Higher Education

[Wolf Larson]

How many people do we have in University? Many of the Marxists I know have received a college education- does this, in your eyes, separate people from the working class? Does this automatically propel people into a petty bourgeois existence?

Can we have a classless society if there is one section of society reciving higher education while another is not? Should Marxists reject university and work to organize?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I stick with local colleges to try & learn through diverse topics. I don't agree with the idea of specializing in one single topic, which is exactly how Universities play as. They are a specialized educational system that pumps out workers.

[FSL]

And masters.

Most workers/employee's aren't educated in University. Some of they petty bourgeois are ie: doctors ,lawyers, accountants and so on.

I guess my point is how do we avoid creating just another class above the working class?
[Typo fixed]


Doctors or lawyers can be considered petty-bourgeois only when they are the owners of their business or working independently. Doctors who are working in a hospital that isn't their property or lawyers who are employed in law firms of course are workers.

And also of course people with diplomas are workers. It's not the level of education you get that defines your class but your relations to the means of production. There might be small conflicts between uneducated and specialized laborers -as there are between different segments of the bourgeoisie- but not deep class differences.

The only way I can think of to make these conflicts go away is ensure everyone's access to education and raise the society's cultural level.

[Axle]

Can we have a classless society if there is one section of society reciving higher education while another is not?

No, we can't if it's because of economic reasons. Under Communism, higher education will be freely available to anyone who wishes to pursue it.

[CELMX]

How many people do we have in University? Many of the Marxists I know have received a college education- does this, in your eyes, separate people from the working class? Does this automatically propel people into a petty bourgeois existence?

Can we have a classless society if there is one section of society reciving higher education while another is not? Should Marxists reject university and work to organize?

No, I definitely do not believe receiving a college education would separate people from the working class (unless, they study management, business, or something of the sort, duh)

As FSL said, it all just depends on ownership of means of production. Being smarter, or having more education, than another person does not put you on a higher class.

It is really up to the person whether they want to go to university or not. You can still recieve education and work to organize at the same time. If anything, I actually think some college courses can improve your ability to analyze societies and/or help you organize. Also, I'm not completely sure about this, since i'm not in college, but universities, I believe, is a great way to meet other revolutionaries. There are many student groups that are marxist, organize workers, etc.
I'm not saying that all Marxists should attend universities, and, again, it's really up to the person.

[ArrowLance]

Yes. As with all educational systems they really teach the bourgeois ideology. Lenin even said higher technical personnel were natural allies of the bourgeoisie.

This isn't to say that anyone with a degree can't be a revolutionary marxist, but colleges and universities tend to liberalize and pacify.

On the same subject, I would suggest to anyone coming out of high school in the USA to NOT go to college or university. Most likely any desires to do so are out of being told that you should. The educational system puts up this idea that to be a winner you have to go to college, this way if you fail out or don't go you don't complain about being a 'loser.' It's all about tricking you into accepting the bourgeois ideology.

I myself always wanted to go to college or university, at least I thought I did. Now I realize that while I do enjoy learning, I have no interest in doing white collar work and going to college just to rack up student debt. I assume, myself being nothing special, that a large amount of people are like me. I want to go into construction, building things others appreciate is satisfying work even when the bourgeoisie steal my labour from me and call it their own.

[which doctor]

Nowadays, college is essentially an extension of the process of the reproduction of the working class, much like primary and secondary school is. A high school diploma in the early 20th century didn't 'elevate' you above the working class, and neither does a college diploma in the 21st century. There was a time when only the privileged attended university, but that time has passed, at least in most of the industrialized world. The vast majority of college graduates end up as working-class people.

[Wolf Larson]

Doctors or lawyers can be considered petty-bourgeois only when they are the owners of their business or working independently. Doctors who are working in a hospital that isn't their property or lawyers who are employed in law firms of course are workers.

And also of course people with diplomas are workers. It's not the level of education you get that defines your class but your relations to the means of production. There might be small conflicts between uneducated and specialized laborers -as there are between different segments of the bourgeoisie- but not deep class differences.

The only way I can think of to make these conflicts go away is ensure everyone's access to education and raise the society's cultural level.

My point is how to avoid preserving hierarchical institutions. Of course free and equal access to education is the soloution but we don't have that. Perhaps that should come before the revolution? If an 'educated' class is to 'manage' the revolution what will keep this 'educated' class from taking the place of the capitalist bourgeois in controlling the state apparatus and thus the workers themselves as has happened in the past? Philip Zombardo has done much work concerning the roots of 'evil' [as he calls it] being hierarchy.

