The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in EDUCATION

The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in EDUCATION
These days schools or the school system is under the strong pressure. The pressure forces schools and teachers to change. The change seems to have some similarity with the change Russian agriculture met in Lenin's days. Here I tried to paraphrase some lines in "The DEVELOPMENT of CAPITALISM in RUSSIA", which was written by Lenin.

It goes without saying that the above-mentioned separation of the manufacturing
from the raw materials industry, of manufacture from agriculture, transforms
agriculture itself into an industry, into a commodity-producing branch of
economy. The process of specialisation that separates from each other the
diverse varieties of the manufacture of products, creating an ever-growing
number of branches of industry, also manifests itself in agriculture, creating
specialised agricultural districts (and systems of farming)[1] and ? giving rise
to exchange not only between the products of agriculture and industry but also
between the various products of agriculture. This specialisation of commercial
(and capitalist) agriculture manifests itself in all capitalist countries, in
the international division of labour; this is true of post-Reform Russia as
well, as we shall show in detail below.

It can be easily conjectured that the education was conducted within any form of the family or community in the prehistoric days, or even in the pre-modern ages for most of the people. The separation of the education from the family or community transforms the education itself into an industry, into a commodity-producing or service-providing branch of economy. The process of specialisation that separates from each other the diverse varieties of the manufacture of products or services, creating an ever-growing number of branches of industry, also manifests itself in education, creating specialised educational districts (and systems of teaching) and giving rise to exchange not only between the products or services of education and those of industry but also between the various products or services of education. This specialisation of commercial (and capitalist) education manifests itself in all capitalist countries, in the international division of labour; this is true of post-World-War-II Japan as well.

the categorical assertion is bluntly made here that there is no social division
of labour in Russia! The Narodnik theory of the “artificial character” of
capitalism in Russia could only have been evolved by rejecting, or proclaiming
as “artificial,” the very foundation of all commodity economy, namely, the
social division of labour.

As schools has started changing, some teachers are against the change and stick to the present or past system. They are, ironically, "progressives". They feel nostalgia for the past, their good old days, when education used to be "collective" or patriarchal, when they used to be patriachs at school and in class. They blutaly make the categorical assertion that there is no social division of labour in education! The Narodnik education theory of the “interference (artificial character)” of capitalism and commercialism in education could only have been evolved by rejecting, or proclaiming as “interfering (artificial),” the very foundation of all commodity economy, namely, the social division of labour.

The population of a country in which commodity economy is poorly developed (or
not developed at all) is almost exclusively agricultural. This, however, must
not be understood as meaning that the population is engaged solely in
agriculture: it only means that the population engaged in agriculture, also
process the products of agriculture, and that exchange and the division of
labour are almost non-existent.

In the past, there used to be no division of labour in education. The people concerned in education in which commodity economy is poorly developed (or not developed at all) are almost exclusively teachers. This, however, must not be understood as meaning that the people are engaged solely in teaching: it only means that the people engaged in teaching, also process the teaching materials, and that exchange and the division of labour are almost non-existent.
The conversion of the small producer into a wage-worker presumes that he has lost the means of production?land, tools, workshop, etc.?i.e., that he is “impoverished,” “ruined.”
Before the division of labour was introduced into the education, a teacher used to be a kind of a small producer, or an independent enterprise. The conversion of the teacher into a wage-worker presumes that he has lost the means of education --- teaching materials, curriculums, evaluation, workshop, etc. --- i.e., that he is “impoverished,” “ruined.”

It is forgotten that the “freeing” of one section of the producers from the
means of production necessarily presumes the passage of the latter into other
hands, their conversion into capital; presumes, consequently, that the new
owners of these means of production produce as commodities the products formerly
consumed by the producer himself, i.e., expand the home market;

Not all the peple in the educational society became wage-workers. Some formed bureaucracy, and some others became entrepreneurs. The “freeing” of another larger section of the teachers from the means of education necessarily presumes the passage of the latter into other hands, their conversion into capital; presumes, consequently, that the new owners of these means of education produce as commodities the products or services formerly productively consumed by the teacher himself, i.e., expand the educational market.

the decline in the well-being of the patriarchal peasant, who formerly conducted
a mainly natural economy, is quite compatible with an increase in the amount of
money in his possession, for the more such a peasant is ruined, the more he is
compelled to resort to the sale of his labour-power, and the greater is the
share of his (albeit scantier) means of subsistence that he must acquire in the
market.

