"Progressive" vouchers?

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Thu Sep 7 21:06:54 PDT 2000

Gordon Fitch wrote:
>> To refute the idea of school vouchers (and subsidized home
>> schooling) in favor of democratically-governed public
>> schools, it will necessary to show how democracy, authority,
>> and Capital can coexist under contemporary social conditions.
>> Not an easy row to hoe.

Carrol Cox:
> This places the battle all in the head, treating a political issue as though
> it were a topic in a classroom, where every audience member (and
> the number in the audience and the potential number in the audience
> are the same) listens carefully to al the arguments, then they make
> a decision. But in politics the actual audience is never more than a
> very small percentage (very small indeed) of the potential audience;
> moreover, all that actual audience already agree with you or they
> wouldn't be there listening to you -- in fact, unless they agree with
> you they probably don't even know you exist.
> So how do we find people to listen to what we are prepared to "show"
> them?

The ruling class often pretend to be warriors in the head battle of rationality, and they are in charge of established institutions. (That is why I mentioned Capital.) If you don't overthrow them, you must speak to them; if you do, the established institutions will probably go out in the same tide. But this tide does not seem imminent.

Let me note that Capital went with public schools a few years ago during a voucher referendum in California. It was said in the _Wall_Street_Journal_ that the corps who donated money to the anti side seemed to feel (collective mind here) that vouchers and so forth would not provide them with the kind of workers and consumers they needed. Of course there is Benno Schmidt and his helpers demonically toiling in the cube hells of the underworld, so I don't know. Dubious battle and all that.

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list