Education And Schooling

[rioters bloc]

i'd like to hear people's thoughts and suggestions on possible ways for education to be tackled in a communist/anarchist society.

so, primary concerns:

* will there be a form of formal schooling?
* if so, will it be compulsory or voluntary?
* if compulsory, what kinda age frame are we looking at here?
* if voluntary, how much say does the child have? what would the child be doing when other similarly-aged children were at school?
* would there be 'core' subjects? if so, what?
* would there be more of a focus towards learning 'for learning's sake' or on developing skills/training? or would that depend on the individual?
* if there's no formal schooling, what's an effective way to share knowledge?
* what would the homework be like? would it be compulsory, and if so what form would 'disciplining' take if homework wasn't done?
* how much authority would the teacher(s) have in a class?
* would there be exams? if yes, what would they be like?
* would schooling be standardised in any way or no?

anyways that's just a few of the queries i have. i'm open to ideas and reading material as well. and i'm not expecting (nor do i want) answers to each and all of those questions from everyone who posts :P they're more a springboard.

[Marion]

Great questions, and would welcome to hear other people's views as well. Will have a think in more detail when I've more time, but for the moment I'd recommend the following books that give a good broad spectrum of relatively radical thought:

Deschooling Society (Ivan Illich). Argues the school is a manipulative institution that will never allow the working class to close the gap on the rest of society. His alternative suggestion is a system of networks that encourages not only education but conviviality etc. Can get the text on the Internet for free somewhere.

Pedagogy of Oppression (Paolo Freire). Radically changed the approach to adult education, especially in terms of literacy. Argued that literacy (and education as a whole) could not be separated from man's vocation to change the world and introduced a radical approach as a result. Tried to move away from hierarchical teaching models - the extent to which he was completely succesful (in theory or practice) is open to debate, but there's some great stuff there. Very Marxist influenced.

Democracy and Education (John Dewey). The classic early 20th Century radical approach to education. Forcefully put forward the argument that education was all about enabling people's natural inclinations to come forth. Very much a major influence on Chomsky (who went to a Dewey school for a while). A touch too liberal for some.

Summerhill (AS Neill). Summerhill was seen as Neill's "free school", where there was no obligation to attend lessons, the school was largely run on a one-person-one-vote approach and taking exams was (mostly) completely frowned upon. It was all about the natural goodness of the child and their need to develop at their own pace. Followed some of Reich's more nutty psychological ideas, but a fascinating guy whose approach to psychology and education was very interesting.

The Modern School Movement (Paul Avrich). At a really simple level, the Modern School Movement was similar to Summerhill. Avrich's book also covers the Movement's adult education and the coterie of artists etc (such as Man Ray) who were involved in the wider circle.

In addition to that, there's more modern writers like Henry Giroux and Michael Apple that are worth reading, and there's a guy called David Gribble in the UK who's done some good stuff on libertarian education. There's also a UK libed website somewhere with some good articles.

If I was to recommend somewhere to start I'd probably recommend Summerhill by AS Neill as it is very very accessible and takes a very radical position that you can make your own mind up about. Plus it should be very cheaply available second-hand in either the States or the UK.

Anyway, hope that's of some use. Feel free to ask me any questions if you feel it'll be useful...

[More Fire for the People]

will there be a form of formal schooling?
Yes, but a type of 'formal' schooling radically different than that of capitalists society. Gramsi described 'revolutionary schooling' best, saying:What the proletariat needs is an educational system that is open to all. A system in which the child is allowed to develop and mature and acquire those general features that serve to develop character. In a word, a humanistic school, as conceived by the ancients, and more recently by the men of the Renaissance. A school which does not mortgage the child’s future, a school that does not force the child’s will, his intelligence and growing awareness to run along tracks to a predetermined station. (Men or Machines?)
* if so, will it be compulsory or voluntary?
* if compulsory, what kinda age frame are we looking at here?
* if voluntary, how much say does the child have?
I say compulsory for ages 4-16 with optional schooling after that. The time spent in mandatory should focus on developing a student's natural abilities. However, these schools should not be merely ‘technical’, i.e. teaching children to be cogs in a machine, but liberating and full of critical theory.Technical schools should not be allowed to become incubators of little monsters aridly trained for a job, with no general ideas, no general culture, no intellectual stimulation, but only an infallible eye and a firm hand. Technical education too helps a child to blossom into a man – so long as it is educative and not simply informative, simply passing on manual techniques. (Man or Machines?)
what would the child be doing when other similarly-aged children were at school?
Depends upon the advancement of the society. If work has not been abolished then they would probably be encouraged to join a community program or work somewhere that could develop the skills that would receive in further education.


