Educatlonal A lternatives

tion of the social relations of capitalist production along with commodity

Ietishisrn.
Third, lllicb argues tbat tbc goal of social change is to transf orm institu­
tions according to thc criterion of nonaddictivcness, or left­convivality.
Howcver, sincc manipulation and addictivcness are not the sources of social
problems, their elirnination ofíers no cure. Certainly, the implcmentation
of left­convivial forms in welíare and service agcncics­however desirable
in itself­will not counter thc effects of capitalist development on social
lifc. More important, Illich's criterion explicitly acccpts thosc basic eco­
nornic institutions which structurc dccision­making power, lead to thc
growth of corporate and welfare bureaucracics, and lic al thc root of social
dccay. lllich's criterion must be replaced by onc of dernocratic and partici­
patory, control over social outcomes in factory, officc, comrnunity, schools,
and media.
lf sourccs of social problems lay in consumer manipulation oí which
schooling is both an excmplary instancc and a crucial preparation for
future manipulation, tben a politicaJ movement for de­scbooling might be,
as lllich says, " ... at the root of any movement for human liberation." But
if schooliog is a preparation for work and a central aspect of the reproduc­
tion of tbe social relationships oí production, the clirnination of school
without the transformation o( economic life would inevitably lead to a
situation of social chaos, but probably not to a viable mass movement
toward constructive social change. In this case, the correspondence prin­
cipie simply Iails to hold, producing, at best, a tcmporary breakdown in the
social fabric, if elites can find an alternative mode of work socialization, or
ultirnately fatal, if they cannot. But only if we posit sorne csscntial pre­
social human oature oo which individuals draw when normal paths of
individual devclopmcnt are abolished, might this lcad in itself to líberating
alterna ti ves.
Illich's analysís is no more persuasive when applied to societics in the
process of building a socialist order. Indeed, thc inadequacy of Illich's
conception of education is striking in bis treatment of China and Cuba.111
ll is quite evideat that these counlries are following ncw and historicaUy
unprecedcnted directions in social developmcnt. But lllich argues the ncccs­
sity of their failure from the simple fact that thcy have not de­schooled. That
they were essentially de­schooled bcforc the rcvolution ( with no apprc­
ciable social benefits) docs not faze him. While we may welcome and em­
brace llhch's ernphasis on the social relationships of education as a crucial
variable in their interna! developmcnt toward ncw social Iorms, his own
critcrion is without practica) application.
 SCHOOLINO IN CAPITALIST AME.RICA

In our society, the argument over the sufficiency of de­schooling is

nearly irrelcvant. For schools are so important to the reproduction of
capitalist society that Lhey are unlikely to crumble undcr any but the most
massive political onslaughts, "Each of us," says Illich, "is pcrsonally re­
sponsible for his or her own de­schooling, and only we have the power to
do it." This is not true. Schooling is legally obligatory, and is the major
mcans of access to a livelihood. The political consciousness behind a
frontal attack on institutionalized education would necessarily spill over to
attacks on other major institutions. "The risks of a revolt against school,"
says Illich,

. . . are unforeseeable, but they are not as horrible as those of a revolution

starting in any other majar institution. School is not yet organized for self­
protection as effectively as a nation­state, or even a large corporation. Libera­
tion from the grip of schools could be bloodless.w

This is no more than whistling in the dark.

Although schools neitber can nor should be eliminated, the social rela­
tionships of education can be altered tbrough genuine struggle. Moreover,
the experience of botb struggle and control prepares the student for a
future of political activity in factory and office.

Conclusion

Pray for the dead and fight like bell for the living.
MOTHER ]ONES,
tum­of­the­century labor organizer

Many of the reforms discussed in tbis chapter are feasible within tbe con­
text of present­day U.S. society. Tbere are also a host of others of great
interest we have not discussed. Sorne, like local control of schools, would
extend Lo urban areas sorne of tbe priviJeges of thc relatively class­ aod
race­homogeneous suburbs. At the same time, however, local control
would f urther thc fragmentation of working pcople. Others, like educa­
tional vouchers which would offer parents a fixed sum of money per child
to spcnd on education any way they see ñr, might equalize cducational
resources and foster tbe proliferation of alternative educational seuings.
Ali would, witb hard work, have the effect oí improving, to sorne degree,
the futuro lives and present comforts of our youth. As such, thcy are

262
Educational A ltematives

desirablc indced. However, we have argucd tbat none, within its own
framework, is capable of addressing the major problems íacing U.S. socicty
today. None utilizes the full potential of the educational system for con­
tributing to social change. Only revolutionary reforms, we belicve, have
this potcntial. lrnplicit in thc necd for such reforrns is thc understanding
that educational change must contribute to a fundamental democratization
of economic life.
The possibility of rcvolutionary rcfonns in cducation arises f rom the
contradiction both within tbe school system and in the society as a wbole.
Toe open confüct between the objectives of corporate employers and other
privileged elites­to use schools to perpetuate the capitalist systern and its
structure of wealtb and powcr­and the needs of just about everyone else
for a school systcm dedicated to greater equaLity and fuller human devcl­
opment has shattered much of the liberal educational ídcology. The notion
tbat tbe U.S. school systcm does­or ever can, under capitaUsm­effec­
tively serve tbe interests of equality or human growth is going by thc
boards. Fast fading, too, is the idea that schools are­or should be­"above
polítics," more or less like foreign policy and Federal regulation of tbe
supply of moncy. The confidence and power of the liberal educational
establishment has been severely sbaken by persistent conflict and failure
during the l 960s and l 970s.
The evident potential far revolutionary reforms in cducation presents a
great opportunity for progressive social change. As in other eras of educa­
rional ferment, the outcomc over the next decade or so will depend, in large
measure, on the political will and skil1 of the opposing forces. Success in
tbe protracted educational struggle will require an acute awareness of both
the dynamics of contemporary social cbange and an alternarive to the
contemporary social order. In the final chapter, we suggest tbat a strategy
of revolutionary reforms must be bascd on an analysis of tbe contradictions
in modern capitalist society, and must offer a vision of a socialist education
and society sufficiently well­articulated to draw together tbe various groups
which, however diverse their immediate needs, stand to gain Irorn a radical
transformation of social lifc.
 CHAPTER 11

