Best years of your life? (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

"On your first blow of the whistle, they have to freeze. Then, on the second, they must go back inside." Such was the advice given to me on starting a short spell of work as a teacher in a primary school recently. I was beginning to wonder whether my job application had been mixed up with that of a would-be prison screw. I could certainly understand the young child who says after her first day at school that she doesn't have to go the next day because "I've been there once already". The first lesson then, on entering a school is that it is compulsory.

The second lesson was that it is no coincidence that the daily routine of a school is closely modelled on that of a factory or office. Bells or sirens usher the uniform mass in at 9, out at 12, in at 1, out at 4 . . . One of the main functions of schools is to prepare the children of workers to fit into the kind of life-long routines that their parents have suffered before them. They are taught not to respect themselves and their own needs. They are taught to accept poverty and to fight for “the nation" and its owners.

The school is an artificial and hostile environment in which large numbers of children are herded together, grouped according to age and without the resources to cater for the subtleties of individual needs. In later life it would be absurd if you were only to be on friendly terms with those who were born within twelve months of you. and yet throughout the school years this is the kind of arbitrary association that is thrust on children. Then, in groups often over 30. they are expected to "learn".

The current proposals for a national curriculum and for testing at 7, 11, 14 and 16 will simply make an intimidating environment even worse. The Rutter Report (15,000 Hours) has reassured us that "prize givings are neither detrimental, divisive, nor elitist". Maybe not for the minority who get the prizes. But the capitalist approach to dealing with differing needs means being concerned with the differing needs of various employers, and therefore carefully grading and labelling the products of their mind factories for later use (or non-use).

At the same time, the capitalist attitude towards the young has always been ambiguous. Childhood is itself an artificial construction, a social concept which has emerged and changed very much in its definition over the centuries. And in the present, youth is seen as both charming and yet potentially dangerous. Creative or imaginative dreams have to be moulded so that they are accommodated to the needs of the present system, or else scorned and smashed. And this is another role of the so-called education system in present-day society.

The Intentions Behind State Education

All of these purposes of schools were present from the earliest days of state education. Before 1830 the British state spent nothing on education, and fifty years later the groundwork had been laid for the system we have today. Employers wanted well-trained workers: "The superiority of workmen of some education over those who have none must be sensibly felt by all the great manufacturers in the country" (Earl Stanhope, 1807). They wanted to be able directly to control the young, to hold back change. As the manufacturer, Andrew Ure, put it in 1861:

The uneducated state of the lower orders is a dark den of incendiaries among misrule which, if not cleared out will give birth to disastrous eruptions in every other province. A limited education might be a most effective bulwark against revolution.

And it was seen as necessary to condition workers into the role and life-style of steady and submissive wage-slaves:

We do not profess to give these children an education that will raise them above their station of business in life: that is not our object. but to give them an education that may fit them for that business.

[Robert Lowe, Final Report of the Cross Commission, 1888]

Such intentions are just as much in evidence today, with for example the recent White Paper on Education and Training, which states that the aim of current educational changes is to make "learning in schools more relevant to the needs of the modern world and. in particular, the needs of employers".

Before taking a glance at what is actually taught in schools, let us consider briefly some of the supposed "alternatives" on offer. After immense effort and campaigning, comprehensive schooling was established in Britain. And yet even some of those most vigorous campaigners will now acknowledge that many of the old frustrations and indignities still remain in the newer system of "indoctrination without discrimination". Furthermore, it has recently been argued that the current proposed reforms will effectively restore many aspects of the grammar school system anyway. Then there was the famous old Labour policy of getting rid of the public schools, not that they ever did anything about it. In fact, is it such a bad thing that we are saved the unpleasant experience of rubbing shoulders at school with the Hooray Henrys and Henriettas who will later be exploiting us? It is quite logical that in a two-class society there will be two classes of school preparing people for two different lifestyles or roles: the employers and the (sometimes) employed.

The whole nature and purpose of "education" cannot be fundamentally changed without a transformation of society as a whole. With the establishment of socialism, as a system of production for use, the idea of being dragged through a compulsory institution will have no place. Such prisons can only jokingly be called "places of learning". Education then will become a life-long and voluntary process, based firmly in everyday experience. Already, modern educational methods are recognising the value of the "problem-solving" or investigational approaches to learning. But this is still taking place in the artificial confines of schools. Socialism will not need to produce people as profit-generating commodities. So learning then can be completely voluntary. life-long and rooted in experience, as we start to refine the satisfaction of our needs.

Training Future Workers

What, in contrast, is taught in schools at present? The tone is perhaps set by a recent headline. "Business seeks a broader role with schools" (Times Educational Supplement, 21 August 1987).

From an early age. schools are teaching children to accept the curiosities of capitalism as if they were natural. And the message, once swallowed at this vulnerable age, sticks hard many years later. Take for example this self-confessed indoctrinator, describing how she introduced some 8-year-olds to the idea of "profit". She says there was

incredulity as we would have 10p every time we sold a spider, also confusion at hearing the word "profit". It was previously a concept outside their experience and I spent much teaching time after this trying to reinforce the idea of profit and how it is essential for the survival of a business.

[Child Education, February 1987] 

No doubt if a teacher was to show, more accurately, how profit is essential only for the survival and prosperity of the owners of a business, this would be slammed in the gutter press as bringing "politics" into the classroom!

Last year, in fact, Norman Tebbit accused ILEA of driving children to truancy by teaching "anti-sexist, anti-racist, gay, lesbian, CND rubbish" in schools. In fact the kind of thing that drives many of the more sensible victims to truancy" is, for example, the absurd humiliation of the weekly dose of physical jerks, or the regimentation of enforced sessions of "Country Dancing", and the arrogant sarcasm of teachers who cannot earn respect and therefore demand it as a right.

In Statistics A-level, students are expected to calculate how to set minimum standards for the proportion of faulty items off a production line, in such a way as to allow a stated set of results to pass those standards! (This reflects a common practice in industry, in which both profits and good PR are maintained by setting the standards to match the results rather than the more honest way around). And in history, an acceptance of nationalism runs quietly throughout all of the courses, as in 20th Century British History (Heinemann. 1987) which says of the 1931 National Government that "they wanted to work together to help Britain. Britain had to get out of the Depression".

Then there is religion. Under the 1944 Education Act. all pupils have to meet every day for a collective act of worship. Again, this is of course neither spontaneous nor voluntary but enforced. "Religious instruction" is also the only compulsory school "subject" on the curriculum in Britain.

Teaching Law and Order

A piece of historical crudity almost as stupid as the Heinemann variety was served up earlier this year by a policeman addressing the children of a Newcastle school I was working in: "Before the forming of the police force in 1829," he explained, "there was no law and order. There was crime everywhere". So different now, isn’t it? There is currently a fairly widespread policy in inner London of teachers refusing the police access to schools. This policy has been attacked by the NUT, as well as the government and the tabloids. Recently a surprisingly honest headteacher from St. Paul's. Bristol acknowledged that police make regular guest appearances in schools because "teachers are in alliance with power and authority. We cannot opt out in school" (Libertarian Education, summer 1987).

The 1986 Education Act requires any headteacher to have regard "to any such representations which are made to him by the chief officer of police" and the annual school governors' report should describe "what steps have been taken to develop the school's links with the community (including links with the police)". Apart from the obvious chance offered to the police to impress a vulnerable and captive audience with the wonderful way they work to ensure that ten per cent of the population remain in control of most of the real wealth, they also even supplement this PR job with "intelligence gathering" activities. A certain PC Currant recently boasts in The Job (Metropolitan Police paper) that “a lot of youngsters began talking to us, giving us descriptions and nicknames of burglars".

