September 15 came

September 2009 | | Send to a friend

Michael Albert on capitalism and education
When we talk about education, emerge two broad frameworks that generate two basic approaches to training.
Part of education is related to personality. If we think of education, starting from a student, we explore the process of information transfer and skills development of youth talent. We ask ourselves what is the most successful way to teach students, giving them the end result of what we learned - the attributes of student skills teacher?
Another part of education, however, is contextual, and social. If we think of education, starting from a society, we will examine the process of transferring information and skills and talent development in terms of community needs. We ask ourselves what is the best way to educate students with a view of what society needs?
Ideally we will get the same result from both approaches. Ideally, public interests and the interests of the new generation will coincide. If so, then we have a clear plan. If not, you have to choose between whether to respect the interests of students, or those of society.
Most people who read this text, live in a society with a capitalist economy, a privately owned, corporate divisions of labor, authoritarian decision-making and market division.
With these institutions, capitalism creates inequality in wealth and income. About 2% of the population, called capitalists own the means of production and benefit from them. Those who call the coordinator class - they are in power (often mandated by capitalists) from the middle class - lawyers, doctors, engineers, managers - represent about 20% of the population and their job is to control the economic life of the rest.
Coordinator class enjoys higher incomes, greater influence on personal and group economic performance, good social status. Finally, the bottom is 80% of people who work (almost mechanically) receive orders from the higher, have great influence on the economy and have low incomes. This is called working class.
These three classes are the key institutions of capitalism. First, private owners of the means of production are the dominant capitalist class. The market structure requires owners to accumulate wealth. Corporate decision-making gives them full authority over their property.
Secondly, because of small private owners, high need for control led to the creation of the coordinator class. The corporate division of labor is defined as a coordinator class of empowered capitalists to manage work and have access to making everyday decisions. Due to the need for legitimation, that monopolizes class and education.
Thirdly, all these features of the capitalist economy leaving most of the population with little or no power - it dutifully to work dullness and boring jobs.
These features of the capitalist system vary depending on the "Agreements" between the three classes. But on the whole capitalist economic institutions are the same.
What is the role of education?
If the economy is composed of 2% managing, administering approximately 18-20% and 80% are governed, it has each year to train new people to occupy the liberated areas. They must be prepared to fulfill its function, to take responsibility for their actions and not be distracted. This applies to those who govern, those who will have power, but weaker than the government (so-called coordinator class), and for those who will obey.
Appropriate word for this is "channeling". Each new generation is drawn to approaching his destination. Education system takes care of the population. For 80% it decreases to zero turbulent events, their confidence is destroyed, the knowledge to maintain a minimum and within narrow limits, and basic skills that are developed are to obey and to provide the next generation of workers. The remaining 20% ​​learn to have a voice, to have confidence to be careerists have different abilities to think ahead and so ends elite universities like Harvard and Oxford, where they learn how to behave at dinner other people from other decent elite of high society niceties.
The meaning is clear. If society requires people to have three different models of hopes, expectations and opportunities, the educational system will divide the population and will provide exactly these differences. Thus any attempt to discuss education from the perspective that each person has to increase their potential and pursue their interests will be either rhetorical or limited by the assumption that most people have no serious or potential serious interest, or that will be against the needs of the economy.
Actually, what we see in today's educational system?
Is there an alternative? Always a social hierarchy determines the development of potential and aspirations of students? Only through collisions do students fail to gain back something? Only when they are persistent and well protected, and when periodic oversight weakens?
When the Board of Education "Carnegie" campaign launched in the U.S. to understand "what went wrong" in the 60s of last century, it was concluded that education is more. The population, according to the report of the committee expects to have too much publicity to have income too high, too large job opportunities too high respect and dignity, but before entering the economy, many members of society find their desires rejected and rebelled against it. The decision, according to the report of the committee is to reduce the tendency of educated people have higher expectations. It was necessary to "cut" education and "inferior" education be made more mechanical and routine, thus preserving the knowledge of those who are called to rule.
If we talk about the narrow view of education to educate other authors and readers may have different questions about the exact methodology, but I propose to assume wider objectives.
Pupils should be helped to discover their capabilities and potential to explore, develop those willing, until gradually become confident and able to think, think, argue and evaluate as equal members of society. Despite the wording, one thing is sure - to make this educational system is necessary to have adults who are achieving it.
No need to pay slave
To be fully in accordance with fruitful pedagogy from the perspective of students, the economy should encourage each participant to use its full capacity. What economy in place of capitalism could do this?
The alternative I propose, called participatory economics, or Parecon briefly (Participatory Economics). Generally, Parecon seeks to achieve four key values ​​(except for meeting the needs and development potential), using the four identified institutional obligations. The values ​​are solidarity, diversity, justice and government. The institutions are workers and consumers councils who make decisions on the principle of self-created rules and methods for balancing job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifices made for long-term planning through the involvement of all. In Parecon training must be compatible with social institutions. Actually, this is true for every society. But Parecon - assuming that the other spheres of life are simple and fair, - the society will need to be as much as possible more creative, more productive and to participate in it as full citizens.
Participatory Economics is inclusive economy, economic diversity, economic justice, economic self-management. This is a classless economy. That's why the education system in Parecon will generate solidarity, diversity, justice and government - including the rich and varied learning opportunities and creative work.
There are two possible reasons to talk about capitalism preferential pedagogy. On the one hand it is pedagogy that supports hierarchy in society. In this case, it serves more to control than education. If serving the education, it would not interfere with the hierarchy and, accordingly, the results would be contrary to the market, private property, compensation for property, power and corporate divisions of labor.
If we want better education and better health care, arts, sports, production, consumption will have to build a new economy and it must be participatory economy.
In Parecon good education is not something you acquire and then have to defend or lose because it is contrary to public institutions. Good education is part of the social logic.
Will you Parecon educational institutions? Rather - not unimportant fact that these structures will be self-governing, with participatory planning, balanced job complexes, etc.
I could not talk about specific teaching and prefer to dwell on this point. Presented a broad perspective on the economic context of education and I'm sure this will be implemented in the future.
Capitalism destroys the desire for better education, while Parecon ratified it. •
Michael Albert
Translation: Martha