Results 1 to 20 of 55
Protectionism is a philosophy of intervention that is operative in most children's lives. It is, in the west, a recent development. Although germs of the idea extend further back, it did not develop widely until the 19th century, nor become widespread until the early 20th.
During the 19th century it focused on child laborers. Prior to the industrial revolution, children always worked. The horrific working conditions in factories and mines introduced by this revolution, were shared by all workers, and yet it was children (and often women) who were progressively denied the right to work, and sent to school or forced to do housework instead.
The reasons for this are many, but the central reasoning to this process was a concept that had been developing among middle and upper classes for some time. This concept suggested that children were innocent, vulnerable, and easily corruptable, so they needed to be sheltered from the evils of the world until they could resist its temptations. They, along with their mothers, were considered "the angels of the house", who served as support figures for world weary fathers.
This stereotypical victorian view of children's "nature" contrasted absurdly with the reality of working class children's experience: in factories, in the streets, in agricultural work, and even in the prostitution industry, they were competent workers, who unionized alongside men and women for equal pay and improved conditions. Nevertheless, as the movement continued, the demands of children and women were systematically ignored by the larger unions. And while eventually womens suffrage forced unions to allow women into their ranks, there was never a question of improving working conditions or wages for children. Instead, political and social leaders opted for mandatory child schooling.
The rise to mandatory schooling, made children completely financially dependent upon parents. Their bodies, their time, and their intellect, was now to be monitored by undisputable rules, teacher surveillance, and "age-appropriate" education material, that only further cemented the concept of child protectionism as a mainstay in our society.
Today, with each new act of brutality against children in school (and otherwise), there is a constant cry for even more protection, or more intervention. Is it not time -- while keeping in mind the very real vulnerability of children in our current system -- to call into question the idea of protectionism itself?
If by protecting children and forcing our values upon them, we are making them more dependent and vulnerable to exploitation, then this is not only counterproductive, but hypocritical. When we think of protecting children, it is almost always against the danger "out there", against other adults, since we "know what is best". But it seems that we, even in the anti-authoritarian radical community, seem incapable of realising that a protector can also be an abuser -- in short any adult -- be they a parent, a teacher, a stranger, or a social worker who does not respect a child's integrity or personal wishes.
Aren't communists and anarchists the foremost advocates for the ability to unionize, act and speak freely, and seek information without the censorship of others as a means of self-protection against hierarchy? Shouldn't we promote the same values of self-protection for our children, rather than embracing outdated methods of protectionism?
While i agree for the most part with what you said about protectionism, I think child labor should remain outlawed, I think it is wrong to take children out of school and put them to work. What this basically suggests is that we allow children to go to work while some go to school, this would return to the old system of an educated elite over the uneducated workers. Mandatory schooling is a positive thing (lest it will be in a Socialist society).
The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this. - Ernesto Che Guevara
Fate is simply a future that you didn't try to change.
Isn't that already the case?
Poor children are left to suffer poor curriculum, horrible school funding, and the problems of inner-city gang warfare; while most affluent kids go to private or parochial schools in elite neighborhoods. Thats the case from almost every American city, from Chicago to Houston.
I'm not saying we abolish the public school system; instead I'm saying we allow children the ability to opt-out and work if they choose. Also, I'd like to see existing public schools adopt the Montessori model of schooling where children have more creative freedom and the ability to be a part of policy-making.
And do what? Work at McDonalds?
If kids don't graduate from highschool they're gonna be trapped in low-paying work their whole lives; that's fucked.
So you think chucking kids down a mine so that their family can exploit them for additional income is superior to the system of public education? What sort of lefist are you?
While im a supporter of individual autonomy, I still think reading, writing and arithmetic are basic essentials and that no child should be allowed out of the education system until theyve at least mastered these 3.
This resounds of the paedophila thread in discrimination about 'prohibiting children from sex is denying them their individual rights' which i hope any reasonable person would agree is utter BS.
Exactly.
What a stupid thread to start with :angry: .
For one regardless what autonomy or radical the child workers could potentially be the most brutal exploitation starts from there.
You know it is very cheap to employ a child labour. You need not pay too much for them. And it is more easy to influence and control children that you could control the adults. And they could be better trained to obey than to rebel. And the consequence is definitely against the intrests of the working class as the child labour could aslo drive down the wages of adult workers too.
I would suggest you take a look at the caste system of India. It is a correlation that children of higher castes(Brahmins,Vaishyas and Kshatriyas) have been always educated when they are young , while the Shudras and Dalits(Untouchables) are sent to labour at an early age. It took almost centuries for the underclasses to rebel against the system and still the structure is not eradicated.
It is possible to build gigantic factories according to a ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command – although, to be sure, at triple the normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery.
-Trotsky
Marx & Engels ! Lenin ! Trotsky
The child labor law was put into place as a measure against the capitalist class who was exploiting the children of the working-class by refusing them the chance of a better life and education.
Only morons of the highest extent would call for the overthrow of this progressige gain of the working-class.
Counterblast is brilliant but she's so so far above the level of theoretical development on social issues in this forum that its not surprising that people can't respond to her intelligently.
Has it ever occcured to people that one of the major reasons why children (above a certain basic level of linguistic development, obviously) don't act like adults is because they're systematically treated differently? If its true of every other oppressed group why not children?
Seeing social organization from a revolutionary perspective means not just getting past the capitalist labour paradigm but the patriarchal family paradigm as well, and all it entails including the treatment of children as children.
