School Uniforms

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)You don't need to put every other word in bold....[/b]

Every other word???

I used the bold tags on 10 occasions in my last post, because I feel that it makes my post look attractive. If it doesn't please your eye....then sorry. However I will continue to steal the posting style of members of this, and other, boards in order to try and make my post look pleasing to me at least.

And unless that is prohibeted....then I suppose it is tough&#33; <_<


Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)Many, and by many I mean all of the ones that I&#39;ve seen, state schools have dropped any kind of religious aspect to their assemblies....[/b]

As far as I know, State Schools don&#39;t pursue Christianity with gusto, but the weekly assemblies still have some kind of Christian fable incorporated into their assemblies.

Poor kids. :(


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Headmasters are far too scared about offending some minority nowadays to really carry that kind of thing on....

Children of alternative faiths have the option, well their parents have the option of signing a consent form which would mean their children don&#39;t have to endure half an hour of Christian morality....but I imagine the social stigma involved makes it very embarrassing for these particular children.

As far as I&#39;m concerned, all Schools should be completely secular....which means no Religious symbolism at all.

And additionally, further measures should be enforced to make Schools into environments in which students feel equal....in this respect I fully support compulsory School uniforms because they negate the possibility of student embarrassment with regards their parents socio-economic situation which is shown through the type of clothing they wear.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
No-one who isn&#39;t already religious really takes these things seriously anyway.

Well that depends.

Children, by definition, aren&#39;t fully developed rational human beings and are therefore more susceptible to being exploited. Which means that environments in which children operate should not promote any particular belief system.

Adults (and granted, the definition of adult is debatable) can think whatever nonsense they wish....but children, who are unable to clearly weigh up the "pros and cons", should be freed from coercion, as much as is possible anyway.

I read once that children&#39;s brains are like sponges, and in this respect, I think that children should be taught to use their brains rather than blind obedience to objectively harmful paradigms.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Whats wrong with taxing cigarette companies to death ?

Maybe because the cigarette companies don&#39;t pay the VAT....I do&#33; :angry:

Cigarettes are reasonably cheap to produce....but the "sin" taxes make them really fucking expensive. :(


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Or at least taxing people off the habit ?

The principle of Governments making people good, is truly a relic of traditional fascism....and funnily enough, all brands of bourgeois politics (with the exception of libertarianism) incorporate this to some degree.

Needless to say, a communist unquestionably opposes such nonsense....we wish for people to be liberated from institutional authority, not perpetuate it.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
I seem to remember that murder laws were inspired by certain passages in a certain book, as were laws about theft, adultery, the little things y&#39;know ?

I&#39;m no expert on this, but, murder laws existed before St. Paul decided to babble on about some ignorant rural preacher.

Indeed, as far as I know, the fundamental laws that have been used by nearly all civilisations are used because they allow said civilisation to function....and not because the "good Lord" ordered it.

The first murder laws were likely created in slave labour based societies, in order to protect the slave owners property which helped to create said society.

Likewise, theft probably has similar roots....and rape laws were brought about because it was deemed inappropriate to violate another mans property.

On adultery, you&#39;re likely right that the laws against it were directly influenced by the various Religious institutions need to keep their class position (and rule over the populace) via enforcing "Gods will".

In the Muslim World, there are still laws with regards adultery....which always harm women. :angry:

These laws help to consolidate the privileged position of the pious ruling class by creating a rationale for the routine oppression of parts of the populace.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
What religious nutballs deciding policy in schools ? Example please.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292035441 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47438&view=findpost&p=1292035441)

The Schools, as one would imagine, are particularly terrible if you&#39;re female.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
I think that any morals are better than no morals, don&#39;t you ?

I&#39;d rather people rationally analyse every situation and come to a logical conclusion, rather than just applying universal truths, which by their very nature are abstract, to every situation.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Surely a good old fashioned fear of death by a thousand years of flame and brimstone could do far more good for badly behaved youth than &#39;talking&#39; and &#39;understanding&#39; and all that other liberal nonesense.

These "badly behaved youth" are simply trying to have some enjoyment under the despotism of adults....therefore I certainly don&#39;t want to reinforce that despotism by relying on fear.

After all, these kids, mostly, just want to have a drink, do some drugs and shag. That&#39;s hardly something to get all worried about....unless you are Religious of course, which means you have to try and prevent this "sin".

Aside from that, I oppose adult despotism whether it takes a Religious or liberal form.


[email protected]
Piety is I seem to see, making a comeback amongst the older generations, those that&#39;ll be dead soon enough.

However, these people have children....which means they indoctrinate a whole new generation. :(


VonClausewitz
The young now are either too busy scraping through exams or having children to be religious, don&#39;t worry.

I am young, and I choose neither exams nor children....indeed there are far more fun things to do with your youth. :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And additionally, further measures should be enforced to make Schools into environments in which students feel equal....in this respect I fully support compulsory School uniforms because they negate the possibility of student embarrassment with regards their parents socio-economic situation which is shown through the type of clothing they wear.

Well, I don&#39;t. I feel school uniforms are an insufferable limitation of a child&#39;s individuality and a subtle but constant reminder that in order to "get on" in life one must "conform" and not stand out amongst the crowd. That&#39;s about as appetising as a shit sandwhich.

As for embaressment, if anyone picks on anyone else for not wearing the latest flimsy Nike sportswear, then those bullies should be punished.

Making everyone dress the same is merely papering over the cracks of a bigger problem.

[Amusing Scrotum]

NoXion, I agree that school uniforms do limit individuality and, in a small way, encourage conformity....but at the present time, I think they help negate income disparity in the school environment (of course, the shoes often give it away&#33; <_< ).

Therefore, in the epoch of capital, I&#39;d say that school uniforms are one of the only effective measures with regards trying to create a more equal school environment....whatever the negatives are.

In a communist society on the other hand, school uniforms would be completely abandoned, because in effect, they&#39;re a product of class society.


Originally posted by NoXion+--> (NoXion)As for embaressment, if anyone picks on anyone else for not wearing the latest flimsy Nike sportswear, then those bullies should be punished.[/b]

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll agree that that is easier said than done.

Bullying is a pretty complex matter, and the measures proposed to stop it often make life worse for the victim....there is a real possibility that reporting bullying will lead to more bullying. :(

Therefore, I think removing one of the reasons which the bully&#39;s exploit, is possibly the most effective method....it isn&#39;t the most ideal method, but effective methods are rarely ideal if you get my drift.


NoXion
Making everyone dress the same is merely papering over the cracks of a bigger problem.

Absolutely.

However, children react to situations in a different manner than adults....the effects of childhood trauma are often far more damaging. In this respect, if a bit of plastering can be done in order to protect the more vulnerable members of society, then I think it is necessary.

I don&#39;t like restrictions on the activities of adults, because basically, adults should be treated as adults. However, when it comes to children I do favour some forms of protection....school uniforms and freedom from Religious oppression being two examples of this.

Of course, on top of this, I would like to see the "age of adulthood" reduced quite a bit....personally, I think 14 is a decent age to set it, though there are probably those who&#39;d argue for a higher age and some for a lower. But that&#39;s another debate. <_<

Basically, I think it is necessary "paper" of some of the "cracks" with regards children....especially when one considers that it is during the childhood years that people begin to develop their personalities.

[Comrade-Z]

And additionally, further measures should be enforced to make Schools into environments in which students feel equal....in this respect I fully support compulsory School uniforms because they negate the possibility of student embarrassment with regards their parents socio-economic situation which is shown through the type of clothing they wear.

Well, I don&#39;t. I feel school uniforms are an insufferable limitation of a child&#39;s individuality and a subtle but constant reminder that in order to "get on" in life one must "conform" and not stand out amongst the crowd. That&#39;s about as appetising as a shit sandwhich.

As for embaressment, if anyone picks on anyone else for not wearing the latest flimsy Nike sportswear, then those bullies should be punished.

Making everyone dress the same is merely papering over the cracks of a bigger problem.

I must second this. School uniforms are a terrible idea. They are a relic of the fascism and militarism that pervades early capitalist societies. One way to tell close a society is with regards to proletarian revolution is to see whether their youth still wear school uniforms.
Japan--yes
China--probably
Venezuela--from what I hear from the anarchist sources down there, the Chavez government is busily injecting the school environment with all kinds of nationalist, patriotic, militarist crap, especially school uniforms.
France--nope.

The problem is not that regular clothing demonstrates one&#39;s class background. The problem is that working class kids are ashamed to be and to look "working class." Instead, they should feel class pride about that. After all, their parents are the ones who make society function, no?

On the other hand, uniforms convey a false sense of "conformity" and "togetherness," as if all of the students at a school were "on the same team." No, the nice thing about regular clothing is it serves as a way to display and spot class backgrounds and political affiliations. For me, it is far too uncomfortable (and ineffective) to go up to people and ask them about politics or whatnot at school. Instead, I look for the circle-A, punk-ish clothing, or really working class clothing. It becomes a rallying signal.

What I would really like to see at school is working class kids dressed as working class kids and be proud of it. In fact, I wouldn&#39;t mind it if they looked at the bourgeois kids who tease them about their clothing or style as parasitical scum. The working class kids might even form "political gangs" that would serve as not only informal friend networks, but also as places for political discussion, theoretizing (if they are into that), repelling bourgeois insults and defending against bullying in general, etc.

Think about it&#33; Just imagine a bunch of gloating, arrogant preppy bourgeois kids walking down the hallway looking for some "unstylish" working class kid to mock, only to say, "Oh shit, we better not mess with those kids. They&#39;re part of that AutoAction gang&#33;" (short for "Autonomous Action"--working class kids, anarchists, and punks are welcome.)

[eyedrop]

In addition to all the other replies to the school uniform I wanna say that school uniforms help to reinforce the notion that people can&#39;t decide for themselfes. We need the state to decide about everything for us.