In recent years, this extra subject on the curriculum, known as Submission Studies (is a "Law and Order” GCSE on the way?) has become even more prominent. The 1981 Scarman Report advised:

Police assistance in the education of children in the fundamentals of an ordered society can. . . be of great value . . .  as the pressures on our society grow in intensity, the need for programmes of instruction for all children in the way government works, in the law and in the duties, as well as the rights, of citizenship increases.

The American Radical, Henry Adams, had more sense when he pointed out that "chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit". And this was followed up in 1983 by an HMI Report, Police Liaison with the Education Service, which again showed an obsession with the need to artificially implant in young minds an unhealthy awe for something called authority:

Nor can schools, because of the work they do, and the responsibilities it entails, give the impression to pupils that civilised society could function without authority and a general respect for it among the populace.

The traditional idea of "beating sense" into young children who have the real sense to question and resist the myths and tedium they are fed, has in modem times increasingly been replaced by the more "enlightened" (and ultimately more persuasive) idea of smooth-talking this "sense" into them. John Locke, writing nearly three hundreds years ago. was a capitalist theoretician well ahead of his time:

Beating is the worst, and therefore the last means to be used in the correction of children . . . if you can once get into children a love of credit and an apprehension of shame and disgrace, you have put into them the true principle.

[Educational Writings] 

He sums up here perfectly the modern orthodoxy, in which morality is instilled into children by self-righteous "liberal" and trendy teachers, through the use of guilt, shame and pride. Why pay for a policeman on every street comer when you can put one on 24-hour patrol inside every head?

Examples of mental, as opposed to physical punishment were everywhere to be seen during my recent experience of working in a primary school. The sarcasm so often used by teachers shows a fundamental lack of respect. Some of the more exuberant children are frequently and studiously informed that they are "deaf', that is, not listening to the boring teacher. One fairly typical tirade from a PE teacher was transcribed as follows: 

Who made that noise? Did I ask anyone to make a noise? My instructions were to spring up . . . Anyone who wants to talk come out here.. . Don't all do the same: you're individuals! Adam, do you find this hard to do. because I can give you a lot more practice if you do. . .

and so on ad nauseam.

One boy had been swearing at teachers and going home; the headteacher methodically visited every class to ensure that no respect built up for this individual’s actions. "He's been babyish, hasn't he?" she whined at each confused class. Another boy, at a school in Newcastle where I was "trained", had severe problems at home. His resulting "tantrums" during the day at school were systematically punished (not "in anger") by a teacher who then told both me and this boy that he doubted very much whether the planned punishments would make any difference at all to his future behaviour-, then proceeded to implement them in any case. One was left seriously wondering for whose benefit this ritual was being so tenaciously pursued.

One young child keenly offering to help another was slapped down with the statement: "Sit down at once; I'm the teacher here!" An 8-year-old girl who grew bored with a story about a speaking cat and commented that "cats don’t speak. anywaY" was rudely told to "shut up and stop being silly". It seemed an earnest discussion between teacher and pupil on the relative merits of realism and fantasy in children's fiction was not on the cards that afternoon. One class were being spurred on by the offer of a £2 prize for the best work, and an 8-year-old boy who. when asked to pass a book which was "second from the top" in a pile of three jovially pointed that "it's second from the bottom!" was told not to be cheeky. Examples such as these bear out the statement made long ago by Helvetius that "Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education".

Society Without Schools

Fortunately, even the stultifying experience of school does not always succeed in killing off completely the imaginative and creative "dreams" of children. On one occasion. I invited a class of children to describe their ’ideal world". The response to this included: No Maggie Thatcher, No wars, No schools, "schoolchildren paid instead of teachers", "in shops, they give you the money, and and the product", "everybody equal, plenty of money for all people every day", "everything free in shops". Several children said "everything would be free".

The idea of society without schools was laid out in William Morris' portrait of a liberated society, News From Nowhere, in which the "visitor" to that society, on mentioning schools, is confronted with a bewildered reaction:

"What do you mean by that word? I don't see how it can have anything to do with children. We talk, indeed, of a school of herring, and a school of painting, and in the former sense we might talk of a school of children - but otherwise" said he. laughing. "I must own myself beaten".

On the suggestion made by several of these children that everything should be available free, a debate was set up in which they made statements as to whether they were for or against this idea, and why. Some of the resulting statements volunteered by children on the issue showed just how much their thinking is in advance of that of their so-called teachers:

I am for the idea because people won't have to worry about debts and bills/ I don't think people will take it all . . . they might be a bit greedy, but not that much/ There would be no poor people and no posh and rich people, and even though you will still be ill sometimes, if you are you can just take the medicine and it would be free; you would not have to share things, but I still would/ Not equal shares of money, just each take what you want/ Don't knock down banks, just burn the money; use the mints for something else, anyway, the banks wouldn't exist by then, probably/ The poor would be rich as well . . . taking too much? Who would bother?/ Money would not be invented and we would be rich in our own way. Because the poor wouldn't die of hunger. I wish they could open up an orange and find enough money to look after themselves.

If these young people's imaginative efforts to solve the insane contradictions of capitalism are to flourish, and to grow into a practical solution to those contradictions, it will be in spite of and in opposition to their experience at school:

Let's get off children's backs and let them learn what they want, how they want, when they want. Learning grows where it will, where the soil and climate are right. We can no more ordain learning by order, coercion and commandment than we can produce love by rape or threat.

[Education Otherwise Newsletter. 34]

 Clifford Slapper

Learning for survival (1994)

From the September 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists tend to emphasize the humanitarian aspects of Socialism. Given that the problems people face are gross and immediate and that they are an endemic part of capitalism, this is not unreasonable. We quote the millions of deaths every year from hunger and its diseases, we spell out the facts of poverty and unemployment, slums and homelessness and the rape of the environment and we try to put into words the horror of unending war and violence that is an ever-present feature of capitalism.

Like other workers, socialists live within the system; we experience these problems but, of course, we are not in a position to quantify them. Ironically, the measures of these appalling miseries that we do use to support our contention that capitalism is a blight on humanity are almost always drawn from the agencies of capitalism itself.

What is not quantified, and cannot be measured (except, perhaps, in terms of crime and other forms of socially-alienated behaviour), is the complex conception of isolation, of not belonging, of being of little or no consequence within society, of not achieving, accepting society’s definition of failure, being socially, physically or financially inadequate. These are among the problems and inevitable uncertainties that, in a competitive world, feed anger, frustration and despair and, against the heightened profile of the “success" culture, increasingly transmute these emotions into forms of depravity that the great majority of people find confusing and frightening.

You do not have to be a psychologist to appreciate that it is these capitalist inputs that cause the myriad conflicts and divisions that categorize people, minimize expectation and induce loneliness and fear. What passes for education, rather than being concerned with the development of knowledge and personality in the individual, to allow him or her a meaningful role in society, is, certainly for the working class, a fear-ridden process of training designed to equip the recipient to sell a major portion of his or her life to an employer (another human being or group of human beings) simply in order to live. The price of failure can be grim and permanent.

Two facts stand out in relation to this usurpation of young lives into the relentless, pressurized process of training that presently masquerades as education. The first is that many of the alleged “educational” facets peculiar to most of capitalism’s specialized functions have little or no value outside the marketing needs of the present system. Most of the training that underpins the legal profession, accounting, financial management and many other of capitalism’s much-vaunted professions, has no educational value in the true sense of the term; their value is solely in the functions they perform within capitalism and, if that system ended tomorrow, the acquired skills of practitioners in these areas would be redundant.

