economic basis of education - the people evolution of education. ... education in primitive society....

ECONOMICBASIS ofEDUCATIONBy AARON M. ORANGE

Published Online bySocialist Labor Party of America

www.slp.org

November 2007

Economic Basis of EducationBy Aaron M. Orange

PUBLISHING HISTORY

PRINTED EDITION ..................................................... February 1932

SECOND (REVISED)PRINTED EDITION ....... February 1942

THIRD PRINTED EDITION ........................................ August 1944

ONLINE EDITION ...................................................... November 2007

NEW YORK LABOR NEWS

P.O. BOX 218

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94042-0218

http://www.slp.org/nyln.htm

Socialist Labor Party 3 www.slp.org

I.

The Marxian Conception of Education.

“From the Factory System budded . . . the germ of theeducation of the future, an education that will, in thecase of every child over a given age, combine productivelabor with instruction and gymnastics1 not only as oneof the methods of adding to the efficiency of production,but as the only method of producing fully developedhuman beings.”2 (Italics ours.)

With this observation, Karl Marx, the founder ofscientific economy, framed what we may designate asthe Marxian conception of education. Along with similarobservations, Marx, in merely touching upon theeducation clause of the Factory Act of 1864 in England,set down squarely the fundamental propositionunderlying a scientific view of education. The viewexpressed by Marx that education is combined with, andintegrally related to, productive labor follows from hisprevious conclusion in Socialist science: viz., institutionsof society are reflections of the productive process; theimmense superstructure of society finds its roots in thematerio-economic conditions of life. “The economicstructure of society,” Marx observed in this connection,“ is the real basis on which the juridical and politicalsuperstructure is raised, and to which definite socialforms of thought correspond: in short, the mode ofproduction determines the character of the social,political, and intellectual life generally.”3 He went on to

1 Gymnastics, relating to disciplinary physical or mental exercises.2 Capital, p. 489, Swan Sonnenschein edition.3 [Ibid., page 54, footnote.—Editor]

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


point out that with a change in the prevailing mode ofproduction and, consequently, of the economicfoundation of society, the entire character of thatimmense superstructure must eventually change toconform with it.

Guided by the light of this concept of historicalmaterialism, the way is clear for an inquiry into thehistorical evolution of education. Let us bear in mindthat we must first examine the productive process of aperiod—the way in which the means of life wereprocured—and that, by so doing, we shall have a key tothe education of the period.

The materialist conception of history, likefundamental laws in the domain of the biologicalsciences, although not formulated until man reached acomparatively high stage in his development,nevertheless, always manifested its existence in itseffects. The same reasoning holds in other domains. Theworld was most certainly round before Columbus provedit to be so. The laws of gravitation were “ in effect” beforeNewton framed them. So with Darwin’s theory ofbiological evolution. Its effects were manifest throughouthuman development. Its corollaries and kindred laws,too, were “ in force” as processes of adjustment andadaptation in the earliest forms of life to be found on thisplanet. Plant and animal organisms had to adjustthemselves to their immediate surroundings in order tosurvive in the struggle for existence. The “penalty” fornot doing so was extinction. In this process ofadjustment and adaptation, permanent changes wouldnaturally come about in the structures of theseorganisms. This accounts for the innumerable species inboth the plant and animal kingdoms. With the evolution

THE ECONOMI C BASI S OF EDUCATI ON


of man we see a similar process of adjustment andadaptation. Throughout the evolutionary climb of man,he had to adjust himself to his environment in an effortto maintain himself. Permanent modifications in hisstructure came about as a result of this adjustmentprocess. In other words, our hands, our fingers, our feet,our nose, our breathing apparatus, etc., developed asreactions to our environmental surroundings. Thesechanges in structure brought with them new ways ofbehaving. These new ways of behaving brought onfurther changes in structure in a process that finallyevolved MAN. We may justly say, then, that man’svarious organs developed in response to the need forprocuring the material necessities of life. Structurally,man has changed very little, if at all, since hisemergence from the animal stage. At that time, mantook to using TOOLS. Then it was the changes that tookplace in his TOOLS—the changes in his tools ofproduction—that caused new ways of behaving. KarlMarx pointed to these changes in the tools of productionas the propelling force in social evolution, in hismaterialist conception of history.

The acquisition of new ways of behaving is thelearning process (a concept of relatively recentformulation, yet as old as man himself). Activityassociated with the use of the tools of wealth-productionand the experience gained therefrom constituteseducation, or, as Marx phrased it, education is thecombining of “productive labor with instruction andgymnastics.” Briefly, then, EDUCATION may be definedas LIFE ITSELF.


II.

Education in Primitive Society.

Let us, at this point, sketch the evolution of thehuman race, through savagery, barbarism andcivilization. Let us note that the propelling force in thisevolution is the change in the mode of production. Let usnote further the increase in cultural and intellectualattainments as the human race develops. And, lastly, letus note that the observation of Marx, that education isthe combining of productive labor with instruction andgymnastics, is evident at all stages of this evolutionaryprocess. When the element of productive labor wasremoved from this combination—as it was at a certainstage—educational disintegration set in.

In broad outline, we may set down as steps in thedevelopment of the economic formation of society, (1)Primitive Society, (2) Ancient Society, (3) Feudal Societyand (4) Modern Capitalist Society. Each of these systemsof society has developed as a result of the particularmode of production then prevailing. By examining these,we examine the LIFE and, consequently, theEDUCATION of the time.

Primitive Society existed from the infancy of thehuman race through Savagery and Barbarism, up toCivilization. In the lowest stage of Savagery, humanbeings dwelt in their original habitation in tropicalforests. Living in trees (in order to survive the attacks ofwild beasts), they subsisted upon fruits, nuts and roots.The young were “educated” by being shown how toobtain sustenance. Those who learned their lessons wellsurvived; others were eliminated by the “bettereducated.” In the Middle Stage of Savagery, where fish



became the new kind of food, and fire was introduced,children were shown how to obtain and use these “goodthings in life.” With the invention of the club and spear,and the addition of venison to their food supply, theyoung were shown how to wield these weapons andobtain venison. That was their education. In the UpperStatus of Savagery, with the invention of the bow andarrow and other implements, and with huntingbecoming a regular occupation, we find institutionsdeveloping corresponding with the particular mode ofprocuring a livelihood. Education, too, reflected theproductive process, and was combined with it.

This “method of education” was a “telling” and a“showing how” method. Children were told and shownhow to capture food, make shelter, make tools, escapefrom enemies, etc., etc.; they were told how to participatein the productive process. The children wanted to knowhow to fish and hunt, because that enabled them to fitinto the life in which they found themselves. The“pupils” made immediate use of the knowledge whichthey learned from their elders. Learning and applicationwere one. Education, then, was a factor in survival, theacquiring of necessary ways of behaving—LIFE itself.

Marx framed his view of education of the future as aprocess which would “combine productive labor withinstruction and gymnastics, not only as one of themethods of adding to the efficiency of production, but asthe only method of producing fully developed humanbeings.” We begin to see the significance of thisstatement by our examination of the productive processin Savagery and the education of the period. The processof adjustment to the tribe constituted education.Children learned to “get a living” and protect

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


themselves without knowing they were being educated,and without their teachers knowing they were educatingthem. Learning was a natural process—LIFE itself.

Productive Labor Combined With Instruction.

We have confirmation of the above in savage tribesthat exist in various parts of the world today. Dr.Margaret Mead, of the American Museum of NaturalHistory, who spent six months on the island of theManus, a South Sea savage community, studyingprimitive education, writes in an article, “SavageMasters of the Sea” :

“In a village of lagoon dwellers, people who raisedtheir thatched houses on piles in a water village half amile from shore, I watched the parents of the Manustribe train their small children to meet . . . the continualchallenge of their precarious water existence . . .managing canoes, hoisting sails, carrying great waterpots. . . . Children of three are perfectly at home amidthe perils of their water world. They can swim as well asthey walk; they can climb up and down the slipperyhouse-piles; . . . [etc.; etc.] The Manus are a busy people,ever up and about their fishing, their trading, theircanoe building or voyaging; but they are never too busyto spare the time to properly train their smallchildren. . . . ”4

Dr. Mead has brought back many photographsshowing the children of the Manus being trained toswim, handle canoes, climb slippery house-piles, etc.Without realizing it, these children of the Manus werebeing educated in the ways of life, in the prevailing mode

4 Safety Education, May 1931, page 228.



of production. Without realizing that they wereeducating their young, the elder Manus were doing so bycombining productive labor with instruction.

