutionary society. While we re-work the system, we may need to make extensive use of pre-revolution curriculums and previous career teachers in order to keep the schools running. (This shouldn't be much of an issue for anything but the social studies and economics, which most adults in a post-revolutionary society should have a solid understanding of, making redesigning the curriculums for these subjects relatively simple)

Centralization would be pretty unnecessary, because a high level of education of the entire population would have to have been reached for the revolution to have happened to begin with, but as the system continues to evolve it may become necessary to coordinate and standardize curriculums to a certain degree, for this, there should probably be special committees called after each academic year with a temporary education representative sent from each community to ensure that no communities have completely awful education systems.

ckaihatsu

25th June 2009, 09:02

his argument was that since there would be no set board members or standardized system, that education would fall apart and be utter crap.

The most important thing to keep in mind when conceiving of a possible future communistic society is that it's * all about order *. Usually leftists cringe at the idea of "order" -- as the term evokes the political slogan of "law and order" -- and *that* slogan refers to the political practices of the right-wing -- racism, imprisonment, old-boy networks, bullshit criminal charges, police with the license to kill, etc.

But in the communistic sense we can realistically talk about a type of orderliness that would be humane and fully consistent over the civilization as a whole. *This* kind of order could *only* come as a result of the * collective rule * of the proletariat over the entire machinery of society. Eliminating private groupings that currently enjoy the right to control certain armaments and factories means that there would no longer be * elitist rule * over the major implements of physical force in society.

Instead, everyone would not only have permanent work status (at their discretion), but they would also be empowered as co-workers and *co-managers* over the entire societal infrastructure that humanity has produced. This means that, by definition, everyone would have an *equal stake* in the implements used by society -- this is much more political empowerment than what we see now with the global bourgeois system of elitist careerism and political groupthink for the sake of *private property* -- in other words, *inanimate* machinery, buildings, resources, and land have actual *human-being managers* presiding in the political arena for them, in order to do battle for this-or-that private portion of ownership over another this-or-that private portion of ownership, even to the point of military conflicts and world wars -- incredible and saddening, yet true.

So, whether over the authority to use physical force, or over educational curriculum, there would at least be a *flattened*, *relatively level* forum of direct-participatory politics -- *not* representational, unless requested -- over every aspect of the functioning of society. (I like to think that RevLeft provides a good illustration of the potential of the Internet for discussing political matters and potentially enacting working-class policy.)

The *only* thing preventing an educational system from "falling apart" would be the upkeep of the population in general and the freeing up of people's time so that they could engage themselves in collectively running educational programs and the like. We could mull over how much formalism would really be needed, in terms of "school boards" or "a standardized system" -- I think it's safe to say that, regardless of the type of society being discussed, there tends to be a mainstream, or *prevailing* (usually *dominant*) culture that colors *all* of society's common institutions, like schools. So, *regardless* of the formalism used, we would most likely see a practice of learning that very closely mirrors the overall ethos (if you will) of the society *as a whole*.

he also said something about how socialism couldnt support the infrastructure necessary to ensure education.:confused:
*that makes no sense to me since it would seem to be priority to ensure education and a decent infrastructire.

In traditional, village-type communities the education of the young will *necessarily* impart the culture and dominant ideas of the village, including belief systems, notions of law, technological use, and so on. The same thing goes for *any* societal-wide system of learning since its most organic function is to preserve and perpetuate the societal culture through to future generations of the population.

Currently the public education system is based under the nation-state system of societal administration, and so it follows that it reflects *that* mode of authority and nationalistic culture. (This is not necessarily or automatically a *bad* thing, as much about public education is still relatively progressive and better than what came before -- its major shortcoming, however, is that it upholds the capitalistic / nationalistic / patriotic official culture, and *that* has been a hindrance to the *further* progression of society by way of its working class.)

We can safely say that a collectively run, communistic society would use educational practices that reflect and perpetuate *its* societal makeup of *collective* administration and participation. I don't mean this in the sense that it would have to punish or repress individuality -- if anything, people would have *more* time and resources for themselves, in part, by liberating them(selves) from the rule of capitalistic private property -- however, since collective administration would be the *foundation* of a communistic society, *that* ethos would be the prevailing one.

25th June 2009, 09:13

Communism will know huge indoctrination camps, brainwashing facilities and gulags for those that don't want to learn to True Way.

ckaihatsu

25th June 2009, 09:56

I'd like to also quickly address the topic of standardization in education, partly because I forgot to include my .signature in the previous post -- !

Standardization, as in *standardized tests*, is always a controversial issue in public education. The practice is to be expected partly since it implicitly reflects the technocratic-standardization-oriented culture in which we live -- again, it's not *automatically* a *bad* thing, but it just may not be as *progressive* or *future-oriented* as we'd like it to be, especially from a revolutionary perspective.

In strictly *political* terms we can ask how *empowering* the practice of standardization (of student learning) is -- does it *empower* and *enable* students to be better equipped to take a share of the reins of power so as to effect a *greater empowering and enlightening* of the population as a whole? By this yardstick the answer is definitely no -- most students will *not* be empowered, even with a public education, to ultimately effect societally / politically trailblazing directions in policy -- that is, revolutionary ones. We know this from observing many generations of well-educated students from decades and centuries past who, upon taking up their respective positions of responsibility in society, have *not* changed the infrastructure and practices of the public and private spheres in any fundamental way. The foundational institutions of private property ownership and bourgeois / imperialist policy have remained intact, even at the cost of many genocides, slavery, oppression, and exploitation that continues up into the present day.

Does this mean that standardization *itself* is a bad thing and should be discontinued? The answer is no, not necessarily -- it's just a particular type of formalistic practice, with a vast literature that documents its pros and cons. But from the broader perspective of *political effect* we can see that the practice of standardization tends to rate student performance within the context of *what came before* rather than being a catalyst for the exercise of self-determining, or *co-determining* control over the creation of the *future* society.

In other words, I will decisively say that the use of standardization promotes standardization. Inasmuch as this is a good thing, it's a good thing -- but that leaves much *unaddressed*, like how to enable students for the future practice of *overthrowing* established, entrenched power structures that happen to oppress and exploit people endlessly, and to replace them with *better* societal practices.

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

Old Man Diogenes

25th June 2009, 10:27

Communism will know huge indoctrination camps, brainwashing facilities and gulags for those that don't want to learn to True Way.

Thats Stalinism.

Rusty Shackleford

25th June 2009, 11:32

Thats Stalinism.

i believe it was also intended as a joke.

anyways. thank you comrades for replying. i look forward to any other elaborations on previous responses or just plain new answers.

im off to bed. ill re-read these and see if i have any more questions.

25th June 2009, 19:24

First of all, to tell you this and this will happen and be 100% sure is just not possible!We may have a view of it, but when it comes to practice its almost sure that there going to be some differentials.This applies to almost anything to be honest when it comes to such "nature" of questions on what and how some things will happen.

Now, school..I can say that it wouldnt be something you are forced to take, but up until some age, all will take it.I would say no one would leave school early but that would be just a thought.Teachers arent bosses, dont control the class, dont "owe" the students.The door will be open, those who want to sit and watch will, those who dont, simply will get out.Teachers and students are equal, just teachers have some advanced knowledge and try to pass it over and to those who are willed to learn.Forget the today system, with danger of staying in the same class, failing at exams etc.Exams and quiz's if exist would be just to test the students "powers" if they wish to.No grades no nothing.Those wish to continue will simply do, in the subjects they wish to.Of course those schools wont be schools just to make mathematicians, philosophers, doctors etc.Those who may not find interesting this thing, may take the sports subjects, the building subjects, the mechanic etc etc.Any subject to help people decide their future job or jobs as they wish.

Then university will be exact the same thing, but as people get more mature, will be able to decide start give more attention to a particular subject they like, and take the university level to expand their knowledges etc, or decide to skip University and join the community.

Schools ben organized in a huge area like Ireland is impossible, they will be taken under each community, who will have the "responsible" for them, and take care of it.By that, you are holding what your people learn and do in your hands, and those you know than someone else who is someone you have never seen in your life.And organize it within friends and neighbours will have better results.
Remember, the more schools you have the better, it gives students more chances, it helps them choose a near one, with their friends etc.Its always going to be a matter of choice, the more the better.So having one school and throw million students there, it sound to me more a "prison" than a school.

Fuserg9:star:

mel

25th June 2009, 19:31

25th June 2009, 19:41

You say that school will not be mandatory, and I understand the reasoning behind that...however a younger person (I'm talking between the ages of 5 and perhaps 14) does not have the capability to give informed consent to understand the risks to not obtaining an education. It seems to me that at least for younger people who are not yet at least teenaged, the decision of whether or not they are schooled should be made by their guardians (either the community or parents, depending) not by the children.

As i have said, "I can say that it wouldnt be something you are forced to take, but up until some age, all will take it." and i had exact that thing on my mind that someone would say it.

We need to understand a huge difference though.Small kids love to go to school in the start, especially kindergarten, thats the usually case around here at least, i dont know what happens all over the world, because their parents convince them, that its good and they will have a good time, which is indeed true.Kindergarten times, with kids, you play etc why not like it?Then it comes to school.We should realize that as all the other things school will change too.Jobs seem like slavery nowadays, in communism its an enjoy of giving and contributing and spending your time with something you enjoy.A same analogie comes to school too.Kids at that age, will be convinced by their parents, and if they wont by their parents, they will by their other friends that they will all go to school, to take it.And when they are in school and do what they enjoy, are with their friends etc, i dont think they will say, no i want to be home sitting on my own!This sounds ubnormal to happen.Of course there are probably going to be kids which their character is more "closed" to themselves, those might need some special treatment and care.

By forcing and beating your child to go to school you are achieiving nothing, than make him/her more stubborn and dont listen to you.And what would be the point to force him/her to go sit on the chair, and sleeping on the desk, or leaving the class?Again result 0!So is better take them with care, tell them ok, leave them loose a week from the school, they will get that bored that one day they will wake up and go to school on their own.

So yes, im against the force to go to school as it gives no results.

Fuserg9:star:

mel

25th June 2009, 19:51

I think schools can be better designed to meet the needs of students, more teachers found and less emphasis on strict curriculums which only serve to cause problems for children who do not think in the way that is deemed more socially valuable. I think it's important to foster growth, development and a desire for education, and I think that once a few generations of our society have come through and the system refined that most people would decide to go to school willingly and happily because learning will be a socially valuable activity.

However, we have to worry about this period in transition where the schools may not have been perfectly reorganized yet, and education could suffer if suddenly schoolchildren just stopped attending because they didn't feel like it and spent all of their days going out with their friends and playing. These kids will only get bored if they don't have anything better to occupy their time, and a lot of kids will decide that playing catch or running around with their friends is better. The only reason it stinks so bad staying home from school now is because all of your friends are there. If they weren't either, there would be no reason a kid might want to go to school unless they've grown up long enough in a society which highly values education.

Absolut

25th June 2009, 20:42

As i have said, "I can say that it wouldnt be something you are forced to take, but up until some age, all will take it." and i had exact that thing on my mind that someone would say it.

How is that not forcing someone to do it?