The second point is that because education is budgeted largely against taxation and taxation is ultimately a charge on capital, it has to be cost-efficient. It is this that dictates most of the practices in the schools and it is this that to a large extent determines success or failure because these qualities are determined by time. For working-class children the school programme is scheduled to take place within a given period of years. Wisdom gained after term, after exams or assessments or following the end of schooling doesn’t earn a diploma.

The whole process, rather than being one that integrates the young as caring members of society, is an intensive survival course that engenders the primacy of self. This concept is, of course, in line with the flawed notions of “individualism” that capitalism promotes as an alibi for the ghastly social plunder of the many by the few — within which framework the great majority of individuals have their lives demeaned and circumscribed by the alien interests of those who live on the fruits of their labour. The idea of self is an essential prerequisite of a world of property values.

While these values are unlikely to achieve any great measure of realization or satisfaction for the great mass of people who have no stake in ownership outside that of a few personal effects and, perhaps, a mortgage, they are of use to capitalism because they are the foundation stone of working-class acceptance of that system. The whole structure of capitalism is based on the belief, inculcated from childhood and reinforced in the school system, that every man and woman has the right to accumulate individual wealth even though such wealth is the product of the labour of others. The numerous religions accept this, the educational system generally embodies it in academic studies and, of course, the achievement of wealth, however unscrupulously gained, is a passport to influence, power and esteem.

Such is the credit side, for capitalists. For capitalism, on the other hand, this ruthless conception of self is a basic cause of many problems, not simply among those scrambling for profit but among the masses of frustrated individuals who are wholly or partially denied the realization of even their modest hopes or who are alienated by the denial of hope itself. This frustration, this denial, and the anger, fear and lack of concern it breeds for other individuals is the source of most antisocial behaviour, of crime, aggression and jealousy as well as much of the neurosis affecting society today.

Socialists see the individual truly liberated when human personal attainment is fully separated from the task of procuring the material means of living. In Socialism individuals would act in voluntary co-operation to produce all the goods and services required to provide each individual with the material means of a full life. The cost-factor that plays such an essential part in determining “education”, training, working and planning in capitalist society would disappear, along with the old social relations.

Certainly Socialism will solve the economic problems of society but, in order to appreciate how it will radically change the role of the individual in society, we would contrast the role of the individual in a Socialist society with the cost-efficient wage-slave that is an essential requirement of capitalism.

Socialism will measure efficiency in terms of human happiness. Every single person will have a claim on society for the provision of his or her material needs. Education, in whatever form it takes, will be a process aimed at developing skills and abilities in line with the individual preferences of each person —and, for those who require it, it would be an ongoing process rather than a crammed apprenticeship for work. Primarily, the emphasis will be on the individual but rather than the competitive selfishness which capitalism must inculcate in the individual as survival training for a world that pits student against student, worker against worker and human against human. the student in Socialism will live and study in an ambience of social cooperation. The logic of that co-operation will be evident in every facet of life and it would be no exaggeration to say that many of the anti-social products of our cost-effective grading and assessment system of today would be regarded, in Socialism, as abnormalities that required help.

Of course, our current systems of education have evolved with the present economic system and just as they would be immediately abolished in a socialist world because of their anti-social, even anti-human, nature, so, too, would the values and concerns of socialist education be alien and harmful to capitalism. Imagine an educational establishment turning out individuals today who see their role as actively co-operating with their fellows in the pursuit of the interests of society as a whole. They would quickly be chewed up in the competition and conflict of capitalism, the educational system would have failed them by failing to make them selfish, contending fighters for survival. Imagine the more general application of such a system: capitalism's workforce would refuse to compete with one another; refuse to partake in the exploitation of their fellows; there would be few police and the judiciary would become socially inquisitive. And, of course, who would make munitions and do capitalism’s killing?

As we said at the outset, Socialists usually emphasize the material problems of capitalism and, perhaps, one of the reasons for this is that we feel poverty, world hunger, slums, unemployment etc., are more visual than the mental enslavement of our class. But that mental enslavement is a terrible reality, a reality designed by the political pundits of capitalism and serviced by its system of “education” and conditioning.

Richard Montague

Schooled for capitalism (1991)

From the September 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Different people expect different things from schools. Margaret Thatcher is on record as saying that education should prepare children for the world of work, while the radical educationist A. S. Neill (head of Summerhill) thought that education should be a preparation for life. These views may seem poles apart, but both coincide in seeing education as a preparation for something else. Neill’s position is especially odd. as it implies that education is not part of life. Surely education—the process of learning—is an integral part of our daily lives. It takes place outside school as much as in it, and doesn’t stop when we leave school for a job or the dole queue.

Discipline

Education now consumes about one-sixth of central and local government spending, but government's role in education only came about for reasons clearly related to the historical development of capitalism. The first state intervention in education in England was the quaintly-named Health and Morals of Apprentices Act of 1802; this was an ineffective attempt to get factory-owners to provide some basic instruction for their younger apprentices, who had been forced into factory work by the Industrial Revolution. The reasons given for educating workers in the early nineteenth century were to teach thrift and good housekeeping (and so reduce the expense of poor relief), and to combat the rise in crime by teaching order and discipline. Most factory jobs needed few or no skills, so education was not seen as necessary for production.

In the course of the century, however, technical progress led to a greater demand for skilled and educated labour. Both state and church schools provided basic instruction (mainly in religion and the three other R’s), but formal schooling was still a small part of most people's lives. In 1851, an inquiry found that the average school attendance was just two years. In 1865 an investigation of children between the ages of 3 and 12 in Manchester showed that over half were neither attending school nor in employment. It was partly to control the potential for crime and disorder resulting from this idle mass that elementary education for all was introduced by the 1870 Elementary Education Act. which set the school leaving age at 12.

Pigeon-holing

But there were powerful economic arguments too. as Britain encountered competition from other capitalist countries, such as Germany, where a fairly sophisticated education system already existed. William Forster, the architect of the 1870 Act, claimed that “upon the speedy provision of elementary education depends our industrial prosperity". Similar arguments were used in the present century to motivate the expansion of secondary schools and the provision of teaching in technical subjects. A 1931 government report coined the word “numeracy” to indicate mathematical capabilities alongside the traditional literacy.

It was the Education Act of 1944 which instituted the system of primary and secondary education for all. Its proposal to raise the leaving age from 15 to 16 was not achieved till 1972, however. The Act enshrined a division of children into three types, each destined for a different kind of secondary school. Those who could follow a proper argument were earmarked for grammar school, those whose aptitude was more for applied science were suitable for technical school, while those who were supposedly happier with concrete things rather than ideas could hope for no more than a secondary modern school.

Such ludicrous pigeon-holing prompted the switch-over to comprehensive schools. It was often claimed that these were intended to give children equal opportunity to succeed, but of course there was another side to it. In 1964 Harold Wilson, soon to become Prime Minister, stated; "We simply cannot as a nation afford to neglect the educational development of a single boy or girl". Nowadays, too, the Labour Party seems to see education as the guarantor of efficiency and competitiveness, and hence as the saviour of British capitalism.

