Karl Marx and Education

This paper is centered on Karl Marx's influence on educational theory. The paper begins with a brief biography of Karl Marx, and then an examination of the basic beliefs that constitute a "Marxist" point of view. Next, the paper explains how the works of Karl Marx politically and socially influenced the world. In terms of educational influence, we look at Marx's influence on one of America's most renowned educational theorists, John Dewey, and we also explore the ways in which educators are still applying Marx's ideas in courses and lessons today.

Keywords: Bourgeoisie; Capitalism; Communism; Communist Manifesto; Dewey, John; Proletariat; Socialism; Soviet Union; Totalitarianism

Overview

At the end of the twentieth century, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) issued a series of polls designed to allow the public to select the greatest historical figures over the last thousand years. In October of 1999, the BBC examined its public polls and discovered that England's choice for the "greatest thinker" of the millenium was Karl Marx. Surprisingly, Marx came in ahead of Einstein, Newton, and Darwin who were second, third and fourth ("Marx After Communism," 2002, ¶ 4). If we consider the amount of change each of these historical figures brought to society, then perhaps Marx's highest position makes sense. A German philosopher, Marx (1818 - 1883) contributed to radical changes in the world, and today is widely considered one of the most important political economists, historians, and philosophers in world history. His ideas are also considered to be the foundation of communism, though often his ideas and the practice of communism seem to greatly diverge. Nevertheless, his ideas have significantly influenced many areas of human activity, from political systems to pedagogical theory. Before examining Marx's influence on history, governments and education — including American education — we should first outline the most basic ideas that comprise the Marxist viewpoint.

Marx's Basic Principles

Marx espoused four basic ideas from which most of his other ideas and arguments follow:

  • Societies follow laws of motion simple and all-encompassing enough to make long-range prediction fruitful.
  • These laws are exclusively economic in character: what shapes society, the only thing that shapes society, is the "material forces of production".
  • These laws must invariably express themselves, until the end of history, as a bitter struggle of class against class.
  • At the end of history, classes and the state (whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the ruling class) must dissolve to yield a heaven on earth ("Marx After Communism," 2002, ¶ 12).

As McLennan observes, Marx believed that his era (the late 1800's) was different from the previous periods of history in that, from the advent of industrialism, the wealthy upper class (the "bourgeoisie") had substantially intensified the divide between social classes. This division also therefore intensified the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the working class (the "proletariat"). From Marx's viewpoint, two distinct classes had grown out of the Industrial Revolution: the bourgeoisie owners of the means of production, and the proletarian wage laborers who worked in the means of production (McLennan, 1999, p. 557). Viewing all of human history as one of class struggle is central to Marx's viewpoint, which is probably why Marx wrote as the very first line of The Communist Manifesto, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Marx believed the power of the working class would lead to a social and political upheaval.

Thus, Marx's central argument is that every society has been based on an antagonism between oppressing and oppressed classes, and that revolution was inevitable. Marx believed that "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority," and he believed this new movement of the working class would globally end all class oppression. As Morgan (2005) points out, Marx believed this movement — leading to revolution — would also be a change in human consciousness, a change that would bring about changes in material existence as well as social life. Society would change to serve the enormous working class rather than serving the wealthy few. Morgan then observes that "this will have fundamental implications for intellectual life and consequently for education, for, as Marx puts it, 'The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class'" (Morgan, 2005, p. 391).

From an historical context, Marx viewed this social transformation as natural socioeconomic evolution: as industrialism and capitalism had replaced an age of agriculture and feudalism, so Marx believed that a new socioeconomic system of "socialism" would replace capitalism. This in turn would eventually create a classless society that represented mature "communism."

Marx's Historical Influence

Although the Soviet Union and all other communist governments have regarded Karl Marx as the primary inspiration for their communist systems, it is an interesting question whether Marx would have approved of the totalitarian systems that grew out of the implementation of his theories. It is also an interesting question whether these same totalitarian systems would have evolved had Marx never been born. Perhaps these same totalitarian systems would have come into being by distorting the ideas of another historian, economist or philosopher. When declaring the winner of the above poll, the BBC announcer remarked that "although dictatorships throughout the 20th century have distorted [Marx's] original ideas, his work as a philosopher, social scientist, historian and a revolutionary is respected by academics today" ("Marx After Communism," 2002, ¶ 4). McLennan states this same idea when he notes that many "independent minded Marxists" believe that "the truths of Marxist theory and values can validly be separated from many of the ideological-political uses to which they have been put" (McLennan, 1999, p. 559). Arendt's ideas resonate with Mclennan's point when she argues that totalitarianism "could never have been foreseen or forethought, much less predicted or 'caused,' by any single man" (Arendt, 2002, p. 281).

