Third Place: “Total Educational Effort” (Pt. I of V)

“Strength of Character is certainly needed to face life in the world and to stand by right principles, especially in the [State of Total Mobilization].”

-St. Rose Philippine Duchesne, RSCJ

In this Blog post, I am going to discuss about several different topics and bring synthesize them into a coherent whole far greater than the sum of its own parts. Everything points to the 1960s Counterculture botched attempts to bring about what Mary Perkins Ryan referred to as the “Total Educational Effort,” where the secondary schools and university campuses of nations are inducted into the State of Total Mobilization, turning national educational systems into Socialist Student Economies (SSEs). There is a lot of information to cover, so I decided to break it down into seven parts to make it more easily accessible for anyone interested in my conceptualization of the SSE. If my articulations here are coherent enough for everyone to understand, then the 1960s Counterculture which emerged on both sides of the Iron Curtain has broader historical contexts.  

We begin with the most obvious example of this Total Educational Effort, the “Third Wave Experiment.” I will be discussing about its accidental discoveries of the Socialist conception of Freedom and Equality and why it had accidentally rediscovered the role of Council Democracy for any national educational system vis-à-vis its Student Government. Next, I will then connect it to the events of UC Berkley in the 1960s and Mary Perkins Ryan within the same timeframe.

Strength of Character: “Third Wave Experiment”

“In political life this quality must be made manifest through wide-ranging self-government, just as was advocated by the non-Prussian Freiherr vom Stein during the time of the Napoleonic Wars [and Ron Jones in his Third Wave Experiment]. Our political endeavors should be directed not only against state centralism, however, but also against that centralistic compulsion which naturally emerges within the major parties, who all strive after party-rule. But we are also opposed to the exertion of pressure within economic life, whether that coercion of conscience is committed by an employer or by a group of employees. [F]or the time being let me just say that we [Pan-Germanic Socialists] consider our Inner Freedom, our Freedom of Conscience, to be by far the most precious thing of all.”

-Rudolf Jung, Der Nationale Sozialismus (2nd ed.), ca. 1922

For those who are not aware, the “Third Wave Experiment” refers to an attempt by Ron Jones, a former Contemporary World History schoolteacher in Palo Alto, California, to educate his students about the Third Reich. The term “Third Wave” originated in the sport of known as surfing.

It was the result of one of his students expressing extreme distress over how it could be possible for the German-speaking world to become unaware or, worse, complicit in the rise of the Hitlerists. Jones had spent a week or two running a “social experiment” and trying to figure out how it could be possible for an entire people to become swept into the fervor of a Zeitgeist like Weimar Germany. And in a world before the Internet, more than twenty years after 1945, it was difficult for Jones to understand the historical implications from the standpoint of Phenomenology.

Given my own research into the Work-Standard, I have every Intent to argue that Jones’ social experiment revealed the presence of a Unity of Opposites. Vladimir Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks had described this particular phenomenon in “On the Question of Dialectics” as an opportunity to take a Hegelian Thesis and Hegelian Antithesis to create a Synthesis:

The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their ‘unity,’—although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their ‘self-movement,’ in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a Unity of Opposites. Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) [as Spenglerian Morphology] are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

In the first conception of motion, self – movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external—God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of ‘self’ – movement.

The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the ‘self-movement’ of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to ‘leaps,’ to the ‘break in continuity,’ to the ‘transformation into the opposite,’ to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.

The Third Wave Experiment was able to exhibit the characteristics of a Unity of Opposites because of the four recurring slogans over the course of the “social experiment”:  

“Strength Through Discipline”

“Strength Through Community”

“Strength Through Action”

“Strength Through Pride”

The Theses are “Discipline” and “Action,” the Antitheses are “Community” and “Pride.” Only Discipline, Community and Action are needed for political-economic participation in a functioning Council Democracy vis-à-vis Democratic Centralism. As Ron Jones and various students had later recalled from hindsight, “Strength Through Action” was when everyone thought things began deviating away from their linear, progressive line of the class curriculum. Things finally “spiraled out of control” (or, if one is still following Lenin’s logic, spiraled into control) before “Strength Through Pride,” the burden of Command Responsibility now being under the control of Jones (and also why he was later dismissed from his employment once the social experiment had ended).

