What would be taught in schools in a communist society?

[radiocaroline]

Overall I think this is quite an interesting topic and one that I have been quizzing over for the past few days, it is somewhat subject to personal opinion but it is definitely a question that needs to be asked as education is a massive section of society.

Looking back at the Stalinist model of rewriting Russian history to make yourself look like the hero of the revolution and creating a cult of personality. And the education in Cambodia which was based on ethnic conformity. I believe that communist education is a key area for discussion.

Major questions for discussion:
- would there even be a state education system?
- is it important?
- would it be made compulsory?
- methods of teaching
- what subjects?
- what would be taught in history class?
- would there be a political discussion type class?
- would the whole curriculum be based around communism?
- would religious education still exist?
- how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)
- would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English?
- would everyone be taught in the same way?

Feel free to pitch some more questions and I encourage everyone to put their own interpretation into the thread, after all it is not an area which can be entirely conclusive with a single viewpoint as everyone has their own ideas on the best methods and most important subject matter.

Hopefully this also clears some of the wider ideas of communism post-revolution

[Sinister Intents]

Major questions for discussion:
- would there even be a state education system?

There will be no state under socialism so there cannot exist a state education system. There should be a communal education system though.


- is it important?

Education is very important, so I'd say yeah.


- methods of teaching

I don't know any methods of teaching, but I'd assume that because people learn easier in different ways they would segment it by who learns in what way best.


- what subjects?

Whatever subjects the children would want to learn about, so it'd be there choice.


- what would be taught in history class?

True history would be taught in history classes. No one would have to worry about propagandized history, or shitty lies that're used to glamorize garbage.


- would there be a political discussion type class?

Why wouldn't there be, people would get to learn about the shitty political rhetoric of the capitalists, et cetera.


- would the whole curriculum be based around communism?

I don't know how to answer this I guess, but it'd be based on free association, so yeah it'd be communistic.


- would religious education still exist?

Science would be taught, and the students would have the choice to learn about religion and have religious education if that was their choice.


- how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)

I can't really answer this, so I don't know.


- would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English?

Nationalism would be completely eradicated because the roots of nationalism would be torn out of the ground. Nationalism would cease to be under socialism. The people have no country, and nationalism creates horrible divides in society as well as being completely counter intuitive to socialism. People could learn whatever language they wish to learn. I don't know if there would be a universally used language, but their probably would be for ease of communicating with people, but that language is prone to change with time.


- would everyone be taught in the same way?

I would assume that people would be taught the way that they learn best.

I tried to answer these to the best of my ability, hopefully it's good :)

[Diirez]

I'm just going to wing this:
- would there even be a state education system?- Yes
- is it important?- Yes, education is extremely beneficial to society.
- methods of teaching- What we have now, except more creativity, individuality and critical thinking.
- what subjects?- Probably the same subjects. Maybe a Communist course to understand how Communism works, different tendencies, the history of Communism..etc.
- what would be taught in history class?- History.
- would there be a political discussion type class?- Of course there will be.
- would the whole curriculum be based around communism?- Maybe. Just like how economics works: It's centered solely around Capitalism.
- would religious education still exist?- Most likely. Except the state will be completely secular.
- how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)- Probably by level of learning. If one learns better in fast, vigorous courses then they will go in those levels and if one learns better at a slower, more personal way then they will go in those levels.
- would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English? - This is hard. I'll let someone else answer this. Personally, I don't want to see a universal language, I like having the diversity but language barrier can be bad for society.
- would everyone be taught in the same way?- No. No teacher is going to teach in the exact same way. Everyone will be taught the same material, just at different speeds and amount of work.

[radiocaroline]

It was not a test but a good answer Toki :)... The notion of the state education ceasing to be is fair, but I know there would be some people on this site who would recommend that their still be some of state control in a more socialistic society rather than communism, but overall a good view, I personally think the element of choice is very important as I know I can become a completely new learner when it comes to studying something which coincides with my interests, I even got a full mark answer on a sociology essay on Marxism a few weeks ago :D

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This isn't really a question that can just be 'answered'.