We find ourselves, now, on the threshold ofBarbarism. In the early and middle periods, with theintroduction of pottery, the taming and raising ofanimals, the use of metals, the cultivation of plants,etc.—with the further development of the productiveprocess-education developed correspondingly.

Another aspect to the education of these primitivesbegan to manifest itself. We shall call it the“intellectual” and “scientific” aspect. This consisted ofthe passing-on of legends, folk-tales, tribal ceremonies,law, religion, etc. This form of primitive schooling wasthe means of passing on the cultural accumulations ofthe tribe. After the daily activities were over, membersof the tribe would sit about and exchange interestingexperiences of the day. If they had none, they wouldrelate the experience of others, sometimes of ancestors.A good story would bear repetition many times. Acombination and multiplication of these became history.In the same way, literature developed. A great deal ofknowledge was acquired through curiosity concerningthe material world—sun, moon, storms, seasons—and allthings which change. Curiosity prompted questions.What? Why? Answers were given. Science developed.Whenever these primitives saw causes, or could think ofnatural probable causes, they accepted them. If theycould not find natural causes, they assigned spiritualones. In this animistic system of thought is found theorigin of religion. All this was part of the educationalprocess of primitives. All this was based squarely on the

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


prevailing methods of production, on the prevailing waysof life.

Decay of Gentile Society and Rise of Political State.

It is necessary for a better comprehension of theevolution of education that we examine further thegeneral economic conditions that were at the roots ofgentile society; that gradually undermined it in theUpper Stage of Barbarism, and finally caused itsoverthrow, with the establishment of political society.

In the Early and Middle Stages of Barbarism,whatever was produced and used collectively wasconsidered the common property of the group. Work wasdivided between the two sexes. The men hunted, fishedand warred; the women attended to the duties of thehousehold. Tribes that took up the domestication ofanimals gradually began to produce various productssuch as milk, meat, skins, furs, wool, woven goods, etc.This provided an extension of the exchange of theseproducts from local to inter-tribal exchange. Exchange inthis way became a communal or, what we today wouldcall a social, institution.

Other tribes of this period devoted themselves tohorticulture. Cultivation of the land caused a permanentsettling down because of an assured food supply.Property and territory became basic elements in society,and gradually ownership of this property and territorywas transferred, from the tribe, to the gens, to thehouseholds, and finally to individuals. In other words,lands held in common in gentile society became privateproperty in political society.

Weaving and the use of some metals (iron was not yet



known) provided the industrial activities at this stage ofgentile society.

All products—stock, horticultural and handicrafts—were being produced in larger quantities. More wasproduced than was needed. Exchange of products wasassuming larger and larger proportions. More labor wasneeded to keep up with the constantly increasingdemand for goods. Slaves—captives of war—filled thisneed. And let us note, at this point, that, with theintroduction of a slave class, society became divided intotwo classes: exploiters and exploited. This division ofsocial labor was extremely significant in its effects uponthe education of the period. We shall soon see.

Gentilism—the social organization generated inprimitive society—was passing through a period ofdecay. The materio-economic basis of society was beingrevolutionized. A new social organism was beinggenerated within the womb of gentile society—thePolitical State.

The growth of this new social organism receivedimpetus during the Upper Stage of Barbarism. The useof iron brought about large-scale agriculture.Handicraftsmen were provided with better tools.Progress became the order of the day. The towndeveloped, private wealth increased rapidly, agricultureand handicrafts improved their methods in production,private property became the common form, themonogamous family evolved, the Political State wastaking form.

With property and territory forming the basis of a newsocial system, we find a new, and, up to this time, anunknown element arising in society. With the individualor private ownership of property and territory becoming

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


common, an exclusive element, that of aristocracy, or aruling class, arose in society—something entirely foreignto gentile society. With this arose a new struggle inhuman existence—the class struggle—a strugglebetween the owners and the producers of wealth,between the aristocracy and the slave class.


III.

Education in Ancient Society Divorced fromProductive Process.

Now, what happened to education? How did this far-reaching economic transformation of society affect theeducation of the period? The changed mode of productiondeveloped a new social form. We should see a newlydeveloped education process. What was it?

Up to the time of the introduction of a slave class, theeducation process was the productive process. Withvastly improved tools of production, a portion of thehuman race could afford to call a halt to self-enslavement; but only at the expense of an enslavedclass.

“Time is the room of human development”5 and thearistocracy demanded time at this point to expand alongartistic and scientific lines, to take part in public affairs,to participate in war, to develop itself physically, and tooccupy itself with “ leisure activities” in general. It couldmake this demand for leisure because a new producingclass—a slave class—was performing the greater part ofthe socially necessary manual labor.

We turn, now, to ancient Greece as a typical exampleof this second great step in the economic development ofsociety. All that has been said above concerning thedecay of gentile institutions, and the rise of the politicalState, applies to ancient Greece, to Greece of the heroicperiod.

Ancient Greece bequeathed to us philosophy, art,literature and the scientific spirit. These intellectual and

5 Karl Marx, Value, Price and Profit.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


scientific contributions were made possible because ofthe leisure time of a small number of people. Only thissmall portion of the populace—the aristocracy—couldtake part in what was then newly conceived as theeducation process. Slavery reduced all forms of manuallabor to a contemptible position (even though a largepart of the free, but soon-to-be-enslaved, citizenry wasengaged in manual occupations). This was reflected inthe education of the period. O n l y mental andrecreational activities were considered respectable.6

Productive labor was “dropped from the curriculum.”Education thus became separate and apart from

productive labor. School now became a place rather thana social relationship. The higher schools of ancientGreece became places for speeches, lectures anddiscussions. “Respectable” Greek youths were trained totake part in the practical duties of the newly exaltedpolitical State, in the civil and political affairs of the day.New educational institutions developed: The Assembly,in which the Greek youth listened to debates, speeches,etc.; the Theater, in which he saw some of the greatestdramas produced by the human mind; the OlympicGames, at which he saw the best that could be producedin athletics, art, oratory, drama, poetry, etc., etc. In theforegoing are seen the beginnings of developments thatfind their modern derivations in Schools of Medicine,Schools of Philosophy, Schools of Art, etc., etc.

The elementary education of the period was alsodivorced from productive labor. Attention was given to

6 It is interesting, in this connection, to point out that the dictionary

meaning of the Greek word for “school” is “spare time, leisure, rest,ease.” Its secondary meaning is “that in which leisure is employed.”



the training of the body, also to the training of the mind,with special emphasis on intellectual processes. Physicaltraining was given in the palestra, an open-airgymnasium; mental training was given in thedidascaleum, a music (cultural) school. Mental tediumwas relieved by alternating work between the palestraand the music school.

All this training was given to prepare the youth ofAncient Greece for participation in the affairs of State.That was the aim of the education of the day. In time,with further social development, with the gradualdissolution of Grecian society, education, too, began todecline. It no longer aimed to prepare for the practicalduties of political life.

Literature, oratory, composition, grammar—formerlystudied as means of fitting into political life—becameends in themselves. A desire for perfection of form,without reference to the real meaning and content ofthings, manifested itself. To the child, this formalismwas unattractive, unnatural. His interest naturallylagged. To revive it, corporal punishment wasintroduced. We want to stress this point. It is important.Up to the advent of civilization, education combinedsocially useful work (real, concrete, life situations) withinstruction, to produce fully developed human beings.With the new departure brought on by civilization,pupils were presented, not with life situations, but withabstract, formal and unreal situations. Corporalpunishment became necessary with this newdevelopment to assure constant “attention” and“application” of the child. Real, concrete, life situationsdid not demand this external and artificial force to holdthe child’s interest.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


In Roman society at the same stage of development, asimilar direction was taken in social, and hence ineducational, developments. The aim of Roman educationwas to produce a loyal Roman prepared for the practicalduties of Roman life. In its early stage, it was largely afamily education, in which the child was taught by hisparents. Later, the ludus, a primary school, was set up,in which children learned reading, writing and counting.After the conquest of Greece by the Romans, the Grecianeducational influence spread throughout Roman society.But, with the decline of Roman society, educationdeclined, and formalism set in.