We don&#39;t need a benovelent state to decide things for us.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)They are a relic of the fascism and militarism that pervades early capitalist societies.[/b]

I rather doubt this assertion. According to the wikipedia page on school uniforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_uniforms), in "continental Europe, uniforms have not been required in public (state-sponsored) schools." And continental Europe is where one would expect to find relics of fascism.

Britain, on the other hand, never had a "fascist era" and yet there are school unfiroms....so really you can&#39;t use this line of argument with regards opposition of school uniforms in Britain.

Indeed, school uniforms probably pre-date capitalism....the first uniforms were likely introduced in the schools of the aristocracy back in the feudal epoch, though I&#39;m not sure about that one.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)One way to tell close a society is with regards to proletarian revolution is to see whether their youth still wear school uniforms.[/b]

That&#39;s a bit too subjective for my liking. After all, most of Africa, as far as I know, does not have school uniforms....yet I seriously doubt you&#39;d say that these areas are "close" to proletarian revolution.

Additionally, the United States doesn&#39;t have compulsory school uniforms in most of it schools....yet I wouldn&#39;t say that that made it "closer" to proletarian revolution than Britain.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
The problem is that working class kids are ashamed to be and to look "working class."

The school I went too was primarily working class, yet there are economic differences within the working class itself....a child of a working class single mother is likely to be "scruffier" than the child of two working class parents.

The bourgeois tend not to send their children to State Schools, so really school uniforms mainly hide differences within the working class itself.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
What I would really like to see at school is working class kids dressed as working class kids and be proud of it.

I think the idea that one finds dignity in poverty is a horrible myth....as far as I can tell, no one is really "proud" of being poor and from my perspective, I&#39;d rather liberate myself from economic inequality than celebrate it.

And additionally, as I said, most State Schools are overwhelmingly working class, and uniforms help paper over the cracks in the class as well as class differences.


Originally posted by eyedrop
We don&#39;t need a benovelent state to decide things for us.

Quite right....but you must remember that children, due to their economic situation, have no power with regards decision making.

Until you&#39;re 16, you are without a doubt completely dependant on adults....that situation needs to change, but for the time being, school uniforms due help to address it in a small way.

Liberation from the despotism of adults should be the ultimate goal, but for the time being something that helps minimise this scenario is, in my opinion, worthwile.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
I could&#39;ve sworn I&#39;d started this to discuss why some of you people think religion is still an oppressive force in society, not to debate who is more liberal than who with regards to school uniforms &#33;.

If a Mod/Admin sees this thread, maybe they&#39;ll split the topics....but for the time being, I&#39;m afraid the discussion on school uniforms is going to happen here. :P


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
....though with the small change that all State schools should be totally secular, if people want to go to a church school, and/or want to send their children to one, that is their decision.

Engels would have agreed with you, his opinion was that if the Religious want to teach that "nonsense", then they should be free to do that. I however, think Engels was wrong with regards this particular issue....there should be certain limits on the psychological abuse of children, and removing Religious nonsense from schools is one of those limits.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
The state shouldn&#39;t decide whether or not one&#39;s children have a religious upbringing right ?

This is a really controversial subject on this board....some argue that parents should be allowed to phychologically abuse their children, were as I, and others, argue that there need to be limits on this.

In the epoch of capital, I&#39;d say the limits should only apply to the school environment and any further limits carry with them massive risks. However, in a communist society, I think that Religious parents should not be allowed to raise children....such practice, in my opinion, should be banned.

Given the limits of each form of society, these positions seem very reasonable in my opinion....not to mention fundamentally progressive.


Originally posted by VonClausewitz
I was talking of criminal acts and general anti-social behaviour, I wasn&#39;t meaning children playing football in the street or something.

"Anti-social behaviour" in the eyes of the Blair cabal covers most forms of enjoyment....underage sex, drinking and drug use are deemed "anti-social" by the Blair cabal.

Puritanical bastards&#33; :angry:


[email protected]
Isn&#39;t "despotism of adults" a little harsh ?

Not really.

You have no freedom until you turn 16, and even then the freedom is extremely limited.

Basically, the economic situation of children means that they are completely dependent on adults....who are often despotic&#33;

Parents have rights, children don&#39;t.


VonClausewitz
Hopefully the trend of children rebelling against their parents will continue well into the future....

I&#39;d imagine the oppression present in an Evangelical family environment goes a long way to stopping any potential teenage rebellion....though all those silver ring girls getting pregnant suggests that I may be being a little too pessimistic.

[Comrade-Z]

Isn&#39;t "despotism of adults" a little harsh ?

Speaking of the "despotism of adults," let&#39;s explore the school uniform issue a little bit more. ;)


I rather doubt this assertion. According to the wikipedia page on school uniforms, in "continental Europe, uniforms have not been required in public (state-sponsored) schools." And continental Europe is where one would expect to find relics of fascism.

How so? Most of continental Europe is far past that by now.


Britain, on the other hand, never had a "fascist era" and yet there are school unfiroms....so really you can&#39;t use this line of argument with regards opposition of school uniforms in Britain.

This made me laugh. You say that Britain has never had a fascist era when, in fact, it seems that some elements of fascism (conformity and submission to authority, in the form of wearing school uniforms) persist even to this day (&#33;) Apparently Britain still hasn&#39;t made it out of its fascist era yet in that regard. You&#39;ve got a lot of work to do over there. :(


Indeed, school uniforms probably pre-date capitalism

Indeed, just as fascist principles (submission to authority, conformity) also pre-date capitalism. It simply required capitalism and its high level of technology to give fascism that sharp totalitarian edge that we usually think of as characterizing fascism. But fascist mindsets have existed for a long time. :(


That&#39;s a bit too subjective for my liking. After all, most of Africa, as far as I know, does not have school uniforms....yet I seriously doubt you&#39;d say that these areas are "close" to proletarian revolution.

They probably don&#39;t have the resources to devote to making nice flashy uniforms for everyone...yet. Wait until they are late-feudal/primitive capitalist countries. Wait until they have the resources to field large standing armies, and they will feel the compulsion to "get kids acclimated to military uniforms" at an early age in school.


Additionally, the United States doesn&#39;t have compulsory school uniforms in most of it schools....yet I wouldn&#39;t say that that made it "closer" to proletarian revolution than Britain.

Indeed, this is a factor in the U.S.&#39;s favor, and one that sets Britain back from where it otherwise could be.

I guess I should say it succintly: forcing kids to wear of school uniforms reinforces fascist mindsets (conformity, obedience to authority) and delays proletarian revolution.

I can tell you that if our school district&#39;s superintendent tried to get the kids in my district to wear school uniforms, there would be hell to pay&#33; He&#39;d be a dead motherfucker. I don&#39;t know about Britain, but here in the U.S. kids simply won&#39;t tolerate that kind of despotism any more...and they haven&#39;t since WWII, I reckon.


The school I went too was primarily working class, yet there are economic differences within the working class itself....a child of a working class single mother is likely to be "scruffier" than the child of two working class parents.

Why does it matter that one child looks a bit "scruffier" than another? (As long as that child has clothing that is at least functional, as in not falling apart. If the child can&#39;t manage that, he/she should be given some cheap, plain, functional clothing to use. But not uniforms&#33;) If kids are judging this poorer kid by his/her "fashion," then they are judging from a capitalist value system that says that people have worth insofar as they have nice clothes to wear. It is this warped value system that needs to be smashed, not the freedom of kids to wear what they want.

Equality is admirable, but equality does not mean uniformity and the suppression of individuality. We should try to enrich and empower those poorer kids so that they, too, get to have some choice about what they wear, instead of depriving everyone else of their choices.


The bourgeois tend not to send their children to State Schools, so really school uniforms mainly hide differences within the working class itself.

Why should we want to paper-over these differences in wealth? Here is proof that capitalism does not deliver equally and fairly to everyone. Those poorer kids should be mad as hell that they don&#39;t have the same arrays of choices concerning what they can wear as other kids do, and those poorer kids should work to change that (by abolishing capitalism).


I think the idea that one finds dignity in poverty is a horrible myth....as far as I can tell, no one is really "proud" of being poor and from my perspective, I&#39;d rather liberate myself from economic inequality than celebrate it.

I didn&#39;t say there was pride in being poor. I said there was pride in being working class. There&#39;s a difference. People should be proud of being working class because it is thanks to them that society functions&#33; That&#39;s no small fact, and it is worthy of recognition and admiration.

On the other hand, those same people, if they are poor (which they currently are), should be mad as hell about being poor&#33; They should say to themselves, "Wait, why is it that we are so poor when the entire functioning of society rests on our shoulders&#33; This isn&#39;t right&#33;"


Quite right....but you must remember that children, due to their economic situation, have no power with regards decision making.

You are underestimating children just a wee bit, I think. Sure, a kid of 6 years old may not understand all of the intricacies of the workings of the godracket, human social organization, and/or the functioning of material reality. But I do think that they can make decent decisions about what to wear. (Right now kids have to worry about "being stylish and popular" and other such nonsense. Even this they can handle, but it is an unnecessary stress. If we get rid of the warped value system of capitalism, choosing clothing becomes a matter of what feels comfortable and what is functional. Kids can figure that out.


Liberation from the despotism of adults should be the ultimate goal, but for the time being something that helps minimise this scenario is, in my opinion, worthwile.

Your "liberation" from adult despotism is simply replacing one set of adult tyrants (parents) with another set of adult tyrants (school administration).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)How so? Most of continental Europe is far past that by now.[/b]

Well, in your own words, school uniforms "are a relic of the fascism and militarism"....I would have thought that that relic would be most present in places which have had fascism.

Therefore, I would have thought that pointing out that Britain has never been fascist was relevant with regards you using this particular line of argument.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)say that Britain has never had a fascist era when, in fact, it seems that some elements of fascism (conformity and submission to authority, in the form of wearing school uniforms) persist even to this day (&#33;)[/b]

Well, "conformity and submission to authority" are relics of class society in general, and are not just hallmarks of fascism....after all, feudal society was rife with "submission to authority", but it wasn&#39;t fascist.