Clearly, Marx's most significant historical influence can be seen in communist nations, but Marx never writes about creating a totalitarian government. Rather, it seems likely that the harsh reality of totalitarianism mutated out of his idealism and naïve belief that a one-party socialist government of the proletariat would "wither away", leading to statelessness, so that people would live freely under no government at all. Marx believed that cooperation in society could best be achieved through a one-party system. However, he failed to recognize that, if this single party went astray or became corrupted through its sheer power over society, citizens would be left with no choice or means of replacing that political party with an opposing one. Thus, we should make a clear distinction between Marx as the socioeconomic analyst and Marx as the socioeconomic planner. His socioeconomic analysis is what to this day holds significance, while his idealistic plan for utopia has met clear failure. This is what Arendt means when she writes:

That Marx still looms so large in our present world is indeed the measure of his greatness. That he could prove of use to totalitarianism (though certainly he can never be said to have been its "cause") is a sign of the actual relevance of his thought, even though at the same time it is also the measure of his ultimate failure (Arendt, 2002, p. 282).

As the failures of the grand social experiments based on Marx's writing fade into history, the analytical side of his content is being re-assessed. Additionally, Marx as a writer has increasingly gained recognition. As McLennan points out, Marx as a "writer, ironist and intellect" has gained recognition perhaps even more than "Marx the revolutionary or theorist of capitalism". However, McLennan gives additional reasons for Marx's increasing recognition among academics. McLennan argues that "the winds of change have turned in the seminar rooms, and a new thirst for substantive commitment; for an end, or at least a supplement to, an intellectual diet of 'interminable self-critique.'" Additionally, McLennan points out that contemporary civilization supplies "warrant for the 'return' of Marx", and these factors also seem to be contributing to a new appreciation of the writings of Marx (McLennan, 1999, p. 572).

Further Insights

Marx & Dewey

Marx's approach to education can be seen in his resolution written in 1866 for the first Congress of the International Workingman's Association. Marx mentions three main elements of what he believed would create a sound educational system:

  • Mental education,
  • Bodily education, and
  • Technological training.

Though the resolution gives little clarification of the first two elements, it does further explain the idea of technological training. The resolution states that technological training will impart "the general principles of all processes of production, and, simultaneously, initiates the child and young person in the practical use and handling of the elementary instruments of all trades" (Small, 1984, p. 28). Small argues that technological training was the most important part of Marx's view on education because it is "most directly linked with material production, but also as the part in which the theme of full human development appears most directly" (1984, p. 42). Small concludes that technological training "is perhaps the most important element in the Marxian conception of education, as well as its most original contribution to later educational thought" (p. 42).

The educational approach of learning to produce things was promoted in the U.S. by one of America's most renowned educators, John Dewey. Karier and Hogan (1979) point out that, during the years Dewey published most of his writing on educational theory (1895 to 1925), America was rapidly developing into the modern market economy it is today. The authors observe that during the period that Dewey was becoming a prominent educational theorist, American monopolies were consolidating and "mass advertising and mass education were helping to shape the values and desires of a mass consumer-oriented society" (Karier & Hogan, 1979, p. 250). Dewey was well aware of the theories of Marx because the newly formed Soviet Union was at that time intensively forwarding Marx's theories. Dewey had even traveled to the Soviet Union to examine its educational system. In fact, after analyzing the Soviet educational system, Dewey made the following observation:

I do not see how any honest educational reformer in western countries can deny that the greatest practical obstacle in the way of introducing into schools that connection with social life which he regards as desirable is the great part played by personal competition and desire for private profit in our economic life. This fact almost makes it necessary that in important respects school activities should be protected from social contacts and connections, instead of being organized to create them. The Russian educational situation is enough to convert one to the idea that only in a society based upon the cooperative principle can the ideals of educational reformers be adequately carried into operation (as cited in Karier & Hogan, 1979, p. 246).

