José Widens the Argument

["D OC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In a sense, José, I am glad you have taken this position. Along with Yves, I
too, noted the consistency within your argument on vouchers and on air
control. This article, which I have just read, broaches the two and makes
the point clear. I have to say I disagree - perhaps that's because in my
experience people like myself get the chance to really get stuck in over
these issues in the halls of (semi) power - whereas in the US, people like
yourself are left out of any consideration in the process of power - it all
seems the same to you (in terms of outcomes). I suppose, in this sense, this
will be something which EU activists have a different opinion on compared to
US ones. Neo-colonial states are likely to come even heavier against
privatisation as it represents the inroad of imperialism.

The central point you make is that public sector delivery under capitalist
governments is every bit as bad as private sector delivery in terms of
service standards. That may well be true. As such you oppose blind support
for the former.

I think most socialists must agree with your comments on blind support,
public sector provision must be judged by outcomes. The question is where
that judgement call is made. The reason I stayed out of the argument over
schools is that we have a similar situation in the six counties of N.
Ireland. Catholic children have long attended 'independent' schools which
were not funded by the state (at least to the same degree as 'maintained'
public sector schools (which were Protestant in composition). Then there was
the liberal experiment with 'integrated' independent schools and then the
growth of the Irish-medium secular independent sector. In the past all these
schools have been treated differentially by the state. Under the GFA
Executive (with Martin Maguinness as Minister for Education) everyone is
treated equally. In any case, the state now funds these schools equally, or
more accurately equitably, and most are not state-run. The argument then
arose about SF's commitment to comprehensive education - which we still
support - we feel that in the future all these sectors need to come together
to offer comprehensive Centres of Learning catering for parental and
communal choice. Such provision will be supported by the state but allow
schools to operate independently (within strict rules of course) in meeting
demand. I, for one, prefer my children to go to all-Irish speaking schools
and nurseries - I'm sure that this is parallel to the demands of 'minority'
communities in the US.

As for your case, socialists should support empowering these communities but
that's probably not what these vouchers will do in reality. You have
indicated how the planned system falls short; however, by my experience in
this, such voucher systems are a pretext for their wider objectives. They
just sell back door privatisation using this 'populist' means.

I will describe what seems likely here (I have seen this general trend over
and over):
1. They give out vouchers - claiming these are above and beyond current
funding and are at the parents discretion where they give them
2. These vouchers get massive demand - eventually they become universal.
3. Due to limitations on the budget - the vouchers remain at a low sum,
school budgets are cut leading to parental demand for more money.
4. The vouchers are increased to higher levels, direct school funding
decreases - the Government talks about parental choice and shrugs their
shoulders when they hear of schools closing - it's nothing to do with us.
5. The whole system is chronically underfunded - pressure mounts up for a
wide ranging review - possibly started in some right wing area
6. The review decides that the vouchers are to be increased again and direct
funding is to be cut to virtually nothing.
7. Vouchers remain at their current values and then parents are encouraged
to contribute additional private monies
8. Vouchers get means-tested - and we all know where that leads...

This is really how they privatise when there is strong opposition. They use
poor standards as an excuse to force parents into such measures.

> The Communist Party is quite right to speak about the bourgeois drive to
"privatize" education, but it doesn't seem to have a clue that this is
already going on RIGHT NOW. The thing the bourgeoisie is MOST interested in
doing is "privatizing" the COST of educating children, throwing it back on
individual families.

I'm sure that the CP understand exactly what is happening. They usually are
right in the middle of trade unions and I'm sure they talk to CPs in Europe
or elsewhere who can follow this one blindfold.

>Now the most important reason for universal school vouchers is that inner
city schools suck on purpose.

I see you are already pushing for stage 2. I warn you.

> Inner city schools aren't terrible schools by
accident, by the "difficulty" on educating children with too much melanin in
their skin, or as a result of the "deprived" background of ghetto kids. And
it isn't that American teachers and school administrators don't know how to
run "good" schools, at least by bourgeois standards. American inner-city
school systems are mediocre by design. The bourgeoisie and their political
representatives especially at a local level know exactly how to run a good
school system --by their standards-- and an absolutely mediocre one. They do
BOTH in virtually every major metropolitan area. It's not that there's a
different, smarter local ruling class in the suburbs, the SAME bankers and
businessmen dominate both the city and its suburbs.

Besides reflecting the harsh realities in inner city areas (indicative of
wider forms of deprivation), this sort of running down public provision
leads to pressures to privatise. New Labour continued this after 1997 before
suddenly deciding that the NHS was the most cost-effective way of delivering
health services. Supposedly they went all around and looked at all the rest.
The Tory press shouted for months/years about the crisis in the NHS and the
need for a market model to replace the old universal one. The usual excuse
was that poor people couldn't afford to go private so they should get
vouchers to go to private hospitals - the money would come out of existing
public sector hospitals. The same is being proposed by the right wing in the
26 Counties. Only France supported it's public health sector sufficiently -
but with the right in power now, that's likely to change.