Granted, the structure of certain things, namely the Police and Army, do promote a fascist mindset....but I think it&#39;s a bit of a stretch to include compulsory school uniforms in there as well.

Indeed if school uniforms did promote a fascist mentality, then I&#39;d expect there to be a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis, but, as far as I know, there is no evidence of this....British schools after all, are not hotbeds of fascism.

Indeed from personal experience, I&#39;d say that if British schools are hotbeds for anything, they&#39;re hotbeds for illegal durgs....and the more affluent the area the school is in is, the more drugs there are.

As always, the upper classes have the most fun. :(

I really think you are giving school uniforms too much attention in this regard....as they are, in my opinion, a pretty irrelevant thing.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Indeed, just as fascist principles (submission to authority, conformity) also pre-date capitalism.

Again, these things are relics of class society in general....fascism does borrow some of these features, particularly ones from pre-capitalist epochs, but these features alone are not fascist.

After all, Himmler was a huge promoter of both environmental protection and veganism and had the Nazi Party been in power longer, veganism especially, may have become Government policy....but I doubt somebody could present a decent argument with regards veganism as a concept being intrinsically fascist.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Wait until they have the resources to field large standing armies, and they will feel the compulsion to "get kids acclimated to military uniforms" at an early age in school.

Well, I suppose we&#39;ll have to wait and see whether this hypothesis is validated, but for the time being, I feel it&#39;s necessary to point out that school uniforms are not in any way shape or form military uniforms....I wore a polo shirt, black trousers and loafers, hardly the dress code of the Hitler Youth&#33; :lol:

I don&#39;t dispute that the symbolism of a set uniform was important to fascist parties in the past, but there were other things that were far more important and in my opinion, that fascists used uniforms doesn&#39;t make uniforms fascist.

After all, the staff a Tesco&#39;s all were the same attire, but I don&#39;t think the probability of a Tesco SS forming is very high. <_<


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
guess I should say it succintly: forcing kids to wear of school uniforms reinforces fascist mindsets (conformity, obedience to authority) and delays proletarian revolution.

I&#39;m not that well informed on the issue, but it appears you are committing a few logical fallacies here....both the Slippery Slope Fallacy (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php) and the Appeal to Consequences Fallacy (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/conseq.php) seem to have been employed by you here.

Basically, the evidence of set uniforms being solely fascist is, as far as I can tell, non-existent and therefore the conclusion that school uniforms equal fascist mindset which then delays proletarian revolution, is, in my opinion, baseless.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Why does it matter that one child looks a bit "scruffier" than another?

To the child, I imagine it matters a lot.

We live in the epoch of capital and therefore economic inequality is judged by a "capitalist value system"....and unfortunately, until the present epoch is smashed, that is the value system, warped as it is, that will be used.

Therefore, if we are to look at a system objectively, we must consider this factor....no matter how annoying that may be.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
We should try to enrich and empower those poorer kids so that they, too, get to have some choice about what they wear, instead of depriving everyone else of their choices.

Without a doubt, that would be the preferable option....but as far as I can tell, it is an impossible option at the present time.

Under the present epoch, there is no way to feasibly "enrich and empower those poorer kids" and therefore, other, less preferable, options need to be considered.


Comrade&#045;[email protected]
Why should we want to paper-over these differences in wealth?

For the psychological well being of the children involved. They after all, are at the point where their personality is forming, and embarrassment and degradation will not help "empower" these children, it will simply humiliate them.


Comrade&#045;Z
Therefore, in the epoch of capital, I&#39;d say that school uniforms are one of the only effective measures with regards trying to create a more equal school environment....whatever the negatives are.

In a communist society on the other hand, school uniforms would be completely abandoned, because in effect, they&#39;re a product of class society.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292048146 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48332&view=findpost&p=1292048146)

But we are not discussing a post-capitalist society here, we are discussing capitalist society....meaning we have to consider the limits that such a society places on the possible solutions to said problem.

[VonClausewitz]

I think that you&#39;re all getting a little carried away. Children wearing a school uniform is not going to stop your bloody revolution &#33;. A lot of schools in Britain enforce the uniform rules for a variety of SENSIBLE reasons. They&#39;re not trying to be military, or oppressive. It makes sense, that if you have 800 children gathered in one place, you want to know that they&#39;re all supposed to be there.

School trips - it&#39;s easier to keep an eye on who&#39;s who if they&#39;re dressed the same.
It is actually more &#39;equalising&#39; than having everyone wear their own clothes, which would creat more social issues for children.
It can promote more belonging to the institution.
Security issues - children and people without a uniform or ID bit are quickly spotted, and if they aren&#39;t supposed to be there, ejected.

I&#39;m sure it&#39;s a terribly draconian and out-dated and repressive system, but it makes sense. It might work not to have them in America or Europe, but that&#39;s them. A system of uniforms works perfectly well for Britain, and I don&#39;t see any real reason appart from paranoid delusions that you people can have to oppose them &#33;.

School uniforms are representative, a product of, class society ? So why does every school, and every child, from the poorest local comp to the Royal Schools, wear a uniform ? Believe it or not, a school uniform is the easiest way of eliminating class-stigma from schools. Theres none of this bullying because the poor kid doesn&#39;t have the latest crappy jeans for starters.

How does a school uniform bear any relation to a military uniform ? Most primary-schools have bright colours, and since IT IS NOT THE 19th CENUTRY, they look sod all like what the army wears. Secondary uniforms generally resemble SMART SUITS. To my knowledge, no army in the world wears a bloody suit to battle. Wearing a uniform is a good way of teaching stuck up little brats that they can&#39;t get everything their own way in life, and that sometimes they need to just accpet their lot and get on with it. Believe me, it does wonders for children who can&#39;t stand to dress like someone else.

The real world forces you to make comprimises, and it is best to learn that from a young age.

[redstar2000]

There seem to be several things to be considered here.

First, there&#39;s no question but that without school uniforms, the class differences in any large public school will be obvious...at least to those who are looking for that sort of thing.

Second, adolescence is a time of intensive "mate-seeking"...and whatever clothing is considered "fashionable", "cool" or "especially attractive" will be chosen by some kids in order to appeal to potential mates.

This especially pressures female students, of course.

I&#39;m reluctant to suggest that the state apparatus should enforce what amounts to a fake "equality". We all knew who the rich kids were...no matter what they wore. :angry:

On the other hand, school uniforms tend to promote indifference to fashion...and I see nothing wrong with that at all.

Contrary to the bourgeois media, you are not "what you wear".

So for me, it&#39;s a "tough call".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chaval]

redstar raised some good points
I had to wear a uniform back in high school and in no way did anyone feel "opressed" i think thats really a load of nonsense

the days we were allowed to wear regular clothing was a day that everyone got to show off how much money there parents had and the girls got to come dressed like hoes and man let me tell you it is not easy to concentrate in class when the girl in front oh never mind you get the point

i also think that the argument of opressed individuality is extrememly weak. There are only so many ways to express yourself through clothes and if you feel that thats the best way of expressing who you are then there not much to you.

so i wore a uniform? does that mean that now i&#39;ll buy into fascism easily? does it mean that no one in my class knew who i was as a person cause we all wore the same clothes?

in fact if we assume that it actually does "opress" individuality then that would mean that students would be forced to express themselves through other means, much more productive means and effective ones like how about voicing their opinions&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; maybe its just me but id rather have people appreciate who i am for what i have to say, not for what clothes im wearing

i mean seriously wtf? opression my ass

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval
the girls got to come dressed like hoes and man let me tell you it is not easy to concentrate in class when the girl in front oh never mind you get the point

They were not dressed "like hoes" but like young women who wanted to attract potential mates.

That&#39;s not a "crime" or even evidence of "moral depravity".

The assumption that women who dress to attract masculine interest are "hoes" is not acceptable on this board.

You are "on the edge" of a warning point for sexism; you simply have no legitimate right to criticize women&#39;s choice in clothing...from any angle. Much less attributing motives to them that are not derived from objective evidence.

The word "hoe" is sexist...I&#39;d suggest you cultivate the use of the word "sex worker" in its place.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[theraven]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 9 2006, 01:52 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 9 2006, 01:52 AM)
chaval
the girls got to come dressed like hoes and man let me tell you it is not easy to concentrate in class when the girl in front oh never mind you get the point

They were not dressed "like hoes" but like young women who wanted to attract potential mates.

That&#39;s not a "crime" or even evidence of "moral depravity".

The assumption that women who dress to attract masculine interest are "hoes" is not acceptable on this board.

You are "on the edge" of a warning point for sexism; you simply have no legitimate right to criticize women&#39;s choice in clothing...from any angle. Much less attributing motives to them that are not derived from objective evidence.

The word "hoe" is sexist...I&#39;d suggest you cultivate the use of the word "sex worker" in its place.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Their intention doesn&#39;t matter, nor does the morality of it. The simple fact is many girls dress in a very provocative manner, reminiscent of prostitutes. This is highly distracting to young men in high school.

[chaval]

That&#39;s not a "crime" or even evidence of "moral depravity".

never said it was i just said it was distracting and thats a fact, i also wasnt the only one cause man me and the guys would have some good times those days (isntead of learning)


The assumption that women who dress to attract masculine interest are "hoes" is not acceptable on this board.

You are "on the edge" of a warning point for sexism; you simply have no legitimate right to criticize women&#39;s choice in clothing...from any angle. Much less attributing motives to them that are not derived from objective evidence.

i didnt say taht those who dress provocative are hoes i said, like theraven pointed out, that the way the dress was like that of sex worker and i dont believe i should be admonished for this opinion after all, you werent there and i was and the kind of poeple that went to my school...well its the kind of poeple that like to dress in very provocative manners and an analogy can be drawn to sex workers since they are infamous for their provocative ways

i criticized the clothing from the legitatmite point of view that its bloody distracting in the school environment specifically because of your looking for a mate argument. i did not attribute any motives to them. i.e. saying that so and so looks like a rat does not mean that i believe them to live underneath floorboards and eat cheese morsels

and if the word hoe is sexist then okay, lesson learned

[RedCeltic]

This is an interesting topic I’d like to weigh in on here.