* would there be 'core' subjects? if so, what?
I think so — math, language, science, history, and critical studies. Math would be progressively more 'in-depth' starting off with addition and subtraction working its way up to calculus. Science would begin with an introduction to the scientific method, then materialism, chemistry, biology, and physics. I hope there would be a broad range of language subjects. For history, students would be tought real history for the first time — people's history. Critical studies could serve as a introduction to philosophy, critical theory, philosophies of praxis, etc.


* would there be more of a focus towards learning 'for learning's sake' or on developing skills/training? or would that depend on the individual?
I would say from ages 4-12 students should 'learn for learnings sake'. 13-16 year olds could learn more or less as they please. After that there should be an emphasis on both 'technical' and 'humanistic' learning.


* if there's no formal schooling, what's an effective way to share knowledge?
I support formal schooling but I believe society itself should learn. Workers should be inventors, inventors should be philosophers, and philosophers should be workers.


* what would the homework be like? would it be compulsory, and if so what form would 'disciplining' take if homework wasn't done?
I think homework should be reduced to a minimum, perhaps once or twice a month. At home people could read into what they're really intersted into as 'homework'.


* how much authority would the teacher(s) have in a class?
The same as a student unless the class became 'disruptive' in a non-critical way, i.e. throwing a fit but student strikes, freedom of speech, etc. should be respected.


* would there be exams? if yes, what would they be like?
Perhaps, if used as a means to aid a student in their development of their abilities.


* would schooling be standardised in any way or no?
I favour loosely standardized so that all students take certain courses and learn the same content but the society should let teaching styles develop to suit the students.

[Tekun]

^What a great society that would be...

I'll have to get back to u, sleep is calling

However...
Another question I have for the two comrades that posted:
Seeing how children would have a good amount of liberty in their educational pursuits
Would such an society (post rev) be able to produce enough scientists, inventors, analysts, or "advanced study professions" for that society to thrive at a social and economic level?

Meaning, would such a society have enough inventors to improve and produce capital, capital which would further strengthen that country?
Or enough doctors to assist the medical needs in that country?
Or enough architects to help guide the country's construction?
Would extra incentives have to be offered? And if so, wouldn't they undermine the equality in such a society?

[ComradeOm]

Next week: RevLeft tackles the problems of tractor production in a communist society.

[JKP]

People think of communism as an economic or economic/political theory...and of course, it is very much that.

But when you begin to talk about the outlines of a classless society, one without hierarchies, it quickly becomes obvious that all kinds of things are going to be changed...drastically.

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082767212&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Dyst]

No compulsory schooling!

Who doesn't want to be smart, anyway? If compulsory schooling is destroyed (as it can be in a post revolutionary society given that the market that needs employees is destroyed) people can focus on learning what they really need and want.

If you and your friends wants to be rocket scientists, musicians or deer hunters, what stops you from aquiring the information necessary in a post revolutionary society? Nothing!

But it should never be compulsory!

[piet11111]

* will there be a form of formal schooling?
yes as society needs certain knowledge to operate.


* if so, will it be compulsory or voluntary?
compulsory from age 4 to 16 if i had to pick an age limit


* would there be 'core' subjects? if so, what?
reading math and history aswell as political forming


* would there be more of a focus towards learning 'for learning's sake' or on developing skills/training? or would that depend on the individual?
mostly on developing skills and training them but along with the basics i want the kids to learn stuff they find interesting.
if someone wants to be a surgeon then the necessary knowledge should be tought as soon as possible.


* what would the homework be like? would it be compulsory, and if so what form would 'disciplining' take if homework wasn't done?
homework should not be compulsory as i think you can only learn if you enjoy it.


