In 7th grade history class where we have just begun studying the Industrial Revolution. As we lay the ground work for the unit, the curriculum suggested we take a look at a few key terms: laissez faire economics, factories, stocks, corporations, communism, unions and capitalism.
Fair enough. This is my cup of tea. This is what I love to teach. I started with a very simple, what I thought was unbiased and objective look, at the basic principles of capitalism. We discussed, corporations, shareholders, profit margin, competition, etc… The kids seemed very interested.
Then we moved on to Communism. We discussed labor, unions, strikes, means of production, etc…
By the end of the class, I had a few kids yell out, “I want to be a communist!” Woah, what had just happened? All day, I have been thinking about how we teach. What had I done? Even though it was not my intention had I skewed their views to match mine? Or had they simply, at the age of twelve, been able to see the fundamental flaws in a system that is rarely questioned.
I explained that we had simply looked at very basic outlines of both economic systems and that we would be looking more closely at them both throughout the unit, as they were the major outcomes of the Industrial Revolution. But will looking at child labor, factory conditions, both then and now in the developing world, build a case of Capitalism? How do I do that? Should I do that? Isn’t the world we live in constantly bombarding them with cases for capitalism? From the media they consume, to the clothes they wear, to the food they eat, to the images of themselves they are forced to have? Who is making the case that maybe there is an alternative system? Not necessarily a communist one, but a system that doesn’t involve factories in China, a system that doesn’t generate wealth for 1% of the world’s population. A system that may be, what’s the word? Fair? Just? Sane?
While we often accuse young people of being unfeeling, materialistic, and shallow, (the very outcomes of life lived on the basis of possession and profit) they are often very kind, fair and egalitarian. They look out for people, this despite the fact that they have been marketed toward their entire lives. So what does that say about them that they recognize poor labor practices as not fair? That making money should not be the end all in the human story?
Despite the fact that nearly all international schools boast a litany of Values and Mission Statements which emphasize camaraderie, global citizenship, compassion, and honesty, I felt like I had done something wrong by encouraging them to question Capitalism. As if the ghost of Joseph McCarthy was somehow looming in the halls. It is 2010 and I was afraid I would get a parent email chastising me for spreading propaganda. When all I had done was try to lay out the two philosophies at their most basic level. One is designed to create profit and wealth for its shareholders at any cost. The other to empower the labor force to gain control of their own wealth. Is there more to it than that?
In an effort to make sure my students have as fair and balanced an experience as they possible, I have since sent out a Twitter notice asking for any ardent Capitalists to Skype into my classroom and make their case. I have also arranged a debate with a fellow teacher in which I will take the Capitalist view and channel Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan.
But do I need to do all this? Should I feel guilty if I tried my best to be objective and the kids saw the flaws in a system that is at its core unjust? Anyway, would love your thoughts, ideas, or suggestions on where to go next.
Keep in mind that we have only briefly discussed Communism. We have not dealt with the regimes that came about, or the subsequent transformations of Marx’s simple philosophy. That is coming soon…
Maybe tomorrow I just sing this song and move on:
Pingback: Tweets that mention What Had I Done? | Intrepid Teacher -- Topsy.com
Interesting. It is certainly hard to keep our opinions out of what we teach kids when it comes to politics, history, etc.
One of the best teachers I ever had in college worked so hard to be objective and let us make our own choices that at the end of the semester he had us all write down if we thought he was voting for Bush Sr. or Clinton. His goal was to have a 50-50 split and he came very close. I still don’t know if he was a Republican or a Democrat. I trusted him so much more than the teachers that let their own emotions creep in to what they taught me.
I love the idea of you taking the side of Capitalism. I think debating people who you might agree with is a great way to sharpen your own arguments, beliefs, etc.
I think the best way to let kids make their own choices about these big systemic issues is to have them research places that have espoused one philosophy or another and decide where they would rather live. Have them research North vs. South Korea. China pre-1979 vs. China post-1979, Cuba vs. Great Britain.
