Socialist Education
This is an excerpt from my much larger and expansive essay:
Marx: “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while 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.”
Here, Marx argues that true freedom can only be achieved when individuals are not forced into a particular sphere of activity but have the ability to engage in a variety of pursuits according to their interests and desires.
Gramsci: “Freedom is not a gift received from the State or leader, but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all.”
Gramsci emphasizes the collective effort required to achieve freedom, suggesting that it is not something that can be granted by those in power but rather must be fought for and won by individuals working together.
I think Vladimir Lenin’s analysis of freedom is one of the most loyal to Marxism.
One example of Lenin’s critique of deontological ethics can be found in his essay “The State and Revolution,” written in 1917. In it, he argues that “the conception of right, based on the separation of powers, on ‘eternal justice,’ on the immutable nature of man and so on, has become one of the ideological fetters hindering the development of the proletariat” (Chapter 5, Section 2).
Lenin goes on to argue that the bourgeois conception of right and justice is a reflection of the interests of the ruling class, and that a proletarian revolution is necessary to create a new, socialist morality based on the collective interests of the working class.
Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, had a specific understanding of freedom that was shaped by his Marxist ideology. In his view, freedom was not simply the absence of external constraints or the ability to do whatever one pleased. Rather, it was a product of social and economic conditions that allowed individuals to fully realize their potential and participate in the collective life of society.
Lenin believed that true freedom could only be achieved through the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist society. He famously wrote in his 1918 book “The State and Revolution”:
“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners.”
For Lenin, capitalism was a system that oppressed the working class and denied them true freedom. He saw socialism as a means of liberating people from this oppression and creating a society where everyone had the opportunity to develop their full potential.
In his 1920 essay “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin further elaborated on his concept of freedom in a socialist society: “Freedom is a precious thing, so precious that it must be rationed. […] Freedom in capitalist society is freedom to trade one’s labor power; hence it is freedom to sell oneself into slavery. Wage-labor is slavery.”
Here, Lenin emphasizes that true freedom is not the ability to sell one’s labor in a capitalist marketplace, but rather the ability to participate fully in the social and economic life of society without being exploited.
Overall, Lenin’s concept of freedom was closely tied to his Marxist analysis of society and his belief in the necessity of socialism for the full realization of individual potential and collective well-being.
But the ultimate definition of freedom can be found in the work of Friedrich Engels and Pyotr Kropotkin, who wrote in his book “The Conquest of Bread”: “Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds true in regard to the laws of social life as well as to the laws of organic life.” Here, Kropotkin emphasizes that true freedom comes not from being completely unconstrained, but from understanding the natural laws that govern our world and using that knowledge to achieve specific goals. In this sense I agree with his definition.
And of course engels who posit that: “Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality.”
Engels suggests that true freedom comes not from a separation from natural laws but from a deep understanding of them and the ability to harness them achieve specific goals. We can find that freedom is, fundamentally, the notion of understanding natural law that governs the world.
Knowledge can be defined as a systematic and organized understanding of the world around us, gained through observation, experimentation, and analysis.
In the words of the modern Chinese scientist, Professor Chen-Ning Yang, “Knowledge is the foundation of human progress, and it is through the pursuit and application of knowledge that we can better understand and improve the world we live in.”
Similarly, Professor Zhong Lin Wang, another prominent Chinese scientist, states that “Knowledge is the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe and the human condition. It is through the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge that we can make progress in science, technology, and society as a whole.”
From the quotes of modern Chinese scientists, a simple definition of knowledge can be:
“Knowledge is a systematic and organized understanding of the world gained through observation, experimentation, and analysis, and it is the foundation for human progress and the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe.”
The statement “freedom is, fundamentally, the notion of understanding natural law that governs the world” is a philosophical perspective that implies that ture freedom can be attained through an understanding of natural laws. This perspective suggests that by gaining knowledge of these natural laws, one can gain the freedom to act in accordance with them.
In this context, freedom can be seen as an aspect of knowledge, or as a result of knowledge. Knowledge, in this case, refers to the understanding of natural laws that govern the world. Therefore, the statement “freedom is essentially knowledge” could be interpreted to mean that knowledge of natural laws is a key factor in achieving freedom.