Either way, I think that at least in a transitional period between capitalism and communism, where the school system is undergoing the reforms necessary to have a functioning school in a free society, elementary school should be mandatory. I dont think that, generally speaking, people that has not yet reached their teens, are capable of making descisions affecting their whole future. Education is important enough to warrant a mandatory presence. At the same time, we should of course try to make school as free as possible and as enjoyable as possible for the pupils, as well as the teachers. I can imagine the curriculum being formed through a discussion and concensus between the students and the teachers, and perhaps the parents, if the pupils are too young or incapable of making these descisions. As much as possible of the education system would be based on consensus and the students abilities to choose their own courses and so on.

However, I think that some subjects should be mandatory. For example I think that a basic education in social studies, languages and/or biology should be mandatory, regardless of the direction the student wants to take, so that the students gain the basic skills of understanding society and ourselves.

25th June 2009, 21:14

How is that not forcing someone to do it?

Where do you see the "force"?Im saying that they will choose to attend school.

I think schools can be better designed to meet the needs of students, more teachers found and less emphasis on strict curriculums which only serve to cause problems for children who do not think in the way that is deemed more socially valuable. I think it's important to foster growth, development and a desire for education, and I think that once a few generations of our society have come through and the system refined that most people would decide to go to school willingly and happily because learning will be a socially valuable activity.

Agreed

However, we have to worry about this period in transition where the schools may not have been perfectly reorganized yet, and education could suffer if suddenly schoolchildren just stopped attending because they didn't feel like it and spent all of their days going out with their friends and playing. These kids will only get bored if they don't have anything better to occupy their time, and a lot of kids will decide that playing catch or running around with their friends is better. The only reason it stinks so bad staying home from school now is because all of your friends are there. If they weren't either, there would be no reason a kid might want to go to school unless they've grown up long enough in a society which highly values education.

Let them do it..Let them go outside, let them do whatever they want.My point in all of this is that if you force them, you achieve nothing.Not only they wont learn, they wont have fun either.So in between not learning and not having fun, and not learning and having fun i will have to go with the second.
I know i dont give a shit about things they force me to take.I am in class(physically), and basically i am not(mentally).
Let them take a year fucking around, do stupid things..They will then get in school again..We are talking about a society when the people are aware of the goods, the bads, a society that most probably is the youth is going to change, because the power always was in youth.So yeah, give the youths the ability and the power to do whatever they want.Listen to their problems, let them reorganize schools and instead of been a punishment place, it will be a place to have fun and take up subjects and learn about things they like.

From your point of view i can get that workers will be forced to work too in short period after revolution, they wont be given the ability to choose where to work, than they will be assigned to some "important jobs" decided.
Thats the logic i get.I dont like it.I dont believe in those things.I dont like systems taking of the peoples freedoms.And if you support those things then why change a system.There arent much differences from now.

Freedom is the first and most important thing we shall get!If you dont give it to the people then the community, the whatever, isnt communist, is dictatorship, and no i dont want anything like that.

Even kids can decide what they want, they can understand what would do good on their lifes in this system, where most of the people are naive, and spoiled by the capitalist system.Not in a communist society when they will be affected by the teachings of Communism/Anarchism.

So freedom people, let people choose.Its their life, their mistakes.If they choose to be illiterate you shouldnt stop them, its their choice.What would be the consiquences of that?Nothing!Its not like nowadays that if you are illiterate you dont get to find a job anymore and you starve.At such a community you will get to eat, to dress, you will get anything, either you work or not, either you can read or not.So for one more time, freedom..

Fuserg9:star:

mel

25th June 2009, 21:26

Let them do it..Let them go outside, let them do whatever they want.My point in all of this is that if you force them, you achieve nothing.Not only they wont learn, they wont have fun either.So in between not learning and not having fun, and not learning and having fun i will have to go with the second.
I know i dont give a shit about things they force me to take.I am in class(physically), and basically i am not(mentally).

Were you that way in elementary school? Kids will attempt not to go to school just so that they don't go to school, they're in a stage of development in which they are attempting to rebel and push social boundaries just to see how far they can be pushed. If they ignore their education at this time in their development, it can be a very very dangerous thing. There is a difference between having school be mandatory for elementary school and younger age children (and if everyone in their community is working, who is going to take care of children and keep them from doing extremely dangerous things which they are incapable of giving INFORMED CONSENT to do?) parents shouldn't have to stay home and watch them, and other community members shouldn't be burdened with looking after children who do not want to attend school for whatever reason on every little whim.

Let them take a year fucking around, do stupid things..They will then get in school again..We are talking about a society when the people are aware of the goods, the bads, a society that most probably is the youth is going to change, because the power always was in youth.So yeah, give the youths the ability and the power to do whatever they want.Listen to their problems, let them reorganize schools and instead of been a punishment place, it will be a place to have fun and take up subjects and learn about things they like.

The schools will be reorganized in their interests, where the society is aware of the goods, and the bads, and which someday those youths will change. HOWEVER a child is incapable of mentally weighing the goods, the bads, etc. on their own while they are still children. This is why they are incapable of giving INFORMED consent to their actions. Children are capable of many things, and I believe that they will be capable of taking their education into their own hands, selecting their own courses (so long as they also learn the basics necessary, like reading, writing, and arithmetic) and this is all fine. However, they should be made to remain in school.

From your point of view i can get that workers will be forced to work too in short period after revolution, they wont be given the ability to choose where to work, than they will be assigned to some "important jobs" decided.
Thats the logic i get.I dont like it.I dont believe in those things.I dont like systems taking of the peoples freedoms.And if you support those things then why change a system.There arent much differences from now.

Adults are capable of making their own, informed decisions. Young children are not in many cases because they have not yet developed the mental capacity to weight many kinds of choices and decisions. They should be granted as much freedom as they can possibly process and they should be allowed to make their own decisions when those decisions do not cause them harm, but not attending school will cause a child harm, and they are not necessarily capable of consenting to that harm as an adult is because they are not and cannot be informed of the dangers.

So freedom people, let people choose.Its their life, their mistakes.If they choose to be illiterate you shouldnt stop them, its their choice.What would be the consiquences of that?Nothing!Its not like nowadays that if you are illiterate you dont get to find a job anymore and you starve.At such a community you will get to eat, to dress, you will get anything, either you work or not, either you can read or not.So for one more time, freedom..

Fuserg9:star:

A child cannot make an informed decision to be illiterate for the rest of their lives, they are not mentally developed enough to understand the long-term consequences of that decision (which is more than just not being able to find a job, but an illiterate person cannot do many things which are extremely important for higher-level social interaction, like what we're doing now, and even simple things like reading allergy warnings on food, finding your way around a city, and recreational activities like reading a book).

Absolut

25th June 2009, 21:50

Where do you see the "force"?Im saying that they will choose to attend school.

You didnt explicitly say it, but the way I interpreted it, there was little difference. Either way, I may have misinterpreted you, if so, Im sorry.

So freedom people, let people choose.Its their life, their mistakes.If they choose to be illiterate you shouldnt stop them, its their choice.What would be the consiquences of that?Nothing!Its not like nowadays that if you are illiterate you dont get to find a job anymore and you starve.At such a community you will get to eat, to dress, you will get anything, either you work or not, either you can read or not.So for one more time, freedom..

I would absolutely not consider that freedom. Your freedom is unlimited, until you meet someone elses equally unlimited freedom. To coast through life and to parasite off of the community is to impose your freedom upon others and thus limiting their freedoms. I know for sure that I would very much mind to supply someone refusing to work, to learn and to participate on an equal level with supplies enabling them to lead a life just as comfortable as the people working.

I also fail to see how you wont be limited as to what works you are able to do if youre illiterate. As melbicimni points out, you wont be able to perform the most basic communication, the most simple work or the most simple learning if you choose not to go to school and learn these basic things.

Other than that, I agree with melbicimni.

25th June 2009, 22:06

You dont answer me one thing.What do you think you will earn from forcing them?The bads outweigh the goods.
"Kids" can take and understand what they want, and weigh things way earlier that you can imagine.Especially in such society.You have in mind whats going now, and you forget that we are talking about a totally different society.
In periods of wars, big crisis etc for years, it always amazes writers that small childrens from 11 years old, are politically mature to take up a war, to go against their parent wishes, to decide what is best for them, and lots of times been correct.So yes, even at that age, getting their steps into some deep shit, been fully aware of whats happening.
No i wasnt like that in elementary, but i totally believe that no one been 5-6 years old, when their parents tell him/her and his friends are going is going to say, no i prefer home!He is going to something called "school" that all his friends are going to be around, and he is gonna have fun, and learn new things etc etc.Thats how most kids are that i know anw.In such age, you dont have to force them anything, than teach them well.If you teamch no kid will say no at such age.In bigger ages like 13, 14 whatever, if they decide just after the revolution that they want to get some time off would you beat them up to return to school?What would it matter if they loose one year of their time?They can always come back!At any age..So if someone couldnt find directions of the road, you should be sure that s/he will go take class to improve that.And anything.School at such society wont have age rules.Illiterate "old" people can join too.

Fuserg9:star:

mel

25th June 2009, 22:30

You dont answer me one thing.What do you think you will earn from forcing them?The bads outweigh the goods.

Only if kids at younger ages develop the sort of "physically here, mentally gone" attitude that you think they will. However even elementary school age kids who don't want to be there learn, it can't be avoided.

"Kids" can take and understand what they want, and weigh things way earlier that you can imagine.Especially in such society.You have in mind whats going now, and you forget that we are talking about a totally different society.

I still think there are material limits on the degree of risk analysis children can do, especially without an education.

No i wasnt like that in elementary, but i totally believe that no one been 5-6 years old, when their parents tell him/her and his friends are going is going to say, no i prefer home!

I have known 6-10 year olds that absolutely hate school. This is for a variety of complicated reasons, but they still learn despite not wanting to be there, and ultimately it shouldn't be up to them. I maintain that they are too young to consent to living an illiterate life.

In bigger ages like 13, 14 whatever, if they decide just after the revolution that they want to get some time off would you beat them up to return to school?

No, beatings are silly and ineffective. Ages 13 and 14 are complex and difficult as there is a greater level of agency which exists in a teenager than an elementary age child, but attendance should be enforced the same way it is now: if you don't come to class, you don't pass the class.

What would it matter if they loose one year of their time?They can always come back!At any age..So if someone couldnt find directions of the road, you should be sure that s/he will go take class to improve that.And anything.School at such society wont have age rules.Illiterate "old" people can join too.

Fuserg9:star:

Learning becomes more difficult when you're older. Why should you allow a child, who is incapable of understanding the risks for themselves, to make a choice that will effect them for the rest of their lives, stunt their educational development, and make ever catching up to the rest of society extraordinarily difficult? An adult can understand the risks, a child cannot.

You also did not address what the children would do or where they would stay if they were not in school. They are not self sufficient. Who will feed them? Will they run naked around the community, through streets, into traffic, will they be forced into a community care facility? Will the parents or community need to find babysitters? School age children who do not need to attend school will most certainly burden the community, especially if there is full employment.