Education has clearly been viewed by politicians, and the capitalists whose interests they represent, as an instrument to serve their own ends. As production became ever more complex, the need for an educated workforce came to be the main motivation; so schools really do exist to prepare children for the world of work—for wage slavery. Ever-present, too, is the need for a disciplined workforce; whatever else schoolchildren may or may not learn, they are taught to do as they're told, to know their place and to knuckle under to authority. And who shall say that schools are not still means to keep potential troublemakers off the street, and to teach young workers how to manage on a pittance? Even the division of children into different ability groups is perpetuated by the continued use of streaming.

Book learning

William Morris in News from Nowhere depicted a society where the word "school" is unknown. People learn throughout their lives, picking up skills as they want to. We shouldn’t treat them as gospel, but Morris’s speculations are an interesting approach to what education might be like in socialism. With the ending of class society and production for profit, education will no longer serve the ends of providing an obedient and half-trained workforce. It will not be a preparation for anything, but will be an essential part of everyone’s existence.

The unnatural division into education of children on the one hand and of adults on the other will cease. Learning of practical skills can be done face-to-face—the idea of teaching such skills impersonally through books is, Morris thought, a rather odd one. Whether there will be separate institutions recognisable as schools is not for us to say now. But certainly there will be no examination tyranny, no blind faith in paper qualifications, no condemning of so many as “failures”.

We cannot know precisely what education will be like in socialism, but it will undoubtedly be a far cry from the production line-like schools of capitalism.

Paul Bennett

50 Years Ago: What is Meant by Education (1958)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Doe education necessarily mean a knowledge of the higher mathematics, Greek and chemistry? No! Education, from the Socialist point of view, is a recognition of that class antagonism prevalent in society today, and a consciousness that the workers as a class must combine in opposition to the capitalist class and its supporters for the purpose of taking, holding and controlling the political machine, and subsequently the means of life in their own interest.

The full recognition of this basic principle of Socialist propaganda and of the uncompromising action necessary to the attainment of the above object is absolutely essential from our point of view, and the moment the individual unit of society recognises this and acts accordingly, he is, from the Socialist viewpoint, educated.

Unless the workers are educated in this sense all efforts at emancipation will be as futile as those already attempted. And this is why  they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”

The administration of education at present lies in the hands of the capitalist class, who will take care that only those subjects tending to keep the workers in subjection, and to make them more efficient producers, shall be taught

(From the Socialist Standard, August, 1908.)

Free access to services (2007)

From the August 2007 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Apart from material things, socialism will bring many intangible benefits that capitalism denies us.

In our June issue we discussed some of the ways in which production solely for needs and free access (socialism) will replace production for profit and buying and selling (capitalism). In July we considered some problems of consumption in socialism, such as dangerous products, access to outer space, and when restricted access would be sensible. Here we extend the discussion to matters of services rather than goods: education; health and welfare; leisure, entertainment and sport; arts and culture; and dispute resolution.

Education

At present in schools, colleges and universities, access is available (free or at a price) to a wide range of knowledge. But the emphasis is always on the norms and values of the profit system. Learning how to buy and sell things seems to be more important than making them and getting them to the people who really need them.

In socialism teachers and educational bodies will be geared to the needs of the new form of society. There may be historical lessons about capitalism, but on a similar scale to the teaching about pre-capitalist societies today. The proportion of people who choose teaching as their main contribution to society will be much greater than today. “Jobs” needed only to run capitalism will have disappeared.

With the advent of world socialism a priority will be to offer free access to education to those who have had none or too little because they or their parents could not afford to pay for it. That is not to say that children in Africa, Asia, South America and elsewhere will be given what is today considered a “good” education by European or North American standards. It will take time for world socialist education to develop its own character, and there is no reason to suppose that it will take the same form for everyone everywhere.

Health and welfare

Some health and welfare services are now available to some people free at the point of delivery or consumption. But many are not. In socialism the principle of free access according to reasonable need will be universally applied. Of course there will be some limitations, but far fewer than at present. Health and welfare problems resulting from accidents and natural disasters like floods or earthquakes will continue to require emergency measures. But the problems won’t be as extensive. For one thing, people living in disaster-prone areas will be offered removal to safer environments.

Having to seek paid employment when jobs are scarce, experiencing money problems, just living in a world that places so much emphasis on “must have” personal possessions — all this causes sickness and shortens lives. So in socialism there won’t be such a widespread demand for health and welfare services. You won’t need to take pills to get you through the day or night.

Leisure, entertainment and sport

Today the leisure industries promote and sell you what is profitable for them to supply. You can choose to entertain yourself with pastimes or hobbies, or in social gatherings with little or no resort to the market. But there is heavy pressure on you to be a customer of one or more of the leisure industries. Most people who say they are interested in sport don’t actually play a game or even attend a live event – they mean they watch it on TV.

With socialism there won’t be buyers and sellers of leisure, entertainment and sport experiences. But there will surely be more participants. There won’t be a distinction between amateurs and professionals, though some people will continue to be better at some things than others. So audiences will be bigger or smaller – but never paying anything except attention and respect. Whether or not individuals or teams are champions at some level at whatever, they will have the same free access to what they reasonably need as everyone else.

Arts and culture

Capitalism allows the very rich to possess rare items of art and culture, and even to lock them away from public view. Not so with socialism. It won’t be sensible to let everyone have the freedom to keep original masterpieces in their own homes. But it will be feasible and desirable to store and maintain rare artefacts in supervised public places.

With regard to access to popular events such as concerts, there might have to be restrictions. The relative merits and demerits of advance booking, first come first served, and even rationing would need to be sorted out. However, one way or another, access to artistic and cultural artefacts and events will be available to all, not just to a privileged minority.

Dispute resolution

With the abolition of the killer disease of nationalism, wars and the whole destructive war industry will be a thing of the past. Many other disputes about property – divorce settlements, allegations of mis-selling, for example – will also have gone. Some rules and regulations, emphasising pro-social behaviour not punishment, may still be desirable. But the law as we know it today will have no place in a socialist world.

Reasonable though the vast majority of people will have to be before socialism is introduced, it is unreasonable to expect all of us to be good boys and girls all the time. There will no doubt be a few disputes that will call for some procedure of resolution. This will probably best be done by some form of mediation, by people interested in, and perhaps trained for, this form of public service.

Stan Parker

Letters: What’s utopian? (2000)

Letters to the Editors from the July 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

What’s utopian?

Dear Editors,

Your Party’s ideals are well meaning but quite unattainable in a world of big bucks, and human instinct of greed. Without money who would control how much material any one person or family needs? It’s as open to corruption as is capitalism. At least money gives spending power on choice, and freedom of such.

The utopian concept we need is redistribution of money via taxes and work availability at living wages. This can be achieved by the tax system being fairer, and an international convention on closure of offshore havens. And if everyone paid going-rate taxes, and “harmony” was practised with a fair progression system, how long do you think the Third World would take to be first (e.g. investment in African pipelines/canals)?

With money, everyone is a capitalist, like it or not e.g. the price of food and material contains an element of recovery of outlay, capital matters like land, property, stock, equipment. What doesn’t use them for production? In your system half the world’s luxuries would never be made.

A fairer world only comes from tax reality, consensus democracy agreement, and racial unity, allied to environmental facts about survival and either main party (or Jesus!) could deliver it. Or “3rd forces” in merger.

Tim Collier, 

Kettering, Northants

Reply: 

In a world dominated by big bucks, promoting real socialism certainly isn’t a doddle, but nor is it “unattainable”. All that influential money may have the world’s population in its grasp, but that grip is crushing and restrictive for billions of people—a potential revolutionary majority in fact. And greed comes not from “instinct”, but is a necessity for “succeeding” under today’s system. It is behaviour that occurs only because capitalism itself has greed at it roots. Because there is exclusive ownership of productive assets, resulting in excluded access to goods and services unless able to pay, rapacity, selfishness and envy permeate society, and become the norm.