This is the old anarchist/Marxist argument. I'm just trying to tread softly here.

Check out this doc called :The Evilness Of Power" and let me know what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights#p/u/37/fjYT7nFQUa4

There's nine 10 minute videos.

[Wolf Larson]

Nowadays, college is essentially an extension of the process of the reproduction of the working class, much like primary and secondary school is. A high school diploma in the early 20th century didn't 'elevate' you above the working class, and neither does a college diploma in the 21st century. There was a time when only the privileged attended university, but that time has passed, at least in most of the industrialized world. The vast majority of college graduates end up as working-class people.
This is true but at the same time not true. The 'middle class' is simply shrinking. Wealth is concentrating or monopolizing wealth to the point where the old [mostly propagandized] "American dream" cannot manifest. All in all wealth and privilege still produces wealth and privilege. This isnt necessarily my point though.

[which doctor]

This is true but at the same time not true. The 'middle class' is simply shrinking. Wealth is concentrating or monopolizing wealth to the point where the old [mostly propagandized] "American dream" cannot manifest. All in all wealth and privilege still produces wealth and privilege. This isnt necessarily my point though.
Of course wealth and privilege reproduce wealth and privilege, but it is important to understand that the middle class is a cultural construct, not one defined by their relation to the means of production. In fact, most 'middle class' people are actually working class, though they might not like to think so. What made the middle class possible was drastic improvements in technical efficiency, higher standards of living, and the increased earning potential made possible by the Fordist mode of production. Also important in the creation of the middle class, was the early American labor movement that fought tooth and nail to get the benefits, pensions, higher wages, etc. that allowed for 'working class' familes to become, culturally at least, middle class. The 'middle class' is now shrinking for a multitude of reasons. One, we've gone to a post-Fordist mode of production that requires far fewer skilled workers, but requires many, unskilled 'mass workers' in the new service industry. Two, many of the manufacturing plants that paid high, union wages have moved overseas where labour is far cheaper. Also important, is that the US labour movement has been slowly crushed since at least the 1970's. Thus, all the benefits the labour movement fought for, were taken for granted, and have been slowly disappearing and unions are being crushed. Working families can no longer afford to be middle class.

[Liberateeducate]

learn as much as you can, in any available arena, and use it to contribute to the struggle. I know a trade (electrical) and am working towards a B.A. in Social Science.

[Invincible Summer]

My point is how to avoid preserving hierarchical institutions. Of course free and equal access to education is the soloution but we don't have that. Perhaps that should come before the revolution? If an 'educated' class is to 'manage' the revolution what will keep this 'educated' class from taking the place of the capitalist bourgeois in controlling the state apparatus and thus the workers themselves as has happened in the past? Philip Zombardo has done much work concerning the roots of 'evil' [as he calls it] being hierarchy.

Pushing for free and equal access to education, much like healthcare, can be done at the same time as pushing for revolution. It doesn't have to be sequential.

Who ever said anything about an "educated class managing the revolution?" If you're referring to the vanguard, it's not the intelligentsia or only people with uni degrees - it refers to an education in revolutionary politics. Basically, knowing what you're fighting for (communism) so you can tell others so you can convince others to fight for it too.

So during a revolutionary scenario, a bulk of the working class should be the vanguard, or at least that's how I understand it. There may be a smaller group that takes on a greater organizational role, but there's an electoral process... that stuff is more detailed and I think RL users like Jacob Richter and Paul Cockshott have discussed it on some other thread.



A general point: I think it's a bit... not dangerous.. but perhaps foolhardy to fetishize "non-education" as virtuous. It's just like those "who's more prole?!" arguments.

[bricolage]

Most of the people I know who graduated last year are on the dole or working in call centres, my friend works in Waterstones with a guy who has a phd. Go figure; http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/18/young-people-unemployment-jobs-neets

Fees are about to double in the UK, loans and grants will not however at the same time the impetus in schools will still be on going to university (I believe the government is still after the 50% figure). As such while education will become more concentrated in the wealthy this will only be to a certain degree, I believe what you will get is more and more people studying for degrees they cannot use, racking up debts they cannot pay back and working in jobs they were told they could escape from.

As was rightly said your relationship to the means of production, not what qualifications you have that determines your position in capitalism, the promise has always been that the latter could determine the former, nowadays it is becoming less so.

hjCkN1Hnmoc