Socialist Professor Responds

Let me please take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback and to clarify a few points that seem to be at issue. Thank you to those who have sent messages of support, and to those of you whose criticisms are based in argument and reasoning, rathern than in name calling and death threats. Thank you to those of you who noticed that I took care in my pledge not to identify with terrorists, suicide bombers, or Islamic regimes, but with the ordinary people around the world, including those here in the United States. And thank you, I guess, to those of you who are praying for my salvation. I tend to see a better world as being possible here on earth and am not waiting for the second coming so that the meek can inherit their due. But at least you aren't threatening my life, and I appreciate that.

To those of you who are sending me hate mail equating me with the enemy, however, let me attempt to make the following clarifications. It is true that the format of a pledge does not allow one to present arguments full-blown. People may have misunderstood my meaning and intent because of the brief and condensed nature of the genre.

I take my freedoms to dissent in this country very seriously. I do not want to live anywhere else in the world, your invitations to exile notwithstanding. I am a citizen with the right to protest what I see as unjust and inhumane policies, both economic and military. You are correct that I am relatively privileged; I would not have the same rights to dissent and protest in countries like Afghanistan, although if I lived there, I would be part of social movements to resist oppression whether in the form of Islamic fundamentalism or U.S. bombs. Activists in the countries I named often stress the importance of critique and dissent here in the belly of the beast. I feel a certain obligation, an obligation that comes with freedom, to speak out alongside of those with less freedom to speak. I pledged solidarity not with any nation's leaders or terrorist organizations, but with the ordinary people, who are not being liberated by U.S. sanctions and bombs or by U.S. support for the Israeli occupation. I see the people in Afghanistan who were bombed as they celebrated a wedding two weeks ago as being as human as those who died in the World Trade Center, for whom I also have tremendous compassion.

I should add that people in developing countries are not being liberated by the opportunites provided by U.S.-dominated world capitalism. I do not have space to go through all the evidence for these claims, but if you have an open mind, I suggest you read some Howard Zinn, especially People's History of the United States and his more recent Terrorism and War. Suffice it to say that if you have read any history you know that the U.S. either put in place or supported with money and guns the very dictators you decry today, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. The United States has taken part in the undermining of democratic (defined as supported by the majority of the people, not in terms of the free market) regimes in Latin American and the Carribean almost as a matter of course (Chile, Haiti and the Philippines for example), not to mention in Asia and Africa. The list is too long to recite here.

Those of you who are offended that you might have to fight and die for my freedoms clearly have misunderstood my anti-war stance. I do not want you to be sent to other countries to die or kill, because I think those actions are not in defense of our freedoms; more often it's about protecting oil profits (even Bush Sr. admitted as much about the Persian Gulf War, which resulted in more than a million and a half civilian deaths). I don't want you over there killing civilians in my name, when my freedoms are not what is being defended at all. Neither are yours. Even though you may hate me, I don't want to you die for someone else's profits.

I do not agree with the analysis that "our way of life" offers hope and salvation to those living in other countries under dictators and in poverty. When four percent of the world's population controls more than 60% of the world's wealth, when the nation states that harbor the strongest enterprises defend those interests with force, when U.S. foreign policy and economic policy are designed to drive countries into unsalvageable debt or rubble, it is impossible for me to remain uncritical. Too often, it is not the fault of bad leaders, bad values, wrong religion, or corrupt people in other nations that brings them ruin, but the policies of production for export over meeting human needs, the support of the U.S. for dictators like the former Suharto in Indonesia, who massacred more than 200,000 people but was, according to the state department, "our kind of guy" because he supported Nike and Freeport MacMoran's exploitation of the people there. I could go on. When Madeline Albright said that the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq as a result of U.S. sanctions were a reasonable price to pay for U.S. foreign policy objectives, I reacted with the same level of disgust that you are bombarding me with now.

I think we have to face these hard realities about "our way of life" if we are truly to understand "why they hate us" and to prevent acts of desperation and hatred targeting civilians in the future. I am not defending terrorism (which, if defined as the targeting of civilian life in retaliation for political and economic grievances, would apply to U.S. conduct in every war it has fought). But it seems reasonable to consider that "they" (Iraqis, Palestinians, Muslims in general) might hate the United States for the havoc it has wrought in the Middle East. Some examples: First supporting and arming Hussein when he was fighting our enemies and killing the Kurds, then slaughtering Iraq's civilian population and bombing the country back to the stone age. First supporting and arming Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan when they were fighting "the communist menace," then bombing their civilian population. . . You get the idea. The support for Israel and its wars and occupations against Palestinians against United Nations resolutions and international law doesn't win our government any friends, either. It is always wrong to terrorize civilians in response to such abuses. Yet the history is part of the answer to the question and a change in U.S. foreign policy must be part of the solution.