By replacing minority asset ownership with collective possession by us all, artificial shortages of products then end, and “greedy” behaviour is no longer necessary. As for who then gets to “control” the freely available products, it is the individuals and families themselves, according to their own determined needs. Taking more than is required would simply not occur to people to do when all their work and organised living is then conducted in a co-operative moneyless environment, geared purely to fulfilling human needs. The “corruption” you envisage would be pointless. You can’t wheel a trolley-load of food out of a store today without paying since it is capitalist-owned, but when it’s collectively owned in the socialist future, the notion of grasping as many goods as you can carry before others beat you to it, and rushing them home, will be as senseless and laughable as it is criminal and punishable today.

Presently, money may bring limited choice and freedom to choose (for some of the world’s population), but socialism would not prohibit access to alternative products, and “luxuries”, if that’s what the new owners (all of us) want—a choice and a freedom which would then, however, extend to everyone.

As for money, taxes and waged employment, these are merely capitalist features intended to facilitate and maintain that system, not provide a “utopian” world for the many. So it is futile to expect and pursue monetary “redistribution”, “fair” levies and “living wages”. However, if it’s a “fairer world”, serious attention paid to “environmental facts” and global “democratic agreement” that you want, then it is real socialism that will deliver—not capitalism (or Jesus)—Editors.

Miserable old men?

Dear Editors,

I write as a supporter of the Socialist Party and as a friend, but I’m writing to say that I’m increasingly frustrated by the tone of the Socialist Standard. This is the shop window for the party and for your views and yet it comes across as the rantings of a group of elderly, cynical, miserable old men who are against . . . well . . . everything.

Of course, it’s easy to be against capitalism and very few of your readers would disagree with you there but you go much further and criticise the activities of everybody else who might be trying to do something about it. This wouldn’t be so bad except that you don’t really offer any constructive alternative—except the rather glib mantra of “it’ll be different under socialism, everything will be free and you can have as much of it as you want”.

Of course, it’s easy to be against capitalism and very few of your readers would disagree with you there but you go much further and criticise the activities of everybody else who might be trying to do something about it. This wouldn’t be so bad except that you don’t really offer any constructive alternative—except the rather glib mantra of “it’ll be different under socialism, everything will be free and you can have as much of it as you want”.

Also, there’s no discussion—debate about how socialism would work after a critical mass has been developed and the revolution successfully achieved—what are your policies on education? Do you, for example, support the continued mass incarceration of our children, or do you support some variant of the home schooling movement? Health—how do you assign priorities in the development of expensive life-support machinery against other health programmes and the other needs of society? Transport—are you in favour of an integrated transport policy and how might this work? And even the economy—where you would expect a socialist party to be strong—you have nothing really concrete to offer in debate—how, for example, would distribution be achieved, priorities assigned across a range of product needs and local demands, how would exchange be recorded and controlled to prevent abuse.

Let’s hear some positive ideas from you—let’s discuss them—let’s develop them into a programme that we can offer the electorate.

I won’t begin to talk about your marketing which doesn’t really exist—not even any car stickers or leaflets to hand out on a Saturday morning. How are people expected to know you even exist? Come on, wake up, you’ve had 100 years to think about these things. I realise you don’t have any money but even a little can be used to at least improve brand recognition.

P.S. I’d also like to see some photographs/pen pictures of the Socialist Standard journalists. Whilst none of us believes in the cult of personality, it helps if you can identify with the people concerned.

Andrew Stephenson, 

Newhaven, East Sussex

Reply: 

You seem to have misunderstood what we see the role of a socialist party as being. We don’t think a socialist party should seek passive support from people on the basis of what it would do for them if they voted for it. In fact you would seem to be more committed to the so-called “parliamentary road to socialism”—a majority of socialist MPs voting in socialism for a passive majority outside—than we would be. This is not how we see socialism coming about. Socialism is something people must do for themselves, organising themselves consciously and politically to establish it and actively participating in the movement. They alone can establish socialism using parliament with the socialist party merely an instrument to this end.

This is why we limit ourselves today to carrying out general agitation against capitalism and for socialism. We fully accept, however, that when the “critical mass” of socialists has been reached, people will be discussing all the issues you raise and working out detailed plans about how to tackle them once capitalism has been ended. But even then it won’t be a question of the socialist party presenting them with a programme for them to vote for, but of them democratically deciding for themselves, via the socialist party and other bodies such as trade unions, professional associations and neighbourhood committees, what the practicalities of establishing and running socialism in its first days should be.

Of course the relatively few of us who are socialists today do have our ideas on how education, transport, health services, etc might, and even should be, organised in a socialist society, but this is all they can be at the moment: ideas and suggestions. This is because the exact details will have to be decided by the people around at the time, most of whom are not yet socialists and who might, and probably will, have different ideas from us on the details of some of these issues.

We have, in fact, produced a pamphlet called Socialism As A Practical Alternative which does spell out some of the possibilities of socialism, particularly as regards possible institutions of democratic control and ways of organising the production and distribution (we prefer this word to “exchange” which has connotations of buying selling) of goods is a moneyless context. You should read it. We’ll be pleased to send you a copy for 80p (post paid).

As to leaflets, we’re sending you a selection. Please let us know which, and how many, you’d like. We’re also sending some stickers for your car.

The Socialist Standard is not written by professional journalists but by ordinary people like yourself who have a day job too. If we don’t publish our photos this is because the Socialist Party does indeed not believe in leaders or the cult of personality, but also because they are not just expressing personal views but are writing on behalf of the membership as a whole. But if we did you might be surprised to discover how many of us are not half as old as you have assumed.-Editors.

Education under capitalism (1994)

From the July 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

The education system functions to serve the needs of the capitalist society in which it resides. Its objective is to produce educated and competent workers, including managers and military personnel; in addition, knowledgeable, sophisticated members of the capitalist class. The subjects and training cover a vast complex field that assures the owners of a qualified workforce that can do everything that is necessary to produce, distribute and market commodities for sale and profit, in line with existing technologies.

Of vital importance is the fact that a working class is produced which accepts capitalism socially and politically. The majority of students, when their formal education has been concluded, embrace the wages system without question. Their labour power is ready to be marketed. They, in turn, are willing to conform with docility and eagerness to all the standard norms of capitalist society which, in effect, will maintain their rulers in power in contrast to their own subservience.

The superstructure of society, is determined and conditioned by its economic base — the dynamic for its existence. Capitalism is a social organization wherein a minority own and control the means of production and distribution for the purpose of capital accumulation through the realization of profit based upon large-scale wage-labour. The education system is locked into this process in every conceivable manner both directly and indirectly.

The whole curriculum, from start to finish, is conducted within an atmosphere of competition and stress together with a weeding-out process which segregates those with supposedly superior talents from those less fortunate. This is accomplished through the use of tests, examinations, and grading, all of which have a direct bearing upon ultimate occupations and potential earnings. Such an environment prevents the pleasurable pursuit of education as a primary end in itself. The young find themselves involved in an intensive training programme, presented under the guise of education, which will ultimately affect the price of their labour-power and in many instances can prove disastrous health-wise.