The main line in educational evolution had beendiverted by the developments of civilization. We see acomplete withdrawal from the work, play and generalbusy-ness of life—the education of primitive society. Weshall soon see that this departure continued as the mainline in education in feudal and modern capitalist society.It is inherent in class-divided society and therefore isdestined to remain with it until class divisions arefinally scrapped—cast into the refuse can of history.

The civilization of Greece and Rome found itself in astate of disintegration. Exploitation of the working(slave) class became more intense. Despotism set in. Theproletariat of the period were being ground down underits iron heel. They were sinking deeper and deeper intohopeless poverty. Barbarian invasions gave impetus tothe general dissolution of the vast Roman Empire. Lifeon earth became unbearable. Relief from theseintolerable conditions was sought. A great vitalizingforce was needed.


IV.

Feudal Education Identified with Church.

The desperate social conditions at the close ofantiquity paved the way for the appearance of thisvitalizing force, CHRISTIANITY, a religion for theproletariat. Since life on earth was so unbearable,Christianity spread the doctrine that earthly existencewas merely a preparation for an after-life—for a life inanother, more pleasant world—in which rewards andpunishment were to be meted out according to one’sconduct on earth. Christianity, thus, brought hope andinspiration to the millions of slaves who had given up allhope under the empire. It was the poor and downtroddenin society who became adherents of the Christianreligion until it was turned into organized religion andembodied in the Church.

Thenceforth, and until recent times, education wasidentified with the Church. Pagan culture—theliterature, art, philosophy and religion of ancient Romeand Greece—was anathema. As the school was thestronghold of this pagan culture, it gradually becameregarded as an enemy to the Church. Educationapproved by the pagan—literature, art, science,philosophy, bodily training, etc.—was dropped; moraltraining and religious instruction—omitted by thepagan—were emphasized. Schools were organized by theChurch to spread the faith. Cathedral and monasticschools divided between them the field of educationduring the entire medieval period. The monasteriesbecame the publishing houses, the libraries, the centersof literary activity, and the schools, during the MiddleAges. Reading and writing (Latin)—essential to the

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


study of the sacred books—singing and reckoning werethe subjects taught. Here “the seven liberal arts” wereintroduced, first in bare rudimentary form, developingthroughout the Middle Ages.

Mention has been made of barbarian invasions. Theconquered territory of the empire was divided up bythese barbarian warriors. They, in time, becamemedieval knights. In the further course of time, theseknights developed into the medieval nobility. Thus, wesee that feudal society, in its infancy, developed threegreat “estates” : the serfs, the nobles and the clergy. Thenobles had their particular education with religiousleanings. The clergy had its education. The serfs werepractically neglected, except for certain religiousteachings, couched in obedience.

It is not the purpose of this treatise to go into toomuch detail concerning the history of educationthroughout this and subsequent periods. It should benoted, however, that education remained separate andapart from the productive process—with the producerseliminated from established cultural pursuits. Educationremained an artificial and life-less process. Formalismwas its basis.

It should also be noted that throughout this entireperiod, the wage-working class evolved. The productiveprocess in which the working class was, and is yet,engaged has built up an industrial machine that today isable to provide the good things of life for all inabundance. This process is in reality the “educational”force that has organized that same working class. Thisindustrial organization, built up by the working class,will prove to be the means of its emancipation from anenslavement of thousands of years. It will be the



working class, in performing its historical mission, thatwill prove itself to be the “educated” portion of society,in that it will be the only class in society able to bringorder and sense out of the existing chaos.

The thirteenth century was a period of remarkableprogress in human history. Christianity had spreadthroughout Western Europe. Trade and commerce werestimulated, cities grew. The Crusades accelerated thisgrowth. The educational movement, logically enough,took on a reform aspect. Nothing else was possible underthe then existing social conditions.

We shall try to cover, very briefly, some of theoutstanding reform movements in education from thattime onward.

Note that the Church preempted the field ofeducation. The order of gray friars, founded by St.Francis of Assisi (1212), and the order of black friars,founded by St. Dominic (1217), worked among themasses preaching the gospel and “awakeningspirituality” among the faithful. The Franciscan andDominican Orders were soon in control of theuniversities and higher education in general. Themasses, however, were denied education.

During the Renaissance, the tyrants of the citiesestablished court schools to train young nobles forpolitical and social life. One of the most characteristicwas that founded by the Prince of Mantua. Vittorino daFeltre, a scholar, was in control. The educational idealsof Greece and Rome provided the basis for his school.One innovation (reform) was the attempt to introducethe “ interest” of the pupils in their studies (where activeinterest was not possible) and eliminate the harshdiscipline prevalent in that day. As with other reform

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


movements, reaction and formalism soon gained control.The Brethren of the Common Life attempted to

combat the ignorance of the lower classes by establishingschools, based on the New Learning, throughoutnorthern Europe. They frowned upon the rigid andformal methods of the established schools. Their methodwas to spread the gospel. Erasmus, a product of theirschools, became a noted educator. He also attempted toreform the existing schools by introducing “ interest” asa motivating force in learning.

We must note the futility of these reform movements.Interest cannot be introduced artificially. It is onlythrough the introduction of socially useful work as thebasis of a curriculum that real interest can be aroused.During the fourteenth century, new economic forcessprang into life, which did for a time vitally affecteducation. With the increase of commerce and trading,and the growth of science, inventions, discoveries, etc., aburgher class arose composed of merchants and guildmasters. This class was distinct from the nobles, clergyand serfs. They were, in fact, the germ of the moderncapitalist class. Their education provided elementaryinstruction as a basis for the industrial educationreceived by the apprentices in the guilds. Their schoolswere known as guild schools—and later as burgherschools. Even these schools were under religiousinfluence.


V.

Educational Currents of Early Capitalism.

With the dawn of capitalism during the fourteenthand fifteenth centuries, new social forces appeared. TheCatholic Church had become an instrument for theexploitation of the entire world. The various social layersof the period gathered together to fight this commonenemy. Martin Luther, a monk, precipitated this revoltby protesting against the use of “ Letters of Indu l gence. ” Hence—the Protestant Reformation and consequentlyfar-reaching educational reforms. Luther, in his “ letters”and sermons advocated State-supported schools,compulsory education for boys and girls, education inthe native tongue (not in Latin, the language of theCatholic Church), and a trade to accompany education.However, his reforms were too advanced for his day andfell short of their desired mark. Here, again, reactionand formalism resulted. In fact, Luther’s religious andeducational ideals became equally as formal as thosefrom which he revolted.

During this period, the Catholic Church was veryactive in combating the spread of Protestantism. Theirteaching orders appeared all over the world. Theirinfluence was profound. The Order of Jesuits (1534)reflected the organization and efficiency of its parent,the Church, in spreading Catholic teachings. Manyreforms were introduced into their schools, among themcompetition among pupils, corporal punishment(inflicted by others than Jesuit teachers), repetition andmemorization in studies, almost exclusive devotion toLatin, formalism in method, etc., etc. Elementary

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


education was well organized for the Catholics by theInstitute of the Christian Brothers (1684).

All these movements claimed to oppose formalism ineducation, but in vain. They all agreed that educationwas to prepare for the realities of life, but none of themwas able to rise above the social-economic systemprevailing. It was that which dictated their educationalpostures.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,Milton, Montaigne, Mulcaster and Bacon stood out aseducational reformers. By way of rebelling against theformalism prevalent in education, these “realists,” likeothers before them, advocated “natural methods,”“ interest,” etc. They were not, and could not be, clear asto what these reforms implied. Their reforms were inharmony with sound and scientific principles of learning,but only the course of social evolution could bring abouttheir realization. This, they did not know.

Comenius and Locke worked along similar reformisticlines. Schemes of organization were devised which todayform the basis of educational systems throughout theworld. Rousseau, of pre-French Revolution fame,influenced by the social and political movement of hisday, advocated a utopian form of natural education, inwhich the child was to be brought into contact withexperience. All teaching was to be done along naturallines. The child, rather than subject-matter, was to bethe center about which the school revolved. Interest innature study, the A B C of science, was encouraged. Thiswas the starting point of science in the school curriculumduring the nineteenth century. Pestalozzi continued thework of Rousseau. He experimented with industrialeducation and developed new methods of teaching,



teacher training, etc. Herbart and Froebel were twoother educational reformers of the nineteenth century,whose theories have influenced content and methods ofteaching, particularly in the United States.

