§ II. Education and Instruction

Let us now cast a brief glance at education and instruction in the socialist state. As we have already stated, Bebel promises the most marvellous results in the field of education. But now let us imagine children collected in large numbers, separated from their parents, first in the spacious playrooms of the kindergarten, then in the elementary schools, where they are “playfully” introduced into the elements of knowledge. Will this mass of wholesale education lead to satisfactory results? We might consider this possible if there were question only of a military education for the formation of future soldiers. But the universal application of such a system is simply absurd. Nor can the socialist point to the example of present educational institutions in which children receive not only instruction, but also their board and education, as in the family. For, to say nothing of the fact that the children are generally not confided to such institutions before the age of ten or twelve years, and that the pupils of such institutions form but a small fraction of the entire youth, while socialism would have all children without exception confided to public institutions for care and instruction— the chief difference consists in this, that our present boarding educational institutions presuppose and are based upon the existence of the family and of home training. The teachers of such institutions are the representatives of parents, and are supported by the parents’ authority; and if a pupil of such an institution is incorrigible, he will, to his own disgrace and the shame of his parents, be expelled from the institution. But this would not be the case in the socialist state. Besides, we must bear in mind that the socialist youth would be brought up without religion; that there would be no separation of the sexes. What then, would be the result? Nothing would remain but forcibly to lash the socialist youth into discipline and order. And yet how ineffectual is mere physical force in education!

However, we have not done with the difficulties arising from the socialistic principles of education. It is impossible that all children should be instructed and educated in all branches of knowledge and industry. Bebel repeatedly asserts the contrary; yet it remains simply impossible. Let us suppose that up to a certain grade the instruction and education is the same for all. Beyond this grade, however, a division would have to take place. Not all have talents for arts and sciences, and still fewer there are who have abilities to take up all studies. Not all have sufficient skill for the practice of all trades and industries. If, therefore, the socialists would not be satisfied with a very low and insufficient grade of culture, if they would not make shallowness and superficiality universal attributes of education, they must at a certain stage, say at the age of twelve or thirteen, draw a line, and then allow their pupils to devote themselves to some special branches of knowledge or industry. But who is to determine the studies to be pursued? The simplest system would be to submit the pupils to examinations; for a decision by the children themselves, or by their parents, or by the verdict of a committee, or by the vote of the majority, would be impracticable. The parents manifestly would in most cases present their children for the highest grade of education, as they themselves would not have to bear the expenses and trouble. The children, on the other hand, even the most gifted, if left to themselves, would in most cases be satisfied with little learning. If the decision were left to a committee it would lead to unjust treatment, and consequently to endless complaints on the part of those parents whose children would be slighted.

The promotion to higher studies, therefore, would have to be made dependent on the results of examinations. But even this method would be attended with serious difficulties. For either we suppose that higher grades of education would be connected with certain advantages in regard to income and social standing, or we suppose that they would not. If a higher grade of education has no advantage for future life, very few would be found to aspire to it. If, on the other hand, it should have some influence upon the future social standing of the possessor, it would result in a difference of social position, and thus there would be an end to the socialistic equality of the conditions of life. Moreover, if social position is not made altogether dependent upon the labor performed according to the logical programme of socialism, but upon other conditions, why should talent alone be taken into account? Do not also virtue, diligence, and the descent from parents who have merited well of the commonwealth, deserve consideration? Is it not harsh, nay, unjust, to make the entire future of a man’s life depend upon a school examination to be undergone in his youth?

As the promotion to higher studies, so also the decision what trade or industry each one should embrace would have to depend upon examinations; for as in branches of knowledge, so also in trades and industry an equal education of all is a thing of impossibility. If too many candidates would pass the examination for a certain branch of industry, they would have to be applied by superior authority to different industries. Therefore from the very outset the body social would have to decide the course of education and the future vocation of all and each of its members, lest there should be too great a rush to any profession, or to any particular trade or industry. Socialism and freedom, therefore, are incompatible with each other. The irreconcilable contradiction between freedom and the “universal systematic control” of the national labor is the rock upon which socialism is destined to be shipwrecked.