Education, S ocialism,
and Revolution
The tradition of ali the dead generations weighs like a night­
mare on the brain of the living. And [ust when they seern en­
gaged in revolutionizing themselvcs and things, in creating
something that has never yet existed, prccisely in such periods
of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spírits
of the past to their service and borrow from thcm names,
battle crics and costumes, rn order to present the new sccnc
of world history in this iime­honored disguise and this bor­
rowed language.
KARL MARX,
The Eighteenth Brtunaire
of Louis Napoleon ( 1852)

Venereal disease ravaged thc population o[ prerevolutionary China, attack­

ing one in ten in urban areas. The colonial administration in the British­
held ports was concerned indeed, and went to great lengths to battle the
dread disease. In 1920, the wife of a High Court judge, as part of a
concerted effort, collected the names of ali 900 brothels owners in Shang­
hai. They were invited to a grand hall where they would be given paper
carnations and Christian Bibles; one hundred eighry, chosen at randorn,
would be "invited" to close their establishments. Only twenty of the flour­
ishing businessmen showed up, and none saw fit to restrict their activities.
ln Shanghai alone 150,000 prostitutes were working. Their number was
continually swelled by the poverty and íarnine to which prostitution was a
welcome alternative. It was not surprising that the colonial adrninistration,
despite its good will, made no headway. Venereal disease was simply a fact
of life. Yet after the revolution, progress was so rapid that, in 1969, Dr.
Joshua Horn could say: "Active venereal disease has been complerely
eradicated from most areas and complctely controlled throughout China."1
Thc British administration should not have becn so pessimistic. Often the
best social policy is a revolulionary policy. But how could they have sus­
pected that?

264
Education, Socialism, and Revolution

Education and venereal disease are social problems of a different arder.

But our anal) sis o[ the dynamics of liberal educational reform and the
weakness oí its successes urges upon us a correspondingly radical alterna­
tive. What we demand of U.S. schools is perfectly straightforward. We
envision an educational system which, in the process of reproducing soci­
ety, vigorously prometes personal development and social equa1ity. What
we havc shown in this book is equally straightforward: The roajor char­
acteristics of the educational system in the United States today flow directly
from its role in producing a work force able and willing to staff occupa­
tional positions in the capitalist system. We conclude that the crcarion of
an equal and liberating school system requires a revolutionary transforma­
tion of economic life.
The most critica! aspect of U.S. capitaJism is that a few people own and
control the bulk oí productive rcsources, while most­aside from personal
possessions=­own only their labor power. The U.S. economy exhibits the
most extensive and complete wage­labor system in the history of civiliza­
tion. This system, which emerged historically as a progressive force in tbe
service of economic productivity and the ethos of individuality and per­
sonal freedom, has long become repressive and anachronistic, an obstacle
to further human progress. The many must daily acquiesce to domination
by the few, giving rise to the systemic perpetuation of extensive inequalities
­not only betwcen capital and wage labor, but among working people as
well. The stability and security of these economic power relationships re­
quire the crcation and reinforcement of distinctions based on sex, race,
ethnic origin, social class, and hierarchical status.
Tbe educational system, basically, neither adds to nor subtracts from the
degree of inequality and repression originating in the economic sphere.
Rather, it reproduces and legitirnates a preexisting pattern in the process of
training and stratifying the work force. How does this occur? The heart of
the process is to be found not in the content of tbe educational encounter­
or the process of information transfer­but in the form: tbe social rela­
tions of the educational encounter. These correspond closely to tbe social
relations of dominance, subordination, and motivation in the economic
sphere. Through the educational encounter, individuals are induced to ac­
cept the degree of powerlessness with which they will be faced as mature
workers.
The central prcrequisite for personal development­be it physical, emo­
tional, aesthetic, cognitive, or spiritual­lies in tbe capacity to control the
conditions of one's life. Thus a society can Ioster personal development
roughly to the extent that it allows and rcquires personal interaction along
the lines of equal, unified, participatory, and democratic cooperation and
 SCHOOLING IN CAPlTALIST AMERICA