The educational theories of Pestalozzi, Herbart andFroebel were reflections of nineteenth centurycapitalism. Modern capitalist society was in full swing.All that was established became lawful, good, orderly,right, sacred, God-ordained and fixed for all time.Teaching methods became fixed. Education became aprocess of learning “ fixed-in-advance subject-matter” infixed, formal ways. This fixity was reflected in Herbart’smain contribution to educational method, entitled: “TheFormal Recitation,” or “Five Steps of FormalRecitation,” a FIXED method of teaching. TheHerbartian influence reached the United States in theearly nineties of the last century, brought here by DeGarmo, and Charles and Frank McMurry, Americaneducators. The traditional schools in America, today,continue to use the Herbartian method, essentially.Consequently, extreme formalism exists in oureducational system.

Productive Process and Education in RevolutionaryPeriod.

About the time of the American Revolution of 1776,and thereafter for a brief period, education in the UnitedStates assumed real and natural propor t i ons .Agriculture and simple domestic handicrafts formed thegeneral groundwork of production. The institutions ofcapitalist society began to take definite form with theinception of the republic in 1787, in response to the

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


needs of the productive process. The form of government,the education, the press, the literature—allinstitutions—grew out of, and with, that elementaryproductive process, furnishing impetus to its furtherdevelopment.

The child of that period found two aspects to hiseducation. The informal aspect was his home life, inwhich he performed useful functions as a useful workerin the family productive process. He planned, created,constructed and DID things, cooperating with the othermembers of his family in producing the materialnecessities of life. The formal aspect to his educationconsisted of the training he received in the “ little redschool house.” Here he learned the “three R’s,” thenecessary tools to carry on his work in the familyproductive process. To be able to read, write and figurewas a requirement for all in that mode of production.The simple elementary subjects of the school curriculumwere, naturally enough, reflections of that productiveprocess. The reading primers of the day described theactivities of “the miller, the baker and candlestickmaker.” Here again Marx’s contention that educationshould “combine productive labor with instruction andgymnastics, not only as one of the methods of adding tothe efficiency of production, but as the only method ofproducing fully developed human beings,” fits in withthe facts of life.

However, over a period of one hundred and fifty years,the mode of production underwent a complete change,from a simple elementary form to a complex advancedform, from an individualistic handicrafts civilization to ahighly developed interdependent machine civilization.The family productive process gave way to modern



industrial methods, and, by so doing, eliminated thechild from production. Along with that was eliminatedone-half of the education of the child—the informalactivities of his agrarian and simple handicrafts life. Theformal schooling was retained. Other subjects wereadded to the curriculum. The entire system of educationwas patched up—reformed—until the school system oftoday resulted, a large-scale reproduction of the “ littlered school house”—a mass education system, completelyformalized.

Is Child-Labor an Educational Force?

We have pointed to the fact that with the developmentof modern industrial methods, the child was eliminatedfrom production—i.e., from the family productive processof a century ago. The question may arise at this time: Isnot child-labor in the factory system an educationalforce, since it allows the child to make use of his schoolinstruction and at the same time engage in theproductive process?

Marx answered that question. He pointed out thatwhen the capitalist system was in its infancy—

“the factory children, although receiving only one halfthe education of the regular day scholars, yet learntquite as much and often more. ‘This can be accounted forby the simple fact that, with only being at school for onehalf of the day, they are always fresh, and nearly alwaysready and willing to receive instruction. The system onwhich they work, half manual labor, and half schoolrenders each employment a rest and a relief to the other;consequently, both are far more congenial to the child,than would be the case were he kept constantly atone. . . . ’ [However, with the development of modern

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


industrial methods] a great part of the childrenemployed in modern factories and manufactures are,from their earliest years, riveted to the most simplemanipulations, and exploited for years, without beingtaught a single sort of work that would afterwards makethem of use, even in the same manufactory orfactory . . . [and with the intensification of exploitation]the tension and the amount of labor-power expendedbecome monstrous, and especially so in the case of thechildren who are condemned to this torture. . . .[Furthermore] ‘To qualify them for the work which theyhave to do, they require no intellectual training; there islittle room in it for skill, and less for judgment.’ ”7

In short, child labor in the factory system, because ofthe nature of capitalist exploitation, becomes a process ofdegradation rather than education.

Conventional Education Reflects Capitalism in Infancy.

However, to resume, conventional educationalmethods have neither grown out of, nor do they keepstep with, modern industrial methods. Let us illustrate:

Reading primers used in many conventional schoolsbetray the fact that our educational system reflectscapitalist society in its infancy. In a first year readingprimer, we find a story of “The Cat and the Mouse.” Weshall examine this story to make our point clear. A catbit off a mouse’s tail and promised to return it if shewere given some milk. The mouse asked a cow for milk,who promised it, in return for some hay. The mouse thenasked a farmer for some hay, who promised to give someto it “ if you will get me some bread.” The mouse then

7 Capital, pages 488, 490, 491, Swan Sonnenschein edition.



went to the baker, who demanded flour. The mouse wentto the miller to get flour, and said:

“Please, Miller, give me some flour.I will give the flour to the baker.The baker will give me some bread.I will give the farmer the bread.The farmer will give me some hay.I will give the hay to the cow.The cow will give me some milk.I will give the milk to the cat.Then the cat will give me back my tail.”

Another story, entitled “The Little Gray Pony,” tellsof a man who had a little gray pony who lost his shoe. Heran to the blacksmith:

“Blacksmith! Blacksmith!I have come to youMy little gray ponyHas lost a shoe.”

The blacksmith had no coal to heat his iron, and theman ran to the storekeeper, the farmer, the miller, andfinally the miner, in order to get—

“. . . some coalThe iron to heat,That the blacksmith may shoeMy pony’s feet.”

Both the above stories point undeniably to the truth ofthe assertion that reading primers used in our schoolsystem today reflect a productive process which includedthe farmer, the baker, the miller, the blacksmith, etc.,etc.—useful workers of a century and more ago. The

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


reading primer reflects an antiquated school system,which, in turn, reflects an antiquated social system.

Socially useful activities are practically unknowntoday in our large city schools.8 Formal, dull, antiquatedand half-useless “tool subjects” are drilled into the child,apart from their meaning-connections, as “education.”Where to apply the “tools” is the question confrontingthe child. Unable to find the answer, he is forced to leadan abnormal life. The formal aspect to his education,essential to the learning process in colonial days, haschanged from a form of development of his creativepowers into a fetter. The child continually strives toburst forth from this formalism. This striving manifestsitself in the restlessness of the youth of today. School lifeis monotonous. This monotony not only wastes the time,health and energy of children, but also adds to theburdens of teachers. It is the bane of the uninformedteacher’s existence.

Children, today, are not actively interested in outwornproductive methods any more than in outworn toys.Now, it is the airplane, the radio, the locomotive, thesteamship, the factory and other modern developmentsthat are of real interest to the child. It is in modern

8 This is so notwithstanding the introduction of special vocational

subjects (such as wood-working, metal-working, etc.) into thetraditional school organization in recent years. The introduction ofvocational subjects does not alter the fundamental subject-matter basisof the traditional school. Socially useful work (productive laborcombined with instruction and gymnastics) must become the basis ofthe educational system before a fundamental (revolutionary) change iseffected. However, the fact that vocational education has beenintroduced at all is a tribute to the efficacy of productive labor as aneducational instrument.



industrial life that he finds the action that every normalchild craves.

Naturally enough, disintegration has set into ourschool system, with its usual dire consequences. Pettythievery, disregard for law and order, and a certain“wildness” prevail throughout the system. Teachers areat their wit’s end seeking solutions.


VI.

Reformers Cannot Reconstruct EducationWithin Framework of Capitalism.

As in the past, educational reformers are engaged inthe futile task of making a decayed system operate. Theyrecognize the evils of the education of today, but they areunable to see whence they flow. They recognize effects,but not the causes of those effects. These reformers, likethose of old, claim that education fails to stress reality.They, too, are attempting to devise methods with an eyeto obtaining the “ interest” of the child. Professor JohnDewey, eminent twentieth century educator in theUnited States, has as his fundamental premise that “theschool cannot be a preparation for life except as itreproduces the typical conditions of social life.” ProfessorWilliam H. Kilpatrick, of Columbia University, followsthe same line of thought. They attack the traditionalmethods of education, and propose all sorts of reforms.Professor Dewey proposes the “problem method”;Professor Kilpatrick, the “project method.” ProfessorHarold Rugg, also of Columbia University, proposes (asthe sub-title to one of his publications indicates) “socialreconstruction through educational reconstruction,” notrealizing that his cart is placed before his horse. Allthese educators are blind to the fact that their reformsare impossible of realization within capitalist society.

