John Dewey’s intent in “Education Reform = Compulsory Community Service” is asinine to liberty. The assertion that there should be mandatory community work for any individual who is seeking a public or high education is impractical and makes several dangerous assertions. It rides on a collectivist ethics approach that usurps a free individual’s rights. Dewey goes on to make the argue that the impetus for this compulsory community service is so that it more closely models and reflects our democratic values. There were a lot of compulsory activities in the USSR. These activities were implemented in a similar light- for the aid and benefit of the community, but nobody had the audacity to pretend like it was advancing a democratic society.
So, we find the proposition, “adults cannot succeed in a democratic society that does not incorporate the value of community service and social support into an already compulsory education. We cannot only focus on molding our children’s minds we must teach them how to be compassionate as well as hard working. We must also teach our citizens that working hard only to benefit one’s own life is not what is best for our community and our posterity.” This sounds like it is spoken directly from the lips of Karl Marx. It’s this justification that makes this idea so dangerous. Here we can see that since the action is altruistic that it justifies the compulsory nature of it. It’s a speculation of what the “society” should do to help a community. Here is the dangerous precedent; the collectivist assumption that regards this issue as a problem or duty of society as a whole. The only way that the security or altruistic value is complete, is to require the expense of others and those contributing. In today’s fast-moving world, people lead busy lives. Many people must go to school and work as well. Many have families that they need to go home to and provide for. While you may be happy with compulsory cleaning of a park for the benefit of everyone, know that it came at the cost of a mother or father not getting to be with their children, at the expense of a person who is not able to provide for themselves because they cannot work and complete the compulsory service as well.
The precedent extends to an even more dangerous ideology. If there be a collectivist premise, whether altruistic or not, it creates the assumption that man belongs to society and not himself. This is the degradation of a free society to one quite literally of communism- sacrifice of one’s self for the greater good. This altruistic approach to humanitarian issues, while seemingly a good idea, leads to the decay of individual rights. This is especially true when it comes in the form of political mandates and legislation. That is a pure dictatorial ideology. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said Marx. It’s the second portion that’s worrisome. He’s speaking to what he believes should be the sentiment of society. “…to each according to his need,” is the “humanitarian” part of his vision. The problem though, as mentioned, is the means of accomplishing it. Yes, a clean park is nice, but to whom? The working mother trying to obtain her college degree who is having to spend time picking up dog feces and candy wrappers because she is mandated to by the government? Tending a community garden could be another example. What will you say to the elderly woman finally obtaining her degree who is on medication that requires her to stay out of direct sun and arthritis that prevents her from stooping over? Will she receive special accommodations? Alternative assignments? How will we know that her altered work is equivalent to what the others are doing? It’s impractical.
This concept is frightening. Compulsory anything can’t be an advancement of a free and democratic society. Don’t be fooled by the guise of altruistic collective ethics. They are just as dangerous as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Any forced humanitarian work will be the demise of individual right and the first stepping stone towards Communism. Dewey misinterprets what’s best for a society, by advancing government intervention in individual decisions of what is considered ethical, or just.