Education isn't one-size-fits-all, and anybody who thinks we are just going to create millions of new 'Lenin Schools' all over the world really don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Education will always be different across regions and localities, and within localities. You will, for example, need special schools for some SEN students, different types of school for students who can't, for behavioural/social reasons, get on in mainstream schools, and different types of school to suit different populations (urban vs rural, for example).

If you're interested in the latest progressive ideas on education, have a research of 'competency based curricula'. Interesting idea.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I hope it becomes much more informal. All of it. Up to about age 13, children should be given a lot of freedom to pursue their interests. They'll need some guidance, of course, but it doesn't have to be this strict, set curriculum. It could be a bit like the modern unschooling movement, except with lots of kids together in school-like facilities instead of jus at their parents houses. Children have a natural curiosity and desire to learn about the world around them--but when we try to force feed them boring (and often useless) information, they lose that passion.

Upon reaching adolescence, everyone should take a big career research class dedicated to helping them find a role in society. There could be apprenticeship programs, more service learning, and less teaching to the test. Individualized education, not one-size for all.

[radiocaroline]

This isn't really a question that can just be 'answered'.

Education isn't one-size-fits-all, and anybody who thinks we are just going to create millions of new 'Lenin Schools' all over the world really don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Education will always be different across regions and localities, and within localities. You will, for example, need special schools for some SEN students, different types of school for students who can't, for behavioural/social reasons, get on in mainstream schools, and different types of school to suit different populations (urban vs rural, for example).

If you're interested in the latest progressive ideas on education, have a research of 'competency based curricula'. Interesting idea.


I understand it is a massive question to answer and almost utopian in a way but I know that a lot of people would have certain opinions on how, according to their own experiences, a school could operate to greater benefit the commune rather than the rigid state of schooling we see today where creativity is in many ways absent.

A thought provoking thread rather than a pro-active statement of intent.

[Sinister Intents]

Francisco Ferrer And The Modern School (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/ferrer.html)
I think Emma Goldman brought up good points in this.

[Regicollis]

- would there even be a state education system?
During the socialist stage there would still be a state that would regulate education among many other things. Even under full communism it would be of practical value to have a standardised system of education.

- is it important?
Education is extremely important to societies as well as to individuals.

- methods of teaching
The same as today probably but most likely with more emphasis on classroom democracy.

- what subjects?
Most likely the same as today. However I think that in a society run by the working class and relieved of snobbery more resources and time would be given to creative and practical subjects.

- what would be taught in history class?
History. From the stone age until today.

- would there be a political discussion type class?
Not as such. There will be discussions in the classroom when relevant to the subject. Discussions will thus be more likely to occur in literature or social study classes than in math classes.

- would the whole curriculum be based around communism?
No. What would a communist math curriculum look like?

The communist values of equality and democracy would impact the way the schools are run but not the curricula themselves.

- would religious education still exist?
Yes. Learning about religions and other philosophical systems is important to make students able to make informed choices.

Classes like "how to be a good catholic/shiite/seventh day adventist etc. would have no place in the official school system. Things like these would be up to the religious communities themselves to organise.

- how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)
By how the students learn best.

- would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English?
Eradicating nationalism doesn't mean eradicating cultural diversity. A free society would not try to change the language people speak and thus meddle with an important part of their identity.

Language education would be important in a free society too.

- would everyone be taught in the same way?
Everyone would be taught in the way that helps them learn best.

[Firebrand]

The main flaw in the current capitalistic education system is that it tries to run schools like businesses and views children like products. I would like to think that under communism this attitude would disappear and education would come to be seen as something of value for its own sake. Not just because it produces useful worker bees.