Until society is reorganized along the lines laid downby social evolution, school life cannot reproduce “thetypical conditions of social life.” To institute the reformsalong educational lines necessary to reproduce thoseconditions demands a complete reorganization of thesocial system. This will come about only after the



accomplishment of the impending Social Revolution.Marxists reverse Dr. Rugg’s theory in order to set it on afirm scientific basis, and make it read: “Educationalreconstruction through social reconstruction.”

Some of the more zealous among the educational“revolutionaries” were forced, by the logic of events, tocome to the conclusion that educators would have to takea more active part in “reconstructing” society. Theseorganized “social frontier” reform groups with a view topointing the way to a “new social order.” ProfessorGeorge S. Counts of Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, in a pamphlet entitled, Dare the SchoolBuild a New Social Order? wrote:

“We have a haunting feeling that we were born forbetter things and that the nation itself is falling farshort of its powers. The fact that other groups refuse todeal boldly and realistically with the present situationdoes not justify the teachers of the country in theircustomary policy of hesitation and equivocation.

“The times are literally crying for a new vision ofAmerican destiny. The teaching profession, or at least itsprogressive elements, should eagerly grasp theopportunity which the fates have placed in their hands.”

The dean of Teachers College expressed doubt as towhether the “revolutionaries” on his staff could attaintheir objective under the existing social set-up. Wereproduce extracts from the New York Times report ofhis observations on February 27, 1936:

“At the dinner tonight of delegates from TeachersCollege, Columbia University, Dean William F. Russellexpressed doubt of the success of efforts of educators toreform the world. Even the idealistic plans of some of his

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


own faculty, he implied, were doomed to be ‘twisted bythe money changers to their own ends.’ He mentionedthe social frontier group, which is headed by ProfessorGeorge S. Counts.

“ ‘I know some clever investors in New York today whohave representatives in Soviet Russia, and I think theyare planning to invest part of their fortunes there,’ hesaid. ‘I know that our most radical reformers have idealspure and of a high purpose. Our social frontier group intheir attack on capital and privilege think that theyapproach the millennium if they are like Mirabeau andRobespierre, like Thomas Paine, Jefferson and Madison.

“ ‘This very people whom they are now attacking, ortheir successors, will flock behind them to gather up thespoils where they see there is any prospect of success.The cormorant brings back to the boat the fish that hehas caught and cannot eat because the ring around hisneck prevents him from swallowing it. Reformers havealways been trained cormorants for the predatory.

“ ‘I wish no one to mistake my position,’ he continued.‘I oppose no effort to achieve social justice. As keenly asany one else I wish to see government improved, povertydecreased, disease diminished, security abound,opportunity equal, justice nation-wide, war at an end,and peace on earth and good-will amongst men. I wish todo my part in achieving these ends, and as a school-master, I hope to see them gained in part througheducation. But I know that these are no new ideas. Iknow that reform has been tried over and over again andnever has there been complete success.’”

Marxian Socialists have pointed out for a century thatthere is no specially gifted portion of the working class ofthe nation that will guide us into a new social order. TheSocialist movement is “the self-conscious, independentmovement of the immense majority, in the interest of theimmense majority,” and the educators of the nation as



an integral portion of the working class would constitutebut one section of the working class in its effort to builda new social order. Educators must learn that as “socialreconstructionists” their place is in the Socialist LaborParty, where they must urge the working class as a classto build the Socialist Industrial Union to take, hold andoperate the industries, schools, hospitals—the means ofproduction—and operate them for the benefit of allunder the Socialist Industrial Republic of Labor.

Schools Today Are Capitalist Institutions.

So long as the capitalist system survives, the profitmotive compels the capitalist class to behave in aprescribed manner toward the education of the workers.What is the capitalists’ motive in providing education?The vast majority of the workers must be trained toserve as automata, tenders of machines, etc. For these,the traditional elementary education is consideredsufficient. It prepares them to follow simple directions,to obey simple orders, to punch a time-clock, or to tendmachinery. A few workers receive secondary-schooltraining, while still fewer enter the colleges andinstitutions of higher learning, to be trained asspecialists. These latter become the engineers, chemists,inventors, managers, etc., who are also necessary cogs inthe industrial set-up. In short, the motive of thecapitalist class in providing education is simply to trainworkers for industry. When they have “overproduced”“educated” workers, they shut down the institutionsthat grind them out.

The capitalist class would have us glorify their“philanthropy,” when they “bequeath” large sums

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


(taken out of the surplus value produced by the workers)for education. When we examine this “philanthropy” wesee it as a permanent advertisement for the individualcapitalists. The Carnegie Institute, Duke University,Rockefeller Institute, Drexel University, and otherschools on which the names of “philanthropic”capitalists are inscribed in granite serve as suchadvertisements.

Then, again, it is known that advertisers are able todetermine policies. This is true of newspapers andmagazines, as well as of institutions of learning. Topreserve the capitalist system, the schools must dealdishonestly with those fields of learning which, ifabsorbed by the workers, would pave the way for theabolition of the capitalist system. History, Sociology andEconomics fall into this category. Marxism is bannedfrom our institutions of learning. In fact, it borders uponthe criminal to hear, read or speak Marxism within theirwalls. However, the profit motive forces the educationalinstitutions to deal honestly with those fields of learningthat must be tapped in order to turn out profits. Physics,Chemistry, Geography, Biology, Arithmetic, Spelling,and others fall into this latter category.

In the words of that great Marxian scholar andSocialist educator, Daniel De Leon: “Lecture rooms onmineralogy, on astronomy, on the differential calculus,on law, on electricity, on anatomy, on all of these andsimilar subjects, are not liable to become centers fromwhich mental corruption radiates. True, there may be,as there often is, corruption in the appointment of theprofessors in these, as in all other, branches—but thecorruption ends there. The reason is obvious. There is nomotive for misdirecting instruction. [Italics ours.] There



may be lack of up-to-dateness; there may be evenignorance; a set purpose to corrupt and mislead is notlikely.

“It is otherwise with regard to the social sciences.Some indirectly, most of them directly, bear upon theclass struggle. Indeed, it would go hard to pick out onebranch of the social sciences that is not begotten of thepalpitations of the class struggle. Where the classstruggle palpitates, material interests are at stake. It isan established principle that the material interests of aruling class, in part, promote immorality. To promoteincapacity to reason upon the domain of sociology is oneof the corrupt practices of ruling class materialinterests.” 9 (Italics ours.)

And there we have it! The schools today are capitalistinstitutions, managed with a view to preservingcapitalism, with all that that implies. If the materialinterests of the capitalist class require that education bemisdirected, or that incapacity to reason be promoted,those material interests must be served. Educationalreformers who desire to “reorganize” the educationalsystem within the framework of capitalism must beprepared to demonstrate how their patchwork canmaintain or increase profits. With that in mind, weagain warn the would-be educational “revolutionaries”that educational reconstruction must be preceded bysocial reconstruction. Capitalism, the system of wageslavery, the system of production for profit, must bedestroyed!

9 Daniel De Leon, Marxian Science and the Colleges, New York

Labor News publishers.


VII.

Soviet Schools Afflicted by StalinistCorruption.

In the early days of the revolution in Soviet Russia,education was undoubtedly inspired by, and largelydirected in the spirit of, Marxian science. Theeducational system reflected the developing industrialsystem; it followed from, and was shaped by, theproductive process; it combined “productive labor withinstruction and gymnastics” in conformity with theMarxian conception of education. Russian educatorsintroduced the “reforms” of twentieth century educators.School in Russia reproduced “the typical conditions ofsocial life,” since school in Russia was life itself.“Problems” and “projects” proposed by Americaneducational reformers became realities in the schools ofSoviet Russia as the problems and projects of Russianlife. “Interest” of the child became a real, vital,throbbing thing, and corporal punishment and artificialdriving forces were unnecessary to hold the child’sattention to the life activities in which he engaged. Itwas apparent to students of the Soviet educationalsystem that school in Russia was not merely a place, nora room for recitations, but LIFE ITSELF. Americaneducators—among them Professors Dewey andKilpatrick—after visiting Russia to study its educationalsystem, returned with unqualified praise of the systembeing developed there. They observed that school notmerely reproduced “the typical conditions of social life”(Dewey), but that “school is life itself” (Kilpatrick). Theysaw “their theories” in operation, even though they wereunable to draw the logical conclusion that Socialism (or



the Socialist premise) is the only basis upon which theirmodern educational theories could be placed inoperation.

