Skip navigation

Marx and Education – Jean Anyon


This is a two-part review of Jean Anyon’s Marx and Education (Routledge, 2011) – in the Routledge ‘Key Ideas in Education’ Series. The Series editors are Greg Dimitriadis and Bob Lingard.

For the two-part review by the ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’ blogger, see:

The Pioneers of Marxist Thought in Education: A Review of Marx and Education, by Jean Anyon – Part One, 29th May 2011, at:

The Era of Neoliberal Deform: A Review of Marx and Education, by Jean Anyon – Part Two,  29th May 2011, at:


Schooling in Capitalist America: Dispatches on Marxism and Education, is at:


 For an outline of Marx and Education by Jean Anyon, see:  


For other reviews of Marx and Education by Jean Anyon, see:

Ken McGrew’s review of Marx and Education, details at:

A review by an anonymous author on, known as m310, see:  


Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas:

MySpace Profile:

The Ockress:

Rikowski Point:



  1. Your review of Anyon’s book thoroughy misrepresents my discussion of a particular strain of educational marxism by taking it out of context, selectively quoting, and by falsely claiming that it is made without providing much evidence. Here is a fuller excerpt including citation from chapter six “The Gift of Education: Education Beyond Economism” in my book The Gift of Education: Public Education and Venture Philanthropy (Palgrave Macmillan 2010). This excerpt is part of a much larger discussion about educational obligation and social exchange. The problems with the “new old marxism” that I discuss also apply to your criticisms of Anyon’s book in the second part of your review.

    – Kenneth Saltman

    Neoliberal education drives a privatization agenda that includes running public schools for profit, voucher schemes, charter schools, for profit contracting, and commercialism. As an economic project, this treatment of public schooling tends to redistribute public wealth and educational resources upward. The political and cultural costs of such economic and symbolic shifts are great. The social, political, and cultural dimensions of education are impoverished in this view, as market considerations reign supreme. In the accomodationist view of neoliberalism, the only salvation for the individual in a radically unjust social order is to fit in or perish. Education is the means through which the individual is to fight to the top of the heap. The social possibilities of neoliberalism are framed largely through national economic competition in the global economy. The economy is naturalized as the best and only way to think about education among other social issues. Unfortunately, economism has also resurged with the education left.

    Marxist educational theories have offered crucial insights about schooling in capitalism. Some of these insights include how capitalism configures knowledge as a commodity, transforms schooling on the model of the industrial economy, reproduces the social conditions for the reproduction of capital by teaching skill and know-how in ways ideologically compatible with capitalist social relations and class position. As well, such Gramscian Marxist social theorists as Althusser have offered a theory of subject formation: interpellation. Gramsci’s thought on the relationship between politics and education2 has inspired a number of critical pedagogues to theorize the role schooling can play in hegemonic struggle. Other Marxist thinkers on education such as Raymond Williams inspired critical engagement with the question of the “selective tradition,” questions of canonicity which open up critical concerns about the production, distribution, and reception of knowledge, its relations to the securing of social authority, and its relationships to broader structures of power.

    Yet, Marxist economic reductionism has made a disturbing return to the field. While unlike neoliberalism this camp has the virtue of focusing squarely on oppression, social justice, and class warfare, the new old champions of Marxism have not bothered to learn from the many decades of criticism inside and outside the field of education.3 The new old Marxists embrace an anti-democratic vanguardism and class reductionism while failing to deal with the many problems of the Marxist legacy of thought, including the anthropocentric tendency to view nature as ideally exploitable for human uses, the reduction of human value to labor, the patriarchal and racist legacies of the Marxist inheritance, the theory of culture and ideology in Marxism that reduces both to reflections of the economic base, the teleological theory of history, the mechanistic theory of agency determined by class position, the modernist enlightenment tendency towards purity, unity, totality, and harmony that is contrary to thinking difference, among other problems. There continue to be crucial insights to be taken from Marx and the Marxist tradition of thought. However, this “purist” Marxist revival remains trapped in a theoretical time warp, and, more importantly for this book, it remains stuck in what Baudrillard referred to as “the mirror of production” – that is, the expansion of the productivist metaphor throughout social life, the extent to which Marxism remains trapped within the assumptions of the political economy and metaphysics that inspired it, and the restricted understanding of human life and activity by labor.4 Like neoliberalism, its nemesis, Marxist education is hopelessly bound to economism. Critical educators such as Henry Giroux and Stanley Aronowitz have been pointing this out since the 1980’s.5