Karier and Hogan argue that Marx and Dewey both believed that the capitalist system of private profit had a negative effect on social attempts to create a fair and compassionate social system. They echo Dewey's quote above when they argue that "unlike the Soviet schools, the American progressive schools could not be fully linked to the emerging economic social order without falling into the trap of enhancing and encouraging the private profit system" (1979, p. 246). In any case, there is a clear similarity between Marx and Dewey because, as Harris points out, both Marx and Dewey believed that labor and production, through technological training, was important to incorporate in the general education process (Harris, 2006, p. 265). Harris also observes that economic history was essential to Dewey's educational theory. Dewey writes that "Economic history deals with the activities, the career, and fortunes of the common man as does no other branch of history" (Harris, 2006, p. 271). Thus, Marx was concerned with educating the "proletarian" in economic history and technological production, just as Dewey was concerned with educating the "common man" in these same areas.

The fundamental difference seems to be that Marx based his educational model upon the principle of class struggle, whereas Dewey did not believe class struggle was a productive viewpoint. Dewey seems to have placed his faith in science and social cooperation as the cure for the wrongs of capitalism. This is why, as Karier and Hogan point out, Dewey promoted a curriculum around occupations, but he intentionally avoided the topic of economic conflict or any other topic that he believed would create an awareness of class differences. Dewey believed that focusing on class differences leads to class conflict. Therefore, Dewey created an educational system that, in order to reshape the thinking of students, protected them from an unpleasant socioeconomic system based on greed, selfishness, profit, power, and class antagonisms (Karier & Hogan, 1979, p. 252).

Once again there is a need to separate Marx as an analyst of social problems from Marx as a promoter of solutions. This is where Dewey seems to have made the separation. Though Dewey agrees with Marx's view of the social maladies that capitalism creates, Dewey was clearly against the Marxist principle of class struggle and the establishment of government-run economies. Rather than class war as the solution, Dewey chose science. This is quite clear when he writes:

…the rise of scientific method and of technology based upon it is the genuinely active force in producing the vast complex of changes the world is now undergoing, not the class struggle whose spirit and method are opposed to science (cited in Karier & Hogan, 1979, p. 259).

Harris also observes that Dewey "logically opposed class struggle," and believed that any negative aspects of capitalism would be ameliorated through science and social cooperation. However, Harris comes to the conclusion that Dewey's solution is naïve. He writes, "the naivety of Dewey's views becomes apparent when we consider how undemocratic life has become in the modern capitalist world. Even exposing a problem will require struggle because there are people in positions of power who oppose it" (Harris, 2006, p. 282). Thus, it seems Marx and Dewey understood and agreed upon the problems inherent within the capitalist economic model, but their differing solutions were both equally naïve.

Viewpoints

Teaching Marx in a Capitalistic Education System

A second important way that Marx has influenced education around the world is the way his ideas have affected teachers, who in turn affect students. Allman (1994) notes that some international educators have taken the works of Marx in order to argue that educators' claims of teaching in a "neutral" way is impossible. As Allman puts it, "If educators are not enouraging people to question (to see their reality as a problem), to challenge and to change their reality, then they must be enabling them to accept it, adapt to it and to engage in its reproduction … therefore educators and every other cultural worker must make a political choice between domestication and liberation and in making that choice to be clear about whose interests they are serving" (Allman, 1994, ¶ 22). From this point of view, educators either promote the status quo — meaning a consumer-based society where capitalism is praised — or educators challenge the economic model and point out the many problems that arise from our capitalist system.

Brosio is one such educator who shows students what a Marxist analysis of society is like. He also points out the effect of the economic system on American education in general. Brosio argues that educators should be aware of "the kindergarten through Grade 12 public school system's answerability to the capitalist imperative upon it," and he argues that our economic system, when giving assistance to public education, "demands thinly disguised vocational training for many students" (Brosio, 2003, p. 457). Brosio also points out Allman's argument that "we [educators] must challenge the 'slippage of education into training and also the incorporation of education into the market paradigm'" (Brosio, 2003, p. 461).

