The Homeschoolers and the Bolsheviks
I used to think most of the “Left”-ist opposition to homeschooling was simple bullying. A lot of those annoying Christians homeschool, we can’t pick on them just for being Christian (fortunately there are still lines they won’t cross), so let’s just say we’re picking on homeschooling. And to put a righteous face on it, we’ll say we’re doing it to prevent child abuse or liberate women or some other nonsense. After all, it is pretty fashionable to bully people through liberation these days. If it works in foreign policy, why not try it at home. OK, I know, President Cheney didn’t come up with the idea. It has been fashionable at home and abroad for a long time.
I still think that explains a lot of the resistance — some even admit to doing it for sport, and that can be good fun — but it isn’t quite so simple. After all, I live in Texas where it seems almost everyone is a creationist (school teachers and democrats too) and we still get the same flak. I know that these people aren’t just trying to pick on the fundies because they are fundies. These people are clearly bullies, and are pushing us around in the name of some faux liberation. So what is going on?
It makes me think back to one of the biggest liberation bullies of the last century: the Bolsheviks. I’m no communist historian, so be skeptical dear reader, but here is my cartoon picture of the evolution of Russian communism:
- Early communist thinkers had an idea that when capitalism built all of the needed infrastructure, the workers would become aware of their situation and rise up to take control of the capital.
- Lenin et al. decided that the proles were too stupid to ever become aware, and they needed him and his buddies to tell them what to do.
- Many people bought in enthusiastically because they thought they were living the dream of (1), not the nightmare of (2).
- If they were too stupid to rise up, they sure couldn’t be trusted to handle the capital after the revolution, could they?
So the people were liberated, and we all know how well that turned out for them. But it did work out pretty well for the people in power. Throughout the twentieth century, both Russia and the United States acted as if they were terrified that an “ideal” communist revolution might happen. They were terrified that people might realize that the State was dispensable. People can help themselves.
Look at the sad history of the Spanish civil war for an example (yes I’ve been reading Noam Chomsky again). Workers rose and took control of the factories. They seemed astonishingly successful given the situation. The U.S. and Russia made sure they were crushed. I’m not trying to argue about whether the Spaniard’s system would have thrived without outside help (I’d love to know), but I am arguing that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were terrified that it might.
For me, much of the illiberal behavior of the Democratic party in the United States makes sense when you look at them this way: they want their power, they use “liberation of the poor/helpless/etc” to justify their power, they despise the people they are liberating, and they want to hide any evidence that those people can do without them. “Beat the People with the People’s stick” is how Bakunin said it. They are the modern All-American Bolsheviks.
Anyone who knows me would laugh if you called me a communist. But sometimes I think I’m more of a real communist than our “Left”-ists are. I believe a community of diverse people can work together to achieve great things without any central command. I want to be a part of communities like that, and I want to give my time and energy to make everyone better off.
Homeschoolers are doing this. We are using our skills to help each other. Nobody is organizing us, but we are succeeding. I get to spend time with my family, with friends, and with strangers learning and having fun. I want to help my family, I appreciate all the help we get from others, and I enjoy helping others in any way I can. And it is working, we are teaching our kids.
Maybe this is the real threat we pose to the “Left”. We are showing that the lowly people can get things done without their help. If that cat gets out of the bag, they will need a new face to put on their hunger for power.
Sound like a socialist to me. People in the U.S. don’t usually have a good concept of what left-wing really means anyway. Try some links http://mollymew.blogspot.com/ And Dems being illiberal ? No kidding.
opit
June 1, 2007 at 11:28 pm
[...] The Homeschoolers and the Bolsheviks [...]
Friday WordPress PoliSci 2 « oldephartteintraining
June 1, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Thanks for the link — looks like my reading list is growing…
Rolfe Schmidt
June 2, 2007 at 8:54 am
Just a thought.
I’m not steeped in the ‘wellspring’ of U.S. politics. Actually I’m a ‘Preacher’s Kid’ raised what some call English Catholic, i.e. Church of England. Vacations as a boy could be different – my mother’s family was split between Baptists and United – so I would often end up attending services from different denominations. Years later I changed to Presbyterian as closer to my comfort zone – Bishops and politics being something I wasn’t too sure I approved of. Rebel might be my nature or not – unconscious doesn’t ‘cut it’.
So you could say I’ve had some exposure to different ways of looking at life and politics, being acquainted with Quakers,atheists,Communist sympathizers ( so-called ), reformers,Wyccans,Charismatic Christians, New Agers- a proper mishmash of contrasting views. Depending on your viewpoint – I know many of my relatives considered me ‘damned’ at an early age- I might be far too flighty to be responsible.