Since one of the primary objectives of the current schooling system is to train kids to obey authority, a lot of emphasis is placed on making sure kids only learn what they are told to learn. The things people learn are dictated from on high and more emphasis is placed on obedience than inquiry. That is fundamentally what is at the basis of the "teaching to the test phenomenon" we see in most modern education systems.
Under communism the emphasis ought to be placed on inquiry, the kids should be active participants in their own learning, they should get to choose what interests them. Not only would that ensure their continued interest in learning, making their own decisions when young would also help prepare them for the responsibility of being fully empowered adult citizens. In a system where you want the adult to make their own decisions then you have to let the kids get into the habit of making their own decisions.
There should also be more flexibility of method. The current view that kids are raw matierials to which you apply the process of education to produce useful adult products, fails to take into account the fact that kids are people and don't all learn in the same way, or at the same rate, or even in the same order. Some kids walk first some kids talk first.
One glaring example of the failures of the one size fits all approach it the whole phonics debacle. Between about 60 and 70% of kids learn well phonetically. Many many governments have taken this as license to make phonics the core of the reading curriculum, this leaves between 30 and 40% of kids by the wayside for no good reason. It is also worth bearing in mind that phonics is a stupid system to use with such an irregular language as English. Its also worth bearing in mind that phonics is actually a very inefficient way to read, most people who read well recognise the whole word, they don't sound out each letter.
Hopefully in a communist society we would be able to tailor the teaching method to the kid rather than trying to force the kid to fit the teaching method.

[Anti-Traditional]

Major questions for discussion:
1. would there even be a state education system?
2. is it important?
3. would it be made compulsory?
4. methods of teaching
5. what subjects?
6. what would be taught in history class?
7. would there be a political discussion type class?
8. would the whole curriculum be based around communism?
9. would religious education still exist?
10. how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)
11. would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English?
12. would everyone be taught in the same way?



1. I'd like to think there wouldn't even be a state.
2. Yeah its good to be educated and know your shit. Having said that, in Communist society individuals would still be able to survive and thrive even if they don't give a shit about education.
3. 'Compulsory' means 'if you don't comply the state will punish you'. There wouldn't be a state, so no, not compulsory.
4. I'm wholly ignorant of this.
5. I'd imagine reading and writing and basic numeracy would be taught to all, apart from that, all sorts of other subjects that people are interested in.
6. History
7. Maybe. However 'politics' wouldn't really exist in Communist society, besides, it probably wouldn't be very fun.
8. No
9. If desired, but probably not.
10. By age
11. Yes
12. Obviously not.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Under communism the emphasis ought to be placed on inquiry, the kids should be active participants in their own learning, they should get to choose what interests them. Not only would that ensure their continued interest in learning, making their own decisions when young would also help prepare them for the responsibility of being fully empowered adult citizens. In a system where you want the adult to make their own decisions then you have to let the kids get into the habit of making their own decisions.

Why does this need to be reserved for communism? This already occurs in some (state) schools currently, albeit sporadically and at different rates due to various factors.

Enquiry teaching in History in London is more or less widespread in one way or another, and I would actually say that the dominant mode of teaching now is child-centred, albeit not really outside of the shackles of 'education = useful only to get a job' that is embodied in the capitalist view of education.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I would add that one thing that definitely needs to be available in the future socialist schooling world is comprehensive sex education, provided for children with the basics, and for more serious topics for young people as soon as things like puberty begin kicking in.

Puberty and adolescence can be a confusing and scary time for children, so they should have the right to a safe, healthy and informative environment where they can learn about these things, without fear of shame, embarrassment or reprisal. Teach about safe sex, masturbation, sexual preferences, reproduction, etc.

[Lily Briscoe]

I don't know, I think questions like this basically amount to meaningless crystal ball gazing and are ultimately pretty pointless. Even just the way that it's being discussed probably relies on basic assumptions that are fundamentally flawed, e.g. that 'Education' would even exist as a separate sphere of life.

[Tim Cornelis]

1. would there even be a state education system?

No, there's no state in socialism.


2. is it important?

More important under communism than today. It would be collective education, the source of collective child rearing.

3. would it be made compulsory?

In a sense I suppose. It would be expected that children be part of collective education.

4. methods of teaching

There's various theories in leftist circles:
*Democratic education (children make major decisions regarding their school, choose what they want to learn and when, and mediate disputes themselves), see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFRT9JKGPcI . However, I'm not entirely sure if students will receive sufficient structure that a child needs (as with authoritative child rearing).
*There's the "Pedagogy of the Oppressed": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed
*And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchistic_free_school

5. what subjects?

Whichever.

6. what would be taught in history class?

History.

7. would there be a political discussion type class?

No. There's no politics in communism. Politics would be a subset of history.