Could the Third Wave Experiment have pursued any direction other than the one it that had chosen for itself? Yes, Lenin explained why at the end of “On the Question of Dialectics”:

“Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes). Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness—voilà the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscrutantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.”

What went wrong in the social experiment was “Strength through Pride.” The term “Pride” set off the Freedom-Security Dialectic. The proper command to issue is “Strength through Conscience,” allowing for the creation of a Student Government befitting of an SSE: Diversity in Conscience and Community, Unity in Discipline and Action.

Discipline: “[The Student Government] is in every sense [the teachers and youth leaders of the student body.] In addition to [knowledge of Authentic Dasein] and [a] sense of justice, [they] must be distinguished by superior knowledge and experience, by moral excellence, by self-discipline and by high courage. [T]he example and personal bearing of [those] who are responsible for leadership has a decisive effect on the [the student body]. The [Student President and Student Chancellor], who [driven by the Ordered Liberty of Duty and Honor] displays coolness, decisiveness and courage, carries [the rest of the student body] with [them]. [They] also must win their affection and earn their trust through [their] understanding of [student body’s] feelings, their way of thinking, and through [their] selfless care for them. Mutual trust is the surest foundation for discipline.”

Community: “[Youth Leaders] must live with their [classmates] and share in their dangers and deprivations, their joys and sorrows. Only thus can they acquire a first-hand knowledge of the [latent talents] and [untapped potential] of [the student body]. The Individual is a part of the whole [that is far greater than the sum of their parts] and is not only responsible for [themselves] alone but also for [the performance and well-being of the student body as their] Comrades. [Those] who [are] capable of more than the others, who can achieve more, must guide and lead the inexperienced and the weak. Out of such a foundation grows genuine camaraderie, which is as important between the [State] and the [Totality] as it is among the [student body itself].”

Action: “The decisive factor, despite [Socialist Technology and Socialist Finance], is the [Vocation] of the Individual [discerning Extracurricular Guild Occupations (EGOs)]. The wider [their] experience in [the Socialist Student Economy (SSE)], the greater [their Quality of Arbeit long after they had graduated from secondary school]. The emptiness of [everyday life] requires [everyone to] think [creatively] and act independently, [make] calculated, decisive and daring [actions to overcome] every situation and [understand why overcoming the Political Organization Problem begins and ends with young people]. [Education and training], physical fitness, selflessness, determination, self-confidence and daring [will prepare them] to master the most difficult situations [later on in Life].”

Conscience: “[Everyone], from the youngest [underclassman] upward, must be required at all times and in all situations to commit [their] mental, spiritual and physical strength. Only in this way will the [the Life-Energy of the SSE] be brought to bear [with Situational Awareness and Readiness-to-Hand.] Only thus will [the student body] develop, who will in the hour of [decision] maintain their courage and [resolve to] carry their weaker Comrades with them to achieve deeds of daring [as Citizens in the State of Total Mobilization]. The first criterion in [the SSE] remains decisive action. Everyone from the [Student President] down to the youngest [underclassman], must be constantly aware that [Inaction] and [Burnout] incriminate [them] more severely than any error in the choice of means.”

-Descriptions of Prussian Auftragstaktik from “Troop Leading”

Is possible for me to declare before a sitting Federal judge and jury at a US Federal Court, under penalty of Perjury, that Ron Jones had inadvertently stumbled across the Prussian Auftragstaktik, which is a required prerequisite for young people to be engaged in Council Democracy and Mission-Type Economic Planning (MTEP)? Is it also too much of a coincidence that his Intent has to do with him also “playing an active part” in the “SDS” (Students for a Democratic Society), demonstrating why it is very easy for anyone to become lost in the historical fervor of any Zeitgeist? Are freedom and equality dependent on national contexts? Would it be outrageous for me to argue that a Pan-Germanic Socialist, Rudolf Jung of Bohemia, had expressed the same concerns as Ron Jones? Or why I perceive Jung and Jones as both warning along very similar wavelengths in response to Adolf Hitler’s rise to power among the Pan-Germanic Socialists?

Truly, I am convinced that the Socialist conception of Freedom and Equality is “Diversity in Conscience and Community, Unity in Discipline and Action.”