It is, however, not surprising that the wage-worker teachers are controling more money than their ancestors. The decline in the prestige of the patriarchal teacher, who formerly conducted mainly natural or communal education, is quite compatible with an increase in the amount of money under his control, for the more such a teacher is ruined, the more he is compelled to resort to the purchase of teaching materials and services in the market.
the ruin of the small producers in a society of developing commodity economy and capitalism means the very opposite to what Messrs. N.?on and V. V. want to deduce therefrom; it means the creation and not the shrinkage of the home market.
Therefore, the ruin of the small teachers in an educational society of developing commodity economy and capitalism means ... the creation and not the shrinkage of the education-related market.

The basic process of the formation of a home market (i.e., of the development of
commodity production and of capitalism) is the social division of labour. This
consists of various forms of processing raw materials (and various operations in
this processing) separating from agriculture one after another and becoming
independent branches of industry, which exchange their products (now commodities
) for the products of agriculture. Thus, agriculture itself becomes industry
(i.e., produces commodities), and the same process of specialisation takes place
in it.

The basic process of the formation of an education-related market (i.e., of the development of education-related commodity production and of education-related capitalism) is the social division of labour in education. This consists of various forms of processing teaching materials and teaching services (and various operations in this processing) separating from teaching one after another and becoming independent branches of education-related industry, which exchange their products and services (now commodities ) for the education-related budget and for the family educational expenses. Thus, education itself becomes industry (i.e., produces commodities), and the same process of specialisation takes place in it.

The separation of the direct producer from the means of production, i.e., his
expropriation, signifying the transition ? from simple commodity production to
capitalist production (and constituting the necessary condition for this
transition), creates the home market. The process of this creation of the home
market proceeds in two directions: on the one hand, the means of production from
which the small producer is “freed” are converted into capital in the hands of
their new owner, serve to produce commodities and, consequently, are themselves
converted into commodities. Thus, even the simple reproduction of these means of
production now requires that they be purchased (previously, these means of
production were reproduced in greater part in the natural form and partly were
made at home), i.e., provides a market for means of production, and then the
product now produced with the aid of these means of production is also converted
into a commodity. On the other hand, the means of subsistence of the small
producer become the material elements of the variable capital, i.e., of the sum
of money expended by the employer (whether a landowner, contractor,
lumber-dealer, factory owner, etc., makes no difference) on hiring workers.
Thus, these means of subsistence are now also converted into commodities, i.e.,
create a home market for articles of consumption.

The separation of the teacher from the means of education, i.e., his expropriation, signifying the transition from simple education to capitalist education (and constituting the necessary condition for this transition), creates the education-related market. The process of this creation of the education-related market proceeds in two directions: on the one hand, the means of education from which the teacher is “freed” are converted into capital in the hands of their new owner, serve to produce commodities and, consequently, are themselves converted into commodities. Thus, even the simple reproduction of these means of education now requires that they be purchased (previously, these means of education were reproduced in greater part in the natural form and partly were made at school), i.e., provides a market for means of education, and then the product now produced with the aid of these means of education is also converted into a commodity. On the other hand, the means of subsistence of the teacher, i.e. on-the-job trainings, become the material elements of the variable capital, i.e., of the sum of money expended by the employer (whether a government, educational foundation, noodle-restaurant owner, etc., makes no difference) on hiring workers. Thus, these OJTs are now also converted into commodities, i.e., create a education-related market.

in capitalist production the basis for the formation of a home market is the
process of the disintegration of the small cultivators into agricultural
entrepreneurs and workers

In capitalist education the basis for the formation of a education-related market is the process of the disintegration of the teachers into educational entrepreneurs and workers. Then what does the disintegration base on?

The Zemstvo statisticians of Taurida have grouped the peasant households
according to area under crops?a very sound method, one that renders it possible
to form a precise judgement of the economy of each group due to the predominance
in that locality of grain cultivation with extensive farming.

What might be "a sound method" to group teachers? According to working hours? According to their goals and the accomplishment of them? According to the contribution for the team? According to the number of papers? One possible answer might be how richly they are networked.

the “home market” grows as a result of the conversion into a commodity of the
product of commercial, entrepreneur farming, on the one hand, and of the
conversion into a commodity of the labour-power sold by the badly-off peasants,
on the other.

Richly networked teachers might process more Intelligent Property: teaching materials, teaching knowhows, information sources, etc. The education-related intelligent property market grows as a result of the conversion into a commodity of the product of commercial, entrepreneur educating, on the one hand, and of the conversion into a commodity of the labour-power sold by the poorly-trained teachers, on the other.
the well-to-do peasants, not withstanding the fact that they are best provided with allotment land,[20] concentrate in their hands the bulk of the purchased and the rented land and turn into small land owners and capitalist farmers
The well-to-do teachers, not withstanding the fact that they are best provided with allotment education-related intelligent property, concentrate in their hands the bulk of the purchased and the rented education-related intelligent property and turn into small education-related intelligent property owners and capitalist educators.