strugglc. * Necdless to say, these very conditions are those most conducive
to social and economic equality. The U.S. educational system, in the pres­
ent nexus of economic power relationships, cannot foster such patterns oí
personal developrnent and social equality. To reproduce the labor force,
the schools are destined to legitimare inequality, limit personal develop­
ment to forms compatible with submission to arbitrary authority, and aid
in the process whereby youth are resigned to their fate.
Hence we believe­indeed, it follows logically from our analysis­that
an equal and liberating educational system can only emerge from a broad­
based movement dedicated to the transformation of economic life. Such a
movement is socialist in the sense tbat private ownership of essential pro­
ductive resources must be abolished, and control over tbe production pro­
cess must be placed in the bands of working people.
Toe goals of such a revolutionary socialism go beyond the achievernent
of the Soviet Union and countries of Eastern Europe, These countries bave
abolished prívate ownership of tbe means of production, while replicating
the relationships of economic control, dominance, and subordination char­
acteristic of capitalism. Wbile the abolition of prívate property in the means
of production has been associated with a significant reduction in economic
inequality, it has failed to address the otber problems with which we have
dealt in tbis book. The socialism to which we aspire goes beyond the legal
question of property to the concrete social question of economic dernoc­
racy as a set of egalitarian and participatory power relationships. While ,ve
may learn mucb about tbe .process of building a socialist society from the
experiences of the Soviet, Cuban, Chinese, and other socialist peoples­
and indeed, may find sorne aspects of their work downrigbt inspiring­
there is no foreign model for tbe economic transformation we seek.
Socialism in tbe United States will be a distinctly American product growing
out of our history, culture, and struggle for a better life.
What would socialism in the United States look like?2 Socialism is not
an event; it is a process. Socialism is a system of economic and political
democracy in which individuals have tbe right and obligation to structure
their work lives through direct participatory control. Our vision of social­
ism does not require as a precondition that we all be altruistic, selfless
people. Raiher, the social and economic conditions of socialism will Iacili­
tate the fuU development of human capacities. Tbese capacities are for
cooperative, democratic, equal, and participatory human relationships; for
cultural, emotional, and sensual fulfillment. We can ascribe to a prospec­
Here we could not be in closer agreerncnt with John Dewey's philosophy; see
chapter 2.
Education, Socialism, and Revolution

tive U.S. socialism no fixed form, nor is socialism a solution to all the
problems we have discussed here. Socialisrn directly solves many social
problems, but, in many respects, it is mcrcly a more auspicious arena in
which to carry on the struggle for personal and social growth. lts form will
be determined by practica! activity more than abstraer theorizing. Never­
theless, sorne reasonable aspccts of socialism in the United States of dircct
rclevance to the transformation of education can be suggested.
Toe corc of a socialist society is the dcvclopmcnt of an alternative to thc
wage­labor system. This involves the progressive democratization of the
workplace, thus freeing the cducational system to faster a more felicitous
pattern of human development and social interaction. The ironclad rela­
tionship between the division of labor and the división of social product
must also be broken: lndividuals must possess, as a basic social right, an
adequate income and equal access to food, sbelter, medica! care, and social
services independent of their economic position. Conversely, with tbe whip
of material necessity no longer forcing participation in economíc life, a
more balanced pattern of material, symbolic, and collective incentives can,
indeed must be developed. Essential in this rcspect is the legal obligation
of all to share equitably in performing those socially necessary jobs which
are, on balance, personally unrewarding and would not be voluntarily filled.
An educational system thus f reed from the legitimation of privilege could
turn its energies toward rendering the development of work skills a pleas­
ant and desirable complement toan individual's life plans.
The object of these changes in the social division of labor is not abstract
equality, but the elimination of relationships of dominance and subordi­
nacy in the economic sphere. There will certainly always be individual
differences in ability, talent, creativity, and initiative, and all should be
encouraged to develop these capacities to their f ullest. But in a socialist
system, they need not translate into power and subordinacy in control of
economic resources. For similar reasons, historical patterns of racial, sex­
ual, and ethnic discriminations must be actively redresscd as socially
divisive and unjust. What is now called household work will also be
deemed, at least in part, socially necessary labor. This work, whetber done
in collective units or individual homes, must be equitably sharcd by all
individuals.
Another central goal of socialism in the Unitcd States must be the
progressive democratization of political life. Frorn production planning, the
organizatíon of social services, and the determination of consurnption
needs at the local leve! right up to national economic planníng and other
aspects of national policy, decisions will be made in bodies consisting of or
 SCH'OOLlNG IN CAPITALIST AMERJCA

delegated by those aífected by the result. We envisage a significant role for

thc national govcrnmcnt: assuring regional cconomic equality; integrating
and rationalizing local production, service and consurnption plans; and,
directly implementing othcr social and economic policics which are infeasi­
ble at thc local lcvcl. Thc cgalitarian and dcmocratic naturc of cconomic life
should vastly incrcase the responsiveness and flexibility of governrnental
institutions. While mcdiating disputes between groups and regions will re­
main a central political function, economic equality will eliminate the nccd
of the state to pandcr to intcrcsts and powers of a small minority who
control production. Though political activity will not be a rnajor preoccu­
pation of most, the process of participation in work and community should
drarnatically increase the political sophistication, particípatíon, and knowl­
edgeability of citizens. Indeed, we venture to suggest that ali of the glaring
inadequacies of political democracy in the United States are attributable lo
thc prívate ownership of the means of production and the lack of a real
economic democracy.3
It is a tenet of liberal thought that social equality can be purchased onty
al the expense of economic efficiency. Yet the evidence is less than persua­
sive. Dernocratíc social rclationships in production lead to highly motivated
and productive workers, who will turn their creative powers toward the
improvernent of work and the satisfaction of consurner needs rather than
profit. Moreover, democratic control of work can reorient technology to­
ward the elimination of brutalizing jobs, toward a progressive expansión oí
the opponunity oí attaining skills through on­thc­job and recurrent educa­
tion, and toward a breakdown of the division between mental and physical
labor. The clirnination of racial and sexual discrirninations would liberate a
vast pool of relatively untapped talents, abilities, and human resources Ior
productive purposes. Comprehensive and rational economic planning lcads
to heightened efficiency through elimination of wasteful competiuon and
redundancy in the provisión of services ( e.g., insurance, banking, and fi­
nance), the elimination of unemployment, rational programs of research
and dcvelopment, and a balanced policy oí rcsource development with
environmental stability.
The increased efficiency oí socialist economic life should quickly reduce
the workwcek devoted to the production of social necessities, thus f reeing
individuals for crcative leisure and more informal production. Tndeed, this
aspect of individual development in U.S. socialisrn will represent onc oí its
most central successcs­a veritable new stage in the history of humankind.
Under capitalism, a true dedication to thc fostering oí individual capacities
for creative leisure and craít production is incompatible with gencrating a
Education, Socialism, and Revolution

