college vs. the working world

[Terminator X]

I've run into several acquaintances recently who basically are spending their adult lives in school - I'm talking like 30+ year old people who have yet to actually get a real job or, for that matter, work a day in their lives. They live off of their student loans or inheritance and pretty much just travel the world attending various "schools" to get certifications and degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

How would people like this be treated in a hypothetical socialist society? Would people be permitted to attend school "in perpetuity"? I have no problems, obviously, with people attending college, but isn't the goal to obtain a degree and actually contribute something to society after the fact? Would there be a time limit on how long you could stay in school, and would you have to show progress in working toward, say, a PhD if you were in college for 12 years?

Frankly, most of these people I've encountered are the bourgeois liberal type who are pretty far removed from the working class.

[o well this is ok I guess]

They'd be able to do it, but they wouldn't have to worry about all that "student loan" and "inheritance" business.
What's wrong with learning for the sake of learning, man? Isn't there something satisfying about knowledge that cannot be found with simple application of knowledge?

[thesadmafioso]

I can't see why such an abuse of the educational system would be allowed to perpetuate itself, especially when there are plenty of deserving workers who could easily make great use out of similar opportunities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ongoing education would be a must IMO. I think that education should be organized on a voluntary basis after maybe a few years of learning some basic skills like reading and math.

I'd love to live like one of those people, I'd love to just audit classes if I had the time, I'd love to learn about anthropology and science and dinosaurs and all kinds of things just for the sake of interest. This is natural I think and this is how young children live until they go to school and learn to hate learning because it is done in a bare-bones utilitarian and alienated way.

I hope a revolution will allow us ALL to live that way and travel more and learn what interests us as well as learn skills that are practical and useful. People retire and go back to school, idol rich people become academics or just go from painting class to sculpture class to excercize class etc, people with trust funds go to school for a long time, children display a real hunger for learning things and doing all kinds of different things. This, to me is much more "natural" than how most of us have to live our lives around being workers and earning a wage to the exclusion of our own desires and interests.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Damnit! People shouldn't educate themselves for its own sake in a socialist society!

Seems to me these guys are actually living the socailst dream.

Don't be jelly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can't see why such an abuse of the educational system would be allowed to perpetuate itself, especially when there are plenty of deserving workers who could easily make great use out of similar opportunities.

I think one of the first goals in the post-revolution period would be INCREASING access to health and education and housing. It would be good just on a human level, but it would also help working class rule because it would get rid of dependance on certain skilled induviduals and would mean that we could have more doctors so that everyone could get the medical care they needed etc.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Damnit! People shouldn't educate themselves for its own sake in a socialist society!

Seems to me these guys are actually living the socailst dream.

Don't be jelly. Welp time to close down the art faculties and fill em with ENGINEERING CLASSES
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[thesadmafioso]

I think one of the first goals in the post-revolution period would be INCREASING access to health and education and housing. It would be good just on a human level, but it would also help working class rule because it would get rid of dependance on certain skilled induviduals and would mean that we could have more doctors so that everyone could get the medical care they needed etc.

Yeah, that's what I was showing support for. We should increase access to the educational system by expanding it, but there is no reason other immediate measures shouldn't be considered as well.

I think this topic was more in reference to career college students, individuals who have no intent to apply their knowledge to society and who just abuse the system our of their own convoluted personal desire. By riding the systems of such unconscionable elements, you would just open it up to those who would be more willing to learn with an intent and purpose.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don't know these people or their social circumstances so I don't feel free on commenting on what they should be doing with their lives.

Letting them just get a degree indeed provides a huge disincentive to do whatever they fuck they want. But then again, a part of breaking bourgeois right is doing away with the division of labor in general. The more "red and expert" he becomes, the better. In a way (and I don't mean to sound non-inclusive by talking about one gender) he would embody "Man and Socialism" that El Che wrote about.

This also brings up the issue of socialist education. I'd imagine shorter semesters, an education less based in liberal studies and more on learning the trade or skill itself, and more of that from the point of production itself. For example, he wants to be a social worker in the maternity department. He will spend six months, a lot of it at a nursing home then in a classroom. He will have to complete a designated amount of hours of labor. In other words, he will have to 'serve the people' whether he likes it or not.

[humdog]

By riding the systems of such unconscionable elements, you would just open it up to those who would be more willing to learn with an intent and purpose.

Not really. Career college students don't really obstruct anybody else from getting an education.

I think the OP is lapsing into a kind of mindless workerism and exaggerating the circumstances of career college students (henceforth referred to as CCS's) and also not accounting for a few factors. For instance, on one note, there's probably more CCS's around now because there's either no available employment, or no incentive to work because the jobs that are available are low-paying and demeaning for the worker.

Also, I think it's a little silly to just say they're of the 'liberal bourgeois' type. People throw around those words so much that they're beginning to lose all meaning. Most people in the west are of the bourgeois type because of cultural hegemony. All things considered, a CCS makes a very low annual income, less than what an individual on state welfare in a socialist society will probably make. Not to mention they probably wouldn't be a formidable financial burden considering that education would be free.