The topic of School uniforms is one I’ve thought about and debated from time to time. On one hand, as an American and a product of public school education in New York State I can see many social problems within our school system which does not require uniforms, nor much of a school dress code at all. I’ve heard it argued that students are in school to learn and school uniforms would serve to direct the students to this end.

However, one could also argue that learning at school does not only take place within the classroom but also within forming social groups, and learning about who you are as a person. I admit that at one time I was very much in favor of school uniforms or some type of strict dress code. However in retrospect I must admit that this kind of thinking is flawed. I think that school uniforms would serve the same as our once school segregation in the American south. It masks deeper social problems, while denying students the very important social learning tool of being exposed to different types of individuals, as well as the important tool of freedom of expression.

Looking back, I must say that the time in my life in which I was afforded the most access to freedom of expression was while I was in high school. As you grow older, you have increasingly less opportunities for freedom of expression.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:47 PM

And additionally, further measures should be enforced to make Schools into environments in which students feel equal....in this respect I fully support compulsory School uniforms because they negate the possibility of student embarrassment with regards their parents socio-economic situation which is shown through the type of clothing they wear.

Well, I don&#39;t. I feel school uniforms are an insufferable limitation of a child&#39;s individuality and a subtle but constant reminder that in order to "get on" in life one must "conform" and not stand out amongst the crowd. That&#39;s about as appetising as a shit sandwhich.

As for embaressment, if anyone picks on anyone else for not wearing the latest flimsy Nike sportswear, then those bullies should be punished.

Making everyone dress the same is merely papering over the cracks of a bigger problem.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. A child may bet ridiculed for not being a fashionable, but that is nothing to what would happen to the poor child if it transpired that he grassed up those bulling him.

That would be a very poor move.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by theraven
The simple fact is many girls dress in a very provocative manner, reminiscent of prostitutes. This is highly distracting to young men in high school.

No doubt it is "distracting"; it&#39;s intended to be.

The assumption that they "must be prostitutes" because prostitutes "always dress provocatively" is unjustified.

If a male high school student takes off his shirt, is he trying to attract a gay "john"? Does that sound like a reasonable assumption?

If you saw him on the corner of Geary and Polk in San Francisco, then yes, that&#39;s a reasonable assumption...otherwise, no.

Sex workers dress "provocatively" when they&#39;re working...otherwise they "dress down" in casual wear like everyone else.

Adolescent females sometimes dress "provocatively" when they are going to be around a bunch of adolescent males whom they see as potential mates...otherwise, they likewise "dress down" in casual wear.

That&#39;s the only "similarity"...and it&#39;s not very similar when you get right down to it.

Even though my teen-age years are long behind me, I can still remember the girls in my classes who "dressed provocatively"...amidst the dreary high school landscape of lies and bullshit, I was most happily "distracted".

Nor did it ever occur to me to compare them with sex workers...since I&#39;d never seen one (knowingly) in my short life.

What you&#39;re really suggesting here, consciously or not, is that young women should "dress like nuns" in order to avoid "distracting you".

But they are not "obligated" to do that. Quite the contrary, it is you who is obligated to disregard the "distraction" if you have something "more important" to concentrate on.

It is no longer acceptable to take refuge in the "uncontrollable male sex drive" to which women are "expected" to defer.

Things have changed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[VonClausewitz]

I expect that this is an entirely different topic:

"Should young girls be encouraged (by mass media etc) to show off what body they have in a school environment ?"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Enigma+Apr 9 2006, 10:32 AM--> (Enigma @ Apr 9 2006, 10:32 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 10:47 PM

And additionally, further measures should be enforced to make Schools into environments in which students feel equal....in this respect I fully support compulsory School uniforms because they negate the possibility of student embarrassment with regards their parents socio-economic situation which is shown through the type of clothing they wear.

Well, I don&#39;t. I feel school uniforms are an insufferable limitation of a child&#39;s individuality and a subtle but constant reminder that in order to "get on" in life one must "conform" and not stand out amongst the crowd. That&#39;s about as appetising as a shit sandwhich.

As for embaressment, if anyone picks on anyone else for not wearing the latest flimsy Nike sportswear, then those bullies should be punished.

Making everyone dress the same is merely papering over the cracks of a bigger problem.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. A child may bet ridiculed for not being a fashionable, but that is nothing to what would happen to the poor child if it transpired that he grassed up those bulling him.

That would be a very poor move. [/b]
I&#39;ve experienced bullying. If those cowards think they can intimidate you with violence, you must prove them wrong. I&#39;ve successfully nailed someone for assault because they thought their fists were the be all and end of everything. Children must be taught not to be afraid of bullying and intimidation, and adults must learn to take bullying seriously because it doesn&#39;t "build character" or any bullshit like that.

The message "don&#39;t tell on the bullies" only encourages the bullies.

Fuck that shit&#33; :angry:

[Hiero]

I always liked wearing a school uniform. So much easier to get up in the morning and just chuck on the uniform, rather then worry about what to wear and what was ironed and stuff.

[Communism]

Uniforms depersonalize children and give the teachers even more authority than they have which is already too much. It is the teachers who are the bullies of schools and it is the children who have to conform to a dress code which is completely ridiculous. (what is the need for a tie? what does it actually do?). It stops kids from questioning authority which is in an abundance in todays society

[VonClausewitz]

(what is the need for a tie? what does it actually do?). It stops kids from questioning authority which is in an abundance in todays society

Are you still in school or something ? most people realise that a tie simply looks nice. Only school-children really argue about the point of it, there are many things in life without a point. I never knew that a tie had so much power though, I really must look into this, maybe form a new movement - Tieism - dedicated to stopping people questionning authority.



and give the teachers even more authority than they have which is already too much.

Teachers have TOO MUCH authority ? Christ man, what planet are you living on ? I&#39;m left school now obviously, but I here stories from my younger brother of basically uncontrollable thugs throwing things and insults at their teachers, and the staff can&#39;t riposte because of some liberal EU crap.

[Comrade-Z]

I had to wear a uniform back in high school and in no way did anyone feel "opressed" i think thats really a load of nonsense

Perhaps you didn&#39;t think anything of it because you were conditioned to accept it? Kind of like how students are conditioned to recite the Pledge of Allegiance without thinking about it, questioning it, or being able to even fathom that being pressured to recite such a statement is oppressive in the first place.

I would really like to get an opinion on the matter from another student who didn&#39;t wear school uniforms as a kid--or, even better, a student who spent a significant span of time with both situations during childhood.


the days we were allowed to wear regular clothing was a day that everyone got to show off how much money there parents had

So what? The illusion that this matters needs to be smashed in the first place. And this isn&#39;t just something that we must relegate to "after the revolution." We can smash this value system within the late-capitalist period, and in doing so bring proletarian revolution that much closer.


There are only so many ways to express yourself through clothes and if you feel that thats the best way of expressing who you are then there not much to you.

True, but it is still one way that one can express one&#39;s self. I want to have as many avenues for expressing myself as possible. Taking away this one (allegedly insignificant method) of self-expression is like saying, "You can&#39;t have free speech and free expression in this zone of the protest here. But what are you whining about? You&#39;ve got all of the rest of the protest area as a free-speech zone. Gosh, why are you getting so uppity about this one zone of restriction on free speech at this protest?"

And it doesn&#39;t even have to be a matter of "expressing one&#39;s self." It is a basic infingement on the autonomy of children to determine for themselves what clothing they find functional and/or comfortable.


so i wore a uniform? does that mean that now i&#39;ll buy into fascism easily? does it mean that no one in my class knew who i was as a person cause we all wore the same clothes?

It rather strongly indicates that you think forced conformity in some circumstances is justified or even preferable(&#33;) This is a fascist notion that has no place in a revolutionary movement aiming for proletarian autonomy.


in fact if we assume that it actually does "opress" individuality then that would mean that students would be forced to express themselves through other means, much more productive means and effective ones like how about voicing their opinions&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Or maybe they won&#39;t express themselves at all. Or maybe the kids who get to wear what they want will express their opinions even more. I don&#39;t by this "re-channelling of self-expression" theory of yours. It assumes that self-expression that is blocked in one area will re-channel somewhere else.

For instance, what if someone said, "It doesn&#39;t matter if the State bans all street demonstrations and imposes curfews with military patrols. Those clever citizens will just find other means by which to express themselves politically. Really, why should we oppose this move by the State to ban all street demonstrations?"


It makes sense, that if you have 800 children gathered in one place, you want to know that they&#39;re all supposed to be there.

Yes, because the State always needs to be keeping tabs on its youth&#33; I can&#39;t wait for my Global-Positioning-System Implants&#33; Hooray&#33;"


It can promote more belonging to the institution.

Which you consider to be a good thing? :angry:


Security issues - children and people without a uniform or ID bit are quickly spotted, and if they aren&#39;t supposed to be there, ejected.

This touches a personal nerve with me. Indeed, at my school we are forced to wear ID badges, allegedly "for our own safety." Of course few people are fooled by this. Most realize that it is simply a way in which the school administration can condition us to follow orders. And, in fact, the conditioning has been rather successful since the ID badge policy&#39;s implementation during my Freshman year. Back then kids were overtly pissed about the ID badges. Now most kids seem to think that being forced to wear ID badges is "normal" or "an unfortunate evil for which there is little use opposing." Now by my senior year, most kids just meekly put on their annoying ID badges and "do what they&#39;re told." :angry: :angry: :angry:

I imagine it is similar with school uniforms. Conditioning.


I&#39;m sure it&#39;s a terribly draconian and out-dated and repressive system, but it makes sense.