properly subservient labor (orce. We expect the creative production and

consumption of social amenities to forro an ever­increasing portion of
economic activity in socialist society. Thus, there must be a stress on the
development of a vital craft and artistic sector in production as a voluntary
supplement to socially necessary work. It can be organizcd on a master­
apprentice or group­control line and open LO ali individuals. Far from being
a neglected afterthought in socialist society, this sector will be a rnajor
instrument in channeling the creative energies unleashed by liberated edu­
cation and unalienated work toward socially beneficia\ ends.
To those of us who envision economic equality and a social system
dedicated to fostering personal growth, democratic and participatory so­
cialism is clearly desirable. But is such a system of economic democracy
feasible? The conventional wisdom in academic social science supports a
negative reply. Yet in this book we have shown that the cynicism bred by
modern mainstream economics, sociology, and political science is based on
a series of myths: that inequality is dueto unequal abilities; that hierarchi­
cal authority is necessitated by rnodern technology; that capitalism is al­
ready meritocratic; and that the existing situation corresponds to people's
needs and is the product of their wills.
Justas the philosophers of ancient Greece could not conceive of society
without master and slave and the Scholastics of medieval times without
lord and serf, so, today, many cannot conceive of society witbout a con­
trolling managerial hierarchy and a subservient working class. Yet neither
technology nor human nature bar the way to democratic socia]ism as the
next stage in the process of civilization. Unalienated work and an equal
distribution oí its products is neither romantic nostalgia nor postindustrial
Luddism. The means of achieving social justice and of rcndering work
personally meaningf ul and compatible with healthy personal development
are as American as apple pie: democracy and equality.
What is the role of education in this process? In the context of U.S.
capitalism, a socialist education is a revolutionary education. Our objective
for U.S. schools and colleges here and now is not that they should become
the embryo of the good society but that struggles around these institutions,
and the educational process itselí, should contribute to the development of
a revolutionary, democratic socialist movement. An ideal education for a
socialist society may, in sorne respects, be irrelevant to the task of bringing
that society into existence. This danger is not intrinsically great, however,
for the struggle to liberate education and the struggle to democratize eco­
nomic life are inextricably related. The social relations oí education can be
altered through genuine struggle for a dernocratic and panicipatory class­
 .
SCHOOLING IN CAPJTALIST AMERICA

room, and for a reorganization of power in education. Toe process of

creating a socialist educational system for the United States, if successíul,
render the contradictions among administrators, teachers, and students
nonantagonistic in the sense that the day­to­day outcomes of tbeir struggles
may be the positive, healthy development of both structures and individ­
uals beneficia! to all parties concemed. The experience of struggle and
control promotes personal growtb, forges solidarity, and prepares the stu­
dent Ior a future of political activity in factory and office. The conscious­
ness nurtured in such an integrated educational encounter is one of selí­
worth, cooperation, and an implacable bostility to arbitrary authority.
Even Iollowing a successful transformation of formal power relation­
ships in the economic sphere, education will be part of the struggle for
democratization of substantive social relationships. Toe educational system
will be set the task of preparing youth for a society which, while geared
toward the progressive realization of revolutionary goals, still bears the
technological and cultural heritage of the present system. In this setting,
the social relations of education will themselves be transitional in nature.
For instance, the elimination of boring, unheaJthy, fragmented, uncreative,
constraining, and otherwise alienated but socially necessary labor requires
an extended process of technological and organizational change in a tran­
sitional phase. The shift to automated, decentralized, and worker­controlled
technologies requires the continuous supervisión and cooperation of the
workers thernselves. Any form this takes in a transitional society will in­
elude a constant struggle among tbree groups whose ultimate interests may
converge, but wbose daily .concerns remain distinct: managers concerned
with the development of the enterprise, technicians concerned with the
scientific rationality of production, and workers concerned with tbe ímpact
of innovation and management on job satisfaction and material welfare,
The present educational system does not develop in an individual the
capacities of cooperation, struggle, autonomy, and judgment appropriate to
this task. The need for developing innovative educational forms is here
paramount.