    Both neoliberal education and Marxist education, due to their economism, suffer from difficulty theorizing the distinction between public and private, the politics of knowledge, and the power-infused workings of culture. Both advance a vision of education inherently incompatible with the democratic possibilities of public education. Neoliberal education collapses the public possibilities of public schooling into the private possibilities of amassing wealth. The public roles of shared control and the civic possibilities of public deliberation, debate, and dissent are undermined by neoliberalism’s push to privatize public schooling, treat students as knowledge consumers, and to treat teachers as deliverers of commodity. The value of knowledge is reduced in the neoliberal view to its exchangeability in the marketplace. Struggles over claims to truth and the relationship between knowledge and power are largely ignored as the neoliberal view pushes hard for the standardization of the knowledge deemed universally of value. Neoliberal education imagines the future as an endless present. Within the supreme imperative for continued economic growth, the possibilities for the individual reside with the uses of education to give the educational “consumer” an edge at competition and national policy should, in this view, be based on global economic competition. The vicissitudes of the market, the economic exclusion and impoverishment of roughly half the planet, and the crises of value and political cynicism produced by the ascendancy of consumer culture, merit hopeless shrugs by the neoliberals whose motto might as well be “adapt or die.” As Lawrence Grossberg suggests, neoliberals are faced with a contradiction when it comes to ethics and morality. While in principle the market is supposed to be self-regulating and to produce the best social outcomes, few neoliberals would allow absolutely everything to be made into a market – human organs, for example – and so they must legitimate their policies through reference to other discourses for morality, such as American exceptionalism or Christianity.6

    The vulgar variety of Marxist education fails to appreciate the public/private distinction by treating public schooling as little more than an arm of capital and a tool of capitalist oppression. Antonio Gramsci stands as a glaring exception to this, having profoundly theorized the struggle for civil society as central to the making of a hegemony forged through consent.7 For Gramsci the “private” realm of civil society must be won by ruling groups not only must the “public” realm of the state and its juridical and coercive institutions be seized to transform the material relations of production and hence the consciousness of men. Consequently the struggle for ideas, the actions of the intellectuals including teachers are not just profoundly political but they are crucial to the winning of the social order by competing classes. Politics is an educational project and education is necessarily political. The role of public schooling as a public democratic institution that prepares citizens for civic engagement is not central to the new old Marxian education any more than it is to neoliberal education because the Marxists imagine a post-revolutionary future that will be run as a dictatorship of the working class. For the Marxists as for the neoliberals, democracy receives lip-service, but these unlikely bedfellows share a commitment to reducing education to economics. While the Marxists rightly attack the damaging structure of global capitalism and its human costs, they are left with no place to go as the alternative educational form can only be derived from class analysis. The crucial questions of cultural politics and the rejection of the theoretical tools developed by multiple traditions of cultural analysis about whose knowledge should matter and what knowledge should matter and how language, meanings, and ideologies relate to material struggles leave such Marxists stunted.

    The new old educational Marxists view every other perspective and insight about education as a threat to the one true cause of Class. Feminism, racial justice, progressivism, socialism, postmodernism, poststructural theory, liberation theology, postcolonial theory, cosmopolitanism, the legacy of philosophical liberalism from which all of these derive, all appear to the educational Marxists as a threat to be annihilated. As Dave Hill, a leader of this perspective, announced at the annual American Educational Research Association conference in 2007:

    “Non-Marxist and Anti-Marxist political forces fail to recognize and combat the essentially class-based oppressive nature of Neo-Liberal Capital. Such forces include Extreme Right Racist/Fascist, Extreme Right Populist, Conservative neo-liberal, Neo-conservative, Third Way/ Revised Social Democratic (e.g. Die Neue Mitte/ New Labour), Christian Democratic, centre-Left Social Democratic, and religious fundamentalist movements and parties, whether they be Islamic, Christian, Jewish Hindu or other religions. .…Objectively, whatever our race or gender or sexuality or ability, whatever the individual and group history and fear of oppression and attack, the fundamental form of oppression in capitalism is class oppression.”8

    In the new old Marxist discourse of purity, different views appear as a danger to the one big truth.9 Such a perspective is hostile to debate and deliberation and tends towards political fundamentalism rather than the kind of public agonism necessary to democratic culture and governance. As political theorist Chantal Mouffe writes,

    “While antagonism is a we/they relation in which the two sides are enemies who do not share any common ground, agonism is a we/they relation where the conflicting parties, although acknowledging that there is no rational solution to their conflict, nevertheless recognize the legitimacy of their opponents. They are ‘adversaries’ not enemies [to be destroyed]. This means that, while in conflict, they see themselves as belonging to the same political association, as sharing a common symbolic space within which the conflict takes place. We could say that the task of democracy is to transform antagonism into agonism.”10

    We can add here that the critical possibilities of public schooling likewise foster democratic culture by both recognizing the inevitable antagonism at the core of the social but also by teaching the theoretical and political tools for hegemonic struggle.