Hypothetically, a CCS could be more productive than simply forcing a person into an occupation that they may easily become dissatisfied with; the typically healthy and intelligent CCS will probably opt for traditional work when they find a suitable career that they find both rewarding and satisfying.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would people be permitted to attend school "in perpetuity"?

Hell no!


I have no problems, obviously, with people attending college, but isn't the goal to obtain a degree and actually contribute something to society after the fact?

Hell yeah!


Would there be a time limit on how long you could stay in school, and would you have to show progress in working toward, say, a PhD if you were in college for 12 years?

And more limits, too!


This also brings up the issue of socialist education. I'd imagine shorter semesters, an education less based in liberal studies and more on learning the trade or skill itself, and more of that from the point of production itself. For example, he wants to be a social worker in the maternity department. He will spend six months, a lot of it at a nursing home then in a classroom. He will have to complete a designated amount of hours of labor. In other words, he will have to 'serve the people' whether he likes it or not.

There's already such education today: cooperative education.

[citizen of industry]

Once we're liberated from wage slavery and unemployment is destroyed, the amount of work any individual would have to do would be less. So probably everyone would have some kind of work obligation, but it wouldn't be intense, you wouldn't be stuck in the same degrading work day in and day out. So there would be plenty of time to do some constructive labor, and also to study and learn. These people are escaping labor because it sucks in capitalist society and they don't want to be alienated. I don't blame them.

[Veovis]

I thought the goal of a socialist revolution was to remove limits on people, not impose them. Looks like some people have yet to shake themselves of old Uncle Joe's legacy. :bored:

ETA: Just because someone is in school doesn't mean they aren't already contributing meaningfully to society. When I was in school I wrote lots of papers, and that was only four years of undergrad studies. If I go on to graduate school, I'll write even more. Maybe I'll write something that gets published so that someone can read it and learn from it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Hell no!



Hell yeah!



And more limits, too!



There's already such education today: cooperative education.

And who would place these limits? Your beloved 'Ceasarian' strongman leader?

No. The answer to the question is that it would be left to the working class to self-regulate itself.

Personally, i'd rather that someone was genuinely learning rather than sponging off the state. I don't imagine that, with the dissipation of the bourgeoisie, that anybody would be able to do multiple degrees without at least some form of work. Work = working class, yeah?

[pluckedflowers]

Depending on your field, getting a BA and then a doctorate in the US can take 9 years if you don't lose any time. Obviously many changes would need to be made to a post-revolutionary educational system, but I don't think the basic fact that becoming an expert in a given academic field is a necessarily lengthy process is going to just disappear. I wouldn't preclude making various forms of work part of that process, of course.

[CleverTitle]

Hell no!



Hell yeah!



And more limits, too!



There's already such education today: cooperative education.

I am slightly surprised that this post isn't more long-winded.

[thesadmafioso]

Not really. Career college students don't really obstruct anybody else from getting an education.

I think the OP is lapsing into a kind of mindless workerism and exaggerating the circumstances of career college students (henceforth referred to as CCS's) and also not accounting for a few factors. For instance, on one note, there's probably more CCS's around now because there's either no available employment, or no incentive to work because the jobs that are available are low-paying and demeaning for the worker.

Also, I think it's a little silly to just say they're of the 'liberal bourgeois' type. People throw around those words so much that they're beginning to lose all meaning. Most people in the west are of the bourgeois type because of cultural hegemony. All things considered, a CCS makes a very low annual income, less than what an individual on state welfare in a socialist society will probably make. Not to mention they probably wouldn't be a formidable financial burden considering that education would be free.

Hypothetically, a CCS could be more productive than simply forcing a person into an occupation that they may easily become dissatisfied with; the typically healthy and intelligent CCS will probably opt for traditional work when they find a suitable career that they find both rewarding and satisfying.

How do they not obstruct the educational process? By simply occupying seats in classrooms which could go to those with an intent on using the knowledge being distributed in that environment, they are impeding the effectiveness of the institution to fulfill its objectives. Of course, this analysis is based largely upon the original question of this topic, one which you seem to of deviated from quite extensively in order to bolster your point.

If we examine this issue against the backdrop of late capitalist society which you have provided, the matter is only complicated further as this opportunity becomes one which is only accessible to those which a clear foundation in the class of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie; you begin to see a clear distribution of education along class lines. It is not as if the children of proletarian families will be afforded the opportunity to stay in the circles of academia for such vast swathes of their lives, as they will be confronted with a multitude of economic obstacles preventing such for being a realistic option. Yes, certain instances will arise wherein students are left without job opportunities in their fields of study, and that is disappointing in some regards, but it hardly justifies their continued existence in the higher education system beyond an anecdotal and case by case level.

[humdog]

How do they not obstruct the educational process? By simply occupying seats in classrooms which could go to those with an intent on using the knowledge being distributed in that environment, they are impeding the effectiveness of the institution to fulfill its objectives. Of course, this analysis is based largely upon the original question of this topic, one which you seem to of deviated from quite extensively in order to bolster your point.