Allman points out that Marx — as well as educators who think the Marxian point of view possesses a validity that makes it worth teaching — are concerned that not teaching a critical socioeconomic viewpoint may ultimately support a system that is in need of change. Not teaching a viewpoint critical of capitalism promotes the system and prevents any change because the system is not questioned. This idea relates back to the argument that there is no such thing as teaching in a "neutral" way. Allman argues that teachers who use a Marxist point of view are essentially helping to develop "a critical (dialectical) perception of reality" in their students. Importantly, Allman argues that these educators are not teaching a Marxist viewpoint so as to indoctrinate students in a Marxist ideology. As Allman puts it, "their [educators'] role, however, is not to tell the people what to think but to enable them also to think critically" (Allman, 1994, ¶ 17).

Pitfalls

Using Marxist viewpoints to criticize America's public education system presents some problems of which educators should be well aware. As Harris observes, presenting a critical view of our educational system creates opposition not only with our "existing educational traditions, but also with the opposition of those who are entrenched in command of the industrial machinery, and who realize that such an educational system if made general would threaten their ability to use others for their own ends" (Harris, 2006, p. 283).

Additionally, Harris points out that teachers may create problems in their lives if they "explicitly link [Marxist] subject matter to the nature of capitalism" (p. 283). Harris avoided this problem when teaching a geography course because he intentionally kept Marx and his philosophy "in the background and focused on the nature of capitalism in relation to geographical themes" (p. 283-4). This approach allowed him to use Marxist viewpoints on capitalism without causing any political opposition among parents or the educational institution. However, Harris warns that using the ideas of Marx "may become an issue because of what one is teaching" (p. 284). He observes that educators who wish to use the ideas of Marx in the classroom fail to discuss the problem of what teachers should do if they do indeed face persecution or political opposition for presenting Marxian viewpoints.

McLennan argues that the entire profession of education may have experienced "proletarianization" since Marx observes how

… professions which had previously enjoyed reverence and honour were being turned into routine forms of wage labour … this remains a convincing argument, and its theoretical force, one suspects, is being appreciated anew by academics as they helplessly witness the relentless commodification of knowledge and their own changing status within that process (McLennan, 1999, p. 562).

Brosio makes a similar observation when he argues that the teaching profession "has been subsumed within the social relations of capitalist production," and that teachers with a critical view of capitalism "will realize that their work has become more controlled, supervised or managed and often deskilled or … de-intellectualized" (Brosio, 2003, p. 453). He concludes that "dependence on the market in order to work — even for exploitative pay — becomes a matter of survival itself when the capitalist system becomes universal, or at least global" (Brosio, 2003, p. 454).

Some contemporary educators would disagree with Dewey's belief that science and cooperation is the solution for eliminating the wrongs created by capitalism. As Harris points out,

To question the ossified school system, for instance, let alone the employer-employee relation, frequently requires a struggle even to be heard. A politics of exposing the various bureaucratic and ossified social structures for what they really are, and not what they pretend to be, involves a class struggle; Dewey, however, presented the problem as if it were one of everyone having a common interest in exposing problems. There are powerful people in social institutions who attempt to suppress the exposure of those problems. Progress does not result merely from technological development or the exposure of problems, but from the struggle to expose and address them outside the confines of capitalist society. Class struggle is the order of the day on several fronts (Harris, 2006, p. 282).

Thus, some educators still recognize the importance of Marx's ideas in an educational setting, and they still use his ideas, both in the area of economic analysis as well as the area of social analysis. On the other hand, most contemporary educators who use the ideas of Marx also understand that there are plenty of flaws in the Marxian viewpoint. For example, McLennan points out that Marx's strict division of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat "has long seemed perverse and outmoded" because Marx "failed to foresee the decline of the classical proletariat and the corresponding growth of the middle class" (1999, p. 557). The author also points out that Marx's prediction that the working class would increasingly become impoverished under a capitalist system, "ignores the general improvement of living standards across the capitalist world since he wrote" (McLennan, 1999, p. 557). There are plenty of other areas where Marx was probably mistaken. However, this critical approach to Marx's ideas is exactly what education should be about; not the avoidance of Marxism as "evil communist ideology," but the presentation of Marx's ideas so as to question both our own capitalist system as well as Marx's ideas about that system.

Terms & Concepts

Bourgeoisie: A social classification describing a social class in capitalist economic systems. In Marxist vocabulary, the bourgeoisie is the wealthy class that owns the means for producing more wealth. Thus, factory owners are members of the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism: Refers to an economic system where industry and the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, also referred to as "free enterprise" or a "liberal market economy". In capitalism, trade is done in an open or free market system.

