Ketraar wrote:
Having theories and ideas, even without evidence, is how we usually advance our societies, we think of stuff and try it, then we adjust. If you are not willing theorise, no good idea will ever emerge.
Please, you're making it sound like Socialism wasn't given a fair chance, that humanity denied it at inception. It was given many chances, and fail at each of those chances. May I ask, idea is an idea, how can you classify it as a "good" idea until it's proven to work, especially when all evidence seem to suggest the contrary to the theory?
And that leads me too ...
It served to counter the idea that "socialism does not work" based on how those non socialist countries failed at not being socialist at all.
I think I start seeing where your conviction come from, since you're giving yourself an extremely convenience argument here. It's like an engineer creates a product and give it to many people to test over a long period of time, and it fails at each and every circumstance. But, per the engineer, base on theory the product should always work, and they just haven't find someone who know how to use it yet, and they just have to keep trying until they find someone who do. Heh, congratulation I guess? With this twisted logic, you have an ironclad defense since it would be impossible to prove you wrong.
For me, the engineer can take his perfect product to the grave with him for all I care, there is no point to a product if the mass can't adapt to it and use it. Like I said, we're human, we need a system that works for us "as human", not one that only works base on the assumption we're all saints. The "philosophy" of a governance system is not something that can be changed at once or experience without cost either. I don't care if you think about they were true socialism or not, the fact that each and every countries who tried to embrace the idea in full, in the past or present, either crashed and burnt (Soviet and Cold War communism), or crashing and burning (Latin America), or about to crash and burn (France and Belgium), each time it plunges generations of nations into darkness. I was almost part of one those generations, lucky for me I found an escape route.
For me, continuing the Socialist experience is akin to trying to continue a clinical trial of a 'supposed' miracle cure when it has never been shown to cure anything, and killing a lot of patients at the same time. There has to be a limit somewhere when we say "nope, this doesn't work out, let's move on".
Well, at least we can agree in one thing, yes, those idea are absolutely not new as I 'remember' them very well. Those manifesto is the same sweet sweet poison that was fed to me the moment I knew how to write and read, and it was a regular dish on the main course for 15 odds year. The words are more embellished here, and some change due to different translation, but I find the taste is every bit as nauseous as I remember. Well, I'm sure to those without prior experience it tastes good though.
My personal understanding of education is not based on levels, in fact I'm part of a Social Organization for Education that aspires to introduce a different type of education, called
Unschooling
Regardless of which system is in use, the point here is the argument have to be quantifiable. It has to have a specific standard and goal, so that one can decide things like "did we do enough", "did we reach our goal", "did we success or fail". Imagine if I'm a tenant signing a contract with a landlord, and see the phrase "providing all basic needs", I'll be sure as hell to inquire exactly what entail "basic needs".
See, "Free Education" and "Free Basic Education" are two completely different argument. The word 'basic' is a darling word to socialists (just like the same many words in your first link above), since if they can sale something as basic, then it'll become a god given right that can be taken for granted. It's a game that I'm too familiar with, the first course of the game is to appeal to people in providing just the 'basic', once enough people buy into that narrative, the second course is to push that 'basic' as high as possible, what normally an optional luxury can now become an absolute necessity.
The thing is, I'll be the first one to admit the education system in the US is messed up, we're not ranked near bottom among the developed nation for no reason. But that reason has nothing to do with Socialism or Capitalism. The socialism side of argument is only half of what make me dislike Sander proposal, the other half is it shows how clueless he is about the root cause of the problem. God know we put a lot of resource into it already, and the problem is not something that will be fixed by throwing even more money at it. To make long story short: it's failing because the students are not being taught what they need to know. The problem is not because the system is not spending enough money, the problem is the return rate for what being spent is pitiful.