8. would the whole curriculum be based around communism?

No, only part would be familiarising them with how to run communism (deliberation, mediation, overcoming fear of public speaking, as with the democratic education example), which would be learning it by doing it.

9. would religious education still exist?

I doubt it.

10. how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)

Perhaps there will not be classes at all.

11. would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English?

I would personally propose multilingual education.

12. would everyone be taught in the same way?

I doubt it. Education should be skewed to meet the personal needs of students as much as possible.

[Ritzy Cat]

I hope it becomes much more informal. All of it. Up to about age 13, children should be given a lot of freedom to pursue their interests. They'll need some guidance, of course, but it doesn't have to be this strict, set curriculum. It could be a bit like the modern unschooling movement, except with lots of kids together in school-like facilities instead of jus at their parents houses. Children have a natural curiosity and desire to learn about the world around them--but when we try to force feed them boring (and often useless) information, they lose that passion.

Upon reaching adolescence, everyone should take a big career research class dedicated to helping them find a role in society. There could be apprenticeship programs, more service learning, and less teaching to the test. Individualized education, not one-size for all.

I agree. There does not need to be "Grades" K-12. It should be much more informal, not some sort of forced learning environment where teachers and administrators are essentially prison wardens. Not necessarily their fault, they are just expected to be so to keep their job as to maintain "order" in the school.

On the topic,
There will be no tests. In the real world, there are no written examinations in the workplace. It will be based off of examples and problems. If someone does not understand a concept, they can confer with their teacher and practice until they do. If they can get it right 10 times in a row (think like a physics or math concept in this scenario), then its safe to say they understand it. There should be occasional "warm-ups" or "assignments" so students will know whether or not if they are understanding the material taught in class. But the whole concept of tests is simply a way to give the letter grade a substance, and these grades will also be abolished. There will be many many resources for kids to figure out if they understand these concepts or not, they do not need to be "assessed" with an anxiety-inducing test that counts for half their grade.

It is difficult to say how much we should "force" children to learn, at least until they are of age to understand how the society works, from where they will understand the importance of education. People who still do not see it from that perspective at that point should still be implored to continue education, but not forced.

I think these "schools" should be buildings, set up in districts as they are now, and offer a large variety of classes. There will be room for many more because there won't be a REQUIRED freshman biology course, or a REQUIRED American history or X country history course. Someone who is interested in mathematical sciences can take classes exclusively there. Someone who loves chemistry can take many chemistry classes.

By preparing kids in their fields BEFORE they go to a university, they can be more prepared for work or research in that field. I still do think universities should be separate from the "k-12" education system. However they need not be nearly as selective, maybe even admitting all applicants. Universities would specialize in a certain area like art, music, STEM, history, engineering etc. They would have a set of requirements that you would be expected to take in the k-12 classes, but even then they don't even need to require that much. Basic college preparatory mathematics, physics courses would be all that was needed. In College, a student would take something like 2-3 years to graduate. There is no need for ridiculous electives in a subject completely foreign to what they are majoring in, UNLESS they want to!

I'm probably getting a bit idealistic at this point. But to sum up, education is important, it MUST be revamped. The formal, robotic, condescending, political system that is currently in place is very inefficient and is like a prison for many students. It must be made much more like a mature setting. People that do not want to learn need not attend (in theory). However, they would do so with the knowledge they will not be able to secure a career outside of manual labor or something monotonous, unskilled, and boring. People could sign up for courses at the beginning of the year, attend them, and try their best to understand the concepts. Perhaps a good way to simply assess their understanding is for the teacher to just put a "check-mark" on a transcript at the end of the year saying, They passed this class, they sufficiently understand the material, they could USE it in a work setting. Then off to university the student goes.

[radiocaroline]

Don't understand why people criticise me for bringing up areas of communism that need to be discussed - ultimately not all of us follow the same exact ideology and ultimately communist education is something we all need on the left, regardless of mainstream society who actually needs theoretical education before we even have a communist society

[Lily Briscoe]

Don't understand why people criticise me for bringing up areas of communism that need to be discussed - ultimately not all of us follow the same exact ideology and ultimately communist education is something we all need on the left, regardless of mainstream society who actually needs theoretical education before we even have a communist society

I don't know if this is in response to me, but I think it probably is, so just to clarify-- I wasn't meaning to say that you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place (sorry if I came across this way), and my post was intended as a response to the discussion in general rather than the OP in particular.