If you cherish the freedoms of the United States, it would be hypocritical of you to be intolerant of the expression of opinions that differ from yours. I am a well-educated, thoughtful human being. I am well qualified to teach at the University ("universe"-ity), which should be a place for thoughtful and respectful sharing of diverse views. My students get trained in critical thinking: the capacity to take in a number of perspectives and weigh evidence and reasoning on their own, which they would not be able to do if there were not at least a few dissenters among us here. I mean, the business school gets the big bucks and military- and corporate-funded research dominate the campus. It's a rare class where a student would find points of view that challenge the corporate and geopolitical hegemony of the United States. So I feel sorry for the students whose parents would keep them from attending my classes or the University of Texas because of what I wrote. Don't you have faith that your children can think for themselves? Don't you trust them with a range of positions and approaches to knowledge? Haven't you prepared them to defend your family's values? Any viewpoint is welcome in my classes so long as the arguer can provide evidence and reasoning in support of claims. Contrary to popular mythology, I do not routinely fail conservative students; I do welcome their voices in class so long as respect for others and standards of argumentation are sustained. Actually, the smarter conservative students tell me that they enjoy a good challenge, which they take as a sign of respect. And believe me, I am a member of a tiny political minority on campus that is nowhere near acting like the "thought police" envisioned by the hard right. The kind of fear I hear in the emails I am receiving and on the conservative listservs I have been monitoring is based on a complete overestimation of any single professor's influence.

In sum, I am not the enemy of freedom; to the contrary, I am among its staunchest supporters. I think freedoms should be expanded, not curtailed, in this time of crisis. I worry that now with the modified Patriot Act (which allows security agencies to perform warrantless searches, detentions, and wiretaps, among other things) and the new mega- security-intelligence agency consolidation, that we may not have these freedoms to dissent very much longer. I will raise questions about U.S. foreign policy and corporate globalization as long as I can. It is my prerogative, my right, and, as I see it, my responsbility.

A brief comment on patriotism, or nationalism: To me it seems untenable to say that I have more in common with George W. Bush, Martha Stewart, or Kenneth Lay than I do, say, with a teacher in Afghanistan or a student in Iraq or a UPS driver here at home. Likewise, they might share interests with me and have little in common with Saddam Hussein or Al Quaeda. As a socialist (not a Stalinist, and there is a difference), I have a positive vision of international solidarity and struggle against greed, war, exploitation, and oppression on a world scale. In my view, patriotic fervor dehumanizes people around the world so that their deaths or their hunger or their homelessness can be blamed on them and forgotten.

It's not like me to base an argument on the words of the "founding fathers" but let me remind you that it was Thomas Jefferson (leaving aside his fondness for slaves for a moment) who believed that criticism and dissent were at the core of democracy. He even thought that the citizenry should take up arms against a government when they thought it was becoming too tyrannical. It took a revolution to make the democracy you cherish, and in my view it will take another to make real democracy (political and economic) for the majority of the world's population.

Ben Franklin wrote that when a nation prioritizes security over liberty, the consequences could be dire for democracy. Contrary to my correspondents, I do not believe that order is the ground from which all liberty springs. History teaches quite another lesson--it took a civil war, for example, to end slavery. And "order" is a god term not of democratic societies but of fascism. Unfortunately, I believe that in this extremely sensitive time people are all too willing to embrace a notion of security--not only against terrorists but also against critical ideas and thoughtful dialogue--over liberty.

I hope that this set of expanded arguments makes for more thinking and fewer personal attacks. Of course, I hoped to provoke a response and I welcome deba†e and dialogue. I do not feel like a victim and I am not complaining about being criticized. However, I hoped to get a *real* response, not just hate and intimidation in the name of freedom.

I encourage activists with views similar to mine to come out into the light of day. The urgency of speaking now far outweighs the flak we will get for standing up.

I'm not a Maoist. I am, as someone here correctly observed, a Trotskyist. For those of you who don't know, Trotsky was hunted down and executed by Stalin. His vision of a bottom-up, democratic socialism (not State socialism) is the tradition I stand in. I beg to differ with you with regard to my intelligence but think what you like if it makes you feel better when being challenged with new ideas and information.

All you'd have to do is simply mention that her local ASPCA gassed another 125 unwanted puppies and kittens today and that'd be all she can think about for the rest of the evening.

You mean you can torment these people all night long by making one small statement? TOO COOL!

God Save America (Please)

There is enough food produced every year to feed everyone 54 times over--most of it is dumped in the ocean because it wouldn't get a profit on the market.

Source please. While you're at it, examine how much of the world's food is produced by capitalist vs socialist nations.