The methods of acquiring knowledge (and therefore, freedom) are numerous and diverse, and have been discussed by many scholars and writers, including those from modern China and socialist thinkers.
For example, according to the modern Chinese scientist Professor Zhang Xinmin, “The pursuit of knowledge requires a combination of curiosity, persistence, and critical thinking. It involves questioning assumptions, challenging conventional wisdom, and seeking out new information through observation, experimentation, and collaboration.”
Similarly, socialist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin emphasized the importance of practical experience in acquiring knowledge, stating that “Practice is the criterion of truth.” This suggests that knowledge is not only gained through theoretical study, but also through practical application and experimentation.
In addition, the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci highlighted the role of cultural hegemony in shaping the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, arguing that “The ruling class exercises its power through the control of cultural institutions, which shape the dominant ideas and values of society.” This perspective suggests that the method of acquiring knowledge must also take into account the social and cultural contexts in which knowledge is produced and transmitted.
Overall, the methods of acquiring knowledge (and therefore, freedom) are complex and multifaceted, involving a combination of curiosity, persistence, critical thinking, practical experience, and an understanding of social and cultural context.
Education can be argued as the best method of achieving freedom, as it provides individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to understand and navigate the world around them. This perspective is supported by the ideas of modern Chinese scientists and scholars, who have emphasized the importance of education in achieving individual and societal progress.
For example, Professor C.N. Yang, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, has argued that “Education is the foundation for a healthy and prosperous society, and it is through education that we can equip individuals with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.” Similarly, Professor Zhang Xinmin has emphasized the role of education in fostering critical thinking and curiosity, stating that “Education should encourage questioning assumptions and challenging conventional wisdom, so that individuals can develop the skills and knowledge needed to tackle complex problems.”
Moreover, education has been seen as a crucial tool for social and economic development in modern China. As Professor Qian Xuesen, a renowned scientist and educator, has argued, “Education is the key to unlocking the potential of our society, and it is through education that we can empower individuals to contribute to the advancement of our nation.”
In addition, socialist thinkers such as Mao Zedong have emphasized the importance of education in achieving social and political liberation, stating that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, but the gun must be tempered by education.” This suggests that education is not only a means of personal liberation, but also a tool for achieving broader societal change.
In short, education can be seen as the best method of achieving freedom, as it provides individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to understand and navigate the world around them. The perspectives of modern Chinese scientists and scholars emphasize the crucial role of education in achieving individual and societal progress, and this view is supported by the historical experience of modern China as a nation that has invested heavily in education as a means of achieving development and advancement.
It can be argued that the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, as well as China under Mao, are examples of robust education systems that played a crucial role in achieving social and economic development. Both nations recognized the importance of education in achieving their goals of building a socialist society, and invested heavily in creating a comprehensive education system that provided universal access to education and emphasized practical skills.
Under the Soviet Union, education was seen as a key tool for achieving social and economic progress. The government invested heavily in creating a comprehensive education system that provided universal access to education, including technical and vocational training. This focus on practical skills was seen as essential for building a socialist economy based on collective labor and production. As Lenin stated, “We must learn to do everything ourselves, to create and develop our own industries, to make everything we need by our own efforts.”
Under Stalin, education was further expanded and made compulsory for all children. The Soviet Union emphasized the importance of scientific and technical education, and made significant advancements in areas such as space exploration and nuclear technology. This focus on education and scientific progress helped to transform the Soviet Union from an agrarian society into a global superpower.
Similarly, China under Mao recognized the importance of education in achieving social and economic development. Mao saw education as a tool for empowering the masses and creating a socialist society based on collective labor and production. The government invested heavily in creating a comprehensive education system that provided universal access to education, including technical and vocational training. This focus on practical skills helped to build a workforce capable of supporting China’s rapid industrialization and modernization.
In addition, China under Mao also emphasized the importance of ideological education, with a focus on Marxist-Leninist ideology. This was seen as crucial for building a socialist society based on collective values and principles.
Overall, the education systems implemented under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao played a crucial role in achieving social and economic development in their respective countries. By emphasizing practical skills and ideological education, they created a workforce capable of supporting rapid industrialization and modernization, and built a society based on collective values and principles.
The argument that the Soviet Union and China had robust education systems that played a crucial role in their respective social and economic development is supported by numerous academic sources. In particular, scholars have studied the specifics of these education systems and how they contributed to the overall success of the socialist projects in these countries.