* how much authority would the teacher(s) have in a class?
only as much as is required to prevent the kids from tearing the school appart.


* would there be exams? if yes, what would they be like?
yes but these exams should be tailored to the preffered job of the student.
its pointless to ask a future mechanic stuff about basic biology or a biologist about geology.


* would schooling be standardised in any way or no?
yes as every school would need to be able to aid the students in learning as much as possible about their preffered subject.
but instead of having everything on site i think it would be better to give schools the ability to request a "kit" with everything needed to teach a kid a specific job to the point where a mechanic could go to a garage and work right at the moment he got his diploma.

[Marion]

A few views above are suggesting what I’d see as a relatively structured approach to schooling. For me, the key is the comment that


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:58 PM

homework should not be compulsory as i think you can only learn if you enjoy it.

If learning only happens when people enjoy it (which I’d largely agree with), then why is there a need for formal schooling, core subjects, compulsory education etc?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:41 AM
Great questions, and would welcome to hear other people's views as well. Will have a think in more detail when I've more time, but for the moment I'd recommend the following books that give a good broad spectrum of relatively radical thought:
thanks for the suggestions :) i've read freire but that's it, i'll look up the rest at the library tomorrow.

i'll try and respond to the other posts soon.

[Marion]

Just finished re-reading Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" myself. Am a bit less taken with it than I was the first time I read it, but there's certainly a load of interesting stuff there.

Another good one is Joel Spring's "A primer of libertarian education" - looks at the likes of Freire, Illich etc in a quite accessible way. Has a few interesting points about kibuttzs in there and is relatively short too. I know AK Press were stocking it.

Anywhere, here's a link to a UK libed site if you're interested: http://www.libed.org.uk/ - there's not a huge amount there, but there are some interesting articles and links. They had a link there to a similar sounding Australian group, http://www.aapae.edu.au/, which you may find interesting (you are from Aus, yeah?) - have only had a quick look at their site so can't really comment on it too much...

[BobKKKindle$]

will there be a form of formal schooling?

There will be vast educational resources avaliable to the individual that he may choose to use as he wish in order to maximise his or her personal potential. These resources (which will include libraries, Technical Colleges, lecture halls, freely avaliable in every commune) will be avaliable according to the will and choice of the individual - they will be voluntary. As Socialists, we advocate the destruction of the centralized State apparatus, and so by the very nature of Socialist Society there will be no national educational Structure in the form of Curricula etc.


if voluntary, how much say does the child have?

Education will be positively encouraged, and Children will have all the resources avaliable to develop their interests in any way they wish. There will be no Compulsary system. The Abolishement of a Heirachial Schooling System and opressive curricula will mean that education will become a pleasure that Children will indulge in as they choose to.


would there be exams? if yes, what would they be like?

No, exams are a form of Opression that infringe upon the right of Students to be free from undue Stress and Alienation. For Some professions, Students may have to produce evidence that they hold the skills that are required for that profession so that they do not endanger others, but this need not necessarily come in the form of an Examination grade or diploma.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:39 PM
People think of communism as an economic or economic/political theory...and of course, it is very much that.

But when you begin to talk about the outlines of a classless society, one without hierarchies, it quickly becomes obvious that all kinds of things are going to be changed...drastically.

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082767212&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
The actually way everything is thought is ok to me at the moment , we must not have propaganda in our schools it doesnt give the mind a chance to think, we must tell of the great triumphs of Marx ,Lenin and Mao but not make them out to be gods just tell of this , in most schools these three names arent even mentioned in any history books unless their made out to evil or something .

[KC]

Next week: RevLeft tackles the problems of tractor production in a communist society.

How will tractors be produced? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=52813)

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 18 2006, 12:12 AM

Next week: RevLeft tackles the problems of tractor production in a communist society.

How will tractors be produced? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=52813)
pardon me for thinking that education is something which is in dire need of restructuring <_<

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique&#091;URL=http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=52813+--> (Khayembii Communique&#091;URL=http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=52813)How will tractors be produced?[/URL][/b] :lol:



rioters bloc
pardon me for thinking that education is something which is in dire need of restructuring
The point is rioters that no here has any idea of what communist society will look like. You can speculate but that&#39;s just pure guesswork and comparable to questioning tractor production or bus timetables in communism. Its pointless.