If we examine this issue against the backdrop of late capitalist society which you have provided, the matter is only complicated further as this opportunity becomes one which is only accessible to those which a clear foundation in the class of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie; you begin to see a clear distribution of education along class lines. It is not as if the children of proletarian families will be afforded the opportunity to stay in the circles of academia for such vast swathes of their lives, as they will be confronted with a multitude of economic obstacles preventing such for being a realistic option. Yes, certain instances will arise wherein students are left without job opportunities in their fields of study, and that is disappointing in some regards, but it hardly justifies their continued existence in the higher education system beyond an anecdotal and case by case level.

There is no supply shortage in the market of higher education. One student 'occupying a seat,' as you say, is not going to keep another individual from gaining access to higher education. That argument is not substantive.

My critique of education under late capitalism was mainly meant to call attention to the way education would be radically different under socialism. Let's deconstruct the situation of career college students (CCS's) in higher education. The typical CCS pays for tuition, books, and the cost of living through the use of loans. A few things are happening in this relationship between the CCS and the establishment of higher education. First of all, the cost of education has been artificially increased beyond what the typical student can afford vis-à-vis the credit culture, which exists solely because of inequality caused by capitalism (i.e. workers must buy things on capital because they receive an unfair compensation for their labor). In other words, the typical student takes out loans because education is unaffordable precisely because there is full incentive for universities to raise the rates of tuition because they know loans are easy to obtain and they will still reap profits. Bankers, similarly, will reap the profits on the interest of the student loans, or, as we have seen as a rising trend, through corporate welfare provided by the state. So, anyways, what does this mean for education under socialism? Well, it seems quite clear: workers would be receiving higher wages meaning there would be no profitable market niche for credit. This would mean that there would be no artificial increase on the costs of education, and even if education were free, the student would still be able to pay for the cost of living through his or her own personal funds because under socialism, workers will receive sufficient compensation for their labor and as a result will have to work less. This could mean the student working part-time through college without having to receive loans, or the student accumulating personal savings through their labor in order to take time off from an occupation and pay for the cost of living while attending a university.

In other words, the problem the OP highlighted wouldn’t even exist under socialism. The material changes in society, i.e., the different relations of the classes to the means of production and the fall of economic inequality, would necessarily change the culture of higher education. And on that note, I see no reason why liberal studies or education for leisurely reasons would have to be abandoned under socialism. If a worker put in the time to earn the wages necessary to afford tuition, then they obviously should have the right to attend classes of their choosing. Or, and this is me diverging from the exact issue in debate, if you made some argument about liberal studies running antithetical to socialist or communist causes, which you could, I still don’t think the abolition of liberal bourgeois studies would be necessitated. The point is that the proletariat would have full consciousness of their circumstances and therefore the cultural hegemony of the proletariat would not be vulnerable to the existence of certain ‘counter-cultures.’

In any case, returning to your argument, I think you are also being reduced to a sort of workerism that is causing you to obfuscate the language of Marxism. Most college students, including CCS’s, are most certainly not of the bourgeoisie. They may have bourgeois world views because of cultural hegemony (i.e., the idea that the culture of one class can come to take over the cultures of other classes because of their dominance), but we should not forget that the way we define classes is by their relations to the means of production. One does not have to come from a wealthy family that owns means of producing goods in order to attend higher education; as I have shown in my arguments, the establishment of higher education has become a vicious, but profitable circle, where almost anybody can receive the loans necessary to pay for education on the condition that they pay the interest on those loans. Under socialism, not only could we retain the higher education establishment and the practice of education for leisure, but it could be made more sustainable and efficient within the context of a more egalitarian society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And who would place these limits? Your beloved 'Ceasarian' strongman leader?

Do not confuse Third World particulars with situations in the most developed capitalist countries. Unless I say the former things are involved, the situations involved are those of the latter. :glare:


No. The answer to the question is that it would be left to the working class to self-regulate itself.

I explained a handful of those limits before, the most notable one being how many degrees you're allowed to take.


Personally, i'd rather that someone was genuinely learning rather than sponging off the state. I don't imagine that, with the dissipation of the bourgeoisie, that anybody would be able to do multiple degrees without at least some form of work. Work = working class, yeah?

Perpetual coop education may or may not be a bad thing. It can become bad if society's maintenance of your education (no, not "free tuition," but actual Educational Training Income) is greater than your economic contributions.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I explained a handful of those limits before, the most notable one being how many degrees you're allowed to take.


You're just proving my point.

Who places the limits?

You still have this conception of your strongman placing these limits and directing the working class to glorious communism. The reality is that strongman-rule (in fact let's just call it dictatorship as that's what it is) leads us further away from communism than towards it.

[Misanthrope]

What's wrong with them? You think they're welfare babies? Getting mad over this is like getting mad over illegal immigrants getting state benefits. I hope in a socialist society there are more people wanting to learn and discover. Education is key to humanity reaching a more peaceful higher level of existence.

[pastradamus]

College was the most enjoyable time of my life.

The working world was a hard time of my life.

The woman world was the worst time of my life!

:D