As the pressure of schooling is mounting in the western industrial societies and Japan, child suicide has increased. Japanese authorities offer two reasons: (1) The country’s competitive education system in which the road to success in later life is linked to passing difficult examinations to enter the leading universities; (2) The reaction of some children to the mounting pressures of excessively regulated lives. The education pressure in Japan is unremitting and not only causes ulcers in children but in many cases leads to suicide.

The perpetual conflict within the educational system is the attempt to produce the desired results at a budget price, within a competitive, stressful environment harmful to both students and teachers. The teachers themselves, in similar fashion to their students, have been graded and selected to perform at certain levels in different categories. Their own education has been in many instances limited by economic and material circumstances beyond their control. They find themselves frustrated by rigid guidelines that apparently do not bring out the best in their students, especially those who come from broken, poverty-stricken homes.

In addition, just like their fellow workers, they are faced with a never-ceasing variety of seemingly insoluble problems which relate to the economic considerations of a cost-conscious administration and mean that the individual needs of the student rarely, if ever, get priority. Instead, education receives the same approach as that given to commodities which have to be produced in a given period of time, at a certain price, for a particular market, with a quality-control that leaves much to be desired.

There is an interdependence, a direct relationship, between the educational system and the business world. Starting with first year children, a concept called "career education" has been used to permeate all academic subjects at all levels of education, from nursery school through junior college.

Is there an alternative to this market-orientated education system? Yes, in a sane society, real education, whereby the pupil learns in an environment without stress and competition, where time is not at a premium, where financial considerations are non-existent, where individual needs are in harmony with society’s, has never been given an opportunity to work its potential wonders.

Education properly organized under these conditions, will be a continuous one that will not commence and finish at a given age, but rather will be recognized as a never-ceasing quest for individual improvement throughout our lives.

In a socialist society it should be obvious that education will not be prostituted to the needs of a class minority or the demand of a market place — because neither will exist. All healthy individuals will be able to satisfy their desire for knowledge unhampered by economic restrictions or barriers. The whole of society will in a sense become a perpetual seat of learning wherein studying, travel and the productive process can become beneficially interrelated. In socialism, the world itself can become "The class room".

Michael Ghebre

What's Wrong With Education: How Capitalism Learns ’em (1974)

From the May 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recent figures show that there are over one million adults in the UK who are illiterate. When one considers that compulsory state education has been in existence since the 1870 Education Act, that figure is quite startling. Even if one takes into account that possibly some of that one million are immigrants who were not necessarily educated here, the proportion of illiterates is still very high. In many parts of the country they are trying to tackle the problem. In Birmingham, for example, adult education centres are being established to deal specifically with illiterates. But the Mayor of Birmingham has no doubts about the chances of succeeding in overcoming the problem in his town. “We can’t eliminate illiteracy in Birmingham, but we have to try.” (The Guardian 14th March 1974). Why won’t they eliminate illiteracy in Birmingham, or London or Manchester for that matter? To answer that question one has to see education in its proper context.

Education under capitalism is a topic that always demands and receives much attention. As capitalism’s history unfolds, the importance of education to its continuance becomes more and more obvious. Capitalist society now needs a highly educated work force which can adapt itself to the changing needs of the system. The education world, full of articulate enthusiastic people, is one of great activity. The people involved in the process of imparting knowledge are often more aware than many other similar groups of workers of changes taking place in their own sphere. Great debates will sweep through the education world from time to time, about the place of education in society and how it should be organised and structured. Sometimes the debates are between those that are seen as the preservers of the future élite  against the rest (grammar v comprehensive).

More often the debates take the form of priority issues. Most ideas are regarded as good ones, but they can’t all be implemented at once. So the protagonists of the various education reforms line up like competing football teams, but instead of getting on with the game, squabble over which pitch to play on. Nursery v primary, higher education v lower, university v polytechnic, vocational courses v liberal arts courses, etc. In addition to these the age-old, sterile debate about whether education means to “draw out” or to “stuff in” continues. Currently the stuffer-in seem to be losing ground in terms of educational techniques. What the educationists do not appear to realise, and what the Socialist will always be at pains to point out, is that any discussion on education cannot be divorced from the function of the education system within capitalist society.

Capitalism is a world-wide economic system (i.e. Russia and China too) based on private or state ownership of wealth and the means of producing wealth. Education within that framework has a certain well-defined role. One of the definitions of the word “education”, in the Oxford English Dictionary, is “preparation for the work of life.” In other words, education under capitalism is the process of training the working class (that section of the community that has to sell its abilities to work for a wage or salary in order to live) for work. The type and amount of training that the workers will be given (forced to undergo) depends, looking at capitalist society as a whole, on the technological level of society. It did not matter much a hundred years ago (to the capitalist) if workers could not read or write. Now literacy is demanded for the workers. As one “educational sociologist’' has put it: “The literate factory operative, for example, is not only better able to follow instructions and undertake new tasks but has been trained in the school in habits of order and discipline.” (The Sociology of Education, Olive Banks). Most jobs now require that workers have at least a good basic ability in reading, writing and mathematics.

As well as ensuring that there is a work force adequately trained to cope with the difficulties of production at all levels, the education system also fulfils several other basic functions for capitalist society. It disciplines children into creatures able to control the frustrations that will inevitably arise when faced with dull repetitive processes for forty years. In spreading the education catchment to all children a mass education system also ensures (so far as possible within its own limited horizons) that whatever ability is available to capitalist society gets some sort of chance. The reformists in the education world hail this as their golden land of “equal opportunity.” All it means is that clever children get to the top (where capitalism needs them) instead of just rich ones. The vast majority are still where they will remain all their lives — underneath.

Without this wide spreading of the net, technological advance would not continue. And without technological advance, individual sections of competing capitalist groups (countries) would not remain competitive. The competition between the various nations to sell goods on the world market at a profit, also demands that the workers’ education be continually intensified to create those who are going to be able to produce the technological advance that capitalist society requires. Economists, with callous indifference to the interests of those involved, now call the education process “an investment in human capital.” Above all, the education system has to instil in workers the values, prejudices and concepts of capitalist society. True that society needs some of its workers to think, invent, create etc. But the inventions, thoughts or creations of workers must be channelled into lines conductive to the smooth functioning of a market society.

It is this fundamental point about the purpose of the education system that all the do-gooders and reformists in the education world will never remember. Education as a commodity of capitalist society is not given away to provide some sort of elusive happiness for workers. It is there to ensure that the system of society as at present constituted continues, and from the point of view of the capitalist, improves. Once this is remembered, it becomes clear why not only the teaching methods, but also the subject matter is linked with the status quo. Possibly the best example of this is in the teaching of economics in schools and universities. Economics should be the study of how society works. But if that were taught the recipients might start to question a system that so obviously works against the interests of the vast majority. So instead, economics is taught as a collection of ludicrous theories. None of them bears any resemblance to the real world outside the class room.

Some of the obvious pieces of ideological double-think in standard school and college economics are:

1. That resources are scarce (they are plentiful — it is just under capitalism production and therefore consumption are restricted to what can be sold at a profit);
2. That governments somehow play a neutral rôle in the economics they are supposed to control, in that government action is aimed at producing the best results for all in society — this ignores the fact that society is divided into two classes (capitalist and working) and the interests of the two classes are diamertically opposed, what is good for one must be bad for the others. And, most absurd of all. 
3.  that given certain (impossible) conditions, capitalism’s price mechanism leads to resources being distributed in the best interests of society.