Strength of Character: “1960s Counterculture, SDS, and UC Berkley Protests”

“The youth [have] a concrete decision: [become] the last contingent [of Neoliberalism], in clear acknowledgement of the hopeless situation of the Bourgeoisie who have failed politically in every circumstance (the shameless capitulation of the Capitalists in the Ruhrkampf before General Dégoutte at the moment state subsidies were cut off is but one of many examples); [or], as Socialists, [become] the guardians of the original values of German history and even of Bourgeois Culture, standing in Solidarity with the Proletariat in their Class Struggle without sentimental ‘Proletkult’. There is no compromise [here because being] young is not a virtue. And generational conflict is nothing new in the process of biological law. Only when, at the crossroads of centuries, the youth stands at the precipice of decaying spiritual epochs, does the generational question take on a historical and therefore also political meaning. Even the Youth [Counterculture] Movement – not engendered by any aspirations, but born out of the alienation of the lives of the young from the sociological and ideological values of their [parents], taking shape as the struggle for the autonomy of youthful community-life – has no political mission per se.”

-Karl Otto Paetel, National Bolshevik Manifesto, ca. 1932

“Solidarity” is more than just a word; it is a way of life that must be done through action, even if it means doing with words. Students for a Democratic Society and the Free Speech Movement, despite their flaws, tried doing exactly that in the 1960s. Where both did wrong is disconnect Solidarity from the rest of the American people, the Union of these United States as a Totality. 

A slogan like “Make Love, not War” does not get American youths anywhere in Life, let alone convincing the older generations that they are dead-serious about being US Citizens. One loses sight of the real meanings behind asking “What is Peace?” and “What is War?” because War is Politics and Politics is War:

“Eternal Peace is a dream — and not even a beautiful one. War is part of God’s world order. Within it unfold the noblest virtues of men, courage and renunciation, loyalty to duty and readiness for sacrifice — at the hazard of one’s life. Without War the world would sink into a swamp of Materialism.”

Helmut Moltke the Elder, On the Nature of War, ca. 1880

Nobody in America wants to admit what really happened in Vietnam, otherwise today’s American youths will be proud to receive a draft card and serve the Union through work-conscription and military conscription. If the US Currency is pegged to the Work-Standard, this will be reflected in their Quality of Arbeit. A Sacred Oath such as this one is perfect for such ambitious youths:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this Obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the Duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

-United States Oath of Office

What motivated the 1960s Counterculture encountered and experienced in the Vietnam War was not exactly about the Vietnam War itself. As counterintuitive as this may sound to everyday Americans, the Youth Counterculture were yearning to become these Hamiltonian Militarists who wanted to challenge the Jeffersonian Militarists who supported it.

The Jeffersonian conception of Militarism is Quantitative, which is precisely what was going in South Vietnam—to prosecute the wartime powers of Total Mobilization with the Incentives of Supply and Demand. The Jeffersonian Militarist sought to profit from the Vietnam War, as evidenced by South Vietnam’s Producerism and Consumerism in the Tet Offensive, then complaining like an immature child about why the US National Debt is skyrocketing along with the returning caskets draped with our Ensign of Eternal Glory.

The Hamiltonian conception of Militarism is Qualitative by being constantly self-aware of the Intents of Command and Obedience on the battlefield and on the campus. If these United States should be at war, regardless of time or place, it must always be a political matter first and foremost in the true Council Democracy enshrined under the US Constitution. Either the American people become proactive in the affairs of their State and Federal governments as US Citizens or they are not allowed because nobody in these United States was a US Citizen to begin with.

[Students] only superficially, and not through long training and experience, welded together, more easily fail under severe conditions and under unexpected crises. Therefore, before the outbreak of war the development and maintenance of steadiness and discipline in the [student body], as well as their training [and education in the SSE] is of decisive importance. [The Student President and Student Government are] enjoined immediately to intervene with all powers at [their] disposal against any relaxation of discipline, against excesses, plundering, panic and other damaging influence. Discipline is fundamental in [Council Democracy], its strict maintenance [by one student can become] a benefit to [everyone in the SSE].”

The strength of the [the SSE] must be able to meet the highest demands in decisive moments. [Anyone] who unnecessarily fatigues the [student body in the State of Total Mobilization] jeopardizes [their futures]. The strength [of the SSE] employed in [the workspace] must stand in proportion to the objective desired. Unrealizable demands prejudice the trust in the [student government] and shaken the spirit of the [student body].

