schooling is a synonym for education. this is a distinction that's coming out of nowhere to make this take seem less stupid.
you take a group of children doing perfect intersectional communist education and put them under the same roof its a fucking school. and people are allowed to argue against de-centralised homeschooling, it's not reactionary to want professionals to handle education.
Professionalized education fosters a division of labor, since it requires professional (at least) teachers, if not also custodians, counselors, cops, disciplinarians, principles, curriculum directors, etc.
Communists are opposed to this, of course. Not just Marx with his famous quote
in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
Similarly, Stalin wanted to give every soviet citizen a multi-trade technical education allowing them to move between jobs freely.
On the anarchists' side, Perlman argued against the professionalization of life,
A time-and-motion engineer watching a bear near a berry patch would not know when to punch his clock. Does the bear start working when he walks to the berry patch, when he picks the berry, when he opens his jaws? If the engineer has half a brain he might say the bear makes no distinction between work and play. If the engineer has an imagination he might say that the bear experiences joy from the moment the berries turn deep red, and that none of the bear’s motions are work.
So a communist school would not have teachers. People in the community would learn pedagogical strategies as they were interested. Pupils would study as apprentices, students, and book club members as they wanted or as the need arose. As communists, we cannot just hope this will happen, instead we need to oppose professionalism and build non-commodified institutions.
Even in a communist society there will be specialisation. There is no such thing as unskilled labour and everything from baking a loaf of bread or laying bricks to brain surgery takes training and experience to be done well. The thing about fishing in the afternoon and being an art critic after dinner doesn't mean that everyone will be capable of doing everything, it means that the individual will be free to develop their skills according to their talents and interests without being forced into a rigid system where you are locked into a discrete career path from an early age where some paths available to only the select few brings wealth and social status and others brings nothing but toil.
Teaching is a skill that you have to learn to do well. In a communist society there would still be people who spend more time teaching and studying didactics, developmental psychology, pedagogical methods etc. than most other people. You could call them teachers although they would also do other types of work to the benefit of society.
I think we mostly agree. I was arguing against people only being teachers, and being paid to be teachers, as opposed to being given the resources to exist and thrive no matter what. In universities, people are often researchers and teachers, or accountants and teachers, or lawyers and teachers. This is one way you could do that. Socializing people into social roles through other institutions like apprenticeship, or in the family (as rich people and many tradesmen already do) is another.
So my objection isn't to "being locked into a discrete career path from an early age," but simply being locked into a career path. I believe that would have downstream effects such as the dissolution of boundaries between roles like teacher, parent, tradesman, or scientist
schooling is a synonym for education. this is a distinction that's coming out of nowhere to make this take seem less stupid.
you take a group of children doing perfect intersectional communist education and put them under the same roof its a fucking school. and people are allowed to argue against de-centralised homeschooling, it's not reactionary to want professionals to handle education.
Professionalized education fosters a division of labor, since it requires professional (at least) teachers, if not also custodians, counselors, cops, disciplinarians, principles, curriculum directors, etc.
Communists are opposed to this, of course. Not just Marx with his famous quote
Similarly, Stalin wanted to give every soviet citizen a multi-trade technical education allowing them to move between jobs freely.
On the anarchists' side, Perlman argued against the professionalization of life,
So a communist school would not have teachers. People in the community would learn pedagogical strategies as they were interested. Pupils would study as apprentices, students, and book club members as they wanted or as the need arose. As communists, we cannot just hope this will happen, instead we need to oppose professionalism and build non-commodified institutions.
Even in a communist society there will be specialisation. There is no such thing as unskilled labour and everything from baking a loaf of bread or laying bricks to brain surgery takes training and experience to be done well. The thing about fishing in the afternoon and being an art critic after dinner doesn't mean that everyone will be capable of doing everything, it means that the individual will be free to develop their skills according to their talents and interests without being forced into a rigid system where you are locked into a discrete career path from an early age where some paths available to only the select few brings wealth and social status and others brings nothing but toil.
Teaching is a skill that you have to learn to do well. In a communist society there would still be people who spend more time teaching and studying didactics, developmental psychology, pedagogical methods etc. than most other people. You could call them teachers although they would also do other types of work to the benefit of society.
I think we mostly agree. I was arguing against people only being teachers, and being paid to be teachers, as opposed to being given the resources to exist and thrive no matter what. In universities, people are often researchers and teachers, or accountants and teachers, or lawyers and teachers. This is one way you could do that. Socializing people into social roles through other institutions like apprenticeship, or in the family (as rich people and many tradesmen already do) is another.
So my objection isn't to "being locked into a discrete career path from an early age," but simply being locked into a career path. I believe that would have downstream effects such as the dissolution of boundaries between roles like teacher, parent, tradesman, or scientist