WOW! Portland State University Offers Revolutionary MARXISM Course! Check Out the Syllabus!!! (salary, healthcare)

[cwa1984]

Originally Posted by sprtrpr

Good post, but arguing with cwa1984 is a waste of time.

Coming from someone who doesn't back up anything they say I guess I should take this as a compliment.

They make blatant strawman accusations and have been posting the same inaccuracies the whole thread.

As opposed to your posts not backing up anything you say and failing to respond when you are obviously proven wrong.

Obvious troll.

Indeed you are an obvious troll.

[cwa1984]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

CW, this isn't 1936, much less 1980 when Roger Kiren was purged from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. And while yes I was a veteran and thus older when I went to school I didn't detect much in the way of intellectual susceptibility to so-called Marxist indoctrination amongst the younger members of the student body the vast majority of whom were thoroughly immunized against any thought that Marxism was a relevant political ideology.

Then college was quite a bit different when you went to it since quite a few professors when I went to college were clearly far far left. They don't like to be question on there beliefs when they try to shove them down your throat and Professors will try and do this regardless of what they actually teach. My English 102 professor was an absolute nut job conspiracy theorist marxist who believed everything and I do mean everything was a right wing conspiracy. I remember one of his half hour long rants about how he couldn't find one book he was looking for on the JFK assassination at his local library claiming it was due to right wing republicans not allowing the book to be in the library. Since Republicans honestly care if that one book doesn't happen to be in that local library for that Professor to read. It's all a right wing conspiracy after all him not being able to find that book! That was one of the worst professor I ever dealt with and most aren't that bad but he was not the only one who used to just rant on and on not teaching but acting like preacher doing a sermon.

Real world experience, unless one grew up in the Komsomol, could possibly erase years of American secondary education that indoctrinated its students with the horrors of Stalinist, or Maoist ideology.

Yes, because people living in the former eastern bloc had so many nice things to say about the communists.

Now I have a question for you. Since your main objection seems to the fear of a lack of critical arguments about Marxism, in this case the Trotskyite variant, do you also believe that professors should not teach about the evils of capitalism?

Capitalism a term Marx created no less simply refers to people being able to buy and sell goods and own property. It's not a political ideology and economic ideology that has failed repeatedly like communism has. It has shown itself not to be good or evil but a rather human system, whereas communism isn't because it requires human beings to go against their very nature. No matter how persuasive a Marxist is they will never be able to have pure equality since it’s fundamentally goes against human nature since no one wants to be equal to everyone else. So if you are going to talk about the evils of buying and selling goods and owning property essentially you are arguing about humans being evil.

After all we don't want to have just a one sided argument, now do we? Or are you not concerned about the indoctrination of students to the unqualified wonderfulness of free market capitalism as I was taught by the likes of Chicago School economics professor Robert Smith?

If your referring to anarcho-capitalism then yeah I don't have a problem with people critizing the hell out of it since that system if basically anarchy that would lead a despot government coming to power. As far as the rest of your anti-anticommunist response here goes I don't have a problem with capitalism since its a very human system.

This are just your presumption. As for what has value and what does not when it comes to higher learning, that is a valuation best determined by the academic market doesn't it?

I would hope so but experience is telling me with tenure and everything else that radicals not wanting to teach but just force there opinion are becoming more of a mainstay in academia. Making colleges places were you don't express thought you are just simply told what to think and not to question why.

If only ten students enroll in one of these courses then the expense is a pittance, if their are thousands (my psych class had 1800) then the market justifies the price.

With tax payer funding since tax money funds this university as well. This is hardly a economic business that lives and dies if they don't make enough profit.

However, academic freedom, which I strongly believe in should be allowed to flourish regardless of subject matter, my only concern would be to what academic standards are these course being held to.

I'll save you the trouble and state there won't be any academic standards. Since this will be preaching and not a course with debate which you should have in any philosophy or political science course.

That is a far more important question than the subject matter itself.

So if a course came up with "Why Hitler was right" you would support the subject matter?

And this is based upon what? My experience was that if you going to challenge most professors you better show up with your game face on regardless of the subject or ideology of the prof.

Sorry to disappoint but that is usually not the case when you deal with professors who have believe in fringe ideologies. They don't like being questioned they like telling you what you should believe and not have you challenge them at all. So what students end up doing is bull****ting there way through the course to pass and not learning to question things but rather "just fake it to make it."

Academics live in a rarified and egocentric world and very few enjoy being challenged on their core perspectives.

Then they need get a new job since higher education is nothing else if not getting you to learn how to think. If they want to sit on top of a mountain and never be questioned about anything they need to find a new job since they are failures at being educators.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Coming from someone who doesn't back up anything they say I guess I should take this as a compliment.



As opposed to your posts not backing up anything you say and failing to respond when you are obviously proven wrong.



Indeed you are an obvious troll.

Irony at its finest.

You don't back up anything that you say.

You fail to differentiate between Marxism and communist systems that have actually been implemented---but that's okay, because you hate communism and anything related.

You attack professors you don't know solely because they are socialists--but that's okay, it's fine to slander people you don't know based on their political persuasion, since you hate communism and socialism.

You assert that things will happen, without a sliver of evidence that it will--but that's okay, because you hate communists and socialists.

You argue that we should leave out gaping holes in educating college students about political and economic systems different than ours, despite the fact that every country has different political and economic systems than ours, but that's okay, since you cherry-pick the gaps to assure that it's only the topics you dislike that shouldn't be taught.

What you are is an advocate of censorship. Pure and simple. You don't like it, so you want it out of the school curricula. Because ignorance is better than knowledge. That's the basis for censorship. Ignorance is better than knowledge. And that's your argument.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Because the idea is not original to him which marxist claim.

More ignorance and more arrogance on the subject of Marxism. I am not even a Marxist. Indeed I have been accused of being one while promoting the ideals of Adam Smith.

Safe to say you know nothing of the subject...


How is it a Marxist would claim to have invented public education? Did Republicans invent "family values"? Niether makes either of those claims to have invented it, yet it is a plank in their political platform.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

-Manifesto of the Communist Party