25th June 2009, 23:03

Melbicimni, you still insist to take the now system as an example of whats going to happen in a communist society...Why would 6-10 years old hating a place they are having fun at?Why?My whole argument is that in such society most kids will attend school and most kids will indeed be mature enough to do what is best.
I dont know, i probably not expressing my self correctly...But thats way too simple!

Learning becomes more difficult when you're older. Why should you allow a child, who is incapable of understanding the risks for themselves, to make a choice that will effect them for the rest of their lives, stunt their educational development, and make ever catching up to the rest of society extraordinarily difficult? An adult can understand the risks, a child cannot.

Define child age...!

You also did not address what the children would do or where they would stay if they were not in school. They are not self sufficient. Who will feed them? Will they run naked around the community, through streets, into traffic, will they be forced into a community care facility? Will the parents or community need to find babysitters? School age children who do not need to attend school will most certainly burden the community, especially if there is full employment.

Wtf?So i suppose that their parents will just shoot them throw them in the roads because they are "stupid"?Parents can take care of their childrens, and this can say it to you any parent.Their love for their children superves anything else.They will take care of them, and this is nothing anyone else has a say about it.!
Children arent burden for their parents, its their life, burden for the community?No way..they are kids ffs..

I would absolutely not consider that freedom. Your freedom is unlimited, until you meet someone elses equally unlimited freedom. To coast through life and to parasite off of the community is to impose your freedom upon others and thus limiting their freedoms. I know for sure that I would very much mind to supply someone refusing to work, to learn and to participate on an equal level with supplies enabling them to lead a life just as comfortable as the people working.

I would absolutely consider that to be bullshit!I cant believe you even think like that..Parasite off?So those who cant work are parasites?
You make them parasites, and by that one day they will steal you, they will kill you.When you give them food they will appreciate it.
And saying that you wouldnt give food to someone refuses to learn something and calling that limiting of others freedom, thats crap!
With modern technologies, if they are taken care, in few years no one would have to work, except of some technicians to fix the machines.Beside that, machines can offer us a lot more that you can even imagine.You fail to understand work as a thing to have a good time, a thing which makes you happy.Thats what work is under communism.If you will do something you dont like then fuck it, thats not communism, and thats something im not willed to "fight" for.If someone finds sleeping to be more fun than making new machines its his own fucking choice.Saying you want give him to eat etc it supress his/her freedom, not the other way around.
Communism as an ideology pass its hand and to those who dont want it.It dont throws shit to them!So does Anarchism.So i cant hear crap like that...

I also fail to see how you wont be limited as to what works you are able to do if youre illiterate. As melbicimni points out, you wont be able to perform the most basic communication, the most simple work or the most simple learning if you choose not to go to school and learn these basic things.

You choose what you want, when you are illiterate you wont go a writer, a teacher...Able?No one is able to do any job in the world.Its what we want the main thing.

Fuserg9:star:

JammyDodger

25th June 2009, 23:15

Im no expert but id expect university degrees in david beckham studies to get shelved.

Communism is about need, education will be a means towards meeting needs.
Needs of society will form the basis for content of an education I should imagine.
A focus upon finding talents.

IE subjects and core skills that actually do real good.

However we dont know those needs at this point in time (revolution will happen who knows when)

mel

25th June 2009, 23:15

ckaihatsu

26th June 2009, 02:04

The discussion of how a society -- particularly a post-capitalist, collectively run society -- organizes its education is a really crucial discussion to have, mostly because the organization of a society's educational institutions and practices just begs the question, or mirrors, the issue of how the *society itself* is organized.

We can *really* let our hair down, kick off the Birkenstocks, and let our freak flag fly at *any* point -- it's arguably been possible since the dawn of time, in the sense of alternative groupings of people going off on their own to do education / society their own way -- and, today, with Wikipedia and the wealth of learning available over the net, it's more possible than ever to self-educate and become learned on one's own terms.

But by *this* path we wouldn't need RevLeft at all, nor would we need revolutionary politics -- in fact we would hardly need *society* at all if everyone could easily come by the means to live self-sufficient, net-equipped, self-educated lives. The problem, of course, is that the bullies win -- there will *continue* to be an elite capitalist class that doesn't give a shit about those who opt out, and will either ignore, neglect, or bulldoze those who happen to get in the way of their path to imperialist domination.

A similar danger to the *opting out* of mainstream education lies in the *fetishizing* of education -- the idea is that education is *always* as wholesome and beneficial as a gentle bath under a waterfall, and so should *always* be pursued no matter what. This romantic attitude towards the *institution* of education leads right into the hands of cultural imperialism since one's own knee-jerk, *unexamined* motivation towards further education will be pounced on by those elements among the bourgeoisie who uphold the elitist, imperialist canon of educational (and societal) practice. Just as one can become cannon fodder for the command of the imperialist military, one can also become intellectual fodder for the interests of cultural imperialism.

So both *opting-out-of* and *fetishizing* mainstream education are extreme and unhealthy attitudes to have in relation to education -- the reason is because the underlying *politics* of both are attempts *to escape* the *social organization* aspect of education.

It's for this reason of social organization that we can't blithely dismiss nationalist social institutions, like the public education system. Without *some form* of centralized, official social organization we would have no existing basis for effecting *better* -- hopefully revolutionary -- social institutions. This issue loops right back around into the broader political issue of *forfeiting control* over the machinery of society vs. organizing on the basis of mass labor to *seize control* of the *existing* (highly productive) machinery that humanity has produced to date.

On the forfeiting side we could easily raise future generations of children by simply treating them like farm animals at pasture, supplying them with all the basics for living, along with net access -- but as intellectually sufficient as this approach to education might be, it leaves unanswered the issue of *society as a whole* -- sure, everyone can now be smart, upon their free choosing and effort, thanks to the net, but then what? Are we merely fetishizing education for its own sake, or should we be motivated to *do something* with the education that will actually have a * political effect * on the larger society?

I hope you won't mind too much, Fuserg9 -- I'm going to pick through your post and respond in a critical way, for the sake of examining our motivations regarding the institution and practice of education.

Now, school..I can say that it wouldnt be something you are forced to take, but up until some age, all will take it.

How would a post-capitalist process of education take place, exactly? Would it simply, organically, mirror the productive-oriented processes of a collectivized, co-managing workforce, like an apprenticeship system? Would this be democratic and effective enough, or would the (possible) lack of centralized organization lead to a re-emergence of elitism, where certain schools of mastery become too-favored, top-heavy, and entrenched to be useful to the society as a whole?

And if "all will take it", then by what post-capitalist central authority will this attendance policy be administered?

Teachers arent bosses, dont control the class, dont "owe" the students.The door will be open, those who want to sit and watch will, those who dont, simply will get out.

This suggests that students of all ages are mature enough to (ultimately) self-select their own education -- would an open-university approach be appropriate for all ages, or would a post-capitalist society have a certain interest in a certain core curriculum for *all* students?

Teachers and students are equal, just teachers have some advanced knowledge and try to pass it over and to those who are willed to learn.Forget the today system, with danger of staying in the same class, failing at exams etc.Exams and quiz's if exist would be just to test the students "powers" if they wish to.No grades no nothing.Those wish to continue will simply do, in the subjects they wish to.

Here, too, I have to ask if the larger society would have an objective interest in *really testing* students' abilities to see what and how different *individual* students can accomplish on their own. We could reasonably say that a post-capitalist societal structure would *not* *commodify* its people, so perhaps individual achievement potentials wouldn't be focused on as much, or noticed, by the society's prevailing mores / culture. Individual strengths and weaknesses would be averaged out in the process of work / production, so the group effort would be more important in a collectivized society than individualistic name-making.

At the same time we wouldn't want individual focus to be *discouraged* or *suppressed*, either, since one pitfall of social organization is a tendency towards groupthink, where everyone just kind of floats along by expressing political support for the existing, mainstream basket of policies instead of rocking the boat.

So -- perhaps *some kind* of individualistic-focused testing would allow the larger society to get a sense of *which* individuals (and groups) should be allowed *more leeway* for costly, experimental-type projects into new scientific or artistic territory....

Of course those schools wont be schools just to make mathematicians, philosophers, doctors etc.Those who may not find interesting this thing, may take the sports subjects, the building subjects, the mechanic etc etc.Any subject to help people decide their future job or jobs as they wish.

I fully agree with this notion -- that people *should* be given a good deal of permission to explore independent, self-motivated learning projects at their discretion, especially if the projects fall within the existing public pool of available resources.

Then university will be exact the same thing, but as people get more mature, will be able to decide start give more attention to a particular subject they like, and take the university level to expand their knowledges etc, or decide to skip University and join the community.

Schools ben organized in a huge area like Ireland is impossible, they will be taken under each community, who will have the "responsible" for them, and take care of it.By that, you are holding what your people learn and do in your hands, and those you know than someone else who is someone you have never seen in your life.And organize it within friends and neighbours will have better results.

I see *this* issue as a question of "federalism" -- in other words, possibly the greatest (and *only* -- ?) unresolved issue within the revolutionary left is the one of how to resolve broader areas of generalized (centralized) policy with localities' local rights to worker autonomy, particularly in periods of societal distress or urgency. This is really a classic, unending issue for *any* society, and will probably never go away entirely, no matter how well a post-capitalist society is organized....

Remember, the more schools you have the better, it gives students more chances, it helps them choose a near one, with their friends etc.Its always going to be a matter of choice, the more the better.So having one school and throw million students there, it sound to me more a "prison" than a school.

We're well past the era of nation-constrained educational practice -- as the post-World War II world increasingly moved towards financialized relationships of capital we have seen a concomitant opening up of access to more diverse sources of information and academic research. (One indicator might be the advances made in the discipline of world history.)

A better base of resources invariably provides a richer ground for more options for study and work.

ckaihatsu

26th June 2009, 08:54

Your freedom is unlimited, until you meet someone elses equally unlimited freedom.

This is an abstraction that sounds like it came right from the mouth of a nationalist libertarian. Once we get pulled into the realm of battling abstractions we may as well not even be materialists (Marxists) anymore.

To coast through life and to parasite off of the community is to impose your freedom upon others and thus limiting their freedoms.

Here's another telltale tip-off of a libertarian / anarchist source: The use of the term 'community' instead of a focus on the means of mass industrial production. Once we've accepted the abstraction of a neatly categorized, finite "community", we're trapped in that virtual construction -- what's being *ignored* is that automated industrial production produces world-flooding amounts of goods and services, especially if liberated from the scarcity-enforcing system of capitalist economics.

This statement is basically a swipe at lumpen, unemployed, underemployed, and even fully employed workers -- it is a *reactionary* argument based on a formulation that is entirely *political* in construction, conveniently ignoring *economic* realities.

I know for sure that I would very much mind to supply someone refusing to work, to learn and to participate on an equal level with supplies enabling them to lead a life just as comfortable as the people working.

Now this author takes up the haughty tone of a property owner, clutching onto the ownership of supplies in preference over the human needs of the subject of the discussion. The author assumes that a status of unemployment automatically translates to a "refusal to work, [a refusal to] learn, [or] to participate on an equal level...".

From what I can make out from the statement it seems that someone who is refusing to work is also asking to be supplied with supplies that will enable them to lead a life just as comfortable as people who are working for their supplies. The author is completely ignoring the entire capitalist ruling class, overwhelmingly financiers, who do absolutely *no* work while receiving vast incomes and benefits as a result of their privileges of capital ownership.

