Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

I went to school there, and the level of quality was just not comparable to that in schools in the capitalist West.

R: Are you serious or not?

It is hard to compare. Students learnt much more in eastern schools, they were forced and they have discipline in the school so they really know more that students in western schools, but the problem was that 50-70% of content was useless, not usable for real life (I dont mean just that ideology subjects, a lot of others were just generally useless). Students in western school are really more lazy and learning less materials but they are learning important things which they can use in real life :-)

Oou schools (in central europe) are changing (or was changed in last 10 years) from eastern to western model. So I know it very good, I lived in both system and I was also 3 years teacher on university so I can say, that now - current students are more "stupid" but more "saucier?/rude" and better prepared for capitalism.

For example, I had economic secondary school. In years 1995-1999 and when I teach same student 7 years later on university (1st class), that students from same kind of school were really stupid and not well educated (I taught them on university I can compare) but they were more prepare/ready for real life, they have more courage and they like thinking "on their own / use own head and were not worry to tell their opinion" (in communism your own was opinion not important)

that's why I tried to avoid all definitions in my original post (unsuccessfully). All that matters is that workers receive a fair wage (not have someone rewarded massively and someone barely at all: does not mean wages have to be equal, just not quite as disparate as they are now), the vulnerable groups are looked after, there is freedom, and there is good investment into both science and art.

You can call that whatever you like. I prefer saying that it is a system with a strong socialist element (redistribution) and a capitalist one (incentivisation).

They shouldn't in my point of view. Everything that can be done in private at least as good as in public, should be done in private. In Flanders, most of the schools are not state-run (but they are being controlled by the state on education level (maths, languages, science, ...)).
---
But by allowing private companies to run schools, you are allowing people to make money off schools?

well, I could compare easily, because I went from the Soviet system into the English one. In the USSR I was an average student, but in England I managed to get into one of the top schools. British students at that age were virtually a couple years behind the Soviet ones.

and what do you mean 'not usable for real life'? Is Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology not usable for real life? What about languages (both your own and foreign)? That's already over 50% of subjects. School isn't there to prepare you for real life, it's there to teach and to instill discipline. You have to prepare yourself for real life in your spare time.

You can call that whatever you like. I prefer saying that it is a system with a strong socialist element (redistribution) and a capitalist one (incentivisation).

I'd call that the socialist approach of the capitalist system ;-)

But by allowing private companies to run schools, you are allowing people to make money off schools?

Yes.

Is Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Biology not usable for real life?

every this subjects ?
if you are econom not, if you are artist not and if you are doctor, maybe you dont need to know special math functions :-)

and a lot of subjects about "how good is our communism system" are not important. And a lot of old or not very actual subjects are useless too.... but yes, we have same opinions on quality of eastern schools, are better, more effective but sometimes is that efficiency spent on useless things... that is all.

well, I disagree - I think that everybody needs a rounded education - and that includes even things like geography and biology which most people do not use later in life. Also children at 14-15 may not know what they will end up doing as a profession, so the more different subjects they learn, the more varied their choices will be later.

I don't like this idea of branding subjects 'not relevant to real life'.

so, as I've said, you are letting schools be run for profit?

I would not, I'd call it a genuine mixture of the two systems. Because it contains many of the things that the Socialist movement - in its original form from the 19th century - campaigned for. Not all Socialists were hard Communists of the 'property is theft' type, the majority in fact were trade unionists who wanted employment rights and fair wages.

sorry, but I (31y.o. man) really dont remember what I learn about geography in secondary school or something about biology structure of cells and so. I would rather have more hours/lessons for foreign languages :-) or economy in EU not just in Slovakia and so....

my friend, cooker doesnt know how to check his salary (taxes, comp.contributions), doesn't know how to set up single person business but he know how to solve simple logarithm and he really know also that we have brent and usa light oil.

So .. do you see the point :-D ?

so, as I've said, you are letting schools be run for profit?

They can make profit, yes, but the main objective must be to fulfill the requirements of education.

I would not, I'd call it a genuine mixture of the two systems. Because it contains many of the things that the Socialist movement - in its original form from the 19th century - campaigned for. Not all Socialists were hard Communists of the 'property is theft' type, the majority in fact were trade unionists who wanted employment rights and fair wages.

Of course not all socialists are communists...

Rounded education is a good thing, but not when you have to learn by heart types of soil/minerals in different parts of world etc. ;)