However, just as students of the science of Marxismlamented over the inconsistencies, deviations anddepartures from Marxian principle in the building of theproletarian dictatorship, so did students of the Marxianconception of education note some rather strangeobservations and indications of erroneous notions ofSoviet educators. For example, Albert P. Pinkevitch,president of the Second State University of Moscow, inhis preface to the American edition to The NewEducation in the Soviet Republic (1929), stated that“ . . . the mere enumeration of the names of Hall, Dewey,Russell, Monroe, Judd, Thorndike, Kilpatrick, and manyothers, known to every educator in our country, is asufficient reminder of the tremendous influence whichAmerican education has exerted upon us.” To place thisobservation in its proper perspective, and to get its fullflavor, let us paraphrase slightly the observation of JohnReed that “Premier Lenin is a great admirer of DanielDe Leon, considering him the greatest of modernSocialists—the only one who has added anything toSocialist thought since Marx,” and read it as follows:Premier Lenin is a great admirer of Wilson, Thomas,Taft, Harding Coolidge, Roosevelt, De Leon, and manyothers, considering them the greatest, etc., etc.Pinkevitch’s “tribute” to American educators, whoseeducational theories were as widely separated as thepoles, and of several hues and shades of conservatismand “radicalism,” just didn’t make sense!

During the past decade Marxian Socialists have cometo realize that Soviet Russia under Stalin’s leadership

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


has betrayed the international proletariat, has baselycorrupted the principles of Marxism, and has forsakenits goal of Socialism—despite lip-service rendered it. Andjust as Stalinist policies were formulated in disregard ofthe interests of the working class, so were Sovieteducational policies formulated in disregard of theinterests of the children of Russia. Soviet education hasdeparted from the Marxian principle. Where in the earlydays of the Soviet Republic the “project” and “sociallyuseful work” were the basis of the educational system,by 1935 Professor Pinkevitch was able to write in hisScience and Education in the U.S.S.R. that:

“Until quite recently, the American ‘Project’ methodwas extensively applied in Soviet Schools, their entirework being based on the principles of ‘socially usefulwork.’ Many Soviet educationalists thought at the timethat education should consist of the fulfilment of acertain number of ‘socially useful projects,’ and that onlyin the course of fulfilling these projects should thechildren obtain knowledge about other subjects. In 1931this method of work was sharply condemned by theCommunist Party and the Government. The ProjectMethod is no longer adopted in the Soviet Schools. Thisdoes not mean, however, that socially useful work, assuch, has been condemned. The schools still engage insocially useful activity, but care is taken not tooverburden the children with this work in such a waythat it interferes with their studies.”

The schools in Soviet Russia have adopted thetraditional, conventional methods of capitalisteducational systems, with a dash of “socially usefulwork” thrown in—“but care is taken not to overburdenthe children with this work in such a way that it



interferes with their studies”! C onfirmation of thecontention that Soviet Russia has returned to thetraditional capitalist educational methods is provided byProfessor Pinkevitch in the same work when he admitsthat “The chief method of instruction in the school is thelesson. In the decision passed by the Central Committeeof the Communist Party on August 25, 1932, it wasstrongly emphasized that the lesson should be carriedout with a definite group of pupils according to a definitetime-table; . . . At the end of the year examinations areheld.”10 And to complete this process of degeneration,Pinkevitch informs us that “ . . . the program of the partyputs the chief stress on the political tasks of the school.The Soviet school is a vehicle for the principles ofcommunism [Soviet conception!]” (Italics ours).Paraphrasing De Leon: It is an established principlethat the political interests of a ruling bureaucracy, inpart, promote immorality. To promote incapacity toreason upon the domain of sociology, by teaching theSoviet conception of communism, is one of the corruptpractices of the ruling bureaucracy of Soviet Russia.

Soviet Russia, which, for a time, had assumed worldleadership in the building of Socialism, departed fromMarxian principles and dashed the hopes of those wholooked to it for inspiration. Soviet Russia, which, for atime, had assumed world leadership in the application ofMarxism in its educational system, departed fromMarxian principles and dashed the hopes of thoseeducators who looked to it for inspiration.

*

10 Shades of Herbartianism in the Soviet schools! See page 24.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


Educational reconstructionists in America must lookto the program of the Socialist Labor Party, as the onlypossible way of accomplishing their objective, by firsteducating and organizing the working class to abolishcapitalism and inaugurate the Socialist IndustrialRepublic. Then, in the natural course of events, theymay establish “new schools,” and introduce their“progressive,” which is to say Marxian, theories. Toaccomplish the “educational revolution,” they must firstaccomplish the impending social revolution. OnlySocialist society—in which all there sources of societywill be at the disposal of educational activity—will giverise to a system of education that springs from Socialistphilosophy. Only a new social order, reflecting the newhighly industrialized system of production, can serve asa basis for a Socialist system of education.

It will be a revival, in a higher form, of theeducational principle of primitive society.


Capitalism’s Professional Educatorsand the War11

“ He who would look for the revolutionary youth ofAmerica must look for it in America’s revolutionaryclass—the workingman; he who would look for the realcolleges and universities of the land must look to theacademics in which the workingman is trained—theclassconscious trade union and the Socialist LaborParty. . . .

“ The real American universities and colleges of todayare not the scattered buildings said to be of learning, andthat go by these names. Infinitely of vaster proportionsand reared upon national bases are the universities andcolleges that are today kindling the flame needed to lightthe torch for the next further step in civilization. . . . ”

—De Leon.

Daniel De Leon, foremost Socialist educator,repeatedly stressed the point that “material interests”are the determining factor in shaping the views ofcapitalism’s professional educators. As stated by thepresent National Secretary of the Socialist Labor Party,Arnold Petersen: “Patiently, brilliantly, with profoundunderstanding and insight, he [De Leon] exposed thefalsity of the teachings of the capitalist professors, toreoff their masks of pretended learning and scholarship,reducing them to their real status of sycophants andservitors of property interests.” The presentinternational slaughter, and the reaction of capitalisteducators thereto, confirm the Party’s estimate of themas servitors of the capitalist class and its system ofprivate property.

From Yale University’s Professor Thurman Arnold,who asks: “Do you mean that, from an economic point of

11 [Aaron M. Orange, Weekly People , August 30, 1941.—Editor]

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


view, it’s a grand war?” to Columbia University’sProfessor Rexford Tugwell, who replies: “Yes, if we don’tget into it.” From Harvard University’s President JamesBryant Conant, one of the first to call for compulsorypeacetime conscription and “all-out aid to Britain,” andone of the first to drop the tag “short of war,” who urgedwar because he was convinced “that if Hitler wins, menwill have no more freedom than horses have now” (whilehe helps prepare a domestic brand of Hitlerism for theUnited States), to Dartmouth University’s PresidentErnest Hopkins, who states: “ . . . each student shouldexplore the possibility of combining with his majorinterest at Dartmouth—which must be primarily aliberal education—some training in elective courseswhich would qualify him for maximum usefulness in thepresent emergency should his college career beinterrupted.” From the “professors” of the Henry Fordtype, characterized as “an industrialist of progressiveinclinations” because of his establishment of severalschools for training mechanics, one of which canaccommodate 10,000 student mechanics, another with acapacity of 3,000 students, and a third with anenrollment of 4,000, to the educational theorists of theProfessors Dewey, Rugg and Kilpatrick brand, who areframing post-war plans for educational reconstructionunder capitalism. All of capitalism’s professionaleducators, with an eye on material interests, eitherwhooped it up for war, adjusted their curricula toinclude war-training and “defense” courses, or areplanning post-war “social reconstruction througheducational reconstruction[!].” All of capitalism’sprofessional educators are stamping themselves asfaithful watchdogs of the capitalist system.



