President’s calling the arrest and intent to deport Columbia Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil ‘the first of many to come’ is a clarion call to action
Technology uber alles and finger dexterity errors erased my comment but as I recall it was along the lines of the need to combat the red scare by building movements oriented to smashing capitalism in its various forms and creating conditions for cooperative sharing a la socialism for all...ending 12,000 years of private property for some and mud for most.
Few left, or even communist movements want to abolish private property, and those that have tried it, during the early days of gaining control of the government like the Bolsheviks in the early days of the revolution, or the Chinese revolution in the days of the Cultural Revolution, have reversed the deision. One practical reason is that many successful revolutionary takeovers of a feudal or capitalist society have featured land-reform, returning exploitative large land holdings to small farmers to own, or to have as a long-term lease from the state amounting to a kind of ownership. Similarly small family businesses were eventuallly allowed. The key was limiting such ownership to the people actually doing the work, and not allowing paid employees other than direct family members. The reason these revolutionary governments returned to allowing such small enterprises was that they are not capitalist at all. If there are no employhees (or slaves) there is no exploitation, and small businesses or farmer owned lands, tend to be far more productive and successful at providing needed goods and services than public ones because the proceeds of the operation go directly to the owners "according to their work." Basically the claim that true socialist movements 'want to do away with private property" are red-herring propaganda by the opponents of socialism.
Capitalism is a system of exploitation, in which the owners of capital use their ownership of the means of procuction to erxtract (or to use Marxist terminology) alienate the surplus value from the labor of the worker/employees.
Some theorists of socialism have tried (with little or no actual evidence) to claim that "primitive " societies had no concept of private ownership, but I believe this is nonsense. Native Americans, for examle, are often said to have had no concept of personal ownership, but I am confident this is wrong. They likely mostly had no concept of personal LAND ownership, as they were mostly semi-nomadiic, farming and hunding and building temporary structures for their families, and moving on when soil was played out. Bit I feel confident in saying that once an Indigenous American did the work of carving sharp, balanced stone arrowheads or spear hands and mounted them on straight and balanced shafts, and created a reliable and powerful bow, that weapon would have belonged to him, and someone else in the band or tribe trying to take it would have ended up in a fight. The same with a Teepee dragged to the next camp site and set up for a Native family. If another ramily tried to move in there would be a conflict. A trained horse would also likely have had a rider who "osned" it for the logical reason that the animal would come to know its rider. and the rider would have come to know is horse. Most studies I have read that try to claim some society was completely communal end up being debunked. That is not tosay that there are no pre-capitalist societies that are basically communal -- there are, and communal ownership makes sense and could even work in modern industrial societies -- probably better tan capitalist ones -- but then there have to be laws that assure democratic management of those enterprises by the workers, with any managers being democratically elected and having no owneship of the enterprise any more than the workers do. These kinds of arrangements have been tried but socialist societies which have tried such things, like Russia, Cuba, Chile, and others, have typically failed because of strenuous efforts of the powerful capitalist nations like the UK, France and especially the US, to destroy them, for fear that they might inspire workers at home to demand the same thing.
It would seem to me that communal ownership is an inefficient and useless way to own a business. And if it impossible for a person to hire people to start a business, innovation and discoveries would drop to zero (which is what happened to the Soviet Union. One of the things that did them in was they lagged behind the west with respect to computers and electronics).
Also, if all farms become 'family farms' we would all have to become farmers.
Right on Ron! Don't watch Congress. looking for efforts to block Trrump's fascist takeover or his attack on workers They won't act any more than the members of the Bumndestag acted to block the rise of Hitler. Resistance has to come from the people, and it seems to be starting to happen as so many are now under attackj.
I do not believe it it the responsibility of the college to provide free legal services to its students. The students are responsible for there own legal issues.