Children are, on average, terribly behaved and act out in socially inappropriate ways...however they are also deprived of every opportunity to take even the slightest bit of personal responsibility, deciding when to wake up, go to sleep, eat what to eat, who they can talk to, who they can be friends with, what music/movies/tv-shows/books they can listen to/see/reed, ; in schools they even ask when to go to the restroom. Every moment of their lives is managed by someone else, they're prisoners everywhere with one or two prison guards to themselves.
Treatment like that would make anyone act neurotically, taking advantage of whatever escape they can find in any moment of freedom to 'act out.' They act irresponsibly because they aren't afforded the slightest responsibility over themselves, they're treated like property, talking pets, adored and protected but not given the most basic respect.
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
The one faculty that must never be made alienable is the ability to read as it is arguably our best weapon against the beourgiouse. The ruling class favours an uneducated workforce because they are able to manipulate them better which is why relaxed child labour laws would be right up their alley.
To challenge the law as it stands now on this issue would do the working class a disastrous diservice.
A basic education is necessary in order to give a young person the knowledge and skills needed to become an efficient worker. Otherwise, society would run rampant with uneffectual and inferior workers. While I don't see a problem with teenagers deciding to go to work, I do see a problem with a younger child doing the same.
I don't quite understand why this was moved. It is a legitimate discrimination topic. Which group of people have the least power in society today? Which group of people has no legal say in what happens to them? Well, I guess there are two, children is on of these groups though (prisoners are another I would say).
Children don't have any economic power, they don't have political power, they are generally weak physically and so on.
If they run away from their state sanctioned parents, they will be placed with another lot. They can't vote, and politicians don't listen to them.
It has been argued that parents look out for the well fare of their children, but I bet we can all think of examples where this isn't the case.
Anyway, thinking ahead to a future anarchist society, would we expect children not to work? Well, personally I would expect children to do some work, it isn't as if they aren't capable of it. They might not work in the factories (and no-one will work in the mines, that is what machines are for), but they can work as gophers in a variety of settings, and as they get older they can take on more responsibility.
I did when I was growing up (on a farm), so if other children want to do so, why don't we (adults) let them?
No. I think children should decide whether they would like to work or not. And I find no exploitation in willingly contributing to your family's finances.
This is very similar to the 19th century pseudo-feminist argument against womens labor. "If women were to work, their men would further exploit them and treat them like slaves!"
First, I would like to respond by saying that the notion that one must finish high school to make a decent income, or that former schooling is at all reflective of intelligence is totally bogus.
Secondly, what's wrong with having a minimum wage job if that individual prefers it?
And why must anyone be limited by their past choices? Perhaps we could extend public education to all age groups, enabling people to attend when they feel inclined, whether that be 6 years old or 60.
Meanwhile in Planet Earth.
Well it happens in the country I live. Childern "willingly" go to work and contribute to thge families income.
Because if they don't they can't eat.
More bullshit.
Come to the real world man.
Most of the child labours in India don't choose their job or life. It is not the same as 19th century Europe. And the Indian capitalists do not mind employing the Child labourers. It is after all a big advantage to them. Children can be easily controlled and manipulated and can be paid less.
BBC - Child Labour India's "Cheap Commodity".
It is possible to build gigantic factories according to a ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command – although, to be sure, at triple the normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery.
-Trotsky
Marx & Engels ! Lenin ! Trotsky
I disagree. I spent some time in Burma, where I encountered some of the most revolutionary women I've ever met. Not a single one of them could read or write. Instead, they passed on their radical ideas on through oral stories and songs.
Also, if advocating for political and economic sovereignty for the oppressed comes secondary to your allegience to a god-like "working class", then all the writings of Karl Marx were for nothing.
Counter can you respond to my posts ?
It is possible to build gigantic factories according to a ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command – although, to be sure, at triple the normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery.
-Trotsky
Marx & Engels ! Lenin ! Trotsky
My point exactly. Children and adults in India and other countries who are exploited by the first world, must demand higher wages and shorter hours for ALL workers. Only then will children be entirely free to decide if they would like to continue working or attend school. Forcefully marginalizing children from the workplace, is as coercive as putting them in an economic position where they must work.
We should focus on providing them with the choice.
Exactly, but it should be combined. I believe that each child should be able to get a full education which is fully state sponsored (as in free of charge), if they want to work on the side...sure, but they should still be going to school!
Isnt that just how people interpret Marx, as in that the focus of many (western) Marxists is on the "working class" while in many Third World countries you would have to focus on the peasantry, indigenous populations, etc instead of merely the proletariat.
<span style=\'color:green\'>"Protest is when I say this does not please me.
Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more."
-Ulrike Meinhof
"If one sets a car on fire, that is a criminal offence. If one sets hundreds of cars on fire, that is political action."
-Ulrike Meinhof</span>
You have started this thread as if it is not happening.
So now Children "freely" decide to work and "forced" to study in schools ?
No childern are not "forcefully marginalised from workplace. I showed you evidence. Rather they are forcefully pushed in to the workplace.
Just go and ask a child working as a Beedi(a variant of cigarette) roller in the industries of Tamilnadu whether they chose to work or forced by their family's economic situation to work.
And don't imagine that it is capitalism is not providing the choice. <_<
It is possible to build gigantic factories according to a ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command – although, to be sure, at triple the normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery.
-Trotsky
Marx & Engels ! Lenin ! Trotsky