We need not dwell at any great length upon the pointthat these servitors of property interests proceed fromthe impossible premise that capitalism must bepreserved. And therein lies their Waterloo. The SocialistLabor Party warns that capitalism must be destroyed, itscollapse being inevitable in any event, and urges theworkers of the nation to enroll in the “university of theworking class,” drink deep at its fountain of Socialistprinciples, and take an active part in the building of theSocialist Industrial Republic of Labor.

Arnold, the “social science” professor of Yale LawSchool, now serves as assistant to the Attorney Generalof the United States in the New Deal Administration.Tugwell, the professor of economics at ColumbiaUniversity, now serves as the Governor of Porto Rico, aWest Indies island possession of the United States,considered a keypoint in the American “defense” set-up.Conant, the professor of chemistry and president ofHarvard University (who manufactured poison gas,Lewisite , in the first World War), now serves aschairman of the National Defense Research Committee,mobilizing the physical scientists of the nation for thediscovery and perfection of more destructive weapons ofwar. Hopkins, the business man turned president of a“ liberals arts” college, Dartmouth, served as sub-chairman of the now defunct Office of ProductionManagement, assisting in the regimentation of industryand placing it on a wartime basis. All these, and others,are engaged in an “all-out” campaign to preserve thesystem which has so well kept them. With all duerespect to whatever contributions any or all of them maymake in the academic world (more specifically in thefield of the physical and “exact” sciences), they tread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewisite

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


upon soil with which they are obviously unfamiliar whenthey enter the domain of political economy. Some ignorethe effects, and the cause of the effects of the collapsingcapitalist system; some recognize the effects but attemptto deal with them within the framework of the system.Some, bewildered by events they do not understand,attempt to reshape their institutions of learning toconform with the ever-shifting social scene. The Arnolds,Tugwells and Conants have rushed to Washington, D.C.,to do their bit. The Hopkinses have remained in theiracademic precincts, and, fearing that perhaps the“liberal arts” curriculum would come out second best incompetition with universities offering technologicalcourses for “defense” workers, now exhort their studentsto shape their careers on the foundations of “nationaldefense” with an academic flavor. Said Hopkins: “ . . . inthis time of national emergency it is perhaps notunnatural for the historical colleges of the country to feela sense of special responsibility . . . more than 50 percent of the categories [for junior professional andscientific positions in the Federal government] aresatisfied by the usual major requirements in DartmouthCollege.” And in his effort to prove that the “ liberalarts” training will prepare students for careers in awartime economy, he continues: “The Department of Artand English, for example, may seem remote from {the}war effort; but the specifications for certain UnitedStates Civil Service examinations call for thirty hours ofEnglish composition, and the ability to write clear andforceful English is notoriously in demand atheadquarters in the armed forces . . . the Department ofRomance languages, through its regular courses dealingwith Latin America can contribute appreciably to the



government’s policy of hemisphere defense, and liberalarts courses in psychology are now proving of greatvalue in both military and industrial organization. Thusone could continue with Dartmouth’s twenty-fivedepartments of instruction, citing the more obviousconnections with national defense of certain courses inthe social sciences and in the humanities.Undergraduate instruction in chemistry, physics,mathematics, astronomy, geology and other sciencescovers a wide scientific field in a rigid discipline, andnational defense requires little alteration of normalprocedures in these departments.” In short, thepresident of Dartmouth says, in effect: Dartmouth is anacademic college. Since it seems inevitable that for along time to come we are going to live in a militaristicworld, and must train an army, and build armaments,etc., you students who may feel inclined to go totechnological schools to carve out a career in amilitaristic world may be surprised to learn that theacademic courses offered by Dartmouth will train you forwar work. Yes, indeed, material interests are at stake. DeLeon had the likes of Hopkins in mind when he said: “Asa factory is not run ‘for the health’ of its owners, as anewspaper is not operated ‘for the fun’ it affords itsstockholders, neither is a privately owned ‘institution oflearning’ conducted for ‘patriotism.’ They are all run forthe profit of their owners.”12

President Hopkins Lifts Mask of Hypocrisy.

However, to prove that he had developed a long-rangeview, and was as devoted to the system of production for

12 Daniel De Leon, Marxian Science and the Colleges.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


profit as to the immediate material interests of thecollege he heads, Dartmouth’s President Hopkinsaddressed himself to the alumni of the institution asfollows:

“Gentlemen, your college has failed you. It has failedyou and me, and the nation to which it has always beenso fiercely and eagerly loyal. The fault is ours—we whohave charge of supervising its instruction. It is nowobvious that we—all colleges, or most of them, at anyrate—have been following the wrong course.

“We have thought the right way was to advise ouryoung men to look at all things objectively, to takenothing for granted, but to examine all sides of everyquestion and make up their own minds. We haveallowed certain scepticisms to grow up unchallenged. Wehave permitted minds to take liberties with things thatare vital and venerable in our American way of life. Wehave let students believe that America waspropagandized into the last war, that the collegestudents of that past and glorious generation went likedumb, driven cattle to their destruction and death.

“We have stressed the ingratitude of Europe, therepudiation of the war debts, the expense, the futility,the enormous and lasting burden of it all. We have evenpermitted students and instructors to examine ourdemocratic form of government critically, and to discussthe possibility that maybe some other ways are better.[The Socialist Labor Party program was presentedbefore the Student Round Table at Dartmouth in 1931by Verne L. Reynolds, and created quite a stir.13]

“We are now reaping the tragedy of our error. Ofcourse, we never saw the possibility of the thing that hashappened in the world. We thought we were buildingand teaching for peace. We hoped our students would

13 [See “The S.L.P. Heard at Dartmouth College, Weekly People, Nov.14, 1931.—Editor]



become broader, better educated and better thinkingAmericans, less likely to be trapped in the same set ofcircumstances.

“Don’t blame them for these peace demonstrations,the recent mass meeting against registration [forpeacetime military service], the petition for peacerecently sent to President Roosevelt. Blame us whodidn’t prepare them for this sort of crisis. Naturallythey’re bewildered and confused and unstable. It’s easyto see now, in terms of solid value to America, where, afew years ago instead of allowing the myth to rununchecked that the college students who went to war in’17 went like a lot of sheep, we should have taken a longstep in the other direction.

“We should have affirmed our pride in those patriots,should have honored them, eulogized them, evenglorified them, and their brave and keenly conscioussacrifice. We should have accorded recognition to theAmerican Legion as a gallant and vital force in ourAmerican system, instead of the smart-Aleck treatmentit sometimes received. But the trouble was, we couldn’tsee what was ahead for the world. We thought we werebuilding intelligence. It didn’t strike us that perhaps wewere building it at the sacrifice of loyalty. . . .14 (Italicsours.)

Through this revealing self-photography, Mr. Hopkinslifts the mask of hypocrisy covering the “ liberal” front ofhis type of professional educator. And while he and hiskind “couldn’t see what was ahead for the world,” theSocialist Labor Party pointed to the impending collapseof the capitalist system (best of all possible systems tothe Hopkins crowd), and pointed to the IndustrialRepublic of Labor as the only way to avert a socialcatastrophe.

14 The American Legion Magazine, July, 1941, page 9.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


Columbia University, through its provost, Dr. FrankD. Fackenthal, has also recently announcedreadjustment of its curriculum to conform with theneeds of the national “emergency,” in this fashion: “Inpursuance of its primary function of educating youth forservice to society, the university now stands ready toprepare its students for prompt and effective aid to suchemergency needs as can be served.”

The University of Pennsylvania is now conducting acourse in “Production Engineering for DefenseIndustries,” because, it states, “defense industry is facedwith an increased need of production managers—menwho supervise and control the actual work of a plant.”Dr. Victor Karabasz, in charge of the program,announces that the University is cooperating “with theO.P.M., the Engineering Defense Training Program ofthe United States Office of Education, which is bearingall costs of the program except textbooks, and a numberof important defense manufacturers.” Business isbusiness. And notice that the government is investing in“education” plants as well as munitions plants.

Capitalism’s “Isolationist” Educators.

The “ isolationist” professors regard the presentinternational madness as “a blessing in disguise,”insofar as it enables them to put their pet theories oneducational “reorganization” into operation. ThePresident of the University of Chicago, Robert MaynardHutchins, who not long ago broadcast views that labelledhim as an ardent “ isolationist,” writes quiteenthusiastically about present possibilities: “Hitler hascompelled us to adopt universal military service.