[Led Zeppelin]

There have been like 5 threads on this subject already, and in all of them I linked to: Communism and Education (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/10.htm)

[Marion]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 17 2006, 03:24 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 17 2006, 03:24 PM)
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique&#091;URL=http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&[email protected]
How will tractors be produced?[/URL] :lol:



rioters bloc
pardon me for thinking that education is something which is in dire need of restructuring
The point is rioters that no here has any idea of what communist society will look like. You can speculate but that&#39;s just pure guesswork and comparable to questioning tractor production or bus timetables in communism. Its pointless.[/b]
Nah, you&#39;re wrong if you think we don&#39;t have any idea about what communist society will look like. We can&#39;t draw up a detailed blueprint for it by any means (it&#39;d be a waste of time), but we can talk about the values we&#39;d want to see in it and talk about whether certain approaches would be likely to embody these values or not.

For example, most people find it relatively easy to speak about whether communist society will embody things like workers control or management , the removal of money, hierarchy etc. I don&#39;t hear many people criticise people who consider these types of issues. As a result, I don&#39;t see why its so problematic to talk about whether education should be formal or informal, whether coercion is relevant in education, whether teaching necessarily is hierarchical. Actually, I think they&#39;re pretty interesting things to think about and, in addition, enable us to understand about what different people mean by communism.

PS Would have been a bit better if you&#39;d made your actual criticism at the start without making up threads about tractors, but I guess these things always look a lot harsher on screen than they were intended...

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:50 PM
There have been like 5 threads on this subject already, and in all of them I linked to: Communism and Education (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/10.htm)
Thanks very much for the link Massoud, will have a look at it tomorrow.

[Donnie]

It is hard to say how education would run in a libertarian society, in my mind there is no such fixed plan, however we do have the foundational idea&#39;s of what a libertarian society would be based on and that is liberty & equality.

What springs to my mind is that when a child is born in post revolutionary society the child will be a member of the community and the community will educate it in what it needs and what it wants to learn until it has learnt to take adult decisions for itself.

I&#39;m definitely opposed to the grade system within schools, I see it as absolutely pointless, what’s the point in competing other children against other children when naturally some children will have a better learning curve than others. By branding children excellent or poor students when it comes to education does not promote confidence with children who have a slower learning curve when it comes to learning stuff.

Speaking from experience as an individual who had serious dyslexia as a child, the idea that teachers would portray good students as children who excelled in education and bad students as children who had a slower learning curve when it came to education did certainly not help put confidence in me as a child. It took me until the age of 8 to read books.

I&#39;m not saying that there shouldn&#39;t be some form of checking system to make sure the child is actually understanding what he or she is being taught, I just believe that it should be targeted at that individual child and not put up against the rest of the class in a grades competition.

[Clarksist]

* will there be a form of formal schooling?
As in an institution? Hopefully somewhat. Teachers can have a collective where they teach you what you want to learn. You find the teachers you want to learn from.

* if so, will it be compulsory or voluntary?
Completely voluntary. Absolutely voluntary.

* if compulsory, what kinda age frame are we looking at here?
N/A.

* if voluntary, how much say does the child have? what would the child be doing when other similarly-aged children were at school?
The child has ultimate say. And when the other kids are learning, the kids not in school may read, play, smoke pot, or possibly start their own schools.

* would there be &#39;core&#39; subjects? if so, what?
Whatever the child wanted to learn about. The resources would be aquired through the teacher collective.

* would there be more of a focus towards learning &#39;for learning&#39;s sake&#39; or on developing skills/training? or would that depend on the individual?
Completely on the individual.

* if there&#39;s no formal schooling, what&#39;s an effective way to share knowledge?
The internet for starters.

* what would the homework be like? would it be compulsory, and if so what form would &#39;disciplining&#39; take if homework wasn&#39;t done?
Grading wouldn&#39;t be a big deal. Perhaps if a kid wasn&#39;t doing well, the teacher could have the kid get extra help. Homework would be assigned, but if the kid didn&#39;t do it, they are the ones who made the choice.