You&#39;ve got to be kidding me.


How does a school uniform bear any relation to a military uniform ?

From what I understand, the uniforms of the Civil Guards in Barcelona during the latter part of the Spanish Civil War resembled some school uniform styles. Khaki shorts, white or brown button-up shirt, etc. And then there are the polo-shirt types of uniforms, which just makes me sick. So bourgeois-looking (Ugh&#33;), with shirts tucked in nice and neatly (by obligation), hair combed nicely, etc. Even more tyrannical than parents, it would seem.

It&#39;s not just how they look. It&#39;s the fact that they are uniforms in the first place, and that every kid is forced to conform.


Wearing a uniform is a good way of teaching stuck up little brats that they can&#39;t get everything their own way in life, and that sometimes they need to just accpet their lot and get on with it.

Yes, nailing that into kids&#39; heads is just what we need to raise a generation of rebellious proletarian revolutionaries&#33; :o :angry: No, in fact this is every capitalist&#39;s dream. Just imagine if the French workers "accepted their lot" with the CPE law and "got on with it." Capitalists would be very happy. I would not. :angry:


Believe me, it does wonders for children who can&#39;t stand to dress like someone else.

Yes, I&#39;m sure it does wonders for kids...insofar as accostoming them to forced conformity&#33;


The real world forces you to make comprimises, and it is best to learn that from a young age.

This line could have come verbatim from one of Villepin&#39;s speeches concerning the CPE law in France.

Contrary to what you seem to think, "teaching kids this lesson" does not advance proletarian revolution.


Well, in your own words, school uniforms "are a relic of the fascism and militarism"....I would have thought that that relic would be most present in places which have had fascism.

Britain never had technologically-advanced totalitarian fascism, but it sounds to me like the 1800s was a pretty fascist period in Britain&#39;s history. Just as it was in the U.S. No real freedom of the press, public assembly brutally suppressed, radicals arrested and killed, workers laboring at near slave-labor levels, practically at gunpoint.


Well, "conformity and submission to authority" are relics of class society in general, and are not just hallmarks of fascism....after all, feudal society was rife with "submission to authority", but it wasn&#39;t fascist.

Still, aren&#39;t we trying to overthrow class society? Then shouldn&#39;t we oppose these particular facets of class society (conformity and submission to authority) as furiously as any other facet, if not moreso?


Granted, the structure of certain things, namely the Police and Army, do promote a fascist mindset....but I think it&#39;s a bit of a stretch to include compulsory school uniforms in there as well.

As I see it, it&#39;s not a "stretch" at all. It&#39;s common sense.


Indeed if school uniforms did promote a fascist mentality, then I&#39;d expect there to be a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis, but, as far as I know, there is no evidence of this....British schools after all, are not hotbeds of fascism.

No, apparently it&#39;s only after they exit school that they adopt the mindset suitable for membership in the BNP. :rolleyes:

And even if it&#39;s not explicit fascism, I would still contend that school uniforms in Britain make British society, to a certain extent, more fascist-minded than it otherwise would be.


Indeed from personal experience, I&#39;d say that if British schools are hotbeds for anything, they&#39;re hotbeds for illegal durgs....and the more affluent the area the school is in is, the more drugs there are.

As always, the upper classes have the most fun.

I agree with you here, but that&#39;s another discussion.


I really think you are giving school uniforms too much attention in this regard....as they are, in my opinion, a pretty irrelevant thing.

I suppose I should remind you that you were the first one to give attention to the school uniform issue...in coming out in firm support of it and advocating more widespread school uniform adoption(&#33;) Before that, I just assumed that revolutionary leftists dismissed school uniforms out of hand as oppressive.

Your calls for the proliferation of school uniforms directly threatens my well-being as I perceive it. Thus, I am apt to respond heatedly.


After all, Himmler was a huge promoter of both environmental protection and veganism and had the Nazi Party been in power longer, veganism especially, may have become Government policy....but I doubt somebody could present a decent argument with regards veganism as a concept being intrinsically fascist.

I rather doubt the Nazis could have managed to get people to accept veganism as official policy. That would be simply too jarring to the lives of ordinary people.

I don&#39;t know if veganism is intrinsically fascist, but I do know that enforcing veganism on a population is instrinsically fascist, as is enforcing the wearing of school uniforms on a student population.


I don&#39;t dispute that the symbolism of a set uniform was important to fascist parties in the past,

But you don&#39;t think that this symbolism persists with your school uniforms? You don&#39;t think wearing school uniforms symbolizes, "We must all conform for the good of the whole. We must self-sacrifice for the good of the whole. We must obey the school administration for the good of the whole"? Because those are fascist mantras.


but there were other things that were far more important and in my opinion, that fascists used uniforms doesn&#39;t make uniforms fascist.

Yes, there were more important things, but compulsory uniformity was a part of it all.

I suppose I must come out and say it: the forced wearing of uniforms is instrinsically fascist. Always.

Volutary wearing of uniforms is another thing. A black bloc that voluntarily decides to wear a black uniform is cool with me.

But then suppose that one of the black-bloc members dissented and wanted to wear his/her own thing, and the other blac-bloc members physically forced the dissenting black bloc member to wear the uniform(&#33;) And then suppose that there was no way for the dissenting black bloc member to leave the black bloc outright (just as there is no way for kids to leave school outright)&#33; We would look upon that as unacceptable and call that blac bloc fascist for doing so.


After all, the staff a Tesco&#39;s all were the same attire, but I don&#39;t think the probability of a Tesco SS forming is very high.

Corporations exploit fascist techniques all the time, so as to foster obedience from its workforce. Haven&#39;t you ever heard a boss say to someone, "You need to sacrifice for the good of the whole (meaning, the boss). Be a team player&#33;"?


Under the present epoch, there is no way to feasibly "enrich and empower those poorer kids" and therefore, other, less preferable, options need to be considered.

So you are saying that, since the preferable revolutionary option is "impossible" right now, we need to settle for reformism? (And rather sorry reformism, at that&#33;) This sounds an awful lot like something a Leninist would say. :o


For the psychological well being of the children involved. They after all, are at the point where their personality is forming, and embarrassment and degradation will not help "empower" these children, it will simply humiliate them.

And you seem to think that the forced wearing of school uniforms will "empower" them. An incomprehensible position, in my view. At best, it is simply replacing one type of humiliation with another.


But we are not discussing a post-capitalist society here, we are discussing capitalist society....meaning we have to consider the limits that such a society places on the possible solutions to said problem.

And once again, it is the capitalist value system that needs to be smashed. But you seem to think that this is an "impossible" task, and that we need to just "accept present realities" and settle for reformism. :angry:

In fact, I would assert that playing to this warped value system only serves to legitimize it. There should be no compromise with it--no efforts to try to accommodate capitalist fashion tastes by dressing all kids with uniforms&#33; Just like bourgeois elections, there must be no compromise with this warped capitalist value system&#33;

[VonClausewitz]

QUOTE
It makes sense, that if you have 800 children gathered in one place, you want to know that they&#39;re all supposed to be there.


Yes, because the State always needs to be keeping tabs on its youth&#33; I can&#39;t wait for my Global-Positioning-System Implants&#33; Hooray&#33;"

It is worn 5 days a week for a few hours a day, you really are trying to make a mountain out of nothing here.


QUOTE
It can promote more belonging to the institution.


Which you consider to be a good thing?

Why not ? if the children get over the fact that they&#39;re there, and enjoy it, want to be there, they might actually learn something


QUOTE
I&#39;m sure it&#39;s a terribly draconian and out-dated and repressive system, but it makes sense.


You&#39;ve got to be kidding me.

Why oh why do Americans never get sarcasm ?


QUOTE
How does a school uniform bear any relation to a military uniform ?


From what I understand, the uniforms of the Civil Guards in Barcelona during the latter part of the Spanish Civil War resembled some school uniform styles. Khaki shorts, white or brown button-up shirt, etc. And then there are the polo-shirt types of uniforms, which just makes me sick. So bourgeois-looking (Ugh&#33;), with shirts tucked in nice and neatly (by obligation), hair combed nicely, etc. Even more tyrannical than parents, it would seem.

It&#39;s not just how they look. It&#39;s the fact that they are uniforms in the first place, and that every kid is forced to conform.

The Spanish Civil war was how many years ago ? You&#39;re just proving my point. School Uniforms bear no relation to anything worn by any half-sensible armed force. &#39;Even more tyrannical than parents&#39; . Did you have a troubled upbringing or what ? that is The Most Ridiculous statement I&#39;ve ever heard &#33;.


QUOTE
Wearing a uniform is a good way of teaching stuck up little brats that they can&#39;t get everything their own way in life, and that sometimes they need to just accpet their lot and get on with it.


Yes, nailing that into kids&#39; heads is just what we need to raise a generation of rebellious proletarian revolutionaries&#33; ohmy.gif mad.gif No, in fact this is every capitalist&#39;s dream. Just imagine if the French workers "accepted their lot" with the CPE law and "got on with it." Capitalists would be very happy. I would not.

a generation of rebellious proletarian revolutionaries......ahahahahahah. Where on earth did you get that from ? some old slogan book from the 50&#39;s ? If you raise an entire generation of annoying &#39;revolutionnairies&#39;, someone would notice, don&#39;t you think ? an entire generation is a lot of people, it wouldn&#39;t be possible.


QUOTE
The real world forces you to make comprimises, and it is best to learn that from a young age.


This line could have come verbatim from one of Villepin&#39;s speeches concerning the CPE law in France.

Contrary to what you seem to think, "teaching kids this lesson" does not advance proletarian revolution.

Yes I know, I don&#39;t want your revolution to happen, I&#39;ve seen the messes that all of the others have made. When I&#39;m proved wrong, I might support you, but sloganising and making promises proves nothing to anyone but yourself.

