A Walk Through the Mind of a Socialist - When He Talks to Us About Education

Вчера в Офнюз излезе  писана от Ивайло Динев статия, в която той критикува ограничаването на правото на студенти от определени специалности да кандидатстват за европейски стипендии в размер на 600 лева.

Although the topic is extremely banal and insignificant compared to other problems in education, the sophism that flowed from the material clearly shows the distorted non-reality that the left lives in. Since the addressees of the article are young people and there is a certain risk that they will be misled by the emotionally charged rhetoric, it is important to shed light on the erroneous ideas and manipulations therein.

So, let's go through the text, quoting excerpts from it and analyzing the main statements.

Even with the opening sentence, Dinev gives a highly emotional tone to his writing: "If you are a student and you want to become a successful and useful historian, lawyer, sociologist... the list is long. Forget that, you are not important. It has been said - you are not a "priority".

The presumption here is that a person cannot be successful and useful to society unless they are part of central government planning in economic sectors. And that if they are not included in a taxpayer-funded scholarship program, they are not important.

It's as if whether you are important, useful and successful does not depend on your own will, on hard work and on the desire to learn more and be better. It's as if the market will not reward you if you are actually good at something and your entire economic value comes from the fact that some official said "Wow!" to you and gave you some money that he previously took by force ( yes, taxes ARE theft! ) from someone else.

What kind of perverted idea of the relationship between the individual and society? What kind of low self-esteem, dependent on some list and some specific amount of money? Of course, this is a well-known leftist mantra: "Don't try, there's no point, the game is rigged and you won't win. Come to us, only we can restore justice!" The goal is obvious - to make you give up your ambitions and make you give them your vote and your money.

But let's continue. Dinev argues for the need to provide the 600 leva scholarships in the following way:

"First, for someone this money is a lot - with it a student will get by for 3-4 months or save for specializations, books, textbooks, for example, or help my parents. For example, I paid for my dormitory with them and signed up for a language course."

It is true that 600 leva is a lot of money for a young person and would make his life better. But does that mean that other people should be obliged to give it to him or that he deserves it by definition? Aren't there temporary jobs that pay that much (or more)? Aren't there private scholarships? After all, everyone should be responsible and have done their math well before enrolling in higher education. Many people work and study at the same time to support themselves or to increase their income. This way, they gain invaluable experience that cannot be provided to them by an educational institution - how to be a disciplined and consistent worker, how to organize your work and time, how to deal with clients and employers, etc. Six months of stressful night shifts in a call center were as valuable as two or three semesters at university.

What is significant in this case is that the author does not talk about these things, but behaves as if the money of the rest of society belongs to the students and someone has taken it from them. This type of thinking - "What is mine is mine, what is someone else's is common" - is typical of the left-wing worldview. After all, there are not many examples of left-thinking people who voluntarily pay higher taxes than the absolute minimum.

Dinev continues: "For someone else, it won't be a question of money, but of the meaning of the state insult - dividing students into priority and non-priority."

Is that right? So it's not offensive to be financially dependent on state aid, but it is offensive for the state to group you according to some qualitative characteristics?

This argument is absurd for at least two reasons. First, feeling offended does not mean you have rights over other people's money. Second, even the insane central planners in government and Brussels have understood that there are majors and universities that churn out useless personnel year after year and that if they want to drive the economy of Europe, they need to start demanding quality and investing wisely. Hence the idea of "priority" majors - whether they chose them correctly is another question.

Of course, in a better world, the individual is free to decide for himself what is a “priority” for himself. But then who will pay the bureaucrats to implement “educational policy”? 🙂

The article ends as it begins - with unnecessary emotionality: "The humanistic educational ideal - to be a person, with developed abilities for self-esteem, independence, dignity, has been kicked out by the experts. Today, it is not important to be a person, it is important that you can be a cadre."

Typically leftist, Dinev's presumption is that the function of education is to instill values, not to provide a chance to develop economically useful skills. The role of the most ancient and fundamental social institution - the family - is ignored. Parents are the ones whose main responsibility is to raise and educate an independent, dignified and moral person. Only then does this person choose their place in society and seek the assistance of those more experienced than them in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. But, of course, leftists do not miss a chance to undermine family values, since close-knit and independent families do not easily succumb to state control.

But here another question arises. Given that Dinev believes that the state should provide education and that the function of education is to instill values, not skills, what values does the state instill in young people? Does it create critically thinking and free individuals, ready to uphold moral rules and skeptical of authority? Or does it create obedient servants who easily change their morality according to the mood of the powerful of the day and are financially dependent on the state, since they have no market skills of their own?

The answer to this question is clear to everyone.

So, let's summarize. Socialists (in this case – Dinev) believe that a person's self-esteem and success depend on whether they are a "priority" for central planners, that demanding quality in return for invested funds is offensive, and that politicians (not parents) should educate young people in values. And the worst thing is that in Bulgaria this position is not particularly radical. Ultimately, the reason for complaint is the several million euros allocated for scholarships. The remaining hundreds of millions ( 456 million for 2016 ) continue to be thrown away, and our education system continues to exist in a primitive state and produce a poor-quality product.

How long?

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!