I find this author's statement to be wholly objectionable and reactionary, serving no useful purpose whatsoever on this board which is meant for *revolutionary* *leftists*.

Absolut

26th June 2009, 10:45

This is an abstraction that sounds like it came right from the mouth of a nationalist libertarian. Once we get pulled into the realm of battling abstractions we may as well not even be materialists (Marxists) anymore.

I think Bakunin said something of the like, but thats not really important.

Here's another telltale tip-off of a libertarian / anarchist source: The use of the term 'community' instead of a focus on the means of mass industrial production. Once we've accepted the abstraction of a neatly categorized, finite "community", we're trapped in that virtual construction -- what's being *ignored* is that automated industrial production produces world-flooding amounts of goods and services, especially if liberated from the scarcity-enforcing system of capitalist economics.

What would you have instead of community? Automated industrial production complex? As if thats not abstract.

This statement is basically a swipe at lumpen, unemployed, underemployed, and even fully employed workers -- it is a *reactionary* argument based on a formulation that is entirely *political* in construction, conveniently ignoring *economic* realities.

Youll have to make a difference between those who refuse to work because they find it convenient, or those that cant work because of some physical inability or something of the like. I have no problem, whatsoever, to fully support anyone that cant work, but I have a problem with supporting someone who refuses to work and still expect to be supported, someone who is volontarily parasiting (perhaps that rephrasal makes it a bit clearer what I meant, as you clearly misunderstood me) of the community.

And how is it a swipe at everyone?

Now this author takes up the haughty tone of a property owner, clutching onto the ownership of supplies in preference over the human needs of the subject of the discussion. The author assumes that a status of unemployment automatically translates to a "refusal to work, [a refusal to] learn, [or] to participate on an equal level...".

Im starting to wonder if youre not misinterpreting me on purpose.

From what I can make out from the statement it seems that someone who is refusing to work is also asking to be supplied with supplies that will enable them to lead a life just as comfortable as people who are working for their supplies. The author is completely ignoring the entire capitalist ruling class, overwhelmingly financiers, who do absolutely *no* work while receiving vast incomes and benefits as a result of their privileges of capital ownership.

What are you on about?

You got the first part right, but I cant for the life of me figure out how you link this to me ignoring the capitalist of our day. I am a revolutionary (maybe not to you, but I think you may need to reevaluate your definition of revolutionary) because I have realised this, and want to crush it.

I find this author's statement to be wholly objectionable and reactionary, serving no useful purpose whatsoever on this board which is meant for *revolutionary* *leftists*.

Lenin expressed himself in even harsher terms than I did, he said that if you dont work, you dont eat. Simple as that. I said that Id have a problem with supporting somone who purposfully coasts through life on the back of the community. Should I be joined by all the Leninists in the Opposing Ideologies?

I would absolutely consider that to be bullshit!I cant believe you even think like that..Parasite off?So those who cant work are parasites?
You make them parasites, and by that one day they will steal you, they will kill you.When you give them food they will appreciate it.
And saying that you wouldnt give food to someone refuses to learn something and calling that limiting of others freedom, thats crap!

Technically, I think they would be parasites, at least if parasites are defined by it living off of others and are using them to survive. However, youll have to make a difference between those who refuse to work by their own choice, and those who simply are unable to work, due to some physical defect or somesuch. I have, as I stated above, no problem with supplying those who cant work and work to make their situation as good as possible, but I would have a problem with supplying someone who refuses to work. Now that weve solved the basic problem you seemed to have, I cant see how youve even tried to pose any argument at all against me when I said that "volontary" parasites ( in lack of a better word) are restricting the freedoms of the rest of the community. At this point, youre also putting words in my mouth and making strawmen arguments, I never said that I would refuse to supply anyone, I said I would have a problem with it, I never said anything about what should be done to solve the problem.

With modern technologies, if they are taken care, in few years no one would have to work, except of some technicians to fix the machines.Beside that, machines can offer us a lot more that you can even imagine.You fail to understand work as a thing to have a good time, a thing which makes you happy.Thats what work is under communism.If you will do something you dont like then fuck it, thats not communism, and thats something im not willed to "fight" for.If someone finds sleeping to be more fun than making new machines its his own fucking choice.Saying you want give him to eat etc it supress his/her freedom, not the other way around.

Well, yes, the best situation would be that machines took over as much as possible of the hard and dangerous manual labour, but that isnt how the situation looks right now, and Im not sure it will look that way in some time (I could be wrong, Im no expert on the subject).

How do I fail to understand that one of the most important aspects of anarchism is to make work a source of happiness?

Communism as an ideology pass its hand and to those who dont want it.It dont throws shit to them!So does Anarchism.So i cant hear crap like that...

As far as I know, every revolutionary ideology has thrown a lot of shit at people who didnt want it.

You choose what you want, when you are illiterate you wont go a writer, a teacher...Able?No one is able to do any job in the world.Its what we want the main thing.

How are you able to choose what you want if you cant choose some things?

ckaihatsu

26th June 2009, 18:28

What would you have instead of community? Automated industrial production complex? As if thats not abstract.

Yes, I *would* rather have a political discussion, and *worldwide revolution*, over the topic of 'automated industrial production complexes.' Please recall that they, or 'factories' for short, are at the very *cutting edge* of tool usage and productivity for humanity. If humanity still foraged and hunted in the wild for its subsistence we would not have a surplus, or the tools available to produce that surplus -- but since we *are* at a stage where both exist we need to solve the question of *ownership*, or *direction of administration* over these mega-tools....

By comparison the term 'community' is much more nebulous and abstract in its definition, especially when it comes to material variables -- does the community produce for itself? Does it participate in a cash economy? Is it running a surplus? Is it in debt? Is it rather wealthy, middle-class, poor, oppressed? What are the extent of its boundaries? (Etc.)

Youll have to make a difference between those who refuse to work because they find it convenient, or those that cant work because of some physical inability or something of the like. I have no problem, whatsoever, to fully support anyone that cant work, but I have a problem with supporting someone who refuses to work and still expect to be supported, someone who is volontarily parasiting (perhaps that rephrasal makes it a bit clearer what I meant, as you clearly misunderstood me) of the community.

So since we're not dealing with a *tangible description* and the *details* of this "community" we're stuck discussing it *on your terms*, without being filled-in on much about it at all.... Maybe the question of who can work and who can't has much to do with the *definition* of "work", which would necessarily *vary* according to community. By contrast a typical *factory* requires *some* labor over the operation of its machinery, some raw resource inputs, and it produces mass quantities of identical, higher-level-quality product outputs.

To coast through life and to parasite off of the community is to impose your freedom upon others and thus limiting their freedoms.

And how is it a swipe at everyone?

Your statement, by leaving the issue in the abstract terminology of "freedoms", completely misses the economic, or material, aspect of ground-level relationships in communities. It's also a rather artificial formulation, to say that some (at ground-level) are total "parasites" who do nothing that contributes back to the larger group.

By concerning yourself with the behavior of regular people, instead of with major capital owners, you're putting the spotlight on those who are more likely to be the working poor, underemployed, unemployed, or lumpen. *Then* you go further and argue from your formulation that some of these regular people might be "parasites" -- this is *exactly* the same approach a right-winger uses to deflect mass attention from looking over to where the real wealth is, and who's benefitting from it.

If you *are* really for the working class then you should take up better arguments, ones that are more representative of working class interests.

Lenin expressed himself in even harsher terms than I did, he said that if you dont work, you dont eat. Simple as that. I said that Id have a problem with supporting somone who purposfully coasts through life on the back of the community. Should I be joined by all the Leninists in the Opposing Ideologies?

The productive capacities of our contemporary world have far exceeded that which was possible in Lenin's day. Certainly I would look to the "community", *any* community, to be *politically supportive* of anti-capitalist revolutionary efforts -- *that* would probably be the paramount in terms of "work" *required* from anyone, or any group. In material terms, however, the world's factories, if run under worker control, would produce far more than enough of the basics of living for everyone in the world to be free of stress over procuring their daily subsistence.

With modern technologies, if they are taken care, in few years no one would have to work, except of some technicians to fix the machines.Beside that, machines can offer us a lot more that you can even imagine.You fail to understand work as a thing to have a good time, a thing which makes you happy.Thats what work is under communism.If you will do something you dont like then fuck it, thats not communism, and thats something im not willed to "fight" for.If someone finds sleeping to be more fun than making new machines its his own fucking choice.Saying you want give him to eat etc it supress his/her freedom, not the other way around.

Well, yes, the best situation would be that machines took over as much as possible of the hard and dangerous manual labour, but that isnt how the situation looks right now, and Im not sure it will look that way in some time (I could be wrong, Im no expert on the subject).

This is *precisely* why you should shift your emphasis to that of mass industrial production -- it is the *most productive* technology that humanity has *ever* invented, and its control by the working class would allow it to be run at *full capacity*, for the purpose of meeting people's needs, *not* for the accumulation of private profits.

mel

26th June 2009, 18:39

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this post ckaihatsu, it seems as if you are arguing with Absolut over whether or not workers should control the factories, which as revolutionaries we all already agree they should. The question of "community" comes in when discussing, not a revolutionary period, but a post-revolutionary society. Of course the focus in revolution should be the takeover of the physical means for mass production, however when discussing how society ought to be ordered after that, we must look to "communities" and how they might make decisions.

If there is a person in a post-revolutionary community who does not want to participate in the process of production, but still expects the "community" (read here as "grouping of people in the geographical region where said person lives) to produce for that person, Absolut argues that said person should not be given the means to subsist as that person would be "parasiting" on the community: taking while giving nothing back.

I happen to feel that this would not likely be a widespread problem: a group of workers willing to fight to take control of production would also likely be willing to work when the fighting was done. In addition, I imagine a person who outright refuses to work would not be well liked in said post-revolutionary community and this might influence them to get up and help out. If a person can manage to remain well-liked in the community while not engaged in production of useful resources, such a person must provide some sort of social value to the community that makes that person worth having around. The leeches would be few and far between.

ckaihatsu

26th June 2009, 18:51

Agreed.

Stranger Than Paradise

26th June 2009, 19:03

21st Century Kropotkinist

26th June 2009, 19:13

I identify as an anarcho-communist, but since basically all commies want the same kind of society and communities, i.e., classless, stateless, and moneyless, I'll comment.

since there would be no set board members or standardized system, that education would fall apart and be utter crap.

I believe that what messes up the process of education is the "board members or standardized system." I think for that system to "fall apart," this would be progress. The whole idea that we send our children daily, and arbitrarily, to capitalist reeducation camps, is nonsense. It has nothing to do with "education." I think that education is a process and doesn't necessarily occur in a building called a school. Education should be an individual process that occurs on an individual basis, as far as I'm concerned. This requires total freedom, which I believe communism would provide, and hence, actually allow people to educate themselves as they see fit.

he also said something about how socialism couldnt support the infrastructure necessary to ensure education.:confused:

Well, due to those capitalist reeducation camps called "schools" (sounds like your friend has been to one!), he doesn't know what "socialism" is. It's a really simple concept: the PEOPLE own the means of production and collectively have political power. What your friend is referring to is authoritarian, state-socialism (otherwise known as state-capitalism in which the State becomes an unaccountable monopoly like a corporation). And actually, what he is probably referring to as "education" is the standard model: teachers, principals, bureaucracy, students, indoctrination, revisionist history, etc. In this sense, it has always been "socialism" (at least the government/state variety) that has supported the "infrastructure necessary to ensure education" (you know, the whole public education thing?).

i tried to use the anarchist communes of spain during the civil war as an example but i couldnt find out about the quality of education.