This appalling distortion and intellectual juggling that takes place in many subjects (not just economics) can only occur in an educational system geared not to imparting knowledge but to ensuring the smooth running of private property society. This results in children very largely being forced to learn what capitalist society wants them to know. The Badger in The Wind in the Willows neatly summed up the objects of capitalist education: “We don’t want to teach ’em . . . We want to learn ’em — learn ’em. learn ’em. And what’s more we’re going to do it.”

Educationists, like all reformists, have to realise that the particular social problem with which they are concerned cannot have its contradictions ironed out whilst the causes of those contradictions remain intact. Because capitalist society has as its aim, in producing anything, sale with a view to profit (even if only indirectly, as in education) it cannot take into account the satisfaction of human requirements, where no profit is to be made. And the education system, being but a limb of that society, can only function according to the requirements of that society. The net result as in all aspects of life under capitalism is that workers as a whole have a standard of education (and living) far below society’s possibilities. Those at the very bottom of the ladder end up illiterate.

When mankind ends capitalism, and by its own conscious action replaces it with Socialism, wealth that is produced will be freely available to ail in society. Free access to everything will include free access to knowledge. Education as a process of finding out about the total human environment, will not be an action limited to sections of people’s lives, when forced to learn. Instead, there will be nothing to prevent man’s natural curiosity about the world he lives in continuing to be fulfilled all his life. Like everything else, education will be available to satisfy man’s needs, not as now, for continuing the even running of a system of society that deprives the vast majority of fulfilling life.

Ronnie Warrington

More about a socialist scenario (2006)

From the April 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we discussed four scenarios outlined in a report by Foresight, a government thinktank, on transport over the next 50 years. We briefly described a fifth missing scenario – a socialist one, concentrating on transport. This month we add some more to a socialist scenario.

First politics. The Foresight report lists 60 “key drivers for change”. The only one that is overtly political is “Decline in power of national governments”, although “Culture of control” and “New decision-making frameworks” have political implications. Any socialist scenario has a central place for democracy, but not democracy as it is usually defined in capitalism. Socialist democracy is based on sharing in planning and decision-making, not having plans and decisions imposed on oneself or imposing them on others.

In socialism there will be no professional politicians – no one having an income from being elected. Access to goods and services will be free (made possible by the free work given to society by its members) for everybody, including individuals elected or appointed as delegates or representatives at various levels. In capitalism these levels are generally something like local, regional or global. There may well be some continuity in these levels, but as the socialist movement grows there will probably also be changes, reflecting different circumstances in different parts of the world.

Then education. The Foresight report says very little about this. Schools are mentioned as an economic resource and “the growing crisis in higher education” is noted – and that’s about it. A socialist scenario must have a great deal to say about education. Its aim will be to prepare people – participants, not consumers – to live in socialist society. There is education required to help bring about socialism as well as education as a feature of socialist society. The effort now put into socialist education is severely limited by lack of active socialists and money. Imagine what could be achieved if socialist schools, colleges, universities and distance learning projects were set up which treated capitalism critically and socialism sympathetically.

Socialists have long speculated about how education will differ in socialism as compared with capitalism. William Morris sought to narrow the differences between learning manual skills and book-learning. His pre-electronic predictions need updating, but there is also a case that education in socialism will not be as dominated by electronic gadgetry as capitalist education now is.

The way people work gets some mention in the Foresight report – “Movement away from office-based working” is one of the 60 Drivers for change. A socialist scenario has much more to say about work as a necessary, creative and satisfying activity. In socialism all the work required only to run capitalism will no longer be needed – no banking, insurance, financial services, sales and all money-related jobs will go. Harmful occupations connected with the “defence” (war) industry will be a thing of the past.

The elimination of work that keeps capitalism going will mean a vast expansion in the potential for useful work in socialism. Employment, and its flip-side unemployment, will be consigned to history. People like to do work that is useful to themselves, others and the society in which they live. Once financial coercion is removed there is no reason to suppose that there will be a shortage of volunteers. Obviously, men and women will prefer work that suits their abilities and interests, as well as the chance for change. Joy in work – in the past a privilege afforded only to the minority – will be available to all.

Lastly the media. The Foresight report does have something to say on this, but only the technical side. “Satellite location devices”, “Smart antenna” and “Increasing use of ‘telepresence’ technology” are included in the Drivers for change. A socialist scenario may well have a view on such changes. But it will also be concerned with the content of the media, how that content is decided, and the circumstances in which it is used as a means of communication, information and education.

In contemporary capitalism, as Chomsky and others have pointed out, the ideal is that each person should be alone in front of a screen, subject to what they see and hear, deprived of opportunities to discover what they really think through communication and interaction with others. In socialism the media will be democratically organised and controlled, not manipulated by political and commercial interests. No need to write programs for future media output and input. But you can be sure that it will reflect and be part of a happier and less problem-ridden world than capitalism.

Stan Parker

Letters: Socialism and the Media (2012)

Letters to the Editors from the February 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism and the Media

Dear Editors

The Leveson Enquiry is currently looking into the malpractices of the newspapers but it goes deeper than that. In capitalism there is at present the very large Goliath of capitalist inspired policies and practices and the very small David of socialist education. The same goes for the media. Newspaper, periodicals and other electronic media are overwhelmingly owned and controlled by capitalist interests. They hardly ever mention the s-word and when they do they invariably equate it with nationalisation or what happened in the former Soviet Union.

In socialism education will be for life and life-long. There will likely be a closing of the gap between teacher and taught. In some cases there will be an interchange of roles. For example the same individual may for a time be a teacher in a subject of which they may have made a special study, while at other times they may learn from others who have different specialisms.

People will derive meaning and satisfaction from the varied contributions they make to the material, intellectual, social and cultural world in which they live. Of course  skills and expertise will still need to be taught and learned. But not how to be a professional killer, a persuasive salesperson or a maker of money (except perhaps how to preserve specimens of it in a museum).

In any modern society the media are a reflection of, and a significant part of, the world in which they are located. Regarding the various forms of media in a socialist future, it is easier to say what won’t be in them rather than what will be. Property based crime won’t be reported and discussed because there won’t be any. That doesn’t mean to say that no one will ever behave in an anti-social way or that disputes will never arise, but how these will be coped with is another matter. The salacious events in the lives of media-created ‘celebrities’ seem unlikely to outlast a capitalist-dominated world. We shall have to work for the growth of socialist media to see what will take their place.

In recent years there has been a rapid increase in technological – and especially electronic – invention and gadgetry. We don’t know what the socialist future will bring in this regard. But we can say for sure that there won’t be such things as commercially-inspired advertising, product placement or incitement to consumer addiction. Information about what is or could be made available would be freely accessible by all.

Stan Parker, 

London SW8

Something in the air

Dear Editors

Thank you for the articles in the January Socialist Standard on the Occupy Movement and the radio series Capitalism on Trial. There’s definitely something in the air, and

I was reminded of a comment in an article in the Standard last year – that you know capitalism is in trouble when people start talking about capitalism. And aren’t they just? It’s as though it’s suddenly been noticed that there are obscenely rich people in the world and that the most important division is between them and the rest of us. People are now prepared to talk about the social system as a whole rather than some particular aspect of it, and it’s significant that many of the movements responding to current capitalism have stuck to democratic instincts rather than allowing leaders to emerge from their midst and lead them astray. Moreover, the idea that political problems require a global solution (which the Socialist Party strove for years to propagate, in the face of much ridicule) is now a commonplace.

Of course, all the present unrest may come to nothing. The Occupy movements and the Arab spring movements may lapse into a preoccupation with trying to patch up aspects of the existing society and so become mired in futile reformism. But what should be encouraging for socialists is just the evidence that people can change: they can cease to take for granted what they have accepted so far, they can develop critical attitudes to what has previously been unquestioned, and all of this may come out of the blue. That’s a heartening thought in the context of the present miserable phase of capitalist society.