* how much authority would the teacher(s) have in a class?
As much as, "If you don&#39;t follow my rules, I&#39;m not going to teach you."

* would there be exams? if yes, what would they be like?
Similar to now, only perhaps more individualisation. You&#39;re movement in "grades" would be more controlled by the pupil, so it isn&#39;t a big deal. If they feel they want to continue, they can.

* would schooling be standardised in any way or no?
Standardized as far as objectivity.

Now that&#39;s freedom of education.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:50 PM
Nah, you&#39;re wrong if you think we don&#39;t have any idea about what communist society will look like. We can&#39;t draw up a detailed blueprint for it by any means (it&#39;d be a waste of time), but we can talk about the values we&#39;d want to see in it and talk about whether certain approaches would be likely to embody these values or not.
Well I’d contend that we actually know only one solid fact about communism (the absence of classes) and that all other assumptions (the absence of money) are merely reasonable extrapolations from this. However when dealing with specific peripheral issues (such as education systems) the best you can do is complete speculation

Of course when dealing with socialism its different – the first phase of communism is after all a product of capitalism. Communism on the other hand is a society removed again from today’s society. Its like an Imperial Roman patrician speculating on the 21st century.

Anyone who attempts to state, with any degree of certainty, the details of a communist society is either having you on or indulging in pure folly. What the people in this thread are doing is expressing they values that they hope the future holds.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:54 AM

Well I’d contend that we actually know only one solid fact about communism (the absence of classes) and that all other assumptions (the absence of money) are merely reasonable extrapolations from this. However when dealing with specific peripheral issues (such as education systems) the best you can do is complete speculation.

Well, I&#39;d argue that raising many of the type of questions that Rioters Bloc raised are reasonable extrapolations. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s complete speculation to ask about whether a communist/anarchist society would oblige everyone to work (and neither have many Marxist and anarchist thinkers) and so I don&#39;t think it is complete speculation to think about whether a communist society would oblige everyone to go to school. It&#39;s certainly very different to messing about with "bus timetables", as you suggested earlier.


What the people in this thread are doing is expressing they values that they hope the future holds.

Well, people are doing slightly more than that in that they are trying to extrapolate how these values might play out (I&#39;d totally agree with you that this can only go so far though). But, even if expressing values was all that people were doing I don&#39;t see why it would be so problematic. Why not treat the thread as a way of examining the different values that people see as commensurate with a communist system?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:18 PM
It&#39;s certainly very different to messing about with "bus timetables", as you suggested earlier.
How exactly is asking what the core subjects being taught in schools in the future anyway different from arranging bus schedules? They and the other questions (Homework, exams… wtf?) are completely inane. There is no one here, unless that’s Nostradamus at the back, that could possibly hope to answer with anything approaching accuracy. You may as well have asked Cleopatra on the merits of online banking&#33;


Why not treat the thread as a way of examining the different values that people see as commensurate with a communist system?
What sticks in my craw is people offering their expert opinion on an issue that nobody is qualified to answer. No one here has any idea what communism, much less education in communism, will look like. How many of those posted are aware of this though?

[Clarksist]

There is no one here, unless that’s Nostradamus at the back, that could possibly hope to answer with anything approaching accuracy.

Unless you just implement non-hierarchal forms of education. That isn&#39;t "utopian" in the Marxist sense of the word. Its just speculation for stimulating conversation on theoretical post-revolutionary schooling.

What&#39;s the harm? What&#39;s so bad?


No one here has any idea what communism, much less education in communism, will look like. How many of those posted are aware of this though?

But if we put forward ideas, we can sort of develop a common understanding of how to solve the education issue post-revolution.

I mean common, just because a thread isn&#39;t completely concrete in every possible critique... that doesn&#39;t mean we can&#39;t discuss it.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:03 PM
Unless you just implement non-hierarchal forms of education. That isn&#39;t "utopian" in the Marxist sense of the word. Its just speculation for stimulating conversation on theoretical post-revolutionary schooling.
Utopian. That’s the word I was missing. It very accurately sums up the thread. Any conversation revolving around a specific aspect of communist society cannot help but be utopian in nature. That’s because communism is totally removed from today’s society and none of the experiences/data/knowledge we have today is applicable.