José, then gives a very interesting description of just what's happening in
his city. I understand your position - it was informative to hear it -
however, the fight must be to improve those schools rather than to
accommodate to privatisation. It's one of the same argument I have heard in
relation to adopting PFI in providing decent health services or education
here. Sometimes it's the right call but we have to always stick to our guns
politically. Your line should be to improve those schools, whether it is to
adjust the administration or ethos or just get more funding. To give in the
fight and go private will only yield huge difficulties in the longer term.

> Supporting the state's monopoly over the education of working-class
children
on the basis that working people fought for and won free, universal public
education 100-odd years ago is to make a fetish of the form that a
particular struggle took, to the detriment of what was really at stake. The
struggle is still FOR education for our children, but now it is directed
against the anti-schools the bourgeoisie has imposed.

Yes, this is a subtle point which activists sometimes forget. It's outcomes
we need to be focussed on. However, your strategy seems to be directed the
wrong way. There is a need to coordinate within those schools with those who
are working that system - to educate them in why you feel they are falling
short, to let them feel that you understand and then to win them to action.
It may be difficult but it's better than what will happen if you go down
this route. Those vouchers will get means-tested eventually, then your
troubles will really begin.

>Now, on a very important point:
Aren't "public" schools more progressive than "private" schools?
Well, are "public" prisons more progressive than "private" ones?
Is Alitalia more "progressive" than Delta, and does its "Progressiveness
Quotient" decline with every tranche of stock sold to private investors?
Is the post office the "progressive" alternative to the "reactionary" UPS?
Do communists fight for progressive municipal garbage collection, instead of
reactionary private haulers?

This is precisely where we differ. Of course you support municipal garbage
collection as opposed to private haulers because the former is not
necessarily controlled by the profit factor. Secondly, because to some
extent at least, municipal garbage can be affected by popular opinion.
Third, because in all but the most extreme cases, municipal garbage
collectors will take garbage from all houses independent of what their
income is. That's also why we are against charging for garbage collection -
rather we need a 'progressive' tax on community services.

> In principle, it makes no difference AT ALL whether the American (or
British, or French...) bourgeoisie controls an enterprise "privately" or
through its state. By and large, the capitalists try to organize it so that
profitable enterprises remain in the private sector while those which play a
necessary social function (in this case, warehousing ghetto kids until
they're old enough for prison), but are likely to incur losses are "owned"
by the "public" which means they are subsidized by the taxes extracted from
working people.

>From my perspective as an activist in a semi-colonial country this is like
an anathema. I am not sure whether the same goes for your experience - it
all depends on how much control rests with private sector interests. I can
guarantee you that a public sector company in France or Britain is far
superior than it's private sector comparator both in performance and
employee rights. In fact, the British government had to recently bring in
legislation to deal with employees who were being transfered between the two
to make sure that they couldn't challenge the government for breaking the
terms of their contract (TUPE Legislation). The fight for public retention
of public services is the number one battlefield for the left in Europe. As
for your point about taxes extracted from the working class, it's still a
hell of lot more progressive than the market extracting 'taxes/profits' by
laying workers off/creation of greater surplus value. In the end, with a
school voucher system, your child becomes an equivalent to a commodity -
need I say any more? Or do you believe that the market can satisfy consumer
demand??

> It's said --as a criticism-- that school vouchers take money away from
ghetto schools "that need it the most." Yes, that's exactly the point. The
real purpose is to destroy "Ghetto schools" and inner city school systems as
they know exist.

And create a privatised version which will be much better. What's likely to
happen in terms of delivery is that some of the private (community-run)
schools will work a treat and others will just continue to fail. You're
arguing for the market between schools - the only thing you can be sure of
is that the losers will be those catering for the lower classes. Look at
examples around the world. Its a shame there isn't a British member to
detail what happens under privatised education, perhaps Ed might care to -
England has recently moved away from the system because it was so unfair.

> That's why the reactionary bourgeois proponents of vouchers raise a
limited
voucher that doesn't cover the full cost of a private school and in very
limited numbers. THEIR vouchers aim to preserve the ghetto schools by buying
off the parents that raise a ruckus.

Is that Stage 6?

> One last point. Those familiar with the usual left arguments against
school
vouchers will notice I've not said anything about the need to defend the
teachers unions against this capitalist plot to undermine them. I just want
to say it was not an oversight.

So not mentioning them excuses you from coming up with an answer?

Is mise,
D.



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.