Revolutionary Education

We must force the frozen circurnstances to dance by singing

to thern their own melody.
Education, Socialism, and Revolution

A revolutionary education must be guided by a revolutionary educational

philosophy. In this secrion, we tentatively suggest what such a philosophy
might look like. We have bcen motivated by severa! conccrns. First, educa­
tional goals must rccognizc the correspondcnce bctwccn the social relation­
ships of cconomic life and those of the cducational cncountcr. Work and
personal devclopment are intimately rclated not only in capitalist, but in
any conceivable society. Second, wc want to embrace the élan of the con­
temporary cgalitarian and antiauthoritarian cntique of U.S. education
while avoidiog tbe pitfalls described in the previous chapter.
Hence, we shall develop a dialectical humanism, largely inspired by the
Marxist concept of personal development through the dialectical iruerac­
tion betwecn individuals and thcir environrncnts. In this approach, the
educational system is judged by the way it resolves the basic contradition
between the rcproduction needs of the community and the self­actualizing
needs of students and, more narrowly, íts inevitable reflection in the con­
tradiction betwccn teacher and student.
The development of simple {orms of life, from birth to death, is gov­
emed by the unfolding of genetic potential. The organisrn's natural and
social environment can promote, retard, or even end this unfolding but has
liule efícct on the f orms that it may assume. Complex forms of life, in
contrast, cxhibit lcarned components of behavioi. That is, the organism's
path of marurarion depends on its particular interaction with its enviren­
ment. The higher on the evolutionary ladder, the greater the tendency for
the individual organism to be the product of its social experience and less
of its genetic unfolding. In the case of human beings, the staggeríng variety
of past and present patterns of social interaction attests to the importaoce of
Jearned components of behavior.
The primacy of social experience in human maturation implics a basic
contradiction to which ali educational theory must relate: the contradiction
between individual and community. Among thc manifold potential paths of
individual dcvclopmcnt, only certain ones are compatible with the repro­
duction of the community. Al each point in onc's personal development,
thc individual acts on the basis of intcrcst, inclinations, and personal codes.
The final result oí this is submission to the requirernents oí social life or,
failing this, the destruction of either individual or community as consti­
tuted. The contradiction is an inescapable aspect oí modero life whether
the community is slavc or "free," class or classlcss, democratic or totali­
tarian, purgatory or utopía.
Of course, this contradiction has its realm of freedom as well as its
realm of necessity: the potes of the individual/community dichotomy de­

271
 .
SCHOOLlNG IN CA'PITAI.IST AMERICA

pcnd on one another for the very existence of cach. Personal developmcnt
is inconceivable outside a structured social context, and no community can
transcend the individuals partlcipating in its reproduction. Or more point­
cdly, we havc thc potcntíal to choose paths of personal developmcnt more
conducive lo our needs by reorganizing the institutions which frame our
social cxpericncc toward forms we embrace but within which we struggle
for autonomy and solidarity, individuality and acceptancc, free space and
social security.
The contradiction between individual and community is rnediated by
formal and informal institutions­kinship and peer group, riles of passage,
churches and armics, guild and íactories, town meetings, prisons and asy­
lums. In American society, one of these institutions is the school. Thc
essence oí the school ( or of its social surrogate) lies in its counterposition
to the student, who is taken with manifest needs and interests and turned
against his or her will into a product oí society.
Schools cannot be considered repressive merely because they induce
children to undcrgo cxpcriences they would not choose on rheir own, or
because they imposc forros of regimentation which stiñe immediate spon­
taneity. Schools, or any other institution that mediales the passage to (ull
adult social participation, are irurinsically constraining. Schools which
deny this role, or claim compatibility with a society in which this role is
unnecessary, are hypocritical and misleading. Worse, they are positively
harrnful. They thereby Iorfeit their roles as historical agcnts. To wish away
this contradiction betwecn individual and cornmunity is quickly to be
pushed aside in the historical struggle [or human liberation.
Nor would this stance be desirable were it possible. Human development
is not the simple "unfolding of innate humanity." Human potential is real­
ized only through the confrontation of genetic constitution and social ex­
perience. Dogma consists precisely in suppressing one pole oí o contradic­
tion.! The dogma of repressive education is the dogma of neccssity which
denies freedom. But we rnust avoid the alternative dogma of freedom
which denies neccssuy. Indeed freedom and individuality arise only
through a conf rontation wuh necessity, and personal powers develop only
when pitted against a recalcitrant reality. Accordingly, most indíviduals
seek environments which they not only draw on and interact with, but also
react against in furthering the developrnent of their personal powers. In­
depcndence, creativity, individuality, and physical prowess are, in this
sense, developed in institutionalized settings, as are docility, subservience,
conformity, and weakness. Differences must not líe in the presence or
absence of authority but in thc type of authority relations governing
activity.
Education, Socialism, and Revolution

If authority alonc were the culprit, the cure wouJd be its abolition­a
quick and paínless excision­as advocated, for cxarnple, by Theodore
Roszak:
... to teach m freedom, in complete freedom, in response to the native inclina­
tion of the student; to be a teacher only wben and where and insofar as the
student authorizes us to be."
But to assert authority as the culprit is to suppress the inevitable contradic­
tion between individual and community. Too often, this is done and, fre­
quently, by the most sensitive and poígnant interpreters of youth's pre­
dicament. Thus, Peter Mario can write:
[In education] the individual is central; Lhe individual in the deepest sense, is
Lhe culture, not the institution. His culture resides in him, in experience and
memory, and what is oeeded is an education that has at its base the sanctity
of tbe individual's experience and leaves it intact.s
Of course, education can recognize tbe sanctity of the individual's experi­
ence, but it cannot leave it intact.
The teacher is delegated by society to mediate the passage to adulthood,
and his or her obligation is dispatched only when society's tríp is success­
fully laid on its new members. The student, on tbe other hand, seeks the
power­within the constraints placed on him or her by society and its
coercive instruments­to use the educational encounter toward personal
ends. Tbis contradiction is pervasive and ínevitable, independent from the
wills of the individuals involved, and independent as weU from the formal­
ity or informality of the teacher­student relationship. It stands above
whatever warmtb aod personal regard these adversaries bave for one an­
ot her as human beings. By denying the necessary conflict between teacher
and student, tbe radical teacher is suppressing a most manifest, and per­
sonally destructive contradiction: that bis or her personal interests, goaJs,
and ideals often involve the negation of his or ber sociaJ role. Personally
expedient, perhaps, but socially irrelevant. Society cannot be suppressed as
easily as the consciousness of contradictions in our lives. The majority of
individuals with senses tuned to tbe realities of everyday life will take pleas
for a release from tbe bonds of authority for what they are: poetic Caney.
Toe creators of valid educational values must begin by affirming this con­
tradiction and proceed to ask whether its process of resolution, reappear­
anee, and reresolution in the educational encouoter promotes or retards
our personal development, cultivares or stunts our potentiaJ for equa] and
cooperative relationships, Iosters or hinders the growth oí our capacities to
control tbe conditions of our lives.
The immediate implication is tbat education need distort human devel­