You can speculate but that’s all it is. In fact even that I find to be a waste of time.


But if we put forward ideas, we can sort of develop a common understanding of how to solve the education issue post-revolution.
Talking about socialism is one thing, that is after all a product of capitalism, but discussing education in communism is an exercise in futility.


I mean common, just because a thread isn&#39;t completely concrete in every possible critique... that doesn&#39;t mean we can&#39;t discuss it.
Of course. Who am I to tell you want you can and cannot post? My point was merely that its pure and uninformed speculation.

[Clarksist]

Any conversation revolving around a specific aspect of communist society cannot help but be utopian in nature. That’s because communism is totally removed from today’s society and none of the experiences/data/knowledge we have today is applicable.


What I&#39;m saying is that we are just applying the principles of the movement, to this specific subject. If we do that, we have some background in ideas for post-revolutionary education.


You can speculate but that’s all it is. In fact even that I find to be a waste of time.

A waste of time, like reading and posting on a thread that you feel is a waste of time?

Its a forum, we enjoy talking about this stuff. If it gives a sense of entertainment, why is that not good enough?

[KC]

Discussing this is about as productive as my tractor thread.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:32 PM
No one here has any idea what communism, much less education in communism, will look like. How many of those posted are aware of this though?

Basically the vast majority of questions that were originally asked were essentially variations on the theme of the extent to which education needs to be coerced and the need for authority. Although I’d agree that asking about core subjects may be taking things a bit too far, to my mind, asking questions about the need for coercion or authority in a communist society is entirely reasonable. Once again, would you dismiss someone who asked about coercion or authority in work in the same way you dismiss asking about coercion or authority in education? Why?


communism is totally removed from today’s society and none of the experiences/data/knowledge we have today is applicable.

Do you really mean that “communism is totally removed from today’s society and none of the experiences/data/knowledge we have today is applicable”? Earlier you were saying that we could make reasonable extrapolations from certain values, which seemed a more sensible and nuanced approach to take. Yeah, we can’t draw up anything approaching a blueprint, but to claim that none of our experiences etc is relevant seems to me to be hugely overexaggerating. Is there really nothing about the potential that humans have shown, the way we live, the way our minds work, the knowledge of the ways humans have lived in different societies that may not be applicable to communist society? Humans aren’t robots – we’re limited in certain ways and have potential to do certain things more easily than others. The arrival of communist society isn’t going to change this and it is being utopian to suggest that there is nothing in the way we live now applicable to communist society.

[Kropotkin]

I think any kind of school system in a future communist society should be organized on libertarian principles i.e. voluntary and non-authoritarian. As for what is taught and how it is operated that is for the people in each community to decide.

Schools should definitely not become indoctrination camps churning out sheep as they are today.

[thebeautyofrevolution]

Compulsory or Voluntary, the world depends on knowledge and parents would know that enough to make it compulsory for their children to go to school. The only parents who wouldn&#39;t, would be the ones who did not care about their children or their future.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Jul 17 2006, 07:41 PM--> (rioters bloc &#064; Jul 17 2006, 07:41 PM)
Originally posted by Marion+Jul 15 2006, 06:41 AM--> (Marion &#064; Jul 15 2006, 06:41 AM) Great questions, and would welcome to hear other people&#39;s views as well. Will have a think in more detail when I&#39;ve more time, but for the moment I&#39;d recommend the following books that give a good broad spectrum of relatively radical thought: [/b]
thanks for the suggestions :) i&#39;ve read freire but that&#39;s it, i&#39;ll look up the rest at the library tomorrow.

i&#39;ll try and respond to the other posts soon. [/b]
Just so you know, i have two books by Ivan Illich (Deschooling Society is one of em), if you wanna borrow em? :)


[email protected]
Discussing this is about as productive as my tractor thread.

I disagree, educational theory is actually interesting and also relatively easy to apply&#33;


Comrade Om
The point is rioters that no here has any idea of what communist society will look like. You can speculate but that&#39;s just pure guesswork and comparable to questioning tractor production or bus timetables in communism. Its pointless.

