Hello.
DarwinX wrote:Socialism was created to improve equality but the translation of this process of equalization and its interpretation of its details is where socialism goes astray. Human nature doesn't allow the concepts of socialism to be effectively practiced. Socialism assumes that human nature is kind and caring when this is not necessarily the case.
I find this to be true, even though I hold empathies to some forms of socialism—for clarity, a la Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, and the like—just as much as I hold empathies to fair, or meritocratic, capitalism. And I don't find the two systems to necessarily conflict. However, the same general predicament of human nature applies toward any other system of politics aspiring for equality. For instance: as the rhetoric and ideals of communism were utilized to sustain totalitarian regimes, the converse of the ideal, so too are the rhetoric and ideals of democracy utilized to sustain totalitarian oligarchy—again, the converse of the ideal—in many parts of the world today.
I'm also in general agreement with a fair sum of the OP’s critique of modern education. I, for instance, strongly agree that self-esteem or dignity is gained via effort—by integrity of character—and not by it being force-fed to someone regardless of what they do or don’t do.
Still, this quote by enegue seems to underlie a good portion of this thread’s topic:
enegue wrote:There are two fundamental views that people hold in regard to how society should be structured:
- vertically - king and subjects/master and servants; or
- horizontally - everyone is a king/everyone is servant
There is the question of what other alternatives to vertical and horizontal power structures, as ideals to be pursued, there might be. Realistically, we live in a political world that has always been composed of both types of power structures comingling: one that leans towards supremacy over other and one that leans toward equality of worth and consequent, merit-based privilege (such as the concept of “justice for all” typically connotes). This factual state of current affairs doesn’t yet present a third alternative to choose from in terms of how things ought to be.
Which of the two alternatives is then an ethical good to be pursued? Were the ideal of horizontal power structure to be deemed good—and I like many others do hold it to be—then the issues revolve around how to best implement it in manners that prevent it from collapsing into tyranny—and not in whether or not it should be striven for.
The founders of the USA to me held the right approach: a system of checks and balances among all competing power structures. And free education, along with Franklin’s invention of the public library, was part of this system of checks and balances--both of these arguably being socialistic in their nature. But without the majority holding horizontal power structure as an ideal to be pursued, this too can easily slip into vertical structures of political order.
Bringing this train of thought back to Dewey and socialism, I don’t yet find the pinnacle issue with modern education to be that of intentions upon a socialistic politics (e.g., single payer health care system, etc.)—to whatever extent this might be true, and I’m not well enough versed in Dewey to decide. But, instead, to me the pinnacle issue with education and our current politics is the loss of civic concern, within democratic nations, for the horizontal power structures which democracy stands for.
Though I take it we feel differently about the possibilities of socialism as a tenable means toward improved equality, I’d welcome your feedback on, to again paraphrase, horizontal power structures as an ideal to be pursued.