I think it's important, though, to recognize that we are really constrained in terms of our ability to envision 'how things will be in communism', and some people seem to be really into like this technocratic blueprint-writing that I don't really understand the purpose of.

[RedMaterialist]

I think we should start by teaching the working class how profit is generated. During the process of production the worker adds value to the materials he or she is working on. This added value, surplus value, is over and above the value of the workers' wages and any pre-production costs, such as raw materials. The capitalist does not pay for this added value. When the product is sold the capitalist takes the profit (although the profit is the average social profit, etc.)

Workers are taught now by the media that all wealth and profit are generated by the brains of the entrepreneur or the magic of the market. The capitalists, media, etc. also believe this.

I know this is old news to Marxists, but I think we could be trying to teach people about it.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think we should start by teaching the working class how profit is generated. During the process of production the worker adds value to the materials he or she is working on. This added value, surplus value, is over and above the value of the workers' wages and any pre-production costs, such as raw materials. The capitalist does not pay for this added value. When the product is sold the capitalist takes the profit (although the profit is the average social profit, etc.)

Workers are taught now by the media that all wealth and profit are generated by the brains of the entrepreneur or the magic of the market. The capitalists, media, etc. also believe this.

I know this is old news to Marxists, but I think we could be trying to teach people about it.

In socialism? What'd be the point?

Incidentally, what you're saying is not entirely accurate.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think we should start by teaching the working class how profit is generated. During the process of production the worker adds value to the materials he or she is working on. This added value, surplus value, is over and above the value of the workers' wages and any pre-production costs, such as raw materials. The capitalist does not pay for this added value. When the product is sold the capitalist takes the profit (although the profit is the average social profit, etc.)

Workers are taught now by the media that all wealth and profit are generated by the brains of the entrepreneur or the magic of the market. The capitalists, media, etc. also believe this.

I know this is old news to Marxists, but I think we could be trying to teach people about it.

I'm sure kids can think of nothing better than to study this. Turning this into an aspect of formal education is unnecessary, at least as a course in and of itself.

It is currently important that Economics, as a field, is studied in its entirety, not just from the perspective of Marxian economics. As was said above, it is also the case that teaching re: capitalism and the profit motive would be pointless in a post-capitalist society, unless it formed part of a history course.

[radiocaroline]

I think kids in current society lack a fundamental knowledge of economics, even the foundations..

That is something I'd certainly focus on in a communist educational facility.

If people en masse don't know how the process that is exploiting them works in capitalism, how can they possibly rise up against it

[Blake's Baby]

Why? Economics wouldn't exist in a socialist society. What's the point in advocating teaching it?

[radiocaroline]

If we didn't teach children economic understanding and how capitalism exploited their forefathers, there would be a possibility of counter revolution as people will not understand why capitalism was eradicated in the first place

[Anti-Traditional]

If we didn't teach children economic understanding and how capitalism exploited their forefathers, there would be a possibility of counter revolution as people will not understand why capitalism was eradicated in the first place

People are smarter than that. Besides, every day in Communism would be totally chilled out, waking up at 11 AM, going down to the communal kitchen for a bit of orange juice and toast, maybe going down to the local soviet to see what work needs to be done in the community, putting in a couple hours graft, then heading off for some dinner with friends, maybe go play football or music afterwards or whatever your interested in, before going to the street party round the corner and staying out til 3AM. Nobody's gonna be thinking about 'politics' or 'economics' or any of that boring olden times shit, we'll be too busy having fun.

[Blake's Baby]

Socialisation woul be enough to teach (or rather allow to learn) that collective decisions are to be preferred over individual decisions and no-one can expropriate the collective. I don't see why we would need to teach children about out-moded concepts of 'economy'. We don't teach children that thunder is god farting, in order to then teach them it isn't.