Pretty simple, actually. The concept of free schools were developed in the anarchist revolution in Spain. Free schools are voluntary, non-hierarchical formations of people to exchange ideas about a skill, trait or concept to learn more about it. Free schools were non-obligatory, and did not involve shoving ideas down pupils throats.

How would education be handled in a communist society?

I would say this would vary community-to-community and however these groups of indviduals saw fit. I would say that the most important aspect of education in a communistic society is for the individual to have complete control over her or his educational experience. So, if this individual saw fit to sit in a classroom and learn from a teacher, then they should have this opportunity. But, if they see fit a more experiential learning experience, then they should pursue this. And if an individual decides they don't want to learn anything at all (this is extremely rare), then they should have this option, as well.

would a school board be recallable as would anything else?
I think if a community decided to have such an institution it would have to be recallable, require consensus-based decision makijng, and be non-hierarchical. But again, many communities would probably decide not to have such things.

would teachers assume control and throw out the need of a principal(like workers assuming the control of capital and getting rid of the need of a boss)?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but for such a thing to exist in this manner in communist societies, communities would have to determine this through whatever decision-making process they see fit. But, I would say, that a communist "school" would be worker-ran, and there would be a non-hierarchical relationship between student and teacher. So, the only authority that would be respected would be earned authority in subject area. In other words, teachers could only assume to be authorities on certain subject matters by displaying their knowledge, but not authority over the student-body. And if the student-body didn't want to attend school, they have the option to not attend.

and how would it be managed on a grand scale(centralized to some degree)? like a region the size of Ireland? *what i mean is would education be wholly left to the commune/community and not federated and somewhat standardized over a large area?

Hehe...No one has these answers. If someone tells you they do, don't trust them. It's all an experiment. Only organized groups of people can determine these things through trial and error and be the decision-makers in such a process.

and also, how would Universities come into play?
See last response. Most importantly, don't let anybody tell you that they
have the answers to these difficult and important questions that your asking. There are no empircally correct answers etched in stone somewhere; that's for capitalist appiezers and rigid authoritarian socialists. Good luck on your quest for truth and knowledge comrade!

mel

26th June 2009, 19:17

Some are saying that up until a certain age school should be mandatory however I dispute this. I think most of the reasons children rebel against school is because it is authoritarian and mandatory. I believe that in a communist society that schooling children with the idea of freedom of choice would give them a richer education as learning would be free and not a chore as it is made in todays society.

But I think that children who rebel against school simply because sometimes learning math will not be "fun" and who do not have the mental capacity to make a long term decision not to be proficient math and/or reading while being fully aware of the consequences of that decisions ought to be made to attend school.

Education will still require some sort of grading system to ensure proiciency, and to allow for students to gradually learn material which builds on previous material over a period of time. The only real method of enforcing mandatory attendance is failing them in classes if they do not attend. Students will still need to attend school 3-5 days a week, they will still need to attend their classes (as students who attend should not need to wait to move onto new material until the students who don't attend catch up) and there is no way to have enough teachers so that for every lesson in the curriculum for every subject there is always a teacher that has the time and ability to instruct it. Face it, schools will still need to roughly resemble schools as they are today, and compulsory education up to a certain age will most likely still be necessary for a variety of complex reasons, not the least of which is that if 8 year old students can just walk in and out of classes whenever they want, show up and do whatever they want while they are there, leave school for three weeks and then come back without the background they need to pick up the next lesson, etc... they will be substantially harmed.

As long as teaching still requires concepts which build upon previous concepts, a child missing two or three weeks of school because they have decided that they didn't want to go, will face SUBSTANTIAL difficulties catching up, which causes harm that they can't knowingly consent to. Children are not just tiny adults, and they should not be treated as such. Children are still children in a post-revolutionary society and I cannot advocate giving a child free reign to cause themselves harm that they are not mentally capable of consenting to.

21st Century Kropotkinist

26th June 2009, 19:38

But I think that children who rebel against school simply because sometimes learning math will not be "fun" and who do not have the mental capacity to make a long term decision not to be proficient math and/or reading while being fully aware of the consequences of that decisions ought to be made to attend school.

Education will still require some sort of grading system to ensure proiciency, and to allow for students to gradually learn material which builds on previous material over a period of time. The only real method of enforcing mandatory attendance is failing them in classes if they do not attend. Students will still need to attend school 3-5 days a week, they will still need to attend their classes (as students who attend should not need to wait to move onto new material until the students who don't attend catch up) and there is no way to have enough teachers so that for every lesson in the curriculum for every subject there is always a teacher that has the time and ability to instruct it. Face it, schools will still need to roughly resemble schools as they are today, and compulsory education up to a certain age will most likely still be necessary for a variety of complex reasons, not the least of which is that if 8 year old students can just walk in and out of classes whenever they want, show up and do whatever they want while they are there, leave school for three weeks and then come back without the background they need to pick up the next lesson, etc... they will be substantially harmed.

As long as teaching still requires concepts which build upon previous concepts, a child missing two or three weeks of school because they have decided that they didn't want to go, will face SUBSTANTIAL difficulties catching up, which causes harm that they can't knowingly consent to. Children are not just tiny adults, and they should not be treated as such. Children are still children in a post-revolutionary society and I cannot advocate giving a child free reign to cause themselves harm that they are not mentally capable of consenting to.

I agree with your assumptions about children in real-time. If I didn't make my son go to school, he would have a very hard life under the vitriolic capitalist system that globally dominates at present. That said, I don't view children as property. As long as we view children as something we should mold in a certain manner, i.e., giving them the skill-set that we adults see fit, we are participating in an authoritarian relationship. We are only setting them up for "failure" in the adult "ideal" for society, not theirs.

I believe that children should be active participants in recreating society, and in a post-revolutionary society, decide what is relevant for them to learn. Children are free-agents. They are not owned by their parents, society, or the schools and other authoritarian institutions in our life. As mentioned, though, if I did not coerce my son into attending such an institution, life under capitalism, which will certainly be around for a while, would be pretty rough for him (without even basic skills expected of him).

I would also say, though, that society can collectively teach and determine skills needed, because necessary skills would differ in every community. Take tribal communities. Certainly most tribal communities do not have schools. But the children learn things that are necessary for their survival, like what plants are edible and which are toxic, or how to spear-fish and hunt in the wild. These children acquire this knowledge often without participating as a subordinate or as someone considered to be "owned" by their parents. By the time it is necessary to take care of themselves, they have acquired the knowledge necessary to do such things.

Now, I'm no primitivist, but I believe that any community could function in the same manner as the tribal society, i.e., elders who have acquired necessary knowledge for survival passing it down to those who have not yet acquired the knowledge. And this doesn't simply need to function with adults and children. Any person that has not required important knowledge for day-to-day survival can acquire knowledge freely from someone else in the community. I suppose our main difference lies in the fact that you think children should be required to attend schools to learn this information, and I tend to think they will learn it anyway, like most tribal communities that function non-hierarchically and without schools.

Absolut

26th June 2009, 19:57

Agreed.

Me too.

Feels as if we talked past each other. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

mel

26th June 2009, 21:56

I believe that children should be active participants in recreating society, and in a post-revolutionary society, decide what is relevant for them to learn.

I agree with this, to the extent that Children are capable of understanding the choices which are presented to them and fully grasping the consequences of those choices. Children should be able to fully make decisions which are relevant to their interests, children should be afforded the opportunity to make whatever decisions they wish so long as they are capable of fully grasping the consequences of such a decision. This means that while I feel that most children are fully capable of choosing many things, like what they should wear on a given day, who to be friends with, and to the most extent allowable, learning what they think is important in schools, that ultimately, a child is not capable of choosing not to learn basic skills like reading and arithmetic that severely limit their ability to interact with society at large. Eventually these children will grow up and find themselves incredibly restricted by the decisions which they made before they were capable of understanding the consequences of them.

Children are free-agents. They are not owned by their parents, society, or the schools and other authoritarian institutions in our life.

Agency requires a rational ability to comprehend and analyze the consequences of an action. A person who makes a decision when they are under the influence of a mind-altering substance (such as large amounts of alcohol, and certain types of drugs) made that decision under a type of coercion (which is why contracts are not valid when the person signing it was drunk, and why a person who has sex with somebody who has been drugged has committed rape). A child has a brain that is still under development and has a limited ability to understand the full consequences of their actions. Children are not the property of their parents, but parents are given the right to make certain types of decisions for their children because their children are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of their decisions.

As mentioned, though, if I did not coerce my son into attending such an institution, life under capitalism, which will certainly be around for a while, would be pretty rough for him (without even basic skills expected of him).

How is this different in a post-revolutionary society? If an entire generation of children decided not to learn to read or write because they would rather do other things with their time, who would grow up and run the factories, who would be the doctors? That community would in short order become a community of primitivists, and you can expect life expectancies to shrink to the ripe old age of about 30 or 40 as medical technology, science, and food production drop dramatically from the lack of educated children.

I would also say, though, that society can collectively teach and determine skills needed, because necessary skills would differ in every community. Take tribal communities. Certainly most tribal communities do not have schools. But the children learn things that are necessary for their survival, like what plants are edible and which are toxic, or how to spear-fish and hunt in the wild. These children acquire this knowledge often without participating as a subordinate or as someone considered to be "owned" by their parents. By the time it is necessary to take care of themselves, they have acquired the knowledge necessary to do such things.

I was under the impression that we were talking about a socialist or communist community, not a primitivist one.

Now, I'm no primitivist, but I believe that any community could function in the same manner as the tribal society, i.e., elders who have acquired necessary knowledge for survival passing it down to those who have not yet acquired the knowledge. And this doesn't simply need to function with adults and children. Any person that has not required important knowledge for day-to-day survival can acquire knowledge freely from someone else in the community. I suppose our main difference lies in the fact that you think children should be required to attend schools to learn this information, and I tend to think they will learn it anyway, like most tribal communities that function non-hierarchically and without schools.

Again: I guess this would be a community-by-community basis, but I don't believe that this discussion was really centered around a tribalist or primitivist community (and when children obtain agency in a socialist or communist one, there will certainly be the freedom of mobility to move to such a community once they are rationally able to comprehend the consequences of that decision) but I think we disagree entirely over the ability for children to make informed long-term decisions. I am operating under the assumption that a child is incapable of giving informed consent, and therefore is not a free agent as they are acting under a sort of coercion due to their being insufficiently developed to make their own decisions (like the decision to engage in a sexual relationship with an adult) which causes demonstrable harm. In my mind it is better that a materially interested party (a parent or guardian, or the community as a whole) be allowed to make decisions for a child while they are still incapable of making them themselves. Children should be afforded every opportunity to make their own decisions when appropriate, but sometimes they simply do not have the capacity to make a decision because they cannot fully understand their options.