That might make sense if one was talking about some crime like stealing from another student or getting drunk and damaging university property, but when it involves interfering with a member of. the university exercising their Constitutional right of free speech, press, assembly or redresssing grievance -- and this applies to faculty too -- and especially if if involves being arrested and possibly deported for exercising those rights and being improperly punished by the university which is bringing the attention of a repressive govertnment' to the student or faculty member, it is very much the university's responsibility to use its resources to protect that member of its community. A university is a special institution in a democratic society. It is supposed to be a bastion of free inquiry and thought. If thatb bastion is attacked for its role as such a refuge and bastion of free inqiuiry and thought--and no one can deny that higher education is under the worst such attack since the McCaarthy/Red Scare era, as Prsident Trump and his key advisors have openly said that is what they are doing -- the institution, and indeed all such institutions must defend itheir members. I experienced this myself as an undergraduate in the late 1960s when my university and many across the county weree punishing sttudents not only for protesting America's criminal war on Vietnam on campuses across the country, and those colleges -- like mine, Wesleyan University in Connecticut -- had university officers (as I learned when I obtained my FBI file from that period years later) -- who were reporting on us students and tour activities -- to the FBI and US "Justtce" Department, which would indict us for opposing the draft, or organizing protests. What is happening now with foreign students, including Palestinian Green Card holder Mamoud Kalil, who is facing deportion, presumably to Gaza, dispite his being married to N 8-month pregnant native-born US citizen not for any crime but for being a leader in negotiating with Columbia University leaders over last year's Gaza protest encampment, and for arguing in favor of Columbia divesting its endowment's holdings in firms doing business with Israel.
Sorry, but a non-citizen immigration position is their responsibility, not the college. Non-citizens do not have an automatic right to live in this country. If they do something that jeopardies their status, and they are not yet full citizens, that is their issue, not the college.
what you are ignoring or don't realize is that the aUS Constitution's Bill of Rights do not an never did only declare all those rights upon just "citiens" but to every person in the country. Once you are in the territory of the United States you have freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion and the right to seek redress of grievances, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
Technology uber alles and finger dexterity errors erased my comment but as I recall it was along the lines of the need to combat the red scare by building movements oriented to smashing capitalism in its various forms and creating conditions for cooperative sharing a la socialism for all...ending 12,000 years of private property for some and mud for most.
Most people to not want to abolish private property. People want to be allowed to own their own homes and/or businesses.
Few left, or even communist movements want to abolish private property, and those that have tried it, during the early days of gaining control of the government like the Bolsheviks in the early days of the revolution, or the Chinese revolution in the days of the Cultural Revolution, have reversed the deision. One practical reason is that many successful revolutionary takeovers of a feudal or capitalist society have featured land-reform, returning exploitative large land holdings to small farmers to own, or to have as a long-term lease from the state amounting to a kind of ownership. Similarly small family businesses were eventuallly allowed. The key was limiting such ownership to the people actually doing the work, and not allowing paid employees other than direct family members. The reason these revolutionary governments returned to allowing such small enterprises was that they are not capitalist at all. If there are no employhees (or slaves) there is no exploitation, and small businesses or farmer owned lands, tend to be far more productive and successful at providing needed goods and services than public ones because the proceeds of the operation go directly to the owners "according to their work." Basically the claim that true socialist movements 'want to do away with private property" are red-herring propaganda by the opponents of socialism.
Capitalism is a system of exploitation, in which the owners of capital use their ownership of the means of procuction to erxtract (or to use Marxist terminology) alienate the surplus value from the labor of the worker/employees.