This might be what she is refering to Found here

Fact

The average American uses 54 times more resources than the average citizen living in a developing country. People in the developed world spend only 14% to 30% of their income on food, while those in developing countries need to spend 50% to 70%

Re: resources. You might be right about our being able to feed everybody. But you are wrong about why people are starving. This is because distribution is left to their corrupt, frequently Marxist, leaders. This includes the likes of Ethiopia, Somalia, etc. The West sends billions in aid and it goes to the leader's favored factions, his soldiers, etc. There is no predictable rule of law -- only who has the most power at any given time. Without predictable laws that guarantee personal freedoms and property rights, you will never have the prosperity you envisage. Have a look at Zimbabwe. A few years ago, they had a food surplus and actually sold food to their neighbors. The insane megalomaniac Mugabe has placated the "natives" and driven the white farmers and any blacks who knew the ropes off their farms. Now they're all starving, with what took years to build destroyed.

As far as being a Trotskyite, this system has never worked anywhere in the world. It only produces political coercion and shortages of goods . Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Your way will never work.

Or maybe this, but somehow I doubt it:

According to the statistical data collected, food aid to Bolivia goes back to 1955, when 2,552 metric tonnes of food were donated, after which food aid steadily increased to an alarming extent. At that time, the estimated population was around 3.3 million, in other words, the per capita donation was 0.77 kg., and the highest levels of food aid reached a figure of 278,055 metric tonnes in 1987 for a population of 6.7 million, equivalent to per capita food aid of 41.5 kg. In 32 years, per capita food aid increased by almost 54 times. Since 1987, the volume of food aid has declined and in 1999 72,400 tonnes were received. The main products concerned were wheat and wheat flour.

The increase in food aid had several negative effects on food security, including the following: (i) the creation of a fragile food supply system; (ii) a disincentive to domestic agricultural production; (iii) the diminished importance of local production in relation to self-sufficiency; (iv) a reduction in domestic effective demand; and (v) a change in the dietary habits of Bolivians. Food aid, principally in the form of wheat and wheat flour, has replaced the production and consumption of other indigenous cereals with high yields and very rich in proteins and calories. It is estimated that around 10 per cent of the population has become dependent on the supplementary rations from food aid programmes, which have become a basic element of their daily food intake.

(replying to post 1. and other things we've learned about you)

In the first place we do not live in a democracy. We never have and we never will. We live in a constitutional republic (Thank God). Take a good conservative history course.

Apparently you also do not understand the use of your body. Women are not designed to lay with women. Pretty obvious really, insert tab a into socket b and all that stuff.

Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse

You also seem to fail to grasp that if a baby is alive and distinct from it's mother one day after birth it is also alive and distinct from it's mother one day before birth (and one day before that, and one day before that all the way back to conception). A baby has a different DNA from it's mother. Therefore abortion is murder.

Many liberals much better equipped than you have tried to prove their points here. None have succeeded because truth always wins over liberal propaganda. While one Freeper may not know all the truth, some one in the 80,000 plus posters has the facts on any issue you'd care to discuss. Liberal spin doesn't work here (other than serving as good examples of idiocy)

God Save America (Please)

His vision of a bottom-up, democratic socialism (not State socialism) is the tradition I stand in. I beg to differ with you with regard to my intelligence but think what you like if it makes you feel better when being challenged with new ideas and information.

202 posted on 7/9/02 10:59 AM Pacific by commieprof

Democratic Socialism is nothing more than the foundation to Anarchy.

one other thing. Israel holds lands that it took during the wars of arab agression against it. Figure that these lands belong to Israel now by right of conquest as they were the defender in every war they fought. I think the arabs would cut their losses and stop attacking.

There is no such thing as a palestinian people. There is not now, and never has been a nation of palestine in the middle east. Israel, however, has over 4000 years existence on that land (minus 1878 or so years when they were scattered)

GSA(P)

Apparently you also do not understand the use of your body. Women are not designed to lay with women. Pretty obvious really, insert tab a into socket b and all that stuff.

Not that her sexual orientation is any of your business or relevant to this discusssion, but why are you assuming that she is gay?

To: commieprof

You a Trotskyite? In addition to being a feminist and deconstructionist? How precious!! I read a lot of that silly utopian leftist stuff years ago so really you are giving me nothing new. What I don't like is how you leftist bums and unemployables have hijacked so many universities and made them into places where you can somehow get on the payroll and leech off the taxpayers. In your case Texas.

Not that her sexual orientation is any of your business or relevant to this discusssion, but why are you assuming that she is gay?

216 posted on 7/9/02 11:40 AM Pacific by ProudAmerican2

Actually I think it was the CoomieProf that proudly outed herself as a Lezbo on her website.

All part of that Feminazi mestique don'tcha know...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.