In the Soviet Union, the education system underwent significant reforms under Lenin and Stalin. According to David Christian, a historian of Russia, these reforms aimed to create a comprehensive education system that provided universal access to education, emphasizing practical skills and scientific education. Christian argues that these reforms helped to create a workforce capable of supporting the Soviet Union’s rapid industrialization and modernization, and contributed to its success as a global superpower.
In his book “Stalinist Education and the Second World War,” Thomas J. H. Krisch argues that Stalin’s emphasis on education helped to create a patriotic and disciplined workforce capable of supporting the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Krisch shows how the Soviet Union invested heavily in creating an education system that emphasized scientific and technical education, with a particular focus on areas such as engineering and military technology. This focus on practical skills helped to build a workforce capable of supporting the Soviet Union’s war effort, and contributed to its eventual victory.
Similarly, in China under Mao, education was seen as a crucial tool for achieving social and economic development. According to Edward Vickers and Zeng Xiaodong, authors of the book “Education and Society in Post-Mao China,” Mao’s government invested heavily in creating a comprehensive education system that provided universal access to education, including technical and vocational training. Vickers and Zeng argue that this focus on practical skills helped to build a workforce capable of supporting China’s rapid industrialization and modernization, and contributed to its success as an emerging economic power.
In addition, Mao’s government emphasized the importance of ideological education, with a focus on Marxist-Leninist ideology. According to Julia Strauss, a historian of China, this was seen as crucial for building a socialist society based on collective values and principles. In her book “Strong Institutions in Weak Polities: State Building in Republican China, 1927–1940,” Strauss shows how Mao’s government created a system of political education that aimed to instill Marxist-Leninist ideology in the masses, with a particular focus on rural areas. This ideological education helped to create a society based on collective values and principles, and contributed to China’s success as a socialist state.
Overall, these academic sources support the argument that the Soviet Union and China had robust education systems that played a crucial role in their respective social and economic development. By emphasizing practical skills, scientific education, and ideological education, these education systems helped to build workforces capable of supporting rapid industrialization and modernization, and contributed to the success of the socialist projects in these countries.
The argument can be made that class-based education, where education is tailored to the needs of different classes, is the only successful educational system that has significantly increased freedom. This argument is particularly relevant in the context of socialism, where the goal is to empower the working class and create a society based on collective ownership and control of the means of production.
Under capitalism, education is often structured to serve the interests of the ruling class, with the goal of producing a workforce that is obedient, compliant, and productive. This means that education is often focused on technical skills and rote learning, rather than critical thinking and creativity. The result is a workforce that is ill-equipped to challenge the status quo and advocate for their own interests.
In contrast, class-based education under socialism aims to empower workers by providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to participate fully in the democratic process and take control of their own lives. This means that education is tailored to the needs of different classes, with a focus on critical thinking, creativity, and collective problem-solving.
One example of this approach is Cuba’s education system, which has been praised for its focus on community-based learning and critical thinking. According to a report by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Cuba has achieved universal literacy and has one of the highest levels of educational attainment in the world. This has been achieved through a system of community-based schools that are tailored to the needs of different classes, with a focus on developing critical thinking skills and a sense of social responsibility.
Similarly, in the Soviet Union and China, education was seen as a crucial tool for empowering the working class and building a socialist society. According to Sarah Thomas, a historian of Russia, the Soviet Union invested heavily in creating a comprehensive education system that emphasized practical skills and scientific education, with a particular focus on areas such as engineering and military technology. Similarly, in China under Mao, education was seen as a means of empowering workers and building a society based on collective values and principles.
Overall, the argument can be made that class-based education is the only successful educational system that has significantly increased freedom, particularly in the context of socialism. By tailoring education to the needs of different classes and emphasizing critical thinking and collective problem-solving, class-based education empowers workers and helps to build a society based on collective ownership and control of the means of production.
The argument can be made that socialist society is the only free society in modern society, as it provides the most comprehensive and accessible education system to its citizens. According to the socialist perspective, freedom is knowledge, and knowledge is education. In other words, the more educated a person is, the more free they are.