21st Century Kropotkinist

27th June 2009, 05:32

Hello melbicimni. Where should I start? :D

I agree with this, to the extent that Children are capable of understanding the choices which are presented to them and fully grasping the consequences of those choices.
Certainly. Whether referring to People with Disabilities, children, or (as you mentioned) people under the influence of drugs, if they are incapable of making rational decisions, e.g., a child that wants to play in the express way, or a person with mental illness who feels the need to assault people, then they should be coerced. No disagreements there. This doesn't negate any of my opinions concerning post-revolutionary society. So, my 13 month old infant, if left to his own devices, would starve to death if, say, I let him crawl down the stairs of our home, into the street, and out of the neighborhood. This would be a criminal act, because my infant son is incapable of making a rational decisions in this regard, i.e., he cannot protect himself from intruders or feed himself.

Children should be able to fully make decisions which are relevant to their interests, children should be afforded the opportunity to make whatever decisions they wish so long as they are capable of fully grasping the consequences of such a decision.

Again, I agree. Actually, this is a great basis for why I believe schools should be voluntary. If you do believe that children's decisions should be "relevant to their interests," then we should agree that school should be voluntary in a post-revolutionary, communist society. If they are to "make whatever decisions they wish," then they should be free to say "I will choose the educational method for which I see fit."

This means that while I feel that most children are fully capable of choosing many things, like what they should wear on a given day, who to be friends with, and to the most extent allowable, learning what they think is important in schools, that ultimately, a child is not capable of choosing not to learn basic skills like reading and arithmetic that severely limit their ability to interact with society at large. Eventually these children will grow up and find themselves incredibly restricted by the decisions which they made before they were capable of understanding the consequences of them.

You're projecting an idea that society at large dominates the child and tells them what they should learn. Yes, most "modern" societies will deem arithmetic and reading to be important, but there should never be a majority oppressing a minority; I perceive true communism would do away with "majority rule" decision-making.

I think, perhaps, you assume that the only element in our life that would change after a revolution is economics (I could be wrong). The reason I say this is because I get the impression that you are in favor of traditional educational models, market economies, and the division of labor. I argue that a communist, post-revolution society would have to dismantle every aspect of life to facilitate meaningful change. So, the family would have to be rethought, i.e., authoritarian model of parent (and usually father-I take it you oppose patriarchy/patricentricity) over children, classes would be abolished, i.e., remuneration in paper or vouchers would almost unequivocally give rise to inequality, the division of labor would have to be reconsidered, i.e., everyone would contribute to numerous duties within said community, and education would have to be reconsidered, i.e., authoritarian models of teacher/student with student regurgitating information for purposes of becoming a wage-slave later in life.

If only economics are changed, you get something analogous to the atrocious Soviet Union; there's nothing truly revolutionary about state-capitalism. The major point that I would stress is this: a social revolution must destroy society and rebuild it as people see fit. Changing economic monopoly from private to state hands without reconsidering the idea of something like "education" would be, I think, nonsensical.

Agency requires a rational ability to comprehend and analyze the consequences of an action. A person who makes a decision when they are under the influence of a mind-altering substance (such as large amounts of alcohol, and certain types of drugs) made that decision under a type of coercion (which is why contracts are not valid when the person signing it was drunk, and why a person who has sex with somebody who has been drugged has committed rape). A child has a brain that is still under development and has a limited ability to understand the full consequences of their actions. Children are not the property of their parents, but parents are given the right to make certain types of decisions for their children because their children are not capable of fully understanding the consequences of their decisions.

Again, you're not negating anything that I wrote or believe. I wholeheartedly agree with you that children's brains are in a state of development ( I believe the human brain is still developing until the age of 24), and as I mentioned the extreme case of a child that wants to play in the expressway, there are certainly moments in which a lesser-evil coercion comes into play with parents. For example, if I save my son's life but inhibit his freedom, I do not feel bad for this. As with an extremely drunk person who wants to drive home, I would feel better about coercing this person not to drive.

However, I believe voluntary school has nothing to do with this. If someone has to go to school, or a job, with the only consequences being punishment, or starvation (concerning the job), then it is coercive and authoritarian. I think if a community has schools, then teachers should not be viewed as authority figures, have no say over what the children do, i.e., if they come or go, and strive to make the school become what the children want, as opposed to their parents.

How is this different in a post-revolutionary society? If an entire generation of children decided not to learn to read or write because they would rather do other things with their time, who would grow up and run the factories, who would be the doctors? That community would in short order become a community of primitivists, and you can expect life expectancies to shrink to the ripe old age of about 30 or 40 as medical technology, science, and food production drop dramatically from the lack of educated children.

Wow. You do not have much faith in humans left to their own vices. Do you really think that no one will learn anything if they are not forced to? I don't know about you, but I learned a great deal more after high-school and college than when I was attending school. Should I assume that I am special, that the majority of humans do not have my tendency to seek learning new things and educating themselves? I highly doubt I am an elevated specimen. Do you have so little faith in individuals that they would not take an interest in contributing to their respective communities if they were not forced to go to school? Come on! I would argue obligatory education presents the same problems that would occur with voluntary education.

Through centuries of human toil and curiosity, we have discovered a great number of things. We understand how atoms work; we have figured out how to send ourselves into outer-space; we have figured out how to make people's hearts and brains work again, and replace bones when ours get fragile (hip replacements); and the list goes on. Human progress does not come from schools; it comes from the process of education and, humans. There are thousands of ways in which education and prior knowledge can be facilitated, generation-to-generation, without authoritarian schools.

For this reason, equating voluntary education with communities becoming primitivist, is just silly. Again, you basically connote that people are a bunch of idiots, waiting for the superior minority of deities to enlighten the rest of us so we do not become cave-people. It just seems like a false dichotomy: obligatory education or the Flinstones. Really?

I was under the impression that we were talking about a socialist or communist community, not a primitivist one.

I was making an analogy using tribal societies that function without hierarchy and authority. Children learn what they need to survive. And essentially, these societies are socialist and communistic in every sense of these terms. Primitivism usually refers to a strain of anarchism that believes that we must roll back the clock one-thousand years; I am vehemently opposed to this (on a macro level-perhaps some communties would choose to do this, and as long as they did not force their strange ideas on me, I suppose I wouldn't care). Primitivism would lead to, basicallly, self-inflicted genocide, because most of us do not understand or know how to be a hunter/gatherer society. I wasn't hinting at a primitivist post-revolutionary society, and would want no part of it.

Again: I guess this would be a community-by-community basis, but I don't believe that this discussion was really centered around a tribalist or primitivist community

As mentioned, I was merely making an analogy.

I think we disagree entirely over the ability for children to make informed long-term decisions.

If you mean do I think society will roll back 1000 years, there will be no medicine, and our life expectency as a species will decline because education is facilitated in anti-authoritarian manners, then yes, we disagree.

like the decision to engage in a sexual relationship with an adult

Now, I find this troubling. I think what you have done here is equate letting children choose their means of education with child-rape. I would certainly agree with you that an adult having sex with a child is coercive. So is a society dictating how the child should be educated. The predator sexually violates the child while the State mentally violates her or him. The child should be allowed to avoid coercion in all scenarios. I personally don't think the analogy works.

Thanks for the dialogue, melbicimini! Enjoyed it.

mel

27th June 2009, 12:28

Certainly. Whether referring to People with Disabilities, children, or (as you mentioned) people under the influence of drugs, if they are incapable of making rational decisions, e.g., a child that wants to play in the express way, or a person with mental illness who feels the need to assault people, then they should be coerced. No disagreements there. This doesn't negate any of my opinions concerning post-revolutionary society. So, my 13 month old infant, if left to his own devices, would starve to death if, say, I let him crawl down the stairs of our home, into the street, and out of the neighborhood. This would be a criminal act, because my infant son is incapable of making a rational decisions in this regard, i.e., he cannot protect himself from intruders or feed himself.

I see not obtaining a basic education to be roughly equivalent insofar as harm is concerned as playing in the expressway. I don't think a child can really adequately rationally weigh the consequences of never learning to read.

Again, I agree. Actually, this is a great basis for why I believe schools should be voluntary. If you do believe that children's decisions should be "relevant to their interests," then we should agree that school should be voluntary in a post-revolutionary, communist society. If they are to "make whatever decisions they wish," then they should be free to say "I will choose the educational method for which I see fit."

I don't think children should be able to choose not to obtain a basic education in reading, writing, and maths. I do believe that once in an educational learning environment, they should be able to choose for themselves what to take besides their "general education" requirements and that the only way to make schools "compulsory" is the way it is now. If you do not attend class, you do not learn the material. Testing to make sure that the material is comprehended will still be necessary not only for placement purposes but also to help improve the methods of teaching and the curriculum as a whole. I think because learning most sufficiently complex concepts takes time, and is a gradual process, in order to be effective schools would need to be similar in many ways to today's schools: material would build on previously learned material, in your hypothetical situation where school was not compulsory, how would a child who decided they wanted to learn to read go about doing it? Would they need to wait for the next "semester" of an educational institution to start and enroll themselves? Would they need to ask their parents to teach them? A stranger in the community? Would the child have to design a learning schedule (including which days and times they wanted their reading class to be) get it signed by a bunch of children who wanted to meet at the same time, then go apply for a teacher to teach the class who would also agree to this schedule? What if that kid can't find a person willing to agree to their schedule for teaching? There are a lot of practical problems of organization when you're dealing with a situation like your hypothetical situation.

You're projecting an idea that society at large dominates the child and tells them what they should learn. Yes, most "modern" societies will deem arithmetic and reading to be important, but there should never be a majority oppressing a minority; I perceive true communism would do away with "majority rule" decision-making.

Maybe, I have to think about this more, but I still believe

I think, perhaps, you assume that the only element in our life that would change after a revolution is economics (I could be wrong). The reason I say this is because I get the impression that you are in favor of traditional educational models, market economies, and the division of labor. I argue that a communist, post-revolution society would have to dismantle every aspect of life to facilitate meaningful change. So, the family would have to be rethought, i.e., authoritarian model of parent (and usually father-I take it you oppose patriarchy/patricentricity) over children, classes would be abolished, i.e., remuneration in paper or vouchers would almost unequivocally give rise to inequality, the division of labor would have to be reconsidered, i.e., everyone would contribute to numerous duties within said community, and education would have to be reconsidered, i.e., authoritarian models of teacher/student with student regurgitating information for purposes of becoming a wage-slave later in life.

Division of labor is absolutely necessary in any society where certain types of work are so complex that the skills necessary to do that work take 15-20 years to cultivate. Unless in your theoretical post-revolutionary society there is no skilled labor, some standardization of education will be necessary. MANY things will change from the current educational model and classroom activities should be designed to encourage free thought rather than blind regurgitation. I feel that most education should be remodelled roughly after university education exists now, in that there are basic "general education" requirements, then a series of electives which make up the majority of the coursework. A student, even in the early years, should be able to choose which courses most interest them, but the basic prerequisites for MOST other types of education is reading, writing, and basic arithmetic. A child who does not learn these things will be incapable of learning concepts which build on these skills, and increasingly they are necessary for meaningful interaction.