That&#39;s not really the &#39;point&#39; at all.

The &#39;point&#39; is that it is useful for us to discuss the structures of post-class post-state education because there will come a time when we will need to implement such structures. That doesn&#39;t mean that what people think is a &#39;good&#39; idea now will actually work or be what people think is desireable in the future, but as a topic for discussion it is productive because it establishes a base (of knowledge, ideas etc) upon which we and others can build on in the future - otherwise when we find ourselves in an anarcho-communist society, when we to start this discussion again - it will be from scratch.

Moreover, something like education is not as abstract as tractor production.

Critical pedagogy (which is basically the core of this discussion and post-capitalist educational theory) is something that is already being implemented, and can easily be reproduced on a small-scale even now (and don&#39;t forget homeschooling as well).

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Marion+--> (Marion) Basically the vast majority of questions that were originally asked were essentially variations on the theme of the extent to which education needs to be coerced and the need for authority.[/b]
A worthy discussion and if you ever want to have it then feel free to start a thread on it. Take a look at the list of questions posed again. Does that look like a general list of questions dealing with authority? Or is it a rather specific list of questions dealing with education?


Do you really mean that “communism is totally removed from today’s society and none of the experiences/data/knowledge we have today is applicable”? Earlier you were saying that we could make reasonable extrapolations from certain values, which seemed a more sensible and nuanced approach to take.
Indeed I do. We know one fact about this future society (its classless nature) and everything else is guesswork. Some of these guesses are more reasonable than others (the status of money etc) but are essentially still guesses. As a rule of thumb the more focused/specific you get, the wilder the guesses become.

Everything we do or think is constrained by the material conditions that we’ve grown up in. This is okay for predicting the future in socialism because that is similarly a product of capitalism. But classless society… let’s face it – its going to be completely different. You may as well be talking about an alien society.

Look at it this way – what weight would you attach to an education "expert" from the Middle Ages in planning a school system today?


Black Dagger
The &#39;point&#39; is that it is useful for us to discuss the structures of post-class post-state education because there will come a time when we will need to implement such structures.
We? I can only assume that this is the anarchist in you speaking because I’m pretty sure that I’m never going to see communism. Obviously someone will have to tackle these issues at some point but we’ll be long dead at the time.

Of course if you think that communism is possible tomorrow then by all means go ahead and plan.


That doesn&#39;t mean that what people think is a &#39;good&#39; idea now will actually work or be what people think is desireable in the future, but as a topic for discussion it is productive because it establishes a base (of knowledge, ideas etc) upon which we and others can build on in the future - otherwise when we find ourselves in an anarcho-communist society, when we to start this discussion again - it will be from scratch.
The problem here is that you’re assuming that anything we say will be relevant come communism. I wouldn’t take advice from a 4th century alchemist on how to design a car.


Moreover, something like education is not as abstract as tractor production.
Why… how exactly do you think exams will be run in a classless society?

[Marion]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 22 2006, 03:09 PM--> (ComradeOm &#064; Jul 22 2006, 03:09 PM)
Marion
Basically the vast majority of questions that were originally asked were essentially variations on the theme of the extent to which education needs to be coerced and the need for authority.
A worthy discussion and if you ever want to have it then feel free to start a thread on it. Take a look at the list of questions posed again. Does that look like a general list of questions dealing with authority? Or is it a rather specific list of questions dealing with education?


Do you really mean that “communism is totally removed from today’s society and none of the experiences/data/knowledge we have today is applicable”? Earlier you were saying that we could make reasonable extrapolations from certain values, which seemed a more sensible and nuanced approach to take.
Indeed I do. We know one fact about this future society (its classless nature) and everything else is guesswork. Some of these guesses are more reasonable than others (the status of money etc) but are essentially still guesses. As a rule of thumb the more focused/specific you get, the wilder the guesses become.

Everything we do or think is constrained by the material conditions that we’ve grown up in. This is okay for predicting the future in socialism because that is similarly a product of capitalism. But classless society… let’s face it – its going to be completely different. You may as well be talking about an alien society.

