Posts
My husband has a set of Encyclopedia Britannica volumes published in 1946. It dares call itself "A New Survey of Universal Knowledge." In Volume 20, Sarsparilla to Sorcery, I have looked up Socialism and Socrates and Sophistry, for instance. After Socialism, but before Socrates and Sophistry, there is an entry entitled "Socialism: Principles and Outlook."
Now, the Socialism article itself appears complete at first reading. It gives the origins and history of Socialism; Owenism, Marxism, national movements and the Russian Revolution are each treated in turn. The entry is written by a gentleman named G. D. H. Cole.
But "Socialism: Principles and Outlook" is written by George Bernard Shaw. In the spirit of inquiry, independent research, and consulting original sources, I thought you guys might like the following observation Shaw makes with regards to schooling:
Democracy, or votes for everybody, does not produce constructive solutions of social problems; nor does compulsory schooling help much. Unbounded hopes were based on each successive extension of the electoral franchise, culminating in the enfranchisement of women. These hopes have been disappointed, because the voters, male and female, being politically untrained and uneducated,have (a) no grasp of constructive measures, (b) loathe taxation as such, (c) dislike being governed at all, and (d) dread and resent any extension of official interference as an encroachment on their personal liberty. Compulsory schooling, far from enlightening them, inculcates the sacredness of private property, and stigmatizes a distributive state as criminal and disastrous, thereby continually renewing the old prejudices against Socialism,and making impossible a national education dogmatically inculcating as first principles the iniquity of private property, the paramount social importance of equality of income, and the criminality of idleness.He continues,
Capitalism has never produced the necessary enlightenment among the masses nor admitted to a controlling share in public affairs the order of intellect and character outside which Socialism, or indeed politics, as distinguished from mere party electioneering, is incomprehensible. Not until the two main tenets of Socialism -- abolition of private property (which must not be confused with personal property), and equality of income -- have taken hold of the people as religious dogmas, as to which no controversy is regarded as sane, will a stable Socialist state be possible....
The private individual, with the odds overwhelmingly against him as a social climber, dreams even in the deepest poverty of some bequest or freak of fortune by which he may become a capitalist, and dreads that the little he has may be snatched from him by that terrible and unintelligible thing, State policy. Thus the private person's vote is the vote of Ananias and Sapphira; and democracy becomes a more effective bar to Socialism than the pliant and bewildered conservatism of the plutocracy.
Hmm. I'd better go find out who Ananias and Sapphira are.
I think Scarsdale is a "pliant and bewildered conservatism of the plutocracy."
So, I'm siding with Vlorbik today. Rather than schools being used as tools for training capitalists or socialists, let's agree to abolish the schools.
13 comments:
Catherine, I left my email in comments for Thinking, not teaching in Scarsdale...
Ananias and Sapphira is a reference to early Christianity. http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ananias.html
Somehow my childhood bible classes missed this one. Well, I never paid attention, so maybe they mentioned Ananias and his wife.
Capitalism has never produced the necessary enlightenment among the masses
But what has? Russian socialism? Chinese? What system would Shaw turn to that actually succeeded in producing enlightenment among the masses? I'm curious. . .
One of the few times Shaw stopped and re-considered his own opinion was during WWII. But the planes were practically over London by that time.
"Compulsory schooling, far from enlightening them, inculcates the sacredness of private property, and stigmatizes a distributive state as criminal and disastrous, thereby continually renewing the old prejudices against Socialism,and making impossible a national education dogmatically inculcating as first principles the iniquity of private property, the paramount social importance of equality of income, and the criminality of idleness."
Dang; I guess compulsory schooling is a better thing than I thought. I see nothing in that list that's problematic.
BTW, this article would never survive at Wikipedia; it would be immediately reverted with a "POV" note. And justifiably so.
....democracy becomes a more effective bar to Socialism than the pliant and bewildered conservatism of the plutocracy.
He says it like that's a bad thing.
“They really mean well. They really mean for us all to enjoy heaven on earth.”
It’s not about intent, it’s about results.
Abolish the schools is sounding better and better. I come from a large family of self-reliant, individualistic Texans. One of my brothers is fond of saying, “if it’s not ‘bidness’, it’s communism”. That doesn’t sound so funny these days.
The amazingly wonderful thing about Shaw's article, as with other articles in this old Encyclopedia set, is that he has a point of view, it has not been sanitized, and he tells you what he really thinks.
Regarding the iniquity of private property, there is a vanguard of teachers trying to inculcate that principle.
I did look up Ananias and Sapphira. They were a husband and wife who dropped dead, one after the other when they refused to contribute all of the proceeds from a sale of their land to the early church.
Dang; I guess compulsory schooling is a better thing than I thought.
I know!
That was exactly my thought!
Then, immediately, I was thinking: assuming this is true (I have no idea), how does it take place??
One of my brothers is fond of saying, “if it’s not ‘bidness’, it’s communism”.
LOLLLLLLL
Have you ever heard him say, "If it's good for General Motors it's good for the USA"?
I wonder whether the public schools are at some kind of breaking point, or whether things are always this intense.
It's a fascinating period, really.
We've got charter schools and vouchers coming on strong...we've got Democrats starting to sound fed up and off-the-boat-ish....
Other professions have changed; teaching could change, too.
Ananias and Sapphira were a husband and wife who became Christians in the 1st century. The custom then was to sell your extra properties (anything you weren't directly using) and to give the money to the church to help the poor. Ananias and Sapphira sold their property, but lied about the amount of money that they received from the sale. So God struck them dead. It's in the book of Acts, in one of the earlier chapters.
"dislike being governed at all, and (d) dread and resent any extension of official interference as an encroachment on their personal liberty."
Not necessarily a bad thing. I am a libertarian socialist (a surprising thing for a Singaporean, eh); regulation by peers is better than regulation by State.
Post a Comment