Keith Graham

Erratum

Re January Pathfinders, Brian Cox writes: “Good article. Only one fact check. I didn’t co-author Things Can Only Get Better. It was written by Peter Cunnah and Jamie Petri.” 

Apologies for the grievous misattribution.

Education and the Working Class (1976)

From the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The growth of state education was once called “the silent social revolution”. Few phrases ring less true. Silent it is not: loud discord is its characteristic. If a revolution, it has ended in chaos with the strategies all gone wrong and a popular feeling that those responsible deserve the worst.

The thirty-one years since the war have seen the implementation of the 1944 Education Act, which produced a tripartite system of secondary schools, followed by the demolition of that system in favour of comprehensive schools. Under the 1944 Act the school-leaving age was raised from 14 to 15, and in the last two years it has been extended to 16. Each change has been advocated as a reform containing great advantages for “the nation” and the working class, and each in due course has produced despair.

The fruits of the present system can be summarized as follows. 15 per cent, of school leavers are illiterate, according to research carried out by the Cadmean Trust (Guardian Education correspondence, 9th April 1974). It is estimated that half a million school- children in Greater London and another half-million elsewhere do not attend school at all; a high proportion of them are in the “extra year” age group between 15 and 16. “Equality of opportunity”, which was the professed aim of the reorganizations of secondary education, has never materialized. Numbers of schools are bear-gardens and teachers themselves are truants, afraid to face a daily losing battle.

To understand how and why this situation exists it is necessary to go back to the beginning of state education in 1870. At that stage in capitalism its need to systematize the existing partial facilities and have the working class educated to a basic standard had become clear. Philanthropists and radicals had agitated for education to be provided, but the motives for reform are practical ones. In particular, technical change—the petrol engine, the small electric motor, typewriter, telephone, linotype machine, cash register, tramcar, fountain pen and many other new inventions entered industry and commerce in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

The process, extended by further Education Acts in 1902 and 1918, ensured the capitalist class a supply of clerks, mechanics and shop assistants who could add figures and had been taught obedience. It also provided a means of creaming-off more proficient children to be trained for more skilled work and even to enter the universities and professions. From the nineteen-twenties onward, the established grammar schools were encouraged by financial incentives to admit increasing numbers of “scholarship” boys and girls who were likely to do well. Investment in education remained restricted, however. The 1918 Act empowered and recommended local authorities to raise the school-leaving age to 15, but between the wars there did not seem much point in providing additional education for employment when unemployment was chronic.

The 1939-45 war emphasized capitalism's need to comb the working class for the abilities it wanted, and this turned to the special demand for technically-trained people in the nineteen-fifties. It was held that the post-1944 three types of school, based on selection at 11 years old, was inefficient in this respect: neither America nor Russia had a system of early selection, and both produced more science graduates than Britain. It seems to be wilfully forgotten now that this was one of the major arguments for comprehensive schools. Defending them in a recent television discussion Fred Mulley, the Minister for Education, said he was opposed to selection in any form. Yet the statement which committed the Labour Party to introducing comprehensive schools, Learning to Live (1958) opened with a section called “True Selection”. It claimed that selection at 11 was unsatisfactory, and that its plan would mean “real and continuing selection”.

Selection means rejection. As in the adult world for which it is the preparation (the school day is modelled on the working day), in the education system communalty and lofty motives are preached while divisiveness and mercenary aims are practised. In 1964, in a book called English for the Rejected, David Holbrook estimated that three-eighths of the secondary schools’ population formed the residue from the selection procedures, and were treated as “lesser beings” in the education system. Of this large section he wrote: “Who shall blame them for becoming a resentful group expressing their contempt for a society which treated them as ‘dim dregs’, by taking to forms of delinquency and violence, or by other forms of unsocial behaviour?”

The answer to the question is, of course: Nearly everybody. The London crime figures for 1975 showed a continuing increase in crime by young persons; 37 per cent, of thefts of and from cars were committed by children between 10 and 16. In connection with this and other figures a police official said London is “heading for the most violent period in its history” (The Times, 11th March 1976). This misrepresents the situation insofar as, throughout the history of capitalism, parts of big cities have always been infested with delinquents. The writer Jack London in his youth in the early eighteen-nineties ran with gangs of hooligans and took part in muggings. The sentiment today is that it is specially deplorable after so much social reform, in education particularly.

However, the fact is that the capitalist class — abetted, and whether consciously or not does not matter, by reformists—has gone too far. In its anxiety for profit it has demanded the perfection of a method for grading and separating prospective workers. The outcome is a youthful mass who are labelled “low-grade” but kept in the education system which has no use for them. In the 1914-18 war the capitalists found likewise that their greed had rebounded on them: large numbers of the working class, starved and deprived, hardly had the strength to fight for capitalism.

Similar observations can be made about illiteracy. Its true extent is never ascertainable because illiterate people themselves and schools both seek to conceal it. On 3rd March 1976 The Times reported that the government was giving money to the Adult Literacy Resource Agency “for the campaign to teach more than two million illiterate adults to read and write”. In 1850 it was estimated that eight million, or just under a third of the population of Britain, could neither read nor write. If it is assumed that the Cadmean Trust’s figure of 15 per cent, is an underestimate, after more than a century of compulsory education illiteracy has been halved.

This looks like the failure of the education system, but it is not. The system carries out what is required of it by capitalism. Its apparent problems are problems of the capitalist organization of society, that it is mistakenly expected to solve. On 19th December 1972 The Guardian's Education Notebook, referring to a discussion in New Society on the proposition “education is our main hope for social change”, said:

. . . the compelling evidence is that readers of New Society have got it wrong. In the last few months four separate studies have been published, and they have iterated a single message: that there is little, perhaps nothing, that the education system in isolation can do to alter the pattern of our society.

What it reflects overwhelmingly is the position of the working class, and the futility of hopes of “equality of opportunity”—or of “learning to live” in such a system.

Socialists have an interest in education of another kind: workers must learn about capitalism and what to do to get rid of it. We are often asked what prospects there are of this, in view of the lack of success in getting large numbers to learn in school. It is an educational commonplace that people, including school failures, learn swiftly when they want or need to. Backward boys become wizards of mental arithmetic if they take to buying and selling goods, and people “pick up” foreign languages they would never have learned at school. If Socialism were no more than an idea, the task would indeed be hopeless. But that is not the case. The drive to understand it comes from the pressure of the class division in society, and the compulsion for workers to know and pursue their interests.

We are asked, too, about education in Socialist society. The fact that Socialism is based on common ownership means that, for the first time, education will be for the purposes only pretended today—the benefit of the community and its individual members, not for an exploiting class. As regards literacy, the fact is that any literate adult can teach a child to read (many children teach themselves) and, with social disabilities removed, it would cease to be an achievement for some but not for others. The study of numbers may well acquire a different status, since its chief elementary function today is dealing with money.

Beyond the basic things, there will be choice in place of compulsion. As teachers know, people learn little or nothing at all of what they are not interested in. In any case, the amount learned of any subject in the school-lesson system over several years is pitifully small, aiming only at a general minimum. The purpose of true education is not to stuff knowledge into others, but to develop the desire and show the way for each one to obtain it for himself. Once it exists, the desire is not extinguished at 16 or when an examination is over. In a sane society, education would be available at every time in life.

Robert Barltrop