If a kid decides free markets work best, ask them to explain sputnik. If a kid thinks government control works best, have them read 1984.
Don’t forget Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm!
The idea of communism is great, but it breaks down in practice because humans are pretty selfish. Who better to see the opportunities communism reflects than those that know the least about human nature?
The reason communism has not worked in the past (think communes, not countries) is some people are lazy while some are hard working. I realize this is pretty simplistic, but it hits the core. No one wants to support someone that does not “pull their own weight.”
The reason capitalism has not worked in the past is people are greedy. They sacrifice what is good for all for what is good for themselves. Any system based on maximizing profit that isn’t well regulated by a government is dangerous (think of the US railroads of the 19th century).
The US has chosen capitalism because it rewards the wealthy (not surprising considering our founding fathers tended to be in that category.) It also is a great way to encourage imperialism which is similar to capitalism except it deals with land instead of money (not that there is any real difference between the two.)
There are other forms of economic systems that can be addressed as well including socialism, fascism, feudalism etc. Unfortunately no one economic system seems to work perfectly (or some might argue even acceptably) so they require constant reworking to meet the needs of the citizens.
I suspect that most people can’t give a decent definition of any of these systems, but they can react to the emotional context associated with them. Really, can you imagine that calling someone a supporter of a particular economic system can be considered an epithet? How bourgeois! 😉
Actually I don’t envy you this time. Being called a communist or a socialist can be very damaging to one’s career. Please tread carefully.
Interesting. I’m in the same topic in my 9th grade history class, and a student asked the most perfect “essential question” I could have devised: “If communism is more humane than capitalism, why doesn’t the world follow it?”
I’m making that question the focus of a series of debates stretching from the Russian Revolution to the Depression to WW II and the Cold War. Capitalist and Communist “lawyer” teams will accuse each other of whatever failings they can find in each other’s actions as they track the “triumph” of capitalism and the “fall” of communism. All the other students not arguing will play jury, write decision papers after each trial justifying their “verdicts” based on the merits of each stage in question.
In the end, they’ll write an essay on their views of whether capitalism won because it’s “better,” or because of other reasons.
I think Capitalism is the only option for a free society. Back in the “good old days”, there was definitely many drawbacks to this system like child labor, poor working conditions, etc.
But in today’s instant information society we have, I do not think any company could get away with things of that nature. When you say “Should I feel guilty if I tried my best to be objective and the kids saw the flaws in a system that is at its core unjust?”, I am going to disagree. How can a system that rewards hard work, naturally equalizes supply and demand, and provides an opportunity for everyone be “unjust” at its core? In no other system do you get “just” reward for “just” input.
I agree and disagree with wmchamberlain. Some people are just lazy while others are hard workers. Why should one group be forced by the government to be taken advantage of by the other? Here we are in agreement. We differ on the facts about how a business works now, not in the 19th century. In today’s market place, a company must have a viable customer base to remain profitable. It cannot have adverse working conditions or a poor environmental record a retain the customer. Just look at BP and the Gulf Oil crisis. Their stock is down by 50% and dropping. The consumer did that independently. Also, the Capitalist system does not reward the rick. It rewards the hard workers, who if they have a good product and good company, will maybe become rich. Lastly, the Oil Industry, along with the Banking Industry, is the most regulated industries of them all. How well did the government do with both of these?
When I first taught it, I did a similar thing.
However, I went even further and I still question whether I should do it again.
I handed out lottery tickets. I told them that the number they had would determine what type of family they were born into with regards to wealth and privilege. I then asked them to vote online regarding which system would work best (we had done pros and cons of each system using a modified version of monopoly for each system). 10% were capatalist, 10% communist and the rest were socialist.
I then gave them their assignments based upon the lottery tickets and had them argue the issues. Of the students who were now “born into” a wealthy family, around sixty percent voted for capatalism and the remainders voted for socialism. Of those born into the lowest economic group, only one student voted for captalism.
It led to a great discussion on how our own experiences shape economic philosophy.