[theraven]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 9 2006, 11:45 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 9 2006, 11:45 AM)
theraven
The simple fact is many girls dress in a very provocative manner, reminiscent of prostitutes. This is highly distracting to young men in high school.

No doubt it is "distracting"; it&#39;s intended to be.

The assumption that they "must be prostitutes" because prostitutes "always dress provocatively" is unjustified.

If a male high school student takes off his shirt, is he trying to attract a gay "john"? Does that sound like a reasonable assumption?

If you saw him on the corner of Geary and Polk in San Francisco, then yes, that&#39;s a reasonable assumption...otherwise, no.

Sex workers dress "provocatively" when they&#39;re working...otherwise they "dress down" in casual wear like everyone else.

Adolescent females sometimes dress "provocatively" when they are going to be around a bunch of adolescent males whom they see as potential mates...otherwise, they likewise "dress down" in casual wear.

That&#39;s the only "similarity"...and it&#39;s not very similar when you get right down to it.

Even though my teen-age years are long behind me, I can still remember the girls in my classes who "dressed provocatively"...amidst the dreary high school landscape of lies and bullshit, I was most happily "distracted".

Nor did it ever occur to me to compare them with sex workers...since I&#39;d never seen one (knowingly) in my short life.

What you&#39;re really suggesting here, consciously or not, is that young women should "dress like nuns" in order to avoid "distracting you".

But they are not "obligated" to do that. Quite the contrary, it is you who is obligated to disregard the "distraction" if you have something "more important" to concentrate on.

It is no longer acceptable to take refuge in the "uncontrollable male sex drive" to which women are "expected" to defer.

Things have changed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Where did I say in my post that because they dressed like prostitutes they were prosituates? I don&#39;t think anyone (much less me) made that assumption that becuase they dressed like prostitutes they were prositutes. can you disagree with the fact that prositutes dress in provactive manner? and that these girls were disucsisng also dress in a provactive manner? wow so that would mean they dress like prostiutes..

now:

I don&#39;t care how girls dres, i like when they dress provactively, however if your a school authority and your primary goal is education you would probably notice that teenage boys are generally distracted by short skirts and tight tops. thus logicaly if you want to distract them lesss make it so everyon has the same clothes and will make it les distracting.

[fernando]

Hmm these last few posts remind me of what dave Chappelle said during one of his shows. Girls who dress up really "provocatively" and "as prostitutes" arent prostitutes eventhough they like to "dress like one". Perhaps I should wear a police uniform and stand on the corner of the street, then some kid comes up to me calling for help. But hey I dont have to help him, just because I dress up like a cop doesnt mean Im a cop. :P

Okay its just comedy, so please dont get fucking uptight now because I know I will have seriously offended some people with this little "quotation" (bad as it may be) of Dave Chappelle.

[chaval]

in fact if we assume that it actually does "opress" individuality then that would mean that students would be forced to express themselves through other means, much more productive means and effective ones like how about voicing their opinions&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;



Or maybe they won&#39;t express themselves at all. Or maybe the kids who get to wear what they want will express their opinions even more. I don&#39;t by this "re-channelling of self-expression" theory of yours. It assumes that self-expression that is blocked in one area will re-channel somewhere else.

For instance, what if someone said, "It doesn&#39;t matter if the State bans all street demonstrations and imposes curfews with military patrols. Those clever citizens will just find other means by which to express themselves politically. Really, why should we oppose this move by the State to ban all street demonstrations?"

So does that mean that wherever they banned any demonstrations that citizens just suddenly stopped fighting the system. if that were true, if the citizens had merely said, oh shit can&#39;t protest legally anymore guess its time to go home, then there wouldnt have been any kind of change or revolution in opressive countries. sure some people probably went home after they banned certain kinds of expression not because they suddenly buy into the fascism but because they probably would rather stick around to keep their family alive than spend the next decade in jail.

also i guess every man who wears a suit to work, or every construction worker that wears the same coloured hat as everyone else or every fireman that wears the same jacket is just being opressed. so i guess you must make your own clothing or something cause if your buying it then chances are multiple poeple are wearing exactly the same thing

i honestly cant beleive that a kid will look at himself, say "if i cant express myself through clothing i cant express myself at all" what you are saying is basically that everyone who wears a uniform does not express themselves. and that is absolute nonsense(&#33;)

if someone said to me wear the clothes that will express who you are i honestly wouldnt be able to. clothing is clothing&#33; lets say my deepest desires are for world peace and unity. how the hell do i say that through my clothing&#33;?&#33;? unless i wear a shirt that says i want global peace and unity the message is just not gonna get through. the only thing you can really say is "fuck the system" by wearing punk clothing or "my daddy is rich" by wearing expensive stuff or lastly "whatever" by wearing jeans or wtv

in fact heres my new theory: poeple tend to judge others on their looks. its a fact of life. maybe not you but definately others. so your gonna get judged by what you wear in school. with unifroms, you completely destroy that means of judgement. now the kids are gonna have to judge you for who you are. the only way they can see waht kind of person you are is by talking to you. sounds pretty good to me. you tell a kid that he can wear clothes that are gonna express who he is but in exchange nobody is gonna like him for it you might say well he shouldnt be friends with them in the first place if theyre gonna judge him. true. but do you really think a kid gives a damn when he gets beat up or shunned cause of it?


It makes sense, that if you have 800 children gathered in one place, you want to know that they&#39;re all supposed to be there.



Yes, because the State always needs to be keeping tabs on its youth&#33; I can&#39;t wait for my Global-Positioning-System Implants&#33; Hooray&#33;"

omg thats it. they make us wear uniforms so the government can make sure where we are at all times. all of my teachers were actually part of the state system who didnt care about education but were secretly trying to make me conform to the opressive canadian regime. ive been such a fool

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)To my knowledge, no army in the world wears a bloody suit to battle.[/b]

Oh really....

For centuries, pillage by invading armies was a normal part of warfare: a way in which to reward badly-paid or unpaid troops for risking their lives in battle.

Nowadays, at least in more civilised countries, we do not let armies rampage for booty. We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don&#39;t call it pillaging any more. We call it economic development. -- Brian Whitaker.

I just couldn&#39;t resist. <_<


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Second, adolescence is a time of intensive "mate-seeking"...and whatever clothing is considered "fashionable", "cool" or "especially attractive" will be chosen by some kids in order to appeal to potential mates.[/b]

A good point....school uniforms, in a small way, help to make the mating process easier.

So, in a sense, this is what I was thinking about when I discussed the humiliation people will feel if they don&#39;t look nice....after all, a school uniform might give someone a chance to dabble in the mating game where as wearing their normal clothes won&#39;t.

It&#39;s not a "big thing", but this isn&#39;t a "big issue"....in my opinion anyway.


Originally posted by RedCeltic
However, one could also argue that learning at school does not only take place within the classroom but also within forming social groups, and learning about who you are as a person.

I agree with you here.

However, I think it is probably easier to form "social groups" and learn "about who you are as a person" when the economic situation of your parent(s) doesn&#39;t interfere with your development.

After all, I&#39;ve heard a lot of people say that wearing X or Y makes them feel more confident....and in my opinion, then other side of that equation is that if you don&#39;t wear X or Y you won&#39;t feel confident. And this would, I suspect, significantly hinder your development.


Originally posted by RedCeltic
It masks deeper social problems, while denying students the very important social learning tool of being exposed to different types of individuals....

I think a persons individuality is represented in many ways....with how they dress being pretty insignificant.

A good friend of mine for instance, wears clothing that I find, well....ugly. But, I like him as a friend and I think it would be rather dull to judge someones character based on their clothing alone....as cliqued as that sounds&#33; <_<

In my opinion, there&#39;s individuality and then there&#39;s individuality....if you get my drift.


Originally posted by RedCeltic
Looking back, I must say that the time in my life in which I was afforded the most access to freedom of expression was while I was in high school. As you grow older, you have increasingly less opportunities for freedom of expression.

I think that six of one and a half dozen of the other.

In school you could fuck around, spend your days on the mitch and so on....all things that you can&#39;t do when you "grow up". But alternatively, you couldn&#39;t buy cigarettes and alcohol (easily anyway) or go to a pub, or travel and so on.


Originally posted by Enigma
....but that is nothing to what would happen to the poor child if it transpired that he grassed up those bulling him.

A very important point.

Bullying is something which is particularly hard to stop....and the repercussions for those who "grass people up" can be horrendous.


Originally posted by Communism
Uniforms depersonalize children....

You are not what you buy....that is a bourgeois myth.


Originally posted by Communism
It stops kids from questioning authority which is in an abundance in todays society

I&#39;ve never met a single student who thought that their uniform stopped them from questioning authority....indeed, they was a a lot of disrespect for authority in my old school and we all had school uniforms.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
It is a basic infingement on the autonomy of children to determine for themselves what clothing they find functional and/or comfortable.

Children, as a group, have no "autonomy"....they are completely reliant on adults.

In a communist society, children would have the economic foundations which would allow them to have a huge amount of personal autonomy....there would still be limits, but these would be very basic preventative measures.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Britain never had technologically-advanced totalitarian fascism, but it sounds to me like the 1800s was a pretty fascist period in Britain&#39;s history.

Britain throughout the 19th century was an early-capitalist despotism....nothing more, nothing less. It was brutal, yes, and oppressive, but it wasn&#39;t fascist by any definition of fascism I&#39;ve encountered.

Indeed, at that time, a large section of the big bourgeois was allied with elements of the working class....the Liberal Party springs to mind here.

So, with regards the traditional Marxist definition of fascism, there wasn&#39;t a conscious effort by the bourgeois to adopt fascism to "save" capitalism from the perceived threat of proletarian revolution as there was in Italy, Germany, Spain and, to some extent, Chile.

If I remember correctly, Daniel Guérin&#39;s definition of why fascism comes about was essentially that it was the result of the working class failing to take state power....I largely agree with that view, and in Britain in the 19th century there wasn&#39;t such a situation.