[radiocaroline]

People are smarter than that. Besides, every day in Communism would be totally chilled out, waking up at 11 AM, going down to the communal kitchen for a bit of orange juice and toast, maybe going down to the local soviet to see what work needs to be done in the community, putting in a couple hours graft, then heading off for some dinner with friends, maybe go play football or music afterwards or whatever your interested in, before going to the street party round the corner and staying out til 3AM. Nobody's gonna be thinking about 'politics' or 'economics' or any of that boring olden times shit, we'll be too busy having fun.


Oh the life..

Maybe I'm just becoming overly paranoid like Stalin.

[radiocaroline]

Socialisation woul be enough to teach (or rather allow to learn) that collective decisions are to be preferred over individual decisions and no-one can expropriate the collective. I don't see why we would need to teach children about out-moded concepts of 'economy'. We don't teach children that thunder is god farting, in order to then teach them it isn't.


Good point, I wasn't suggesting a whole course dedicated to economic education but I'd probably say socialisation would be adequate, let the people be free

[Anti-Traditional]

Oh the life..

Maybe I'm just becoming overly paranoid like Stalin.

lol, I think that's what it is. How could counter-revolution happen in a classless society? What class is gonna seize power? Why would anyone want to? Who's gonna decide 'oh, my life's shit, so I'm gonna try and get everyone together and claim that factory as my own', the idea of private property will seem as absurd as someone claiming they own the sun or the rain or the sea. People would laugh their heads off and probably try and get said person to do stand up comedy.

[Blake's Baby]

Of course, classless society did become class society once upon a time. So it's possible to move from one to the other.

However, I'm not sure that was because the inhabitants of primitive communist society weren't sufficiently theoretically advanced to be able to somehow think their way out of class society.

EDIT: D'oh, I meant weren't sufficiently theoretically advanced. In other words, class society didn't happen as a result of classless hunter gatherers failing to learn economics in school.

[Slavic]

lol, I think that's what it is. How could counter-revolution happen in a classless society? What class is gonna seize power? Why would anyone want to? Who's gonna decide 'oh, my life's shit, so I'm gonna try and get everyone together and claim that factory as my own', the idea of private property will seem as absurd as someone claiming they own the sun or the rain or the sea. People would laugh their heads off and probably try and get said person to do stand up comedy.


Classes can form out of a classless society. Not everyone will be content in a socialist society and there will be malcontents. Slave societies can form out of a classless society if enough malcontents gather enough power to enslave a portion of society.

This is all speculative of course but to presume that there could not be a counter-revolution in a classless society is fanciful.

[RedMaterialist]

Well, first you have to get from here to there. Do they even teach Marxist economics anywhere nowadays?

[radiocaroline]

I don't even know for definite, maybe in a politics class?

[Red Economist]

Well, first you have to get from here to there. Do they even teach Marxist economics anywhere nowadays?

From a University level, I think the answer is no because the career prospects for such a degree in capitalist society are minimal. The west has buried Marxism ideologically under neoclassical economics. Marx will come up in politics (in a arguably minor role under political theory leaving the 'political science' of how democratic institutions "work" untouched) and definitely in sociology.
I think China avoids teaching about Marx for fear students may end up criticizing and finding holes in the ruling ideology.

[Tim Cornelis]

Old Hollywood films would be enough anticapitalist propaganda to teach kids that capitalism sucks: war, crime, bank robberies, dystopian futures, etc.

[Naroc]

Old Hollywood films would be enough anticapitalist propaganda to teach kids that capitalism sucks: war, crime, bank robberies, dystopian futures, etc.
That depends very much on what movies we're talking about, there are enough movies which "celebrate" or praise the capitalist system, so i wouldn't be sure about that.
I think that the capitalist economy should be teached in combination with a history class, so the kids are able to understand what went wrong in the past, and why the society as it would be at that point is better.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
- would there even be a state education system?

I hope so! :)


- is it important?

Educators probably have one of the most important jobs in society. They aren't very well respected in many parts of the western world, especially in the US. But education and teachers have incredible value to all societies.


- would it be made compulsory?

I don't think people should be put in jail for not sending their children to school. But a well designed school is one where children want to go there.