I have this little problem. I never considered it a condition of God’s love that I believe what other people told me – just try to act in good conscience and in a spirit of compassion and friendship. Nor am I convinced the world will be perverted tomorrow if I take an incorrect view of how it works : somehow I don’t feel that ‘empowered’.
So, the whole ‘liberal’ concept, quite frankly, reeks to me: But I’m not talking about ‘liberal’ ideas, whatever they may be. I’m talking about the nonsense it is better to believe something because people shout it out in a loud voice – than what I find when I try to reflect in prayer and a wish for an understanding compatible with God’s love and compassion – for the world.
opit
June 6, 2007 at 8:59 am
Those are some thoughts I’ll need to reflect on a little bit – I’m short on time now. I’ve also been confused at the idea that God would use something as imperfect as written language and fallible people to be his main channel of communicating truth. If God created the world, and created you, why not look inside yourself and look at the world around you to see what God wants you to see. Then you get an unadulterated look at God’s message. Don’t get me wrong, I still think it’s good to read and listen to thoughtful people.
Well I’ll have more to say when I’ve had some time to think.
Rolfe Schmidt
June 6, 2007 at 10:19 am
OK, your comment triggered a couple more thoughts.
- I run into similar problems with organized religion. As I see it there are two competing forces: the force of spiritual and the organizational. So many of the problems caused by religion are really problems caused by organizations trying to survive and extend their power. They do this by claiming special powers over and special knowledge of the spiritual. But I believe spirituality is a genuine and important part of humanity, and spirituality is the reason most of these religions started in the first place.
Religion should be about reflection, meditation, and compassion — not distinguishing the damned from the saved. For Christianity anyway, it seems pretty clear that a Christians duty is spiritual, not organizational.
- Great point about how ‘empowered’ we are. And it is irresponsible to go through life without thinking hard about things. When you do this you will inevitably come up with ‘wrong’ ideas. Big deal, it’s far better to think and be wrong than to not think and never be right.
- And I still don’t know what liberal means. It seems most people in the US use the word as a way to put lipstick on a pig.
Rolfe Schmidt
June 9, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Ha ! ‘Liberal’ is a word that has been hijacked by duckspeak ( words used as quackking – robbed on meaning – 1984 or ‘Brave New World’ ). Libre means free – something the French were about when their revolution toppled the king. It used to refer to keeping a rein on government interference with peoples’ private lives : anything from sex, religion or privacy.
Today the propaganda organs use it to mean ‘lefties’ – watered down slang for socialists since communism is no longer an effective scare word. Quite a trick for a traditional conservative value.
My own thoughts on ‘religion’ are that politics of organizations seek to impose fear and compliance on the membership. To me, the killing of the Nazarene is a morality tale about putting public and social demands for compliance with convention ahead of the ‘brotherhood’ of personal kindness. Making that statement stick would be a miracle of the first order – but you have to be prepared to recognize it.
Does that mean I’m not religious ? It means I take the idea of a personal relationship with God seriously enough I’m not going to be snowed into forgetting it as an objective.
opit
June 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm
On rereading your comment – something I should have done before jumping in – I find we’re tracking along the same lines. Wouldn’t we both say that ’spirituality’ – in the context in which you use it – has been the saving virtue of religion ?
I’m reminded of a comment about the navigational technique of ‘dead reckoning’ used in the days of sail. A compass was used to keep direction and a towed ‘log’ or gauge provided speed readings. Allowing for the effects of prevailing wind and currents, and ’shooting the sun’ at noon for one location indicator ( North-South ), course was adjusted according to that experience to progress in the desired direction. Accuracy could be remarkable – a few hundred yards in a voyage across the Atlantic.
‘Living life’ is something like that : improving performance by the yardstick of experience.
Supposedly, church should be an analogue. In fact, people share much better in intimate groups. That is the power of study sessions. Unhappily, just because someone is convinced of something only proves one thing : he or she is convinced. The best salespeople ‘believe in their product’. Unhappily, that is often a transient state. Others desperately try to convince themselves that what they are being told is the truth.
Wishing does not make it so.
opit
June 10, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I think we pretty much agree about religion. If it weren’t for what I’m calling ’spirituality’, I would find religion entirely repugnant. There is more to religion than joining a club and doing what your told. If you don’t have the personal, spiritual experience then stay away! If you’re just wishing, stay away! If you used to be convinced, but now have doubts, don’t lie to yourself out of habit. Think!
I like the dead reckoning analogy. It took me a while to realize that I needed to observe things and keep a log book. But I don’t know why churches seem to lose their soul rather than improve. Sometimes I think that the interests of the organization are so opposed to the spiritual interests of the members that once the organization exists it has a natural tendency to reign in the freedom that created it.
Rolfe Schmidt
June 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm