Bertrand and Dora Russell described the nature of education as follows:

"What is considered in education is hardly ever the boy or the girl, the young man or the young woman, but almost always in some form, the maintenance of the existing order.

"When the individual is considered, it is almost exclusively with a view to worldly success – making money or achieving a good position.

"To be ordinary and to acquire the art of getting on, is the ideal which is set before the youthful mind, except by the few rare teachers who have enough energy of belief to break through the system within which they are expected to work.

"Almost all education has a political motive: it aims at strengthening some group, national or religious, or even social, in the competitions with other groups.

"It is this motive in the main which determines the subjects taught, the knowledge offered, and the knowledge withheld, and also decides what mental habits the pupils are expected to acquire."

What Russell defined in 1934 we now know as ‘cultural reproduction’, which is the process and content that serve to legitimate both the institutions that recreate it and our own actions within them.

Much of this is reflected by Paul Freire in 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' and Ivan Illich in 'Deschooling Society' and many other free schoolers.

"Radical education" sounds like bullshit, particularly when "consciousness of ourselves as individual beings" (i.e. with wants and needs as the foundation for private ownership = property) is where capitalism stems from.

So that what the article introduction expresses is, put simply, that humanity grew brains, learned how to learn and this is the production system that has successfully satisfied the desires of an ever growing human society.

Yates suggests that 'peasants and/or workers' need to be radically educated to basically revolt against the system.

Socialism is a demonstrated pipe dream.

Capitalism has manifested a nightmare.

Radicalism gets us no where towards a middle ground.

I disagree with the bulk of Michael Yates radical left agenda.

“We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and to define its finer values.” - Tony Benn

“There is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons.” - Tony Benn

“A faith is something you die for, a doctrine is something you kill for. There is all the difference in the world.” - Tony Benn

“Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself” - Tony Benn

In response to Andrew Brown's comment, I want to make it clear that I am not anti-capitalist. I am simply opposed to the form that it currently takes which, in many respects, reflects how capitalism worked during the late 19th century.

Much of late 19th century and 20th century politics was a reaction against the exploitation, fundamental unfairness and casual cruelty that underpinned the accumulation of wealth during the "golden age" of capitalism.

The socio-political responses varied from communist revolution and civil war at one extreme through to gradualist change to accommodate the needs and aspirations of the wider community.

The latter phenomenon has several names but I would characterise it as the rise of the so-called welfare state in its various forms.

What we are now seeing is a conscious attempt by the forces of reaction to wind back aspects of the welfare state in favour of an philosophy which puts all responsibility for life outcomes on the individual, essentially without regard to social and economic conditions.

This is a philosophical outlook which allows those who succeed in acquiring (or inheriting) great wealth to persuade themselves that it is all due to their personal genius and hard work.

This is, in my view, a completely erroneous and largely self serving notion, not a reflection of objective reality.

Andrew is right to say that those of us who detest the waste, extravagance and fundamental unfairness of the current neo-liberal system need to propose a plausible alternative, but that is a discussion for another day and, probably, another forum.

What I will say is that the alternative I have in mind is definitely not socialism or communism. Rather, it is a rebalancing of the capitalist system to maximise its benefits while minimising its harms.

This will not be easy or simple given the powerful interest groups invested in the current neo-liberal form of capitalism, but it will be done one way or the other.

History shows that the creation of serious imbalances in complex socio-economic systems will inevitably generate conflict and, very often, lead to war over the distribution of resources.

The great and the good can make their choice about the method by which a fairer distribution of social and economic resources is achieved, but what they cannot do is indefinitely resist growing social pressure for a better deal for the masses.

In 20th century Russia, the Tsarist regime chose intransigent resistance and their reward was dispossession and death at the hands of armed revolutionaries. What we think of as "the West", led by Great Britain, chose gradual reform.

The West has flourished while the USSR ultimately ossified and collapsed. Russia is still dealing with the consequences of nearly a century of socio-economic and political disruption.

The Chinese have, after huge upheaval lasting over a century, chosen to pursue a path that they call "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but which is recognisably a version of tightly state controlled capitalism.

Right now, they are doing well but signs of stress are appearing and they face many challenges in the future.

History provides a lesson here for all of us, if only we will see it, especially those who control organisations like HSBC or JP Morgan.

Michael has nailed it. 'Dynamic tension'. The same applies to the concept of the Westminster system of combative argument in a controlled environment, e.g. Parliamentary rules governed by a Speaker.

When either side gets out of sync however, the tilt in either direction, right or left, is unhealthy.

The peculiar thing is that once the fascist right or the socialist left gets the upper hand, it all leads to the same result of then using authoritative methods to prevent any chance of losing the power of oligarchy that has been initially obtained by fair means or foul.

We haven't as a species yet evolved past that point in our evolution.

Underplayed the expansionism of China. Underplayed the export of terrorism by Iran.

Apart from that the rest, which was a diatribe against capitalism, which is OK if you can come up with a better model that doesn't end up in a totalitarian state. To date no one has been able achieve this.

Also called soft power Chris. As practised by the Chinese.

The biggest threats to PNG's ordinary people are the Chinese and the Americans, in this case in the form of Exxon Mobil.

I think most people understand neo-colonialism in terms of big business rather than old fashioned imperialism.

Em tasol ia.

Neo-liberal capitalism is why Trump is in power.

Even the Democrats are ruled by neo-liberal ideals in action behind the scenes, e.g. Hilary Clinton.

It's no surprise that PNG politicians are clueless.

Peter O'Neill is also a puppet of neo-liberal powers.

Big business had interest in making Port Moresby the way it is today.

An economy needs a market place, and while this market is not necessarily a physical location consumers still need a place to live.