Really, Britain in the the 19th century has neither the characteristics of fascism -- "the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital" as Georgi Dimitroff described it -- and nor it it have the class conflict we normally associate with the rise of fascism and the bourgeoisies support for it.

Therefore, as I said earlier, you really can&#39;t say that school uniforms in Britain are a "relic of fascism".


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
No real freedom of the press, public assembly brutally suppressed, radicals arrested and killed, workers laboring at near slave-labor levels, practically at gunpoint.

Bar the "workers laboring at near slave-labor levels, practically at gunpoint" bit, what you describe above happened during the McCarthy era in America and during the First World War in both Europe and America....remember what happened to those who opposed the War during that period?

Yet, I don&#39;t think anyone would call those periods fascist....there are plenty of things you can call those periods, but fascist isn&#39;t one.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Then shouldn&#39;t we oppose these particular facets of class society (conformity and submission to authority) as furiously as any other facet, if not moreso?

Absolutely....but you have yet to prove that school uniforms particularly promote either of these things. You&#39;ve just called them a "relic of fascism" and that&#39;s about it.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
As I see it, it&#39;s not a "stretch" at all. It&#39;s common sense.

Well where is your evidence of this particular social phenomena?

There is quite a bit of evidence one could cite to back up the hypothesis that the Police especially, and the Army create a fascist mindset in their members....but, as I said, I know of no evidence in support of your hypothesis that school uniforms promote a fascist mindset.

America hasn&#39;t got school uniforms, yet Christian fascism is on the rise there; France hasn&#39;t got school uniforms and yet Le Pen is reasonably popular and so on.

Yet, in Britain, the British National Party as a fascist force, aren&#39;t really up to much....they can&#39;t even defend themselves against Antifa in the the National Front could.

If your hypothesis was correct, then we&#39;d expect Britain to have one of the biggest fascist movements around....yet France, Italy, Germany, America, Russia, and so on, all have bigger and more powerful fascist movements.

So really, your hypothesis certainly isn&#39;t "common sense".


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
And even if it&#39;s not explicit fascism, I would still contend that school uniforms in Britain make British society, to a certain extent, more fascist-minded than it otherwise would be.

Again, the lack of evidence for your conclusion makes it a poor conclusion in my opinion.

Spain, as far as I&#39;m aware, has not got school uniforms....yet something like 200,000 fascists turned out to mourn Franco.

Nothing of that type is currently happening in Britain....yet, if, as you suggest, school uniforms created a fascist mindset then it would be noticeable.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
I suppose I should remind you that you were the first one to give attention to the school uniform issue....

It was a passing comment, that&#39;s all.

Certainly, from my perspective, there are far more important issues than school uniforms.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
....but I do know that enforcing veganism on a population is instrinsically fascist, as is enforcing the wearing of school uniforms on a student population.

So are laws that require teachers to wear clothes in classrooms "intrinsically fascist"?

What about the headscarf ban?

Or what about the PPE (steel-toe-capped boots and hard-hats) that Construction workers are required to wear....is that fascist?

Your definition of fascism seems a little too broad for my liking....indeed, it seems to encompass anything you object to&#33;


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
But you don&#39;t think that this symbolism persists with your school uniforms?

Quite simply....no.

A school uniform is a garment that really has no particular political affliation....where as a fascist uniform, or even the dress-code of the Black Bloc, send clear political messages.

There are very few symbols that symbolise oppression....the Star of David is one, the Pink Star homosexuals were forced to wear in the Third Reich is another, the Islamic headscarf is another such example, and so is the Dunce&#39;s Cap.

All of these symbols are oppressive because they have specific historical connotations....historical connontations that are representative of oppression.

A school uniform, doesn&#39;t quite rank "up there" with those examples....and therefore, I think you&#39;re over-exaggerating its significance.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
You don&#39;t think wearing school uniforms symbolizes, "We must all conform for the good of the whole. We must self-sacrifice for the good of the whole. We must obey the school administration for the good of the whole"?

Not really....because to promote those mantras you would most definitely need some form of promotion of those mantras other than the uniforms themselves.

The Star of David isn&#39;t oppressive because of what it is....it&#39;s oppressive because it represents the Nazi&#39;s treatment of Jews.

In other words, in order for a school uniform to represent what you claim it represents, there would need to be some kind of political and/or social force backing it up....the children wearing the uniforms for example, having to repeat those mantras every day.

As it stands, the Pledge of Allegiance children are forced to repeat every morning (?) in America is far more dangerous....mainly because it conveys an explicitly political message: Support the American Empire&#33;

The absence of any explicit message of a political nature, means that school uniforms in and of themselves, have no particular political nature.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
I suppose I must come out and say it: the forced wearing of uniforms is instrinsically fascist. Always.

So the next time I enter the Colleges Plumbing Workshop and am required to put on my boots and overalls am I being oppressed in a fascist manner?

After all, I must put on these garments in order to ensure my personal safety....so is the HSE, which enforces the bulk of the present Health and Safety laws, a fascist minded organisation?


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
We would look upon that as unacceptable and call that blac bloc fascist for doing so.

I wouldn&#39;t call them that....repressive would probably be the correct word to describe their practices.

I&#39;m not disputing that in a small way school uniforms do repress individuality....what I am contesting is that under the epoch of capital, such a solution is the only pragmatic solution to the problem of income inequality affecting the learning environment.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Corporations exploit fascist techniques all the time, so as to foster obedience from its workforce.

I really don&#39;t see how you have come to this conclusion....the evidence for such a hypothesis, is, as far as I know, non-existent. Tesco is not a "hotbed for fascism"....and nor is any other industry that I know of that requires its members wear set-uniforms.

In my opinion, there is a far simpler explanation for the wearing of set-uniforms in retail stores....it helps you sell more stuff&#33;

If the staff are easily identifiable, then it is easier for the customer to locate them and ask for their services, which means there is a higher chance that the customer will purchase something.

Selling goods, is after all, the primary motivation of the bourgeois....fascism is something secondary which is invoked during intense periods of class struggle.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
So you are saying that, since the preferable revolutionary option is "impossible" right now, we need to settle for reformism?

The "revolutionary option" is "impossible" right now....after all, we&#39;re not seeing a militant working class take to the streets are we?

The only thing revolutionaries can do in such a period is revolutionary agitation....in other words, trying to spread the revolutionary message to as many members of the working class as possible.

Reformism, on the other hand, would require we actually start fighting for reforms....and start electioneering of course.

Now, I have not proposed that we "demand" that the bourgeois establishment adopts school uniforms as official policy. Nor have I said we should try to get people elected on the platform of making school uniforms compulsory.

Rather, I have said that I have no problem with school uniforms....they&#39;re one of those things that, in my opinion, make the school environment more suitable.


Comrade&#045;[email protected]
And you seem to think that the forced wearing of school uniforms will "empower" them.

In a tiny way....yes. School uniforms will negate some of the embarrassment poor children feel about their parent(s) economic situation....and that&#39;s about it.


Comrade&#045;Z
....no efforts to try to accommodate capitalist fashion tastes by dressing all kids with uniforms&#33;

I suspect most business leaders in the fashion industry would agree with you and not me&#33; :o

They after all, could make more money if children dressed in individual garments every day....a school uniform is relatively cheap.

I actually don&#39;t see how you could consider school uniforms a "capitalist fashion taste"....they do, after all, directly attack the notion that you are what you buy.

[Comrade-Z]

also i guess every man who wears a suit to work, or every construction worker that wears the same coloured hat as everyone else or every fireman that wears the same jacket is just being opressed. so i guess you must make your own clothing or something cause if your buying it then chances are multiple poeple are wearing exactly the same thing

There is not the same level of coercion with the construction worker wearing his/her uniform. The construction worker, if he/she doesn&#39;t like wearing the uniform, can quit being a construction worker. In that sense, they are not being forced to wear their uniforms.

Students, on the other hand, cannot simply "stop being students." The State mandates that they be in school until a certain age. That means there is absolutely no escape, short from being a runaway and a complete fugitive from the law, from having to wear a uniform that you may not like.


Children, as a group, have no "autonomy"....they are completely reliant on adults.

No, they are not reliant on adults for deciding what clothing to wear. Children are capable of doing this themselves, and in that sense and others, they do have some autonomy.


So are laws that require teachers to wear clothes in classrooms "intrinsically fascist"?

What about the headscarf ban?

Or what about the PPE (steel-toe-capped boots and hard-hats) that Construction workers are required to wear....is that fascist?

Your definition of fascism seems a little too broad for my liking....indeed, it seems to encompass anything you object to&#33;

Teachers can quit being teachers if they don&#39;t like the restrictions on how they dress (or don&#39;t dress).

The headscarf ban is not enforcing the wearing of a particular uniform. It is simply saying that one (extremely oppressive) piece of clothing cannot be worn.

In fact, I look on school uniforms in the exact same way that I look on headscarfs. They both carry a very strong connotation: "I am submissive to authority" (school administration authority and male authority, respectively).

Construction workers, if they don&#39;t like wearing steel-toed-boots, can stop being construction workers, and thus not wear that uniform.


I think a persons individuality is represented in many ways....with how they dress being pretty insignificant.

So is it insignificant when a woman wears a burka? Or when a student wears a school uniform?

Here&#39;s an idea: if kids love school uniforms so much and recognize all of the benefits that you point to (as you seem to be insinuating), then why don&#39;t they have the student bodies of schools vote on it, and if a majority of students vote for school uniforms, then everyone wears school uniforms&#33; That way it would be at least semi-voluntary wearing of uniforms (except for the kids voting in the minority). I wouldn&#39;t so much have a problem with that.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Sorry for taking so long to reply....I&#39;ve spent the last three days writing about human comfort and material failures in buildings.

Very tedious&#33; :(


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)The construction worker, if he/she doesn&#39;t like wearing the uniform, can quit being a construction worker.[/b]

Theoretically at least.