Communism: Refers to an economic system and political ideology intended to create a society that has no social stratification based on wealth, and ultimately has no government at all. According to Marxist theory, communism is the state of society that follows socialism, a one-party government system intended to represent the proletariat.

Proletariat: A term Karl Marx used for the lower social class, the wage-labor working class. Marx called a member this class a "proletarian". The proletariat is also the class in capitalist societies which does not own the means of production. According to Marx, a proletarian's only means of living is to sell his or her labor power for a wage or salary.

Socialism: In the Marxist sense, is a form of economic organization in which the government controls and operates the national economy so that private ownership of factories does not exist. Socialism is aimed at creating common ownership of the means of production, and a Socialist society aims at giving equal access to all resources for all individuals. Karl Marx argued that a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would lead to a revolution that establishes socialism as a transitional stage from capitalism to communism.

Soviet Union: A socialist state that was officially established in 1922 and was strongly based on Marxist principles. The Soviet Union was a union of several Soviet republics such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and other surrounding states. The Soviet Union officially came to an end in 1991 after a revolution that centered in Moscow (the formal name is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — abbreviated USSR).

Totalitarianism: Refers to a form of government wherein a national government exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of a citizen's life. Under a totalitarian system, the individual is subordinated to the state, and any individuals or organizations that oppose the government are harshly suppressed.

The Communist Manifesto: The most primary book used to teach Marxist philosophy about communism. The book was first published in 1848, and is considered one of the most influential political manuscripts ever written. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels authored the book, which presents a class struggle viewpoint on capitalist societies.

Bibliography

Allman, P. (1994). Paulo Freire's contributions to radical adult education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 26, 144-162. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9502226094&site=ehost-live

Arendt, H. (2002). Karl Marx and the tradition of western political thought. Social Research, 69, 273-319. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7114024&site=ehost-live

Brosio, R. (2003). Critical education against global capitalism: Karl Marx and revolutionary critical education. Educational Studies, 34, 446-464. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12280665&site=ehost-live

Brosio, R. (2011). Marxist thought: Still primus inter pares for understanding and opposing the capitalist system. Journal of Thought, 46(1/2), 33-63. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=62824022&site=ehost-live

Gerrard, J. (2012). Tracing radical working-class education: praxis and historical representation. History of Education, 41, 537-558. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84506483&site=ehost-live

Harris, F. (2006). Dewey's materialist philosophy of education: A resource for critical pedagogues? European Legacy, 11, 259-288. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20855238&site=ehost-live

Karier, C. & Hogan, D. (1979). Schooling, education and the structure of social reality. Educational Studies, 10, 245-277. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7567622&site=ehost-live

Marx after communism. (2002). Economist, 365(8304), 17-19. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=8745940&site=ehost-live

McLennan, G. (1999). Re-canonizing Marx. Cultural Studies, 13, 555-576. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3870077&site=ehost-live

Morgan J. (2005). Marxism and moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 34 , 391-398. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19235733&site=ehost-live

Skovsmose, O. (2011). Critique, generativity and imagination. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31, 19-23. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67465237&site=ehost-live

Small, R. (1984). The concept of polytechnical education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 32, 27-44. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13440698&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Hilmer, J. (2000). Two views about socialism: Why Karl Marx shunned an academic debate with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, 6, 85-93. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3972781&site=ehost-live

Morris, V. (1975). The way we work: Some notes on career education. Journal of Career Education, 1, 4-9. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18658014&site=ehost-live

Sidorkin, A. (2004). In the event of learning: Alienation and participative thinking in education. Educational Theory, 54, 21-262. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14606408&site=ehost-live

Stromberg, R. (1977). The greening of Karl Marx. National Review, 29, 991. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6056261&site=ehost-live

Essay by Sinclair Nicholas

Sinclair Nicholas, MA, holds degrees in Education and Writing and is a freelance writer with many feature articles, essays, editorials and other short works published in various publications around the world. Sinclair is the author of several books, including The AmeriCzech Dream — Stranger in a Foreign Land and the Comprehensive American-Czech Dictionary; he is a lecturer at the University of Northern Virginia — Prague, and has lived in the Czech Republic since 1991.