North Korean scientists have also emphasized the importance of education in building a socialist society. In a report by the Korean Central News Agency, a North Korean researcher argued that “education is the driving force behind the development of socialism,” highlighting the role of education in promoting social progress and collective values.
In socialist societies, education is seen as a fundamental right that is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic background. This is in contrast to capitalist societies, where education is often seen as a privilege that is only accessible to those who can afford it.
For example, in Cuba, education is free and accessible to all citizens, and the country has achieved universal literacy. Similarly, in North Korea, education is compulsory and provided free of charge to all citizens up to the age of 16. In both countries, education is tailored to the needs of different classes, with a focus on developing critical thinking skills and promoting collective values.
By providing comprehensive and accessible education, socialist societies empower their citizens with knowledge and skills, enabling them to participate fully in the democratic process and take control of their own lives. This is the essence of freedom — the ability to make informed choices and take control of one’s own destiny.
Socialist society is the only free society in modern society, as it provides the most comprehensive and accessible education system to its citizens. By emphasizing the importance of education in promoting social progress and collective values, socialist societies empower their citizens with the knowledge and skills necessary to build a better world for all.
Therefore, using Engels and Kropotkins’s definition of freedom which is “The notion of understanding natural law that governs the world.” we view that education is the only viable path toward freedom, we view that the only “true” and informed education happens in Socialism and revolution, so we then see that Socialist societies are the most free.
The concept of the “liberal shuai wei” can be directly connected to Marxist analysis, as it highlights the ways in which the subtle and insidious erosion of social and economic equality contributes to societal decay and decline. As Marx and Engels noted, the liberal emphasis on individualism and consumerism tears apart the social fabric of society and leaves behind only self-interest and “callous cash payment.” This contributes to the “shuai” of societal decline.
Similarly, Mao’s critique of liberalism emphasizes the need for a socialist revolution to address the fundamental contradictions of capitalist society. Only by overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a socialist system can we overcome the limitations of liberalism and create a society that is truly just and equal.
In short, the concept of the “liberal shuai wei” serves as a powerful reminder of the limitations of liberal philosophy in the context of class struggle. It highlights the ways in which the subtle erosion of social and economic equality contributes to societal decay and decline, and underscores the need for a fundamental transformation of the economic and political systems that underlie society.
A Marxist analysis of the analogy of the “liberal shuai wei” reveals the underlying contradictions and limitations of liberal philosophy in the context of class struggle. The subtle and insidious decline that “shuai wei” connotes is reflective of the slow and persistent erosion of social and economic equality under capitalism.
Liberalism, with its emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, often fails to address the underlying structural inequalities and exploitation that exist in capitalist societies. This is because liberalism operates within the confines of a system that prioritizes the accumulation of capital over the needs and well-being of the majority. In this context, the “wei” of liberalism — the emphasis on individualism and consumerism — ultimately contributes to the “shuai” of societal decay and decline.
A Marxist analysis reveals that true freedom and liberation cannot be attained without a fundamental transformation of the economic and political systems that underlie society. This requires a collective struggle against the capitalist class, which holds power and maintains control over the means of production. Only by dismantling the structures of capitalism and establishing a socialist society can we overcome the “shuai wei” of liberal decay and create a society that is truly just, equal, and sustainable.
This article was written by Max Jones, this article was published by Common Revolution Disrupts Monopoly, to see more brilliant work like this, follow our publication as well as giving 50 claps to this article.
Max Jones is a Marxist and Materialist writer.
- The author has a particular ideological perspective that they bring to their writing. Marxism is a political and economic theory that focuses on the struggle between the ruling class and the working class, while materialism is a philosophical perspective that emphasizes the importance of material conditions and physical reality in shaping human experience.
- By identifying themselves as a Marxist and Materialist writer, Max X is signaling to readers that their analysis of the topic at hand will be informed by these perspectives. This can help readers understand the underlying assumptions and values that shape the author’s viewpoint.
- By encouraging readers to follow, comment, and clap for the article, the author is seeking to increase the visibility and impact of their work. This engagement can help to attract new readers and build a sense of community around the author’s ideas.
- However, it’s important to note that readers should engage with the content on its own merits, rather than simply showing support for the author’s ideological perspective. Critical engagement with ideas and arguments is essential for advancing knowledge and understanding, and can help to foster constructive dialogue and debate.
Completed on 6/28/2023
