>>2289531mein gott, schools under capitalism
are going to be instutions where you get literate enough to participate in society (as a wage worker). it's the baseline expected of average labor power. society has advanced that much that there is a need to have higher baseline expectation of the general population so that they may (under someone else's directive, if under capitalism) operate society. but it this sense they are progressive because a mediaeval peasant wouldn't be able to operate in modern society, for example.
now
of course if you aren't retarded this makes sense because modern schools are developemnts of the prussian school which needed to
exactly that - get a large population educated
quickly so that they may operate with the state machinery, and even get some professionals
quickly.
schools are, this is all very true, and especially with the bologna reform in europe, fordist assembly lines of average labor power and professional labor power.
are schools going to look like this under communism? probably not. the soviet union and china followed the model that
historically worked to get on par with imperialists. that's understandable. how are schools going to be organized? probably something like yugoslavia's model + less nonsense taught (marx writes somewhere that children's education should also enhalt actual factory work - i agree!). so a more developed form of prussian schools. but this is, also, understandable (if you are not an idiot) because you have to construct socialism out of
real existing things. you can't just imagine a new system ex nihilo.
and that's my main gripe with anarchist talking points like this (yes, talking about the 'end' of proletarian dictatorship (i.e. communism) and how 'that' would look like is anarchist because it's utopian) is that they contribute
nothing to the real movement but just make it harder to make communism a mass movement by demanding that all members of the movement have an opinion on every retarded take you can think of.
>What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual –and that will be the end of it.