273
 SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERJCA

opment only to the extent demanded by the repressiveness of the social

relationships of adult life. The educator must represent society in mediating
thc contradiction between individual and community in order to fulfill his
or her institutional role. Or unwilling, he or she must rnake war on social
institutions and, by opposing them, change them. Even within the individ­
ual classroom, the dissident teacher can become an effective subversive
through teaching the truth about society; through inspiring a sense of col­
lective power and mutual respect; through demonstrating that alternatives
superior to capitaJism exist; through fighting racist, sexist, and other ideol­
ogies of privilege through criticizing and providing altematives to a culture
tbat, in Woody Guthrie's words:

... malees you feel you're not any good ... just born to lose, bound to lose ...
because you're too old or too young or too fat or too tb.in or too ugly or
too this or too that, that runs you down, that pokes fun at you on account of
your bad luck or your hard traveling....

But institutional change in education, unless itself random and chaotic,

is the culmination of the coordinated activity of social classes. The politics
of a revolutionary education like its philosophy are grounded in dialectics.
They must proceed from a commitment to a revolutionary transformation
of our entire society. We bave argued both the desirability and the feasibil­
ity of a socialist society. But is it possible to get from here to there? And if
so, what form might a democratic socialist revolution take?

The Contradictions of Capitalism

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart: the centre cannot hold ...
Surely lhe Second Coming is at band.
WrLLIAM BUTLE.R YEATS, The Second Camine, 1921

A revolutionary transformation of both education and economic lite in the

United States is possible because the advanced capitalist society cannot
solve tbe problems it creates. A social system which generales or awakens
needs in people which it cannot fulfill is surely vulnerable to social up­
heavaJ. This is ali the more true when the mea ns to the satisf action of
people's felt needs are clearly available. Capitalism in the U.S. is indeed

274
Education, Sociatism. and Revolution

such a system. lt both awakens and thwarts people's needs­needs Ior

economic security, for mutual respect, and for control over onc's life.
Capitalism has, at the same time, developcd a technological and material
base which could successfully address these nceds, though undcr a radically
different social ordcr. Both the dcsirability and the possibility of dcmo­
cratic socialism flow Irorn a basic contradiction in thc capitalist system:
While capitalism vigorously prometes the devclopment oí production, ns
basic social institutions are not geared to translating this dcvclopmcnt into
balanced social development for fostering general human fulfillment and
growth. Toe power, class, and institutional arrangerncnts of capitalist
socicty do not pcrmit the f ull exploitation of the benefits of thosc productive
forces that the capitalist growth proccss has brought into bcing. Modern
capitalism is characterized by a set of highly advanccd technological pos­
siblitics playcd out in thc confines of a backward and retarding set of social
relationships. Transportation enginecrs are laid off, whilc urban mass
transir systems decay. Astronauts circle the globe cating their fill, while
fanners die of hunger. Capitalism is ao irrational systcm, standing in the
way of further social progrcss. It must be replaccd.
Progrcss and welfare in capitalist socicty is highly uneven. Americans
believe in progress. We believe that the United States is the most advanccd
country in the world. Wc mark our achievcmcnts by thc wondrous de­
velopment of science, technology, and organization that can potentially
benefit ali areas of social lifc: powcr, transportation, lclevision, computers,
wonder drugs, automation, synthetic materials, and so on. But the only
arca in which wc measure real, clear­cut progrcss is in the area of corn­
modity production: Pcr capita gross national product ( corrected for in­
flation) has quadrupled since the clase of the ninetecnth century.
Where else should we expect social progress to be equally evident? In
greater community integrity, better environment, more meaningf ul work,
grcatcr equality? ln cach of these areas, howcver, wc sce that U.S. capital­
ism is not fulfilling people's needs. Progress, when perceivable, is absurdly
slow; more often, it is nonexistent. In fact, many of these aspects of lile are
deteriorating in thc United Statcs. But this is not neccssary or inevitable.
Without the benefit of advanced technology, many societies have devel­
oped socially integrated communities which are architecturally pleasing
and well­engineered to relate work, f amily life, play, and social activity into
a meaningful unity. Capitalism has produced only thc urban nightmare, the
opprobrious dormitory suburb, the fragmented megalopolis, and the de­
pressed rural ghetto.
Why should science and technology dcstroy the natural cnvironmcnt?