Some theorists of socialism have tried (with little or no actual evidence) to claim that "primitive " societies had no concept of private ownership, but I believe this is nonsense. Native Americans, for examle, are often said to have had no concept of personal ownership, but I am confident this is wrong. They likely mostly had no concept of personal LAND ownership, as they were mostly semi-nomadiic, farming and hunding and building temporary structures for their families, and moving on when soil was played out. Bit I feel confident in saying that once an Indigenous American did the work of carving sharp, balanced stone arrowheads or spear hands and mounted them on straight and balanced shafts, and created a reliable and powerful bow, that weapon would have belonged to him, and someone else in the band or tribe trying to take it would have ended up in a fight. The same with a Teepee dragged to the next camp site and set up for a Native family. If another ramily tried to move in there would be a conflict. A trained horse would also likely have had a rider who "osned" it for the logical reason that the animal would come to know its rider. and the rider would have come to know is horse. Most studies I have read that try to claim some society was completely communal end up being debunked. That is not tosay that there are no pre-capitalist societies that are basically communal -- there are, and communal ownership makes sense and could even work in modern industrial societies -- probably better tan capitalist ones -- but then there have to be laws that assure democratic management of those enterprises by the workers, with any managers being democratically elected and having no owneship of the enterprise any more than the workers do. These kinds of arrangements have been tried but socialist societies which have tried such things, like Russia, Cuba, Chile, and others, have typically failed because of strenuous efforts of the powerful capitalist nations like the UK, France and especially the US, to destroy them, for fear that they might inspire workers at home to demand the same thing.
It would seem to me that communal ownership is an inefficient and useless way to own a business. And if it impossible for a person to hire people to start a business, innovation and discoveries would drop to zero (which is what happened to the Soviet Union. One of the things that did them in was they lagged behind the west with respect to computers and electronics).
Also, if all farms become 'family farms' we would all have to become farmers.
Right on Ron! Don't watch Congress. looking for efforts to block Trrump's fascist takeover or his attack on workers They won't act any more than the members of the Bumndestag acted to block the rise of Hitler. Resistance has to come from the people, and it seems to be starting to happen as so many are now under attackj.
Exactly right.....what are these law schools and departments of education doing on these campuses?
I do not believe it it the responsibility of the college to provide free legal services to its students. The students are responsible for there own legal issues.
That might make sense if one was talking about some crime like stealing from another student or getting drunk and damaging university property, but when it involves interfering with a member of. the university exercising their Constitutional right of free speech, press, assembly or redresssing grievance -- and this applies to faculty too -- and especially if if involves being arrested and possibly deported for exercising those rights and being improperly punished by the university which is bringing the attention of a repressive govertnment' to the student or faculty member, it is very much the university's responsibility to use its resources to protect that member of its community. A university is a special institution in a democratic society. It is supposed to be a bastion of free inquiry and thought. If thatb bastion is attacked for its role as such a refuge and bastion of free inqiuiry and thought--and no one can deny that higher education is under the worst such attack since the McCaarthy/Red Scare era, as Prsident Trump and his key advisors have openly said that is what they are doing -- the institution, and indeed all such institutions must defend itheir members. I experienced this myself as an undergraduate in the late 1960s when my university and many across the county weree punishing sttudents not only for protesting America's criminal war on Vietnam on campuses across the country, and those colleges -- like mine, Wesleyan University in Connecticut -- had university officers (as I learned when I obtained my FBI file from that period years later) -- who were reporting on us students and tour activities -- to the FBI and US "Justtce" Department, which would indict us for opposing the draft, or organizing protests. What is happening now with foreign students, including Palestinian Green Card holder Mamoud Kalil, who is facing deportion, presumably to Gaza, dispite his being married to N 8-month pregnant native-born US citizen not for any crime but for being a leader in negotiating with Columbia University leaders over last year's Gaza protest encampment, and for arguing in favor of Columbia divesting its endowment's holdings in firms doing business with Israel.
Sorry, but a non-citizen immigration position is their responsibility, not the college. Non-citizens do not have an automatic right to live in this country. If they do something that jeopardies their status, and they are not yet full citizens, that is their issue, not the college.
what you are ignoring or don't realize is that the aUS Constitution's Bill of Rights do not an never did only declare all those rights upon just "citiens" but to every person in the country. Once you are in the territory of the United States you have freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion and the right to seek redress of grievances, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.