Universal military service gives us a chance toreorganize our program of universal free education. Thatprogram has needed reorganization for fifty years. If weare at last driven to it, Hitler will have been, within verynarrow limits, a blessing in disguise.”15 Thereorganization proposed by this “distinguishededucator” is purely and simply an administrative onebased on the military needs of the nation. This should notsurprise us if we know the gentleman’s record as aservant of capitalist property interests. Hutchinsproposes this administrative reorganization because“with conscription, which we must assume will be withus for a long time, some sort of reorganization of theschool system is imperative. When both education andmilitary service are compulsory for the young, they mustbe adjusted to each other. From the educational point ofview the present minimum draft age of twenty-one isjust precisely wrong. The student should be drafted atsome natural break in his educational career. That is atthe end of his sophomore year, at graduation from thejunior college. This is the time for him to do his militarystint.” And he concludes that “the exigencies of nationaldefense leave us no alternative. We must reorganize oureducational system. Hitler must be given credit for anunintentional assist.” We wonder if it ever occurred tothe professor that what we must “reorganize” is thesocial system, and that Hitler and Hitlerism areevidence of the complete collapse of capitalism.

And the ladies are not to be neglected! Dr. Harriet M.Allyn, academic dean at Mt. Holyoke College, announces

15 Robert Maynard Hutchins, Liberty, “Conscription and Education,”

August 23, 1941.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


the addition of such courses as the “Economics of War,”an “Introduction to Politics,” a course on the “politicalprinciples and problems underlying the present worldcrisis,” as well as courses in geology, chemistry, physics,etc., “which furnish specific training for importantdefense demands and a basis for clear thinking intoday’s world.”

“Defense” Hastening Elimination of Small Colleges.

The defense program is hastening the process ofelimination of small capital in industry. According to thepresident of the Pennsylvania College Presidents’Association, Dr. Fred Pierce Corson, it is having thesame effect on small colleges. He pleads for “sympatheticconsideration” for “the hundreds of American collegesfacing serious curtailment and, in many instances,annihilation because of the effects of the defenseprogram upon their work. . . . American colleges thisyear will show a decrease of from 15 to 30 per cent [inenrollment] . . . because such a large percentage ofcollege men are drained off for war pursuits . . . the‘little fellows’ in the college world . . . will be forced toclose their college doors.”16 His appeal to prevent thisshutting down of some of the “ institutions of learning”in the nation winds up with, “the independent Americancollege, small as well as great, is still looked on as anessential industry in preparing for war.” True, indeed,Professor Corson, but priorities are priorities! And likethe “big fellows” in your education industry of theHopkins type, you “couldn’t see what was ahead for the

16 New York Times, August 5, 1941.



world,” while the Socialist Labor Party taught that bigcapital (in the education industry as in all industry)always beat small capital in the battle of competition,and that wealth would inevitably concentrate in fewerand fewer hands. It is the capitalist system that must bedestroyed, Professor!

*Counterfeits of Marxism in Education.

The educational theorists of the Dewey, Rugg andKilpatrick type are employing their energies in devisingways and means of “reconstructing” the post-war world.At the July, 1941, meeting of the New EducationFellowship, held at Ann Arbor, Mich., Professor Deweypontificated as follows: “Fellowship is more than theopposite of war, discord, hatred and intolerance. Itprovides the only sure and enduring guarantee thatthese evils will not continue to plague mankind.Education in and for and by fellowship, throughcooperation, and with a cooperative society as its aim, isan imperatively required factor in an education that willarise in contrast to the world now engaged in destroyingitself.”17

Yet, despite the honeyed words concerning educationin a “cooperative society,” Professor Dewey denies theprerequisite—the destruction of capitalist society. Aboutfifteen years ago, the present writer was a student underDewey. He heard the professor speak in unqualifiedpraise of the educational system of Soviet Russia—thenbased on the Marxian principle. In reply to the question:“Do you believe it possible to apply in the United States

17 New York Times, July 13, 1941.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


the principle underlying Soviet education, without firstabolishing capitalism here?” Dewey stated that he didnot believe a social revolution was necessary prior to theadoption of the Soviet educational principle. And sincethen, as before, Professor Dewey has been preachingwhat we may designate as a counterfeit of Marxism ineducation. The position he holds in the educational fieldis that of a Norman Thomas (whom, incidentally, heendorsed in the Presidential campaign in 1932).

At the same meeting of the New EducationFellowship, aims for post-war education were set forthunder the high-sounding title: “A proposal to men ofgoodwill for educational reconstruction after the war.”This was described as the first organized challenge toHitlerism in the field of education, and was presented bya committee of twenty educators of six countries headedby Dr. William H. Kilpatrick of Teachers College,Columbia University. The “challenge” reads, in part,“Reconstruction after this war will fail unless it is alsore-education. By education we understand here notschooling alone, but the influence on man of all thathelps him to live decently, productively, and happilywith his fellows. . . . Reconstruction in post-wareducation must reach into every form of our economic,political and social life. . . . Reconstruction througheducation depends upon increasing the cooperation of allin the common civilization. A vindictive policy defeatsitself. Only by reconstruction through education willyouth be reassured against a new betrayal and their fullenergies enlisted in this cause . . . the phenomenoncalled Hitlerism is an extreme form of a world-widedisease. Its recommendations reach to the very causes of



which Hitlerism is a symptom and are, therefore, world-wide in their application.”18

Now, then, for the information of the Kilpatricks, theSocialist Labor Party holds that capitalism is the rootand cause of the evils that confront us in the worldtoday. To help man “ live decently, productively andhappily with his fellows,” to increase “the cooperation ofall in the common civilization,” to reassure youth“against a new betrayal,” to destroy the “phenomenoncalled Hitlerism” CAPITALISM MUST BEDESTROYED! (When the present writer stated thisprogram in a seminar conducted a few years ago byProfessor Kilpatrick, the gentleman replied: “Well, youare entitled to your opinion!” Another counterfeit!)

Professor Rugg, also present at the meeting of theNew Education Fellowship, as a member of theCommittee on Latin-American Relations, reported: “Away must be found in the economic realm as well as inthose of art, science and general culture so to implementthe idea of the ‘good neighbor’ and to abolish for all timethe fear of Yankee imperialism. . . . ”19 The reportexpressed opposition to systems of education whichpassed on “ ideals of privilege and imperialism to futuregenerations. . . . ” But, Professor, need we remind youthat business is business! Need we remind you thatYankee imperialism’s “good neighbor” policy is based onthe “good neighbor” being good customers for American-made products! And need we remind you that theschools of the nation, under capitalism (based on classdivisions and production for profit) of necessity will

18 New York Times, July 13, 1941.19 New York Times, July 13, 1941.

AAR ON M. OR ANGE


teach and pass on the “ ideals of privilege andimperialism to future generations,” and of necessity, asa safeguard to “material interests,” will teach thatcapitalism is the best of all possible systems! (When thepresent writer expressed the conviction that “capitalismmust be destroyed” to Professor Rugg, in ColumbiaUniversity classes some years ago, the professor hid hisrage in the wrinkle of a sneer.)

De Leon did not err. By exposing the falsity of theteachings of the capitalist professors, he tore off theirmasks of pretended learning and scholarship, andreduced them to their real status of sycophants andservitors of property interests. The Second World Warand the reaction of capitalism’s professional educatorsthereto merely produce additional evidence to supportour contention that the present crop who hold downchairs in the “ institutions of learning” are servitors ofthe capitalist class and its system of private property.

The Socialist Labor Party of the United States,university of the workers of America, teaches thatcapitalism and its institutions must be destroyed ifprogress is to be the law of the future as it has been ofthe past.

*Not until the robber system of capitalism is destroyed,

and the sane system of Socialism has been universallyestablished, shall we have an educational system whichis likewise sane and logical and not, like the present one,a corrupt and corrupting system, the system of whichEmerson wrote (speaking of “the deadness of itsdetails” ) that it was “a system of despair.”

To Socialism alone is reserved the task of rescuing



education from the hand of death placed upon it by aruling class grown corrupt and grossly materialisticthrough the decadence of their social system, andrestoring to education new life and purposes worthy freemen and women in a free society—the Commonwealth ofLabor, the Brotherhood of Man.

(The End.)

economic basis of education - the people evolution of education. ... education in primitive society....

Documents