It is quite natural that the well-to-do peasantry also employ a farming
technique much above the average (larger size of farm, more plentiful supply of
implements, available financial resources, etc.); that is to say, the well-to-do
peasants “do their sowing faster, make better use of favourable weather, sow the
seed in more humid soil,” and reap their harvest in proper time; they thresh
their grain as it is carted in from the field, etc.

It is quite natural that the well-to-do teachers also employ a teachng technique much above the average (larger size of teaching staff, more plentiful supply of teaching materials, available financial resources, etc.); that is to say, the well-to-do teachers do their planning faster, make better use of favourable timing, give the lessons to more well-prepared students, and reap their feedback in proper time; they report their gain as it is feedbacked from classrooms and/or schools, etc.

It is also natural that the expenditure on the production of agricultural
produce diminishes (per unit of product) as the size of the farm increases.

It is also natural that the expenditure of working hours on the production of any educational activity diminishes (per unit of product) as the size of the team increases.

The further the penetration of commodity production into crop cultivation, and,
consequently, the keener the competition among the agriculturists, the struggle
for land and for economic independence, the more vigorously must this law be
manifested, a law which leads to the ousting of the middle and poor peasants by
the peasant bourgeoisie.

The further the penetration of commodity production into education, and, consequently, the keener the competition among the teachers, the struggle for education-related intelligent property and for educational independence, the more vigorously must this law be manifested, a law which leads to the ousting of the middle and poor teachers by the education bourgeoisie.

Hence, the argument of Mr. Karyshev, for example, that the relation between
community renting and individual renting expresses a “conflict between two
principles (!?),the communal and the individual” (p.159, loc. cit.), that
community renting “is characterised by the labour principle and the principle of
even distribution of rented land among the community members” (ibid., 230)?this
argument belongs entirely to the sphere of Narodnik prejudices.

Old patriachal leftists argue that the relation between collective education and individual education expresses a conflict between two principles, the communal and the individual, that collective education is characterised by the labour principle and the principle of even distribution of educational authority among the community members, that is teachers. This argument belongs entirely to the sphere of Narodnik prejudices.

Both Mr. V. V. and Mr. N.?on began with highly serious air to “refute” Mr.
Postnikov’s absolutely unserious “projects” (Mr. V. V. in Russkaya Mysl[Russian
Thought ], 1894, No. 2; Mr. N.?on in his Sketches, p. 233, footnote), accusing
him of the evil intention of introducing capitalism into Russia, and carefully
avoiding the data which revealed the prevalence of capitalist relations in the
countryside of South Russia today.

The old patriarchal leftists accuse liberalists of the evil intention of introducing capitalism into education, and carefully avoid the data which reveal the prevalence of capitalist relations even in public schools today.

the wealthier the peasants the more they rent land, despite the fact that they
are better provided with allotment land.

The wealthier the teachers the more they rent Intelligent Property, despite the fact that they are better provided with allotment Intelligent Property. Then what does rentable Intelligent Property mean to teachers? It is what rich networks they have, that is how richly they are connented with other education-related personnel or talents.
significance of the way rentable land is grabbed by the rich peasants
So the way rentable Intelligent Property are grabbed by the rich teachers is significant. That is how well and with whom they are networked or connented.

The concentration of land renting in the hands of the well-to-do peasants, its
industrial character, its connection with land leasing by the bottom group of
the peasantry

The concentration of Intelligent Property renting in the hands of the well-to-do teachers, its industrial character, its connection with Intelligent Property leasing by the bottom group of the teachers. It does not mean that the former teachers exploy the latter, but means the former will be more richly networked through the latter.
Labour hours used to concentrate to the well-to-do teachers. They used to work longer than others. Though they still work longer, what concentrate in the hands of the well-to-do teachers now is Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property here is education-related knowledge, teaching know-hows, or connections with the informative people. Knowledge itself is the result of the connections with the past intellectuals. That is, the concentration of connections is essential to be a well-to-do teacher.

When the peasantry combine agricultural and industrial occupations on a large
scale, a combination of the two systems of classification is necessary, i.e., of
classification according to the scale and type of agriculture, and of
classification according to the scale and type of “industries.”

When the teachers combine educational (or teaching) and education-related industrial occupations on a large scale, a combination of the two systems of classification is necessary, i.e., of classification according to the scale and type of teaching, and of classification according to the scale and type of education-related industries.