275
 •
SCIIOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA

Modcrn lechnology should draw us iruo an ever more perf'ect union with
nature. Instcad, capitalist society destroys nature. This is true not only for
air and water pollution. It applies cqually lo the more general balance
between people and nature. Even if thcrc werc no pollution, thc inexorable
growth of sprawling mcgalopoliscs would eliminare the last vestiges of
nature. Our places of natural bcauty are being overrun and­far from
being brought into harmony with social Jife­are slowly being destroyed.
Since the dawn of humanity, mcn and womcn have bcen condemned lo
"earn their bread by thc sweat of their brow." Perhaps therc is no bettcr
clear­cut indication of the success of modern society than its ability to
reduce the brute physical toll of work. While millions of workers still ruin
their bodies and shorten their lives in unnecessary and often dangerous
work in America, more and more are liberated frorn this condition. But in
scarcely any other respect has progress extended to the social sphere of
work. Within capitalism, progress has not made work meaningful­indeed,
it is not hard to argue that in the olden days of independent farming and
small crafts, work ofTered an incomparably more vital outlet [or indepen­
dence, creativity, craft, and pride.
Because of the class nature of production under capitalism, there is no
progress in this sphere of social life. The ideals of the French revolution
and the American War of Indcpendence wcrc visions oí cquality. Ccrtainly,
any notion of progress includes movement toward a society of evermore
equal cconomie outcomes. Yet capitalist society exhibits no movcment
toward more cquality in such vital sphcres as income, wcalth, and powcr.
Most efforts in this direction havc failcd miserably.
But we cannot stop here in our assessment of progress. What about
people? Mose Allison once said, "Things are geuing better and better. It's
people I'm worried about!" The paradox of progress is that there are more
and more "things" around (higher GNP), but this does not seem to lead to
progrcss in the sphere of human development. The social rclationships of
economic life, despite a vast extension of productive technology, render
impossible a qualitative and society­wide expansión of people's capacuies
to function physically, cognitively, ernotionally, aesthetically. and spir­
itually.
Emotional progress? Capitalism and the "Anxious Society" are one.
Drugs, suicide, mental instability, personal insecuruy, prcdatory sexuality,
depression, loneliness, bigotry, and hatred mark the perennial fears of
Amcricans. Psychology has made advances; why cannot progress include
emotional health?
Even physical capacities are lefl out of thc march of progress. People
Education, Socialism. and Revolution

live longer with modern medica! practice­they are less prone to crippling
diseases­r­but we certainly expect much more than this from progress. Why
are we weak, uncoordinated, ñabby, and unathletic­in short, unphysical?
Why must we get our physical pleasures vicariously, watching superstars
on television, without moving a muscle?
Why is progress so uneven? The answer, important elements of whicb
have been developed in this book, is that the uneven development of social
progress results from tbe inability of the social relationships of economic
life in U.S. capitalism to harncss for social ends the productive forces to
which it gives rise. This contradiction betwecn the forces and social rela­
tions of production under advanced capitalism not only renders democratic
socialism a progressive transforrnalion of social life, but gives rise to sorne
of the basic preconditions of such a transformation. We believe that tbe
political and social upheavals of the l 960s­including tbe black and wom­
en's movements, radical student revolts, rank­and­file unrest in the labor
movement, the rise of tbe counterculture, and a new mood of equality
among youth­bave ushered in a growing consciousness directed against
tbe power relationships of the U.S. society. Tbese are but manifestations of
the contradictions that inevitably arise out of the system's own successes­
contradictions that lead to social dislocation and require structural change
in the social relations of production for the furtber development of the
social system.
Central to our optimism that social revolution is indeed possible in tbe
United States is the ever­wídening gulf between human needs­what
people want­aod the imperatives of further capitalist expansion and pro­
duction. This position may seem out of place in a book which has laid sucb
stress on the reproduction of consciousness and skills consistent with capi­
taJist expansión. Toe preponderant influence of the capitalist class, nol only
on the structure of the workplace but on schools and other institutions cen­
tral to the process of human developmcnt, is well documeoled. Why then
do the needs of workers diverge from those of capital? We can only outline
an answer.
The work process produces people as well as commodities. But people,
unlike commodities, can never be produced exactly to capitalist specifi­
cations. The product­including the experienced needs of people=­depends
both upon the raw material with whicb the production process begins. and
the "treatment" it receives. Neither is by any mcans under the ful) control
of the capitalist class.
What people become, the consciousness thcy exhibit, the needs they feel
depcnds on the joint interaction of human genetic potential and the social

277
 SCHOOLING IN CAPlTALlST AM.ERICA

environrnents experienced by the dcvcloping person. lt matters not tbat

thc pauerns o( development consisteru with human genetic constitution dis­
play an impressive variety. What is critica! here is that people bring to the
process of personal development something indcpcndent of tbe ..... ills of the
ca pi talíst class.
Equally important, thc social expcriences through which genetic potential
is developed are not determined solcly by tbc capitalist class. To paraphrase
Marx in a diffcrent context: the capitalist class produces people, but not
exactly as it chooses and under conditions inherited from the past. It is
equally true tbat people produce thernselves. J ust as labor is an active agent
in the process of productíon and nevera passive commodity, so too, human
beings are active agents in their own reproduction, pursuing their own ends
and resisting the designs of otbers.
The institutions which govem the process of human development­
families and schools as well as the workplace­have evolved historically
in response to struggles among competing groups, of which the capitalist
class has been dominant but by no means unchallenged. ln the school sys­
tem, as wc have emphasized, contradictory forces meet: capital expressing
its objective­a well trained and well­behaved work force­and students
and their families pursuing their own objectives­material security, intellec­
tual and cultural development. and the li.ke. The outcome, today's school
system, cannot be understood without reference to these partially successful
attempts over a century and a half by working people to capture sorne con­
trol over the process of b_uman development.
The conditions of human development are inherited from the past and
are, for this reason as well, never perfectly attuned to the changing needs of
capital. Values, needs, and consciousness which may once have been con­
sistent with the objectives of capital often become anacbronistic barriers
to the further accumulation of capital and the reproduction of the class
structure. Perhaps no better example of this can be given than the spread of
democratic ídeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. lnitiallj
propagated by bourgeois ideologists in the struggle betwecn capital and the
Crown, the "Rights of Man" quickly became a potentially powerful ,veapon
in the hands of the working class.
The felt necds of working peo ple may diverge f rom thc rcquirements of
capital for other reasons as well. Most fundamental, perhaps, is the now
familiar fact that the capitalists' objectives for the development of a labor
force may be intcrnally inconsistcnt. Thus, contradictions bctween thc
progressive. growth­oriented tendencies of the capitalist accumulation
process and the conservative, inertial tendencies of the capitalist social
Education, Socialism, and Revoiuüon