    Neoliberal education is likewise authoritarian in its active denial of politics in favor of the magic of the market. Neoliberal education is fundamentalist in two ways: it is a manifestation of market fundamentalism while denying that there is a politics to the managerial role of markets.11 The neoliberal perspective wrongly insists that free markets govern democratically as people vote with their dollars. What the neoliberal view misses altogether is how the economy functions politically to position people hierarchically based on their capacities to act in the market – capacities to act which are hardly equally distributed.12

    2 See for example Michael Apple, Ideology and Curriculum New York: Routledge 1979 and Henry Giroux, Teachers as Intellectuals Westport: Bergin & Garvey 1988.

    3 For examples of the recent Marxist educational thought that has largely eschewed the insights of much of critical theory, postrstructuralism, pragmatism, postcolonial theory, feminism, psychoanalysis, and critical race theory in favor of a return to class above all else see the work of Dave Hill, Glen Rikowski, Peter McLaren, Mike Cole, Rich Gibson, Ramin Farahmandpur. Part of the problem here is that rather than appropriating from these different traditions to strengthen and expand class analysis some of the new old Marxism pits all other traditions of thought as the enemy of the One. This belies a dogmatic religiosity not to mention a failure to grasp the crucial criticisms of the logic of enlightenment. This perspective is a comprehensible over-reaction to some of the worst excesses of the postmodern trend in educational theory that resulted in the depoliticized insistance on localism, the rejection of the category of class and political economic analysis, cultural relativism, the rejection of any narrative of emancipation or progress, the celebration of desire in ways that merely reinscribed consumerism to name a few. Nonetheless, these Marxist authors ought to embrace the selective appropriation of diverse theoretical tools. Part of the problem for McLaren, who was a brilliant theorist of culture prior to his rebirth, is that in order to talk about culture from this limited perspective he is forced to smuggle the tools and select language of poststructural analysis back into the text while disavowing them. Another tragic dimension to this educational trend is that it is out of step with actually existing radical left movements around the world including the Global Justice Movement and the movement towards socialism in Latin America. For example, as I finish edits to this book in Peru, Indians in the Peruvian Amazon are resisting the Peruvian government’s attempts to steal their land to lease it to foreign nations for energy exploitation. People are linking together the class, ethnic, racial, linguistic, and ecological struggles as a singular global movement. The average person understands these interrelated relationships and is not resorting to the hierarchicizing of oppressions characteristic of the new old Marxism.

    4 Jean Baudrillard, The Mirror of Production Telos Press, 1975. In education see Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux Education Still Under Siege Westport: Greenwood 1989 for a brilliant and mult-faceted dissection of the Marxist legacy.

    5 See for example, Aronowitz and Giroux, Education Still Under Siege Westport: Bergin and Garvey, 1989.

    6 Lawrence Grossberg, Caught in the Crossfire Boulder: Paradigm Publishers 2005.

    7 See Antonio Gramsci, “The Intellectuals” in Selections from the Prison Notebooks edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith New York: International Publishers, p. 12.

    8 Dave Hill, AERA Symposium “Tyrrany of Neoliberalism on Education” paper presentation titled “Analyzing and Resisting Capitalist Education: Class ‘Race’ and Contemporary Capitalism” p. 16

    9 Hill, ibid.

    10 Chantal Mouffe On the Political New York: Routledge 2005, p. 20.

    11 See for example John Chubb and Terry Moe’s Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press 1990 for the classic neoliberal formulation of this position or Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1962.

    12 Much of the literature on reproduction theory in education confronts this. See for example, Bowles and Gintiss’s classic Schooling in Capitalist America the forms of capital addressed by Pierre Bourdieu as well as the more recent literature on neoliberalism in education by authors such as Giroux, Hursh, Goodman, Buras, Apple, and my books Collateral Damage, The Edison Schools, and Capitalizing on Disaster.

  2. Sorry to disappoint you Kenneth – but I was not the reviewer of Anyon’s book. You should read more carefully before jumping to conclusions! However, in the process you have revealed your views on my work, and approach to Marxism – for which I can be truly thankful! Happy New Year! Glenn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: