Socialist Education

[Masha]

What's the function of education in a socialist society, and what do you imagine a educational institution would realistically look like?

Would there be one universal model of education, or would there be many? If many, would not the ones that brainwashed kids into their ideology be the ones that had the greatest influence on global society? And if one, wouldn't that inevitably lead to something similar to the extreme conformity, mindlessness, and general mortification bourgeois educational systems now tend to be stuck in?

Soon I'm going to read "The Modern School Movement", a book about an anarchist school in NY in the early 20th century, so I was hoping to get some preliminary/contradictory opinions here first.

My hypothesis going in is that general education will relax, and particular education will start much earlier. There will be no split between personal life and public life, where education is concerned. There will be a rise in a sort of artisans pride in making masterpieces (not in the abstract sense -- I just mean a "master work", i.e., where with skillful means a person creates something useful/interesting/etc.), as well as an informality.

No child left behind will be replaced by an understanding of the natural curiosity of children and the encouragement of it as it grows.

But how is socially useful (harmonious) activity to be promoted? Is it to be promoted at all? If it's not promoted, would society basically go insane, with people spending their time dressing up toads like princesses and other relatively trivial activities, with no social cohesion or responsiveness to crises (earthquakes, counterrevolutions, violent cults, etc.)?

It's hard to imagine...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The function of a 'socialist' (let's say 'emancipatory') education system should allow all in society to access knowledge, for knowledge's sake. This could look like formal education (schooling), or informal education (provision of evening classes in the workplace, the extension of library provision, book schemes for the young etc), or probably more likely a combination of formal and informal educational tools.

I would caution that the problems with analysing the fates of individual schools that proclaim to be 'democratic' or 'anarchist' is that they are all functioning within a capitalist society and so, short of having a wealthy sponsor, are affected by outside factors such as the local neighbourhood, wealth inequality, access to informal educational structures and access to expensive educational materials, lack of access to a safe shelter to complete work at home, lack of nutrition and so on. Rather, a 'socialist' education system's strength would be its position within a socialist society, whereby more generous maternity and paternity leave arrangements and an inclusive society would surely support better educational outcomes, in terms of students' engagement and happiness.

[BIXX]

I don't think "socially useful" activity needs to be promoted. The whole idea is that they should submit themselves for the greater good but what is good for people and what their desires are so diversified that I don't think that "society" could be considered really unified. The real practice that we might see is that the vast majority of people will be taking part in activities they enjoy, whether or not that aligns with "socially useful" doesn't matter. If people don't feel the need to support a greater good why should they? If they don't feel that need then obviously their needs are bring met somehow. Forcing them to help everyone else out would lead directly to alienation and exploitation.

[BIXX]

Oh shit forgot to put that in context. Just meant that in that case I don't think you need any sort of educational system.

[Masha]

I don't think "socially useful" activity needs to be promoted. The whole idea is that they should submit themselves for the greater good but what is good for people and what their desires are so diversified that I don't think that "society" could be considered really unified. The real practice that we might see is that the vast majority of people will be taking part in activities they enjoy, whether or not that aligns with "socially useful" doesn't matter. If people don't feel the need to support a greater good why should they? If they don't feel that need then obviously their needs are bring met somehow. Forcing them to help everyone else out would lead directly to alienation and exploitation.

Would activity that is generally considered harmful be curtailed though? For example, a teenager who is rebelling and clings onto nostalgic notions of fascism and decides to start a Young Fascists club.

The thing about supporting the greater good, is how do we know what it is (or is it only historically relative?) and what the costs of acting towards this ideal are?

Also, anyone who isn't supporting the same greater good as yourself is generally perceived as part of the problem. So if I'm pro-Palestinian, anyone who is not pro-Palestinian is in a way an obstacle, and probably being swindled by the Zionists. We tend to hold others to the same standards as we hold ourselves.

In socialism the purpose of society seems to be predominantly a matter of instituting liberty as much as possible. Capitalist society is more a matter of production and consumption of commodities. How does a socialist society handle anti-socialist sentiment? What if 20% of the global population after 100 years decide they want to reinstate capitalism, as they believe it will better society in some way? Suppression?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What's the function of education in a socialist society, and what do you imagine a educational institution would realistically look like?