Look at it this way – what weight would you attach to an education "expert" from the Middle Ages in planning a school system today?

[/b]
1) Looked like a list of specific questions to which the fundamental issue behind most of them was about the extent to which education needs to be coerced and the need for authority.

2) Wouldn&#39;t disagree with your comment about the more specific the questions get the less we can provide a blueprint or any sort of idea. However, our experiences, knowledge etc are definitely applicable and relevant (although by no means necessarily directly so) - for example, there are certain limits to human nature that we are aware of that mean that certain things in communist society will still happen or not (even if its as simple as saying humans often disagree with each other). To say that none of our experiences is applicable seems overexaggerating things to me...

3) No, I wouldn&#39;t attach much weight to someone from the Middle Ages trying to plan a school system today. But then again, I&#39;ve never claimed we&#39;d be able to plan communist schooling today anyway. All I&#39;ve said is that there there are experiences, knowledge etc that we have today in terms of some issues such as authority, coercion etc in schools and elsewhere in society that can mean that it is worthwhile to debate such questions as the role of authority, coercion in schooling in the communist society. To the extent that people form the Middle Ages or different societies are able to tell us about these basic questions I think their viewpoint would be worth listening to.

4) Again I&#39;d ask, do you have the same problem with people talking about whether there will be coercion or authority in labour in communist society as you have with them talking about the same issues in relation to education?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Hey comrades&#33; I&#39;ve been away from revleft for a while and this is my first post. I haven&#39;t really been following the conversation much but I thought I&#39;d tell you about an interesting school I learned about. It&#39;s called the brooklyn free school. It&#39;s a school that doesn&#39;t shove a ciriculum down the throats of its students. Instead it allows the students to go and discover they&#39;re passions by themselves, with their teachers, using school resources. It&#39;s complicated to explain but it&#39;s based on the idea that when you were a little kid you loved learning and were really curious but rigid ciriculums stamp out you love of learning once you reach middle and high school. I think the BFS is a perfect example of what schools in communism could be like. Just google &#39;Brooklyn Free School&#39; to find out more.

[Marion]

Hi,

Yeah, there&#39;s a couple of interesting articles on (I think) the libed site about the Brooklyn Free School that I read the other week. One was a piece by a journalist and the other was a response by a parent of one of the kids who went there. If you&#39;re interested in that angle on things the best things to read are Summerhill by AS Neill and The Modern School Movement by Paul Avrich (I mentioned both right at the start of the thread).

[Eastside Revolt]

As I see it the current schooling methods in our society impose a hierarchy amongst the students. The most important change for me then, would be the complete absense of that hierarchy.

[shifoe]

The reason the education system is in the shambles it is today is because it is used as a tool for making people submit to the powers that be and become generally apathetic and unable to think for themselves. The only way to teach a person anything is to teach them how to think. If a person knows how to think they can discover anything. If you teach a person facts and numbers they are merely regurgitating information.

To even have a functioning democracy you have to have an educated population, and to have a fascist capitalist government that dominates the world monetarily you have to keep the population dumb, by disguising the fascist sytem with the illusion of a democratic one. And to effectively do that and have people unable and uninterested in questioning the very system they live in and perpetuate you must educate them not to think but to conform. This is proven by the superficial standards and hollow ends that are acheived by getting a modern "education". You get an SAT score or a degreee or a grade. A persons education and intellect cannot be graded, it is contradictory to the purpose of striving to become an educated person. For if the person left school being educated and questioning the system they are a part of, the sytem of power and control would be dismantled; because who benefits from a grading system really? You get a certain GPA or SAT score, get into a certain college, get a certain degree, and only then can you even be considered for certain positions. But why is institutionalized education the only accepted form of learning? Because they impose a system of control and accountability that regards a student as acceptable or unacceptable in a hollow and superificial way. So people are trained (educated) to work and become a part of the system, not question it. And this keeps the hierarchical social order in check. And people working and thinking for the economic system and not for the good of themselves or the mind.

These guys said it well...

Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound

What does education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free, meandering brook.
Henry David Thoreau

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,
in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and will never be.
Thomas Jefferson