- methods of teaching

IMO, the Montessori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education) education is an extremely good form of instruction. It's made up of mixed groups of varying ages. If a child is very intelligent they are allowed to move ahead and sit with older children. Older and more knowledgeable children are allowed and encouraged to coach the younger ones. The intent is to create an environment of free exchange of ideas and creativity. This is very important for children.


- what subjects?

Every subject we deem important: history, mathematics, computers, languages, team sports, nutrition, cooking, physical education, arts, etc. Everything to further and culture the minds and bodies of young adults.


- what would be taught in history class?

In world history everything that is relevant to history, or at least as much as possible. It is difficult to know everything, and so students should be encouraged to learn things in more detail on their own if they wish. Of course the class content should attempt to be as unbiased as possible. In current history teaching, there is a very strong eurocentric bias, for example. A good history curriculum would attempt to reduce or eliminate this bias. There are so many important cultural developments that are missed otherwise, namely Asian and South American history.


- would there be a political discussion type class?

Absolutely. Especially for older children and young adults. Debates, mock trials, instruction in civics and democracy: all those things are important.


- would the whole curriculum be based around communism?

No.


- would religious education still exist?

In the case of a state funded education, I don't think religion should be a part of it. But I think parents should be free to teach their children about religion, and I think children should be free to practice it.


- how would classes be divided? (For example, by ability)

The should be small mixed age groups, so that older children can teach younger children. In the Montessori arrangement.


- would languages still be important if nationalism is completely eradicated, would there be a universal language like English?

I believe languages should still be taught. In Italy, there are people that cannot speak to their grandparents because the language has been lost over time. It would be a shame for that to happen, and languages are important for the mind. They teach about the roots of words, and even help you figure out the meaning of words that you don't understand.


- would everyone be taught in the same way?

Any education system should attempt to teach children in the most individualized way possible. Small class sizes would be a must.

[radiocaroline]

Good answers man, I think the Montessori arrangement is a great method of teaching but it's mostly ignored by the rigid curriculum centric teaching in the west, I got the chance in primary school to be in a Montessori type of class for a year when I was in the lower years and I think it really helps you to not only mentor each other but to be able to speak to those who we would never speak to otherwise, it's a really good model for social development, especially in the young. Many people become too intimidated to speak to those older than them in school and this certainly hinders the mind when you come across authority figures in later life (this of course relating to capitalism)

[RedMaterialist]

From a University level, I think the answer is no because the career prospects for such a degree in capitalist society are minimal. The west has buried Marxism ideologically under neoclassical economics. Marx will come up in politics (in a arguably minor role under political theory leaving the 'political science' of how democratic institutions "work" untouched) and definitely in sociology.
I think China avoids teaching about Marx for fear students may end up criticizing and finding holes in the ruling ideology.


Well, you have entire generations of students who essentially don't know anything about Marxism. I'm not surprised about that; I was one of those students. But, why can't leftists go to college campuses and set up Marxist discussion classes, etc. If the campus is too reactionary (as is where I live) then maybe off campus.

Something has to be done. Since we live in a non-revolutionary era then it seems to me that education is essential. (Of course, we must educate the educators, :))

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But, why can't leftists go to college campuses and set up Marxist discussion classes, etc. If the campus is too reactionary (as is where I live) then maybe off campus.


They do, and they do, but nobody goes because it's fucking boring.

Add to that, that the university campus is not overwhelmingly the domain of the working class (of course, depending on which university the class composition of the students will vary, but students by nature are not exploited workers unless they are wage-workers at the same time as their studies).

[Loony Le Fist]

From a University level, I think the answer is no because the career prospects for such a degree in capitalist society are minimal. The west has buried Marxism ideologically under neoclassical economics. Marx will come up in politics (in a arguably minor role under political theory leaving the 'political science' of how democratic institutions "work" untouched) and definitely in sociology.
I think China avoids teaching about Marx for fear students may end up criticizing and finding holes in the ruling ideology.

This is on point. I mean you can take Marxian courses, but I doubt very many universities offer degrees specifically in Marxian economics. However, I think it's important for any heterdox economist to study the typical neoclassical, Chicago, and other schools of economic thought, like say behavioural economics.

[Derendscools]

Everything!