Would there be one universal model of education, or would there be many? If many, would not the ones that brainwashed kids into their ideology be the ones that had the greatest influence on global society? And if one, wouldn't that inevitably lead to something similar to the extreme conformity, mindlessness, and general mortification bourgeois educational systems now tend to be stuck in?

Soon I'm going to read "The Modern School Movement", a book about an anarchist school in NY in the early 20th century, so I was hoping to get some preliminary/contradictory opinions here first.

My hypothesis going in is that general education will relax, and particular education will start much earlier. There will be no split between personal life and public life, where education is concerned. There will be a rise in a sort of artisans pride in making masterpieces (not in the abstract sense -- I just mean a "master work", i.e., where with skillful means a person creates something useful/interesting/etc.), as well as an informality.

No child left behind will be replaced by an understanding of the natural curiosity of children and the encouragement of it as it grows.

But how is socially useful (harmonious) activity to be promoted? Is it to be promoted at all? If it's not promoted, would society basically go insane, with people spending their time dressing up toads like princesses and other relatively trivial activities, with no social cohesion or responsiveness to crises (earthquakes, counterrevolutions, violent cults, etc.)?

It's hard to imagine...

I've just realised I haven't replied to your other thread - I'll try to do so tomorrow. Now, I've said in another thread that I'm a big fan of the notion that socialists need to put forward a concrete vision, instead of abstract opposition to the current society. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm qualified to discuss the issue, as I'm not an educator. I have, however, been in the education system for nearly twenty years now (that's a bit frightening, actually), so while you might need to take what I'm about to say with a certain reserve, it's not as if I'm talking about things I have no familiarity with.

(I could claim that my job as a teaching assistant qualifies me to discuss education. Unfortunately, if I were to put to paper everything my job has taught me the result would consist of a single page of paper with "kill all students they are the Devil" written over and over. In blood. But I digress.)

I imagine the education system will be universal. If we have established that such-and-such is the best practice when it comes to education, why would we withhold this best practice from some of the children to be educated? It certainly wouldn't be in the name of some fetish for diversity; in socialism, in any case, diversity of the human society would probably diminish as the various cultures coalesce into one global human culture.

In socialism, children will be raised, not by families but by the collective institutions of the socialist society. Formal education (and it would have to be formal - if nothing else, then we need a reliable mechanism for tracking the competences of various technical, professional and engineering staff; I'm all for a man being hunter in the morning and critic in the evening, but if he wants to operate on my guts in the afternoon, I would hope he has some knowledge about guts, and operations on the same) would simply be a continuation of this. Selection would not be as important as imparting to everyone all of the knowledge they can absorb. So, I imagine everyone would finish the equivalent of modern elementary and medium school. All shame associated with being slow to understand a concept or advance a year would have to be eliminated consciously - this is something the organs overseeing the schools would have to make sure of. After all, the intention is to have an educated population capable of participating both in productive work and in civic life, not to start imparting neuroses from an early age!

Education will be based on fact - this means that there is no room in the classroom, or anywhere else, for such "subjects" as religious indoctrination, morality, political indoctrination etc. If the children, given all the facts, do not recognise that socialism is good for them, then it certainly seems something is very wrong. This also means there will be more subjects of the sort that are derided as "useless" today; more science, history and so on. One would probably expect a strong emphasis on basic literacy and numeracy as prerequisites of being able to preform any task in the public organs of the socialist society, from serving as a local delegate to serving as the chairman of the world soviet or an economic executive in the highest organs.

The division between craft and academic education will also have to be broken down, as well as the division between manual and intellectual labour. The socialist society will have to incorporate into education not just work but also play - indeed the three should be indistinguishable. Children should learn, both by studying and by doing, to get a practical handle on the concepts in use (of course, maths classes will not take place in factories - some concepts are too general for this approach). And all of this will have to be the free expression of the personality of the child, of their curiosity and desire for knowledge and social interaction, without any compulsion (because, in fact, who would carry this compulsion out?).