I don't believe in a market economy, I doubt the effectiveness of and necessity for labor vouchers (though they are different from capitalist money in that they would not circulate, so they do not command the same type of power, they would be a single-use currency, just to prove that you are working, the necessity for which, once again, I doubt...but it could be useful in a transitional stage), and as for the parent/child relationship you already agreed that in some instances parental coercion is a necessary coercion when the child cannot rationally make their own decision in a given scenario. You and I simply disagree as to whether or not a child is capable of rationally making a decision as to whether or not they need a basic education. I argue that a child is not capable of deciding for themselves if they need to learn basic skills because their capabilities for long-term decision making (and this is a very long-term decision) are not at the same level as an adult's, you argue that they are.

You say that people will perform numerous duties in a society, and this is fine, however in many situations for many types of work this is simply not possible without a high degree of training. Should people need to get certifications to do certain types of work which require a great degree of skill? A person cannot simply walk into a restaurant one day and decide that they will be a professional chef, they cannot simply walk into an office and decide that they will be a computer programmer, they cannot simply walk into a hospital and decide that they will be a doctor. They cannot walk into a construction yard and decide that they will be an engineer. They cannot even simply walk into a factory one day and decide that they will operate the machinery. Every remotely meaningful job (and shouldn't all work be meaningful?) requires a certain degree of training, which requires a time investment, education, and certification. I think that people should be able to more or less change jobs if they wish at any point in time, I think instead of being company or workplace oriented, most jobs should be project-oriented when possible (this is a shorter-term commitment, though if the same team wants to work on multiple projects this is obviously allowed), but a person should not be able to leave mid-project as they have a contractual obligation to finish the work that they started.

As for the teacher/student relationship: how much authority is too much authority? If a student in your hypothetical society of free-association decides that they want to go to a school, not to learn, but to disrupt the education of others by walking around the room destroying textbooks, or by simply being a distraction to others who have chosen as free agents to attend classes to learn, is there anything that the teacher can do in this situation? Can they ask the disruptive student to leave the class? Can they force them out of the class if they do not comply?

Education is extremely complex, and in a society where division of labor is a practical necessity due to the sheer time investment necessary to become proficient in certain types of work (unless all labor is reduced to the most meaningless and trivial types of jobs, or education in all fields is compulsory so that everybody has a degree of training in all jobs) some degree of general education is necessary.

If only economics are changed, you get something analogous to the atrocious Soviet Union; there's nothing truly revolutionary about state-capitalism. The major point that I would stress is this: a social revolution must destroy society and rebuild it as people see fit. Changing economic monopoly from private to state hands without reconsidering the idea of something like "education" would be, I think, nonsensical.

We can reconsider how education works, we can reconsider classroom structure, we can reconsider how much of what type of education is necessary, and we can reconsider our methods of teaching. In any sufficiently complex society though, we can even reconsider the concept of some sort of institutional education, or (as we are) be engaged in a dialog as to whether or not attendance should be compulsory. However, I believe that unless you want to roll back the wheel of time about 1,000 years, compulsory attendance or no, some form of institutional education is required, because let's face it: Higher-level education in most skilled professions requires a basic education in at least reading, writing, and maths as a prerequisite. Institutional education is the best way BY FAR that society has found for making it so that the vast majority of people in a society have at least the most basic skills required to function in skilled jobs and in constructing an educational baseline that specialized education can build on instead of having to start from the ground and work up. Can you imagine the amount of work that would need to be put in if a person had decided when they were younger that they didn't need to go to school, then one day decided it would be cool to be an architectural engineer? All of a sudden there is an illiterate 22 year old who, in order to achieve their dream of becoming an architectural engineer, needs to make up about 10-15 years worth of math, reading, writing, and physics education before then learning all of the skills necessary for the specific job which they want to do. Education is in no way harmful, but not getting a baseline education is greatly harmful, in that learning is easiest at a young age while the brain is still developing. A child who cannot understand the long-term consequences of having SEVERE limits to their own freedom (and more education more or less means more true freedom, a person with a basic education in many subjects can spend less time and is more flexible in the types of work that they can engage in, and has more freedom to change jobs) should not be allowed to make that decision for themselves. A compulsory education, while arguably coercive, maximizes the long-term freedom of that individual, and considering that child is not capable of realizing, understanding, and consenting to the long-term consequences, it is in my mind a necessary coercion.

Again, you're not negating anything that I wrote or believe. I wholeheartedly agree with you that children's brains are in a state of development ( I believe the human brain is still developing until the age of 24), and as I mentioned the extreme case of a child that wants to play in the expressway, there are certainly moments in which a lesser-evil coercion comes into play with parents. For example, if I save my son's life but inhibit his freedom, I do not feel bad for this. As with an extremely drunk person who wants to drive home, I would feel better about coercing this person not to drive.

And I would argue that compulsory education is less freedom-inhibiting than not having that education 15 years down the road. I think compulsory education is a "lesser-evil" coercion.

However, I believe voluntary school has nothing to do with this. If someone has to go to school, or a job, with the only consequences being punishment, or starvation (concerning the job), then it is coercive and authoritarian. I think if a community has schools, then teachers should not be viewed as authority figures, have no say over what the children do, i.e., if they come or go, and strive to make the school become what the children want, as opposed to their parents.

I addressed this above.

Wow. You do not have much faith in humans left to their own vices. Do you really think that no one will learn anything if they are not forced to? I don't know about you, but I learned a great deal more after high-school and college than when I was attending school. Should I assume that I am special, that the majority of humans do not have my tendency to seek learning new things and educating themselves? I highly doubt I am an elevated specimen. Do you have so little faith in individuals that they would not take an interest in contributing to their respective communities if they were not forced to go to school? Come on! I would argue obligatory education presents the same problems that would occur with voluntary education.

How much of what you learned after high school and college could you still have learned if you didn't know how to read? This wasn't a matter of little faith, but I was trying to make a hypothetical example that if a generation of children decided that they would rather play than go to school (as children often do) that things could quickly deteriorate. While I believe in the power of self-education, and that for many people self-education is a wonderful option, a student cannot self-educate themselves on something like electronics or anatomy, chemistry, and biology if they cannot read. ;) At least some education in these things is necessary for the long-term health of a free society.

Through centuries of human toil and curiosity, we have discovered a great number of things. We understand how atoms work; we have figured out how to send ourselves into outer-space; we have figured out how to make people's hearts and brains work again, and replace bones when ours get fragile (hip replacements); and the list goes on. Human progress does not come from schools; it comes from the process of education and, humans. There are thousands of ways in which education and prior knowledge can be facilitated, generation-to-generation, without authoritarian schools.

Most of these things that we have discovered were because of our ability to pass down discovered information through writing, thereby preserving our efforts and saving the labor of rediscovery through future generations. "Authoritarian" schools might not be the answer, and schools would have a far greater degree of flexibility, classroom methods would be different, and many of the other methodologies and specifics of classroom learning would be different...however I believe that compulsory education in a school-type environment for at least the very most basic skills is extremely important, because a person who lacks those skills has limited freedom in what they can or cannot do in a given day because their lack of education is a limiting factor.

For this reason, equating voluntary education with communities becoming primitivist, is just silly. Again, you basically connote that people are a bunch of idiots, waiting for the superior minority of deities to enlighten the rest of us so we do not become cave-people. It just seems like a false dichotomy: obligatory education or the Flinstones. Really?

No, I was just attempting to argue a point that things could rapidly fall apart if students decided en masse that they were not going to learn even the most basic of skills.

I was making an analogy using tribal societies that function without hierarchy and authority. Children learn what they need to survive. And essentially, these societies are socialist and communistic in every sense of these terms. Primitivism usually refers to a strain of anarchism that believes that we must roll back the clock one-thousand years; I am vehemently opposed to this (on a macro level-perhaps some communties would choose to do this, and as long as they did not force their strange ideas on me, I suppose I wouldn't care). Primitivism would lead to, basicallly, self-inflicted genocide, because most of us do not understand or know how to be a hunter/gatherer society. I wasn't hinting at a primitivist post-revolutionary society, and would want no part of it.

I know what primitivism is, and I don't think you can make any meaningful analogy between tribal societies and a contemporary society because the skills "needed to survive" for the society as a whole and for the individual are vastly different.

As mentioned, I was merely making an analogy.

I don't think it applies.

Now, I find this troubling. I think what you have done here is equate letting children choose their means of education with child-rape. I would certainly agree with you that an adult having sex with a child is coercive. So is a society dictating how the child should be educated. The predator sexually violates the child while the State mentally violates her or him. The child should be allowed to avoid coercion in all scenarios. I personally don't think the analogy works.

Child-rape is "rape" because the child, like a drugged person or a person otherwise mentally impaired, is incapable of giving informed consent to the relationship. A child is also incapable of giving informed consent to running across the expressway or living under a bridge and eating worms for sustenance. However you're right, the comparison was bad. The point was to illustrate that a child does not have informed consent (and is rationally impaired) by pointing to a generally accepted example of a situation in which because of a lack of ability to give informed consent, the child might "willingly" put themselves in a position of harm, such as the position they would be in if they severely limited their options by not getting a basic education.

Thanks for the dialogue, melbicimini! Enjoyed it.

Me too.

21st Century Kropotkinist

27th June 2009, 22:55

I see not obtaining a basic education to be roughly equivalent insofar as harm is concerned as playing in the expressway. I don't think a child can really adequately rationally weigh the consequences of never learning to read.

I believe those who are capable of tasks needed for basic needs in a community, i.e., reading, writing, and math will share this knowledge with those who need to acquire it, e.g., people with illiteracy, young children, etc.

I don't think children should be able to choose not to obtain a basic education in reading, writing, and maths.

I think most free-associating communities would be persistent with those who have not acquired said skill-sets, so as long as those individuals who haven't required needed skill-sets wanted to participate in the community. Ultimately, though, different communities will have different relevant skill sets in any kind of meaningful post-revolution society. I mean, we're getting into the territory of describing societies that do not at present exist. Really, none of us know anything about this; at best we can try to prefigure a world that is free of dominating and oppressive structures like capitalism and the State. So, in communities in which reading, writing, and math is of importance (in most it certainly would), by acknowledging that they want to associate in this community, the children are essentially acknowledging that they want to acquire reading, writing, and math. And those that have already acquired such skills would pass down their knowledge more than likely. If not, this is an unjust, oppressive community. Hence, for a society to be free of domination and oppression, those who have acquired necessary knowledge will pass down this information. It doesn't need to be obligatory, for the one-millionth time (in my humble opinion).

how would a child who decided they wanted to learn to read go about doing it? Would they need to wait for the next "semester" of an educational institution to start and enroll themselves? Would they need to ask their parents to teach them? A stranger in the community? Would the child have to design a learning schedule (including which days and times they wanted their reading class to be) get it signed by a bunch of children who wanted to meet at the same time, then go apply for a teacher to teach the class who would also agree to this schedule? What if that kid can't find a person willing to agree to their schedule for teaching? There are a lot of practical problems of organization when you're dealing with a situation like your hypothetical situation.