-From “Troop Leading” [Heavily Revised]

The SDS and the FSM both chose to oppose the Democratic-Republican Party’s swamp of Institutional Racism, Materialism, Producerism and Consumerism, and the Worldwide Exploitation condoned by Thomas Jefferson and his Empire of Liberty, the “Liberal International Economic Order” (LIEO). Since their Hamiltonian Militarism was matched by the Jeffersonian Militarism of the Vietnam War, both needed an Anti-Militarist stance. The Intent is about the same as me employing of Patrick Henry’s Anti-Federalism against James Madison’s Federalism insofar as Madisonian Federalism is in final analysis the other half of Jeffersonianism. Both youth organizations resented the older generations who claimed to support Socialism in America and still submitted to Jefferson’s Cult of Personality in the national educational system.

Where else in American history–shortly before the Vietnam War no less–are we ever going to find a Unity of Opposites between Hamiltonian Militarism and the Counterculture, SDS and FSM than on the campus grounds of the University of California, Berkley (UC Berkley)?

There was a student protest on the UC Berkley in 1964 over this statement issued by UC Berkley President Clark Kerr, who was clearly a Jeffersonian Militarist against Legal Rights in the SSE:

“The Dean of Students has met many requests of the students. The line the University draws will be an acceptable one…I don’t think you have to have action to have intellectual opportunity. Their actions–collecting money and picketing–aren’t high intellectual activity… These actions are not necessary for the intellectual development of the students. If that were so, why teach history? We can’t live in Ancient Greece…

The University is an educational institution that has been given to the Regents as a trust to administer for educational reasons, and not to be used for direct political action. It wouldn’t be proper. It is not right to use the University as a basis from which people organize and undertake direct action in the surrounding community.”

Then a student protest broke out in response to that statement, where I found this Hamiltonian Militarist who also shared the same sentiments as Philadelphia Bishop St. Johann Neumann, CSsR of Bohemia, up to and including His Excellency’s opposition to the Cult of Personality around Thomas Jefferson within the US educational system:

“We have an Autocracy which runs this university. It’s managed. We asked the following: if President Kerr actually tried to get something more liberal out of the Regents in his telephone conversation, why didn’t he make some public statement to that effect? And the answer we received — from a well-meaning Liberal [Capitalist] — was the following: He said, ‘Would you ever imagine the manager of a firm making a statement publicly in opposition to his board of directors?’ That’s the answer!

Now, I ask you to consider: if this is a firm, and if the Board of Regents are the board of directors, and if President Kerr in fact is the manager, then I’ll tell you something: the faculty are a bunch of employees, and we’re the raw material! But we’re a bunch of raw material[s] that don’t mean to have any process upon us, don’t mean to be made into any product, don’t mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We’re human beings!

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Now, no more talking. We’re going to march in singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’”

Mario Savio, “Bodies Upon the Gears,” ca. September 30, 1964

“The public school system in the United States is very liberal in theory; but in reality it is most intolerant towards Catholics. It cannot be doubted that the young mind is influenced by the irreligious dispositions of the teacher. Even the textbooks selected for use are injurious to Catholic children. They are merely heretical extracts from a falsified Bible, and histories which contain the most malicious perversion of truth, the grossest lies against the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church[.] These circumstances combine for the spiritual ruin of Catholic children.”

-St. Johann Nepomuk Neumann, CSsR

“To confess my weakness, Ned, my Ambition is prevalent that I contemn the grov’ling and condition of a Clerk or the like, to which my Fortune &c. condemns me and would willingly risk my life, tho’ not my Character to exalt my Station. Im confident, Ned that my Youth excludes me from any hopes of immediate Preferment nor do I desire it, but I mean to prepare the way for futurity. Im no Philosopher you see and may be jus[t]ly said to Build Castles in the Air. My Folly makes me ashamd and beg youll Conceal it, yet Neddy we have seen such Schemes successfull when the Projector is Constant. I shall Conclude saying I wish there was a War.”

-Alexander Hamilton, in a Letter during Adolescence, ca. November 11, 1769

Diversity in Conscience and Community, Unity in Discipline and Action.