[Anatoli]

Socialism has no time for whiners especially when one is expected to eat and drink in moderation given that more resources are needed to defend the motherland from enemies of the state. Those who encourage dissatisfaction among Soviets were wholly to blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nobody died of hunger in the USSR. Life expectancy was 81. How can anyone talk of 'famine' and 'hunger'?

[BIXX]

Would activity that is generally considered harmful be curtailed though? For example, a teenager who is rebelling and clings onto nostalgic notions of fascism and decides to start a Young Fascists club.
I never advocated a liberal "tolerance", I'm saying that people have no real reason to cooperate with the overall society if their needs are being met in a way that is opposed or unrelated to it.


The thing about supporting the greater good, is how do we know what it is (or is it only historically relative?) and what the costs of acting towards this ideal are?
I can't tell if you're trying to continue what I was saying or counter it. But my point was that no one whose needs are met will have a reason to contribute to a "greater good", assuming their needs being met isn't predicated on support for society at large.


Also, anyone who isn't supporting the same greater good as yourself is generally perceived as part of the problem. So if I'm pro-Palestinian, anyone who is not pro-Palestinian is in a way an obstacle, and probably being swindled by the Zionists. We tend to hold others to the same standards as we hold ourselves.
I don't know what your point was here.


In socialism the purpose of society seems to be predominantly a matter of instituting liberty as much as possible. Capitalist society is more a matter of production and consumption of commodities.
I think saying that socialism is all about liberty is a mistake, its about the removal of centralized wealth and ending privatized exploitation of " the working class" in favor of other ways of exploitation, creating a life identical to this one except ratified by "workers councils".

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I would hope that, in some way, socialist education would be a bit more....I'm not sure of the right word.....'individualized', I guess? Different children develop at different levels, and trying to shove a bunch of random kids in a classroom without recognizing that simple truth is one of the biggest problems with modern public education.

Ideally, I would imagine a teacher for every individual child, or maybe a small group of three or four. There would be learning both inside and outside, with plenty of excursions into the outdoors. There would also be an interactive an easy to access database on every topic a particular child would wish to see. No topic should be off-limits. Whether a student wishes to learn about the age of the universe, the history of the Roman Empire, or human sexuality. They should be allowed to learn about it, whenever they feel comfortable.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would hope that, in some way, socialist education would be a bit more....I'm not sure of the right word.....'individualized', I guess? Different children develop at different levels, and trying to shove a bunch of random kids in a classroom without recognizing that simple truth is one of the biggest problems with modern public education.

Ideally, I would imagine a teacher for every individual child, or maybe a small group of three or four. There would be learning both inside and outside, with plenty of excursions into the outdoors. There would also be an interactive an easy to access database on every topic a particular child would wish to see. No topic should be off-limits. Whether a student wishes to learn about the age of the universe, the history of the Roman Empire, or human sexuality. They should be allowed to learn about it, whenever they feel comfortable.

Even if we assume that enough people are interested in being teachers that every child can have their own teacher, what would that accomplish? I think it's better to have a reasonably-sized class where the children would interact, not just with their teacher, but with each other.

Also, while the "learn anything you like" approach might sound good, it runs into problems fairly quickly. First of all there are some skills, literacy and numeracy first and foremost, that children have to gain if they're to participate in public life as equals to the other members of society. Second, many fields require an understanding of other fields, and sometimes those other fields can seem daunting, or dry and overly technical, to people who encounter them the first time.

Just as an example: in Croatland, children start learning about physics in the 7th grade of elementary school. This is pretty much a disaster, as at this point they're not equipped, mathematically, to deal with physics. So every formula needs to be taken on faith (since they can't be derived because the children can't do calculus) and applied without much understanding. All of this makes physics really unpopular, particularly in elementary school.

But physics is also really cool, or at least I tell myself that every night when I'm lying awake and wondering why I decided to get a doctor's degree. Well, we have lasers. Suppose someone wants to learn about lasers, then. They first have to have a reasonable grasp of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (reasonably interesting) and calculus (which I think very few people would decide to study on their own).