I think that for a community to be decent, and I'm only really referring to the kind of community that I would like to participate and form after a hypothetical revolution, that if the community consists of people that have thought through ideas of "morals" and "ethics," then depriving disadvantaged people of anything needed (after all, communism is based on the mantra "From each according to abilities to each according to their needs"), i.e., food, water, necessary knowledge, is authoritarian and antithetical to communism, AS IS FORCING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS. And I know in your defense you'll say that mandatory education will provide them with these things, hence, it is altruistic. However, I do not believe it would be a consistent message in a society that seeks complete liberty, i.e., communism, to tell our children that there is one model of education, and we adults determine what that is, and you'll accept what we give you. I think children should have a say, as mentioned in a previous message. It's a simple and (I think) not so outlandish assumption.

Division of labor is absolutely necessary in any society where certain types of work are so complex that the skills necessary

You speak as if this is empirical knowledge, as if we are having a debate about evolution or a cogent theory. I think communities could easily exist w/o the division of labor. Now, we may be having a semantic battle here. What I refer to as the division of labor is turning people into mindless robots for a good portion of the day, everyday. There would certainly still be different fields of labor, but I don't think individual x needs to be confined to farming the rest of her life while individual y must be confined to being a nurse the rest of his life; the nurse can learn farming, and the farming can learn nursing. I not saying that entities like "carpentry" or "health care" should be abolished or amalgamated or something bizarre like that; I'm simply saying that I believe it would be more productive for individuals to participate in both health care and carpentry, or whatever they are proficient in and interested in.

I don't believe in a market economy, I doubt the effectiveness of and necessity for labor vouchers

Comrade, here we are in complete agreement.

How much of what you learned after high school and college could you still have learned if you didn't know how to read? This wasn't a matter of little faith, but I was trying to make a hypothetical example that if a generation of children decided that they would rather play than go to school (as children often do) that things could quickly deteriorate. While I believe in the power of self-education, and that for many people self-education is a wonderful option, a student cannot self-educate themselves on something like electronics or anatomy, chemistry, and biology if they cannot read. ;) At least some education in these things is necessary for the long-term health of a free society.

Very little. Again, it would be a wretched society that deprived any need from anyone. Hence, a society that had an understanding of basic ethics would share learned knowledge with those who have disadvantage. If solidarity and mutual aid aren't practiced, we can barely call something "society" or "community." If I didn't learn how to read, I certainly would have been inhibited. But I trust that if I lived in a place that believed in a form of solidarity and helping fellow peers/family-members/citizens, then I would have learned many of these things without the indoctrination camp I was sent to for 18 years. Yes, you certainly cannot grasp anatomy, biology, or chemistry without acquiring bits and pieces of other individuals knowledge. We would be talking about some individualist, cappie utopia if we were simply talking about a bunch of extreme egoists who were absolutely unconcerned with other individuals and holding a monopoly on acquired knowledge. This is the kind of situation that would create distopia and primitivism, i.e., through deprivation of need.

Hey melbicimni. You make good points, and I think ultimately our disagreement comes down to a matter of opinion. I will address some points briefly here instead of responding to every part of your post. I will discuss (1)the problem of division of labor vis-a-vis your suggestion that any industrial society needs it, (2) (for the last time) why I used the analogy of tribal communities vis-a-vis industrial communities, and (3) my own conception of the term "education."

First, to use my own critique of division of labor instead of relying on some "great theorist" (because there are eloquent critiques of division of labor amongst anarchists from Kropotkin to Chomsky): the division of labor often requires the individual to over-specialize. So, let's look at the model of an automobile factory. One person may manually start screwing on a nut on a wheel for eight-hours every day for 40 years of her or his life. Like this mind-numbing job, there are hundreds like it within this hypothetical society. I perceive this kind of labor to be anti-human, and I think it inhibits people's potentials to discover things, contribute meaningfully to communities, and pool creative energy. I'm referring to the fact that many jobs within ANY community can be shared by the community collectively instead of one person mindlessly doing the same thing over-and-over again. You're correct that not everyone can walk into, say, a science laboratoy and become a biochemist, or walk off of the street into a hospital and become a neurosurgeon; this requires vast amounts of EDUCATION! I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying, so I apologize if I'm being ambiguous.

The point I am making is this: said indivual who screws nuts onto wheels is probably capable of much, much more and can spend his days in more constructive ways, and the individual who has studied neurosurgery and become a proficient clinician can also contribute to her or his respective communities in other ways. Everyone is capable of wearing different hats, and I believe that the division of labor prevents this. I'm not saying that tomorrow I, someone who undertands nothing of biochemistry, should be able to declare myself a biochemist without attaining the needed education. Again, I think you're suggesting that without formal educational systems and obligatory attendance, individuals would not seek out this knowledge. Look, human history has done a great deal of the work for us. The idea of children having say in their educational process being a force that would roll back the clock suggests that we humans have no curiosity or eagerness to learn how to do what came before us.

Becoming an architectural engineer or a physician is no small feat; there is an unbelievable amount of knowledge one must obtain to be a competent practitioner. However, if one chooses to wear more than one or two hats in life, or communities do this, they should have the choice. I would argue that giving people monotanous work for 8 hours of the day, 5-6 days per week, alienates the individual.

Ok. In regards to why I used the "tribal communities" analogy (and this is the last time I'm defending myself on this one--perhaps I should have used a better example): Most every industrial society has obligatory education, and all industrial countries have FAILED at creating equality or "levelling the playing-field." Hence, there are dire problems in the current educational model. I discussed tribal societies because they are examples of the fact that children want to learn, and are capable of learning needed traits for participating in the community. You keep referring to math and reading, which we would both agree that they are necessary learning tools. However, I argue that there will be, in a post-revolutionary society, individuals that are capable of teaching such knowledge, as well as eager pupils. I would argue that even without tests, which are so effective and pupils love taking so much, children would still be driven to learn these needed traits. Look, no one forces infantile children to try new things; there is an innate learning process, just as there is innate language acquisition. Why would learning skills needed for any community be any different? We already function in an industrialized society. We have complex systems of written language, and we use complex electronics like computers to do work that we cannot or do not have time for. It would be unlikely, in my opinion, that we would devolve into a dysmal state of primitivism if children can choose their educational methods. I doubt it. I am more sanguine about children, I suppose, naive maybe.

I believe the human-being is probably driven partially by education and learning. I perceive education to be the joyus task of acquiring new knowledge and a constancy of new experience. Who wouldn't want this? I tend to think that elder, experienced groups of said fields like medicine and archtitecture would still be driven to teach those interested in becoming engineers or doctors, respectively. And communities will be privy to someone trying to claim such knowledge and not actually possess it.

It is doubtful that you and I will reach consensus on this. But I hope I've articulated my beliefs. And as far as your hypothetical scenario about the anti-social student in a voluntary school acting out in class? Well, I think like a rogue community member that, say, hits people with bats, the community will choose to collectivelly coerce said individual, in return not being coerced by the bat-swinging sociopath. I think the same goes for a group of students for whom are voluntarilly being educated. First and foremost, I think the wild student will not stick around and cause trouble since he or she is clearly indicating disinterest by destroying textbooks and acting out. But I believe if the student-body is attending voluntarily, then they, and the teacher, would not allow their class to be interrupted. I do not see a problem withthis student being escorted out of the "school by students and teachers, collectively. Sometimes, a community may have to directly confront domination and oppression, and a student acting in this manner is attempting to be oppresive and dominating. An analogy (I'm sure you won't approve!): a group of adults who are technically "family" meet in someone's place of living to spend time together and eat a meal. If one family member is being violent and belligerent towards other individuals, it is likely that this group of free-associating individuals will coerce the violent, belligerent family-member to leave (rightfully so). I see no differnet from the pupil(s) that behave this way.

mel

28th June 2009, 00:05

You have articulated your beliefs and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. You and I have different conceptions of how much structure a post-revolutionary community ought to have, and I'll have to chalk that up to the fact that (and correct me if this is a bad assumption here) you are an anarchist and I am not. I think at the heart of this matter is a different conception between the two of us about how to describe freedom and which types of freedom are more important.

Old Man Diogenes

28th June 2009, 13:03

i believe it was also intended as a joke.

Ah, silly me

Rusty Shackleford

28th June 2009, 23:35

Alright well thankyou comrades. this thread turned out much better than i predicted.

ill probably save it as a word doc even so i can re read it haha. quite lengthy.

this is kind of why i have the problem of trying to explain it, so many different views. but what it boils down to is that we cant really tell. we can agree on certain things but not others. thats fine.

this sort of covers the general problems of figuring out a post-revolutionary society. we cant definitely know until it happens. :(

again thank you.:)

ckaihatsu

29th June 2009, 19:59

Me too.

Feels as if we talked past each other. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

No prob -- it happens. Nothing particular / personal to you, anyway -- it's a flawed formulation that often pops up....

ckaihatsu

29th June 2009, 20:00

What's missing from this discussion is a focus on * human need * and the worker-collective control of production (manufacturing). If we're anti-capitalists and we wish to see an end to the world being bled dry by the capitalist profit motive then we have to be certain that we would have some provisional plans for updating / upgrading the educational process to something more appropriate to a society that's administered by the mass of workers.

Given that a revolutionary society would be oriented towards the alleviation of human needs and wants, we can simply *work backwards* from that desired result to map out a (provisional) branching of supply chains that would come together to produce the exact items that are called for -- including steps of education, training, and apprenticeship.

To the degree that a free-agent and apprenticing system of labor would fulfill the production orders demanded by the larger society, I would agree with that approach to labor (and the *educating* for labor / life roles).

However, if some work roles tended to be more difficult and unpalatable and were understaffed, we would need to have some kind of revolutionary societal superstructure in place -- a centralized mass administration -- that could exert conscious control and planning so as to reapportion workers and develop the staff for needed work roles, including education-related roles, from a *broader* pool of the population.

Perhaps a quick spurt to the full use of computerization and automation, in a post-capitalist revolutionary period, would eliminate virtually *all* menial and distasteful roles so that this whole discussion would be moot.

Regardless of what work is to be done, though, I think a post-capitalist society would *still* have an objective, non-discriminatory interest in each and every person's development. This means that there would *have* to be some generalized (collective) administration over the process of education, drawn from the ranks of the society's workers collectives. The undesirable alternative would be the situation in which individuals "dropped out" of consistent education to such a degree that they wound up effectively dropping out of participation in society as well. I think this situation is *very* prevalent in today's capitalist political society, where not much is required of the individual, in terms of political agency -- bourgeois rulership institutes its own imperial administrations throughout and infantilizes the regular population, in general, through exclusion.

A post-capitalist society would liberate the individual from confinement in the nuclear family and would free them into available roles of political agency over the production process, in common with neighboring workers in each locale.

By the same regard, a revolutionary society could only continue its revolutionary orientation by refreshing its population with newer generations of revolutionary-minded participants -- *this* is the *objective interest* that a revolutionary society would have in *all* of its workers and in *each* worker. With a stronger, more vibrant base -- made possible through a mass coordination (administration) over the education process -- there would be a higher-quality population existing -- for more varied work roles, for expanding the productive capabilities of the society, and for art, research, and science.