Martin Wilke (email@example.com)
Tue, 09 May 2000 15:13:47 +0200
Joe Jackson schrieb:
> Joe from Fairhaven
> I think the Sudbury Model is equally and potentially incompatible with
> either system. In a free market system large corporations can tend to
> monopolize and dominate and develop a ability to exert fierce pressure on
> smaller ones. My fear would be that in such a system where the current
> educational mainstream became privatized, their first goal would be what it
> is today: to wipe out small radical schools like ours.
> On the other hand, a socialized system, which most certainly is closer to
> what we have today in the field of education, it's become crystal clear
> that, as Dennis said, State governments ARE the monopolized educational
> monoliths of my first paragraph that would universally like to rid society
> of schools that do not fit their mold. I can't speak for most other states,
> but the 1950's mentality that only university professors can possibly know
> how to educate children still pervades the culture of Maryland Department of
> Education today.
I want to pick up again a subject from some weeks ago.
The above paragraphes were only about the educational sector itself. But
what I'd like to know is what supporters of democratic schools think
about the economics.
My impression was, that there are some people who are close to the
Liberal Party, which - as I understood - rejects the state in every
field of life, so not only stands for individual rights, but also
doesn't want government control over economics. Why do these liberal
people support Sudbury Schools? How, in their opinion, do students grown
up with liberty and in democracy fit into an economic system that
doesn't provide such freedom for most of the people working in it?
On the other hand there seem to be supporters of Sudbury Schools, who
reject the capitalist system for its repressive implications. Some
people probably misunderstood what I mean by democratic socialism.
By democratic socialism I don't mean a social welfare system added to
capitalism, but rather a model of economics where making profit doesn't
come before everything else, a model where everybody can live a life in
dignity, where everybody has enough to eat, where no-one is homeless,
and where the infrastructure of a city is not owned by some company, but
by the city population, a model that at the same time is not autocratic
and centralized like those in Eastern Europe a decade ago, but really
I don't want to argue in favor or against one of these economic systems
but rather want to know why people with so different views on economy
support the Sudbury Model and believe that it fits in their favored
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:34 EDT