rclations oí production are evidcnt within the school system itselí. The
irnperative of enhancing labor powcr consistcnt with tbe cvolving forces
of production oftcn, as we havc seco, clashcs with the objective of repro­
ducing the social. political, and cconomic conditions for thc pcrpetuation of
capitalism as a systcm.
This contradiction between accumulation and rcproduction is, of course,
quite general, rcaching far beyond the school systcm, and giving riso to a
broad range of revolutionary possibilitics.
AL the base of these contradictions lies the írrcconcilable and repcatedly
erupting antagonisms between capital and labor. Yet the fundamental
character of tbcse antagonisms has changed in severa! significant ways in
recenl bistory. First, the legitimacy of the capitalist systcm has bcen histor­
icaUy based, in no small part, on its proveo ability to satisfy pcoplc's
consurnption necds. The ever­increasing mass of consumcr goods and ser­
vices seemed to promise constant improvemcnt in levels of wcll­being for
ali. Yet tbe vcry success of the process has underrninded the urgency of
consumer wants. Other nceds­for community, for security, for a more
integral and self­initiated work and social üfe­are coming to the fore and
indeed are tbe product of U.S. society's very failures. These needs are
unificd by a common characteristic: They cannot be met sirnply by produc­
ing more consumer goods and services. On thc contrary, the econornic
foundatioos of capital accumulation are set firmly in the destruction of the
social basis for tbe satisfaction of tbcse needs. Thus through cconomic
development itself, needs are generated that the advanced capitalist system
is not geared to satisfy. Tbe legitimacy of the capitalist order must increas­
ingly be handled by other social mecbanisms, of which the cducational
system is a major element. It is not clear that the Jatter can bear this
strain.
Second, the concentration of capital and the continuing scparation of
workcrs=­whitc collar and professional as wcll as manual­from control
over the production process have reduced the natural defenders of the
capitalist order to a small minority. Two hundred ycars ago, over threc­
fourtbs of wbite familics owned land, tools, or other productive property;
this figure has fali en to about a third and, cven among this group, a uny
minority owns the lion's share oí ali productive propcrty. Similarly, two
hundrcd ycars ago, most whitc male workcrs were their own bosses. The
dcmisc of the family Iarrn, thc artisan shop, and the small store plus the
rlse of the modern corporation has rcduccd thc figure to lcss than 1 O
percent. Even for tbe relatively well­off, white, mate American worker, the
capitalist systcm has come to mean what it has meant ali along for rnost

279
 •
SCHOOLING IN CAPJTALIST AMERICA

wornen, blacks, and other oppresscd pcoplcs: somconc else's right to proí­
its, somconc clsc's right to work unbossed and in pursuit of onc's own
objcctives. Thc decline of groups outside tbe wage­labor systern­e­Iarmcr,
artisan, entrcpreneur, and indepcndcnt profcssional­has elirninatcd a bal­
last o( capitalist support, leaviog the legitímatlon system alone to divide
workers against onc another.
Third, developments in technology and work organization bave bcgun to
undermine a main line of deíense of the capitalist systern; namely, thc idea
that tbe capitalist relations of production­private propcrty and the hier­
archical organízation of work­arc tbc most conducive to thc rapid ex­
pansion of productivity. \Ve have suggested that in tbose complex work
tasks that increasingly domínate modem production, participatory control
by workers is a more productive forro of work organization. Thc borcdom
and stultification of the production line and the stcno pool, the shackled
creativity of technical workers and teachers, the personal (rustration of the
bureaucratic office routine increasingly lose their clairn as the price of
material comfort. Toe ensuing attacks on bureaucratic oppression go hand
in hand with dymystification of the system as a whole. Support for capital­
ist institutions­­once firmly rooted in tbeir superiority in meeting urgent
consumption necds and squarely based on a broad mass of property­
owning independcnt workers­is thus weakened by the process of capitalist
development itsclf. At the samc time, powerful anticapitalist forces are
brougbt into bcing. The accumulation of capital­tbe engine of growth
under capitalism­has as its ncccssary companion thc prolctarlanization of
labor, and the constant increase in the size of the working class.
Fourth, thc international expansión of capital has Cucled nationalist and
anticapitalist movements in many of the poor countrics. Thc strains associ­
atcd with the world­wide intcgration of the capitalist system are manif ested
in heightened divisions and cornpetition among the capitalist powers thc
resistance of the people of Vietnam. in the socialist revolutions in China
and Cuba, and in the political instability and guerrilla movernents in
Asia, Africa, and Latín America. The U.S. role in opposition to wars of
national liberation­particularly in Vietnam­has brought part of the
struggle back home and exacerbatcd many of thc domestic contradictions
of advanced capitalism.
Fifth, and cutting across ali of the above, with tbc return of compara­
tively smooth capitalist devclopmcnt in the Unitcd Statcs in thc mid­l 950s
alter the tumultuous decades of the 1930s and 1940s, the impact oí far­
reaching cumuJative changcs in thc class structure is increasingly rcflectcd
in crises of public consciousness. The corporatization o( agriculture and

280