The labour market, in theory, is supposed to be one big pool which you can dive straight into and find a job....but it&#39;s never that simple in real life.

What if "Brian the Bricklayer" had just got married and bought a house with a 100% morgage....and to top it off, his wife has just got pregnant. Now Brian can&#39;t just quit, he has many financial burdens to deal with....so what does he do?

He&#39;s being oppressed by those fascists at the HSE into wear steel-toe-capped boots....and they give him fucking blisters&#33; <_<

Real world pressure means that Brian can&#39;t just "quit"....he has to carry on working as a bricklayer as it&#39;s the only career in which he can earn enough to meet his financial burdens.

So this particular scenario is comparable....even if it&#39;s only in the case of my example Brian.

So, at an abstract theoretical level, would you oppose compulsory PPE too?


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)No, they are not reliant on adults for deciding what clothing to wear.[/b]

Really?

So who purchases the clothing children are supposed to decide to wear....obviously not the children themselves, they have no economic independence.

Therefore they have an illusion of autonomy....and an illusion is all it is.

In a way, it&#39;s comparable to bourgeois "democracy" where we get to "choose" whether we want rich bastard X or rich bastard Y. Only in this case, the child gets to "choose" between brand shit and brand shitter&#33;

In the epoch of capital, real autonomy is only available if you have capital....the more you have, the more real choices you have.

Children of course, have no capital, they have no economic independence....therefore making them completely reliant on adults.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
Teachers can quit being teachers if they don&#39;t like the restrictions on how they dress (or don&#39;t dress).

Substitute "Sally the Teacher" for "Brian the Bricklayer" and you have the same scenario I discussed above.

Additionally, with regards the teacher example, I asked if you opposed laws that require them to wear clothes....now, as far as I know, no industry in which you can work naked.

So the question is, do you oppose measures that require people to wear clothes in public?

You could I suppose, present a good argument for why public nudity is a "good" thing....I&#39;m rather indifferent on the issue myself. But really, if you&#39;re going to argue that people can go nude wherever they want, you do open the "Gates of Hell" as it were.

Anyway, onwards and upwards....


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
They both carry a very strong connotation....

As I mentioned in my last post, a school uniform really doesn&#39;t rank up there with some of the more infamous garments that have become symbols of oppression.

Is a school uniform "equal to" a headscarf....no.

Is a school uniform "equal to" a Dunce&#39;s Cap....again no.

Is a school uniform "equal to" a Star of David or a Pink Star....no fucking way.

The historical connotations simply aren&#39;t there.


Comrade&#045;[email protected]
So is it insignificant when a woman wears a burka? Or when a student wears a school uniform?

A Burka is a symbol of centuries of sexist oppression....a school uniform really doesn&#39;t have the same connotation.

There&#39;s no historical "link" as it were, between school uniforms and oppression....if you wanted a "link" between a symbol and the real oppression of kids, I&#39;d say the cane would be a pretty good example, or perhaps even the uniforms of military schools.

The kind of thing those two symbols represent will instantly appear appear in the minds of most people....adult despotism.

Does a school uniform provoke the same response....I think not.

There are symbols that really represent repression, but I just don&#39;t think a school uniform ranks "up there"....I&#39;ve certainly never met anyone who was as repelled by a school uniform as they were by the Star of David.

A school uniform simply doesn&#39;t have the same connotations as other infamous garments.


Comrade&#045;Z
Here&#39;s an idea: if kids love school uniforms so much and recognize all of the benefits that you point to (as you seem to be insinuating), then why don&#39;t they have the student bodies of schools vote on it, and if a majority of students vote for school uniforms, then everyone wears school uniforms&#33; That way it would be at least semi-voluntary wearing of uniforms (except for the kids voting in the minority). I wouldn&#39;t so much have a problem with that.

Fine by me.

I actually just had a quick search, and unfortunately I couldn&#39;t find an official poll that asked kids whether they liked to wear school uniforms....though that doesn&#39;t really matter.

Whether the majority thinks they&#39;re a good idea or a bad idea, I&#39;ll still think they&#39;re a good idea in the current epoch.

[Salvador Allende]

This isn&#39;t borefest &#39;06, it is simply my opinion here:

I support the uniform system, for example, the uniforms of the Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League or any other Socialist youth league uniforms.

[Comrade-Z]

The labour market, in theory, is supposed to be one big pool which you can dive straight into and find a job....but it&#39;s never that simple in real life.


Real world pressure means that Brian can&#39;t just "quit"....he has to carry on working as a bricklayer as it&#39;s the only career in which he can earn enough to meet his financial burdens.


Therefore they have an illusion of autonomy....and an illusion is all it is.

In a way, it&#39;s comparable to bourgeois "democracy" where we get to "choose" whether we want rich bastard X or rich bastard Y. Only in this case, the child gets to "choose" between brand shit and brand shitter&#33;

Good points.


So, at an abstract theoretical level, would you oppose compulsory PPE too?

In this current epoch, I suppose I wouldn&#39;t. But having it be compulsory still isn&#39;t preferable. Having the workers vote on it would be better (but that&#39;s not going to happen in the current epoch, I&#39;d imagine).


But really, if you&#39;re going to argue that people can go nude wherever they want, you do open the "Gates of Hell" as it were.

No problem, I&#39;m not afraid of a little fire and brimstone. :lol:

But that&#39;s a topic for another discussion.


As I mentioned in my last post, a school uniform really doesn&#39;t rank up there with some of the more infamous garments that have become symbols of oppression.

I guess the example that really sticks in my mind is the one of Japanese school uniforms, which apparently have a strong militarist and pre-WWII imperial past connotation to them.


Originally posted by wikipedia.org
The Japanese junior and senior high school uniform traditionally consists of a military style uniform (gakuran) for boys and a sailor dress (sailor fuku) for girls. The Japanese pronounce this as sērā fuku. However, it is important to note that the Japanese word for uniform in general is "seifuku." These uniforms are based on Meiji era formal military dress, themselves modelled on European-style naval uniforms. While this style of uniform is still in use, many schools have moved into more western pattern parochial school uniform styles in order to make a departure from the decidedly military appearance of the traditional uniform.

Also notice that the dress is segregated along gender lines. Is that a good message (gender segregation and conformity) that we want to be sending? Why wouldn&#39;t it be possible to have non-gendered uniforms?


I support the uniform system, for example, the uniforms of the Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League or any other Socialist youth league uniforms.

This is another historical connotation that school uniforms have with me: submission to despotism in these State-capitalist dictatorships such as North Korea. Maybe that&#39;s just me.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Salvador Allende+--> (Salvador Allende)....for example, the uniforms of the Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League or any other Socialist youth league uniforms.[/b]

The type of uniforms worn by Uncle Kim&#39;s Youth are probably the form of uniform Comrade-Z is thinking of when he discusses uniforms in general.

Personally, I&#39;d also have an objection to this type of uniform....not because it&#39;s a uniform in and of itself, but rather because that it is a uniform that promotes a particular political ideology.

These uniforms are not neutral in the way I&#39;d consider British school uniforms (polo shirts and trousers) to be politically neutral. Rather, the aim of these uniforms is to promote allegiance to the North Korean State.

In my opinion, there is something disturbing about the political indoctrination of children....whether it&#39;s through the the Pledge of Allegiance or the uniforms of the Hitler Youth.

I take the view that, as much as is possible, children from a young age should be taught to think for themselves....because basically if we are confident in Marx&#39;s hypothesis that working class people will become attracted to communism, then having working class individuals who can think critically is a far more powerful weapon than encouraging allegiance.

Basically, we should be confident that our ideas will prevail....otherwise what&#39;s the point in having them.

This example, in my opinion, emphasised a failure in the debate so far. We&#39;ve discussed school uniforms in general as a kind of abstract phenomena, rather that discussing specific forms of uniform in specific places.

I still however, have no problem with trousers and polo shirts being made compulsory during the epoch of capital.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+--> (Comrade&#045;Z)In this current epoch, I suppose I wouldn&#39;t.[/b]

A sensible position in my opinion. :)

As it stands, many of the Health and Safety measures that are law in the Construction Industry, do help to protect workers from bosses trying to cut costs.

There are laws for instance, that require trenches to be properly supported before anyone enters them....this means that, in a tiny way, worker safety is improved because the bosses can&#39;t just order them to enter an unsafe trench to do a job quickly.

Granted, when these measures aren&#39;t taken the punishment given to the company is incredibly lenient, (curiously, companies tend not to face the full force of the law, rather it&#39;s individual Construction Managers, who aren&#39;t always at fault, that are likely to do prison time) but it still acts as a deterrent.

Health and Safety measures really do provide some protection against capital....not much, but some. And therefore I also see no problem with Health and Safety laws in the current epoch.


Comrade&#045;[email protected]
But having it be compulsory still isn&#39;t preferable.

That&#39;s probably the case.

However, I suspect that Construction in a communist society will see a sharp increase in recommended Codes of Practice.

When people are able to concentrate on their work solely as a pleasure and not have to worry, as much at least, about the other factors (cost, time and so on) that affect a project, I think people will be more rigorous with regards standards of workmanship.

I can imagine Construction collectives refusing to allow certain people on site because they are hopeless&#33;

In this sense, whilst there likely won&#39;t be compulsory laws governing Health and Safety and Work Practices, I think there will be unwritten rules that will be enforced....rigorously&#33;

People just won&#39;t tolerate the same low standards of workmanship in a communist society as they do in the present epoch in order to havelower costs.

High standards will be the only acceptable standards&#33; :D


Comrade&#045;Z
I guess the example that really sticks in my mind is the one of Japanese school uniforms, which apparently have a strong militarist and pre-WWII imperial past connotation to them.

I actually agree with you here&#33; :o

The Japanese example does seem to have some of the historical connotations I referred to in my last....and this, in my opinion, means the uniforms have a "deeper meaning".

Maybe they&#39;ll switch to polo shirts and trousers soon. <_<