Strength of Character: Mary Perkins Ryan’s “Educating Community”

“There are people among us who can see the future. Often they clamor for our attention, and just as often they are ignored. We are right to discount most soothsayers, but horrible things happen when accurate warnings of specific disasters go unheeded. People die because we fail to distinguish the prophet from the charlatan. Buried in billions of pages of blog posts and tweets, academic research, and government reports, [a Cassandra like Mary Perkins Ryan] figuratively calls to us, warning of calamity. Often she is unheeded, sometimes unheard. Frequently she is given only a token response or dismissed as a fool or a fraud. Her stories are so improbable, so unprecedented, that [Americans] cannot process them or believe them, much less act upon them.”

-Richard Alan Clarke and R. P. Eddy, Warnings: Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes, ca. 2017

One of the genuine problems of any form of economic planning is how to prepare the generation for the task itself. Economic planning is only a means to an end, not the literal end in itself. Where Mission-Type Economic Planning (MTEP) differs from all other forms of economic planning is its Qualitative acceptance of the fact that Life is supposed to be uncertain. Life would become very boring and uninteresting without some form of uncertainty. Thus, the SSE and its Tournament System were both designed to provide secondary educational level students with the required training and education for comprehending MTEP, allowing the theoretical and metaphysical concepts to be elaborated later at the university for those interested. This is also part of the same Implicit Intent behind why the Work-Standard relies on Equipmentalities or why it also needs to distinguish between “economic planners” and “accountants,” “investors” and “bankers,” “superintendents” and “state commissars,” and “central planners.”      

There was once a Catholic housewife in New England who clearly understood the implications of what Total Mobilization was capable of having on Hamiltonianism’s Ultramontanism vis-à-vis the spirit of the Second Vatican Council itself. Mary Perkins Ryan initially encountered the phenomenon between the 1930s and 1940s, but it was not until the 1960s–the same timeframe as Vatican II, the UC Berkley protests and the Third Wave Experiment–that she came to an important conclusion. If the largest and most European school system in all of these United States, American Catholic Education, was ever going to remain relevant for European-Americans, then American Catholic Education must be inducted into the Hamiltonian State of Total Mobilization against the Jeffersonian State of Natural Rights.

The American Total Mobilization of Production for Eternal Glory on behalf of Catholic Education was in her words a “Total Educational Effort,” capable of turning American Catholic Education itself into a “Teaching Community.” A Teaching Community is another, more direct action-oriented way of describing the metaphysics behind the SSE as a concept. In 1964, the same year as the UC Berkley protests, Ryan articulated her Hamiltonian Federalist Socialist ideas in Are Parochial Schools The Answer?: Catholic Education In Light of The Council. She specifically argued that American Catholic Education, as a school system, has outlived its purposes. The next step for clergy, religious and laity in the State of Total Mobilization is to begin revolutionizing it in accordance with Vatican II because the State of Natural Rights has also outlived its own purposes. Failure to do so will cause American Catholic Education to eventually weaken and lose both its power and influence as what could have been the largest benefactor of the UFSE (Unified Federalist Student Economy) discussed previously in the SMP Compendium.  

Are Parochial Schools The Answer?, despite being a forgotten work of art in an America where most American youths worship Thomas Jefferson, was controversial among American Catholics.

What prevented Ryan from articulating the SSE properly was, ironically enough, the absences of the Work-Standard, Mission-Type Economic Planning, Council Democracy and the Reciprocal-Reserve Banking System. Having read the book multiple times over the years and rereading that book once more from hindsight, Ryan’s writing does remind me of the SSE in many ways.

The critical reception from critics of Are Parochial Schools the Answer? did not stop Ryan from later revisiting the conceptualization of the SSE again in 1972, when she wrote We’re All in This Together: Issues and Options in the Education of Catholics. She had specifically described American Catholic Education as:

“[A] subsidiary element in the Total Educational Effort of the Parish or Area or Diocese, rather than its center in the sense of a sponge absorbing all the available attention and interest.”

Her conclusions in that book about American Catholic Education can be reinterpreted in Reference and Relevance to the concept of the SSE and its American version, the UFSE. In essence, American Catholic Education should be considered part of the UFSE because it is also part of the American Way of Life:

“In Ryan’s viewpoint, the embrace of a whole community theory of Catholic Education requires aims and methods that respond not only to child development, but the full complement of approaches for educating adults at various life stages across multiple educative environments.”

-Ann Morrow Heekin, The Life and Work of Mary Perkins Ryan

Or put another way: Diversity in Conscience and Community, Unity in Discipline and Action.



Categories: Third Place

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: