Marxist methods of teaching and Marxist ideologies should be implemented in school curricula

The issue in this debate is whether or not the pedagogy espoused by Paulo Freire should be implemented to a greater extent in high school education and whether or not students in high school should be encouraged to understand communism. I will set out to show the disadvantages of both positions, though I will focus this first argument on communism. As my opponent has stated, a greater appreciation of communism would not be beneficial if communism (defined as the espousal of the belief that (1) money should be controlled by and equally distributed amongst the people as a matter of fairly apportioning the benefits of society in accordance with each person's equal contribution to society to the best of each person's ability, (2) the rule of man by man must be abolished as this is the source of all conflict and (3) government must be eliminated in the spirit of a society wide desire to aid others without controlling them) is shown to be unachievable, as it makes little sense to direct a person to attempt an impossibility, or if it is unhelpful to education, as logically a hindrance to education could not be tolerated as an improvement. Additionally, my opponent concedes that his assertion will fail if I can show that Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy approach would not, in its greater implementation, improve schools. Communism as defined by my opponent is unachievable because it requires the willing participation of each and every member of society to succeed. Each member of society must be willing to accept equality in societal rank and wealth, and each must also be unwilling to form any organized institution dedicated to the regulation of human behavior, which is, in essence, what government actually is. Marx's great mistake, and it was an understandable one, was to assume that underneath the veneer of authoritarian induced civility, man was a noble creature yearning for harmony. Man is not this, or at least, is not this in every case. First, one must recognize that equal respect for one's fellow members of society is necessary to accept equal status within the society. Unfortunately, part of any given population is bound to consist of psychopaths. Psychopaths "gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions. " ( See . http://en.wikipedia.org...) An estimated 1% of the population consists of psychopaths, and for the most part, they are not criminals. Instead, they are the financiers and corporate executives of our country, directing their antisocial impulses in the cutthroat world of business. (See . http://www.fastcompany.com...) These individuals thrive on proving themselves superior to others. In short, they are bound in a personality that is inherently antithetical to communism. These individuals excel at putting on a veneer of respectability, work tirelessly for their own self-aggrandizement and have no compunctions about harming or even killing others to achieve success. Why then, do not psychopaths control our country? Perhaps they do. However, even if they did, their damage is limited by our Constitution, a social contract that is responsible for keeping the government from abusing its power by holding government to a set standard. In a world without such a contract, no one would be inhibited from attempting to establish a regime as helpful to one's self as it is harmful to society. One might argue that a similar contract could be imposed on a communist society but, in fact, it could not, as the force of the contract is limited by those willing to enforce it, and once you have enforcers of any kind, you have government and someone at the head of government controlling it. Of course, psychopaths aren't the only problem. Human populations also include sociopaths and schizophrenics. While it is true that these individuals could be labeled as mentally unstable and segregated from society, such segregation would form a kind of imposition upon others not unlike a limited government itself. Which brings me to my second point: what is government? "Government is defined as the body within an organization that has authority and function to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules. " (See . http://en.wikipedia.org...) As humans are not linked to a single overmind, and, as I have shown, humans most certainly are not uniform in their desires/thought processes, how does a society work without a form of governance? The short answer-it doesn't. The implementation of communism would have to lead to anarchy or oligarchy of some form. So we know that communism is unachievable as it is defined by my opponent. Can it be shown that a greater understanding of communism would not be beneficial to education? The answer is yes. High school curricula are presently limited by a number of competing interests within our schools. High school educators are expected to adhere to state and federal guidelines in education, and must meet certain minimum standards in providing high school students with the skills they need to obtain employment outside school. (See . http://www.ed.gov... ) While it is true that most students will be encouraged to pursue college, many need to begin working in our presently capitalist society right away. (See . http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Those students need fewer theoretical pursuits in high school, not more. Students so inclined to learn more about the world and its competing belief systems will likely conduct independent study into such pursuits. The rest of the students, who only care about creature comforts and affording them, will want to know the skills they need to get the money they need to afford the comforts they want. (See . http://www.ncee.org... ) Valuable time that could be spent inculcating useful business skills in these students would instead be wasted proposing a theoretical model of society that I have already shown to be incompatible with the human animal. Consequently, the notion that education would be improved must be rejected, as students so educated would have less time devoted to acquire necessary competitive skills. As I have shown that communism is unworkable and that increasing time spent studying communism in high school would not be beneficial to the students, and by extension the educational process by which they learn, my opponent's argument is refuted. I will set aside construction of my argument against my opponent's proposed pedagogy for now, as this argument is rather long and I would like to review my opponent's claims and refutations before proceeding. I look forward to your response!