A continuation of the debate on education in the Communist thread.

Which was about... what?

“
I agree that government involvement should be minimized, but for some things it's rather necessary. For example, the education system. If left completely as a capitalistic entity, some schools will prosper, but at the cost of a vast majority of other schools. No, the poor should not be given slightly better schools at the cost of the wealthy people's education either, but that's why there are private schools.
”
The problem is that at public education can degenerate quickly. See the US' at the present time, for instance.

Originally Posted by Prince_James
I.D.:



My definition offered seems to contradict this, although I could not tell you which one is true.

I think it is time to find quotes from Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto.

Anyone have them off hand to discuss Marx's own words on whether or not Socialism and Communism are the same?

However, even if we shall admit that Socialism is not the same as Communism, it is pretty much extraneous to the main push of the argument: That a system whose foundational principle is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is fundamentally a "double evil".



It depends on whether one accounts for taxation. Owing to the sharp gradient, one earning more often earns less than one who is earning less, because of the taxation one has on income. In that sense, social mobility is lower, in as much as one must accomplish much more in order to attain to much more, whereas such is not the case say, in the United Sttes, or otherwise less regulated economies.

However, Sweden is not entirely against merit and such, nor is it founded on "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" so my main Communist critique is not applicable to it.



The problem is that at public education can degenerate quickly. See the US' at the present time, for instance.
”
Just a quick note on the last sentence. Public schools are excellent for wealthy suburban school districts with parents that are willing to pay higher taxes for them. Check out test scores in upscale white suburbs. Public schools in ghettos do not fare as well as the patrons generally are not supportive of education. Slapping all public schools with the "failed" label may be a simple task but it just isn't true.
The current system is a caste system I would think you'd be in favor of: Wealthy to upper middle class white suburbanites get new schools, excellent and motivated teachers and national recognition of test scores, college enrollment and other goodies. Poorer urban minorities get battered buildings, exhausted, burned out and stressed teachers and a patronage that places little value on education.

Originally Posted by Prince_James
You also fail to realize that upscale whites have:

1. A twofold genetic advantage. Their parents are most likely higher-IQ and their race is on average higher IQ-ed than blacks and Latinos.

2. A cultural advantage: Upscale white culture is not against education like lowscale black and Latino culture.

3. An economic advantage: They can get more books, more tutors, more access to things, et cetera.

4. A behavioural advantage: Upscale whites do not commit crimes and cause distirubances as often as lowscale blacks and Latinos.

So now instead of bashing all public schools maybe you can just target Urban School Systems instead.

It's because funding education is the responsibility of state and local governments, not the federal government. Federal education spending only covers things like schools on military bases, administration of standardized tests, and programs to train teachers. Total taxpayer spending on education is larger than on *anything* else (almost as much as Social Security and defense combined).

A quick run through.

However, nations that spend far less achieve higher levels of student performance.

But the systems controlling the schools are still inept, obviously.

Just a quick note on the last sentence. Public schools are excellent for wealthy suburban school districts with parents that are willing to pay higher taxes for them. Check out test scores in upscale white suburbs.
I disagree with this(maybe not disagree,but say that you're over-generalising). I've went public schols in ghettos quite a bit, and I've been to one of these types of schools. It was in Hubbard, OH, and on average, I'd say that the kids there were just about as stupid as anywhere else I've been. I only went there for a little over half a year, so I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure...just as stupid. That means the schools were failing them just as much as everywhere else. Sure I never had to worry about getting jumped if I walked to school(which I never did, because I lived right on the edge of the district), but stupid kids= a failing system IMO.

More racist bullshit from Prince_James:

You also fail to realize that upscale whites have:

1. A twofold genetic advantage. Their parents are most likely higher-IQ and their race is on average higher IQ-ed than blacks and Latinos.

There is no reliable correlation between income and IQ. There are no reliable racial differences in IQ.

2. A cultural advantage: Upscale white culture is not against education like lowscale black and Latino culture.

Nobody is against education.

There is absolutely no evidence for your racist and bigotted statement.

3. An economic advantage: They can get more books, more tutors, more access to things, et cetera.

Yes, rich people can afford more books. Wow! What insight.

4. A behavioural advantage: Upscale whites do not commit crimes and cause distirubances as often as lowscale blacks and Latinos.

There is no evidence that whites have a lower propensity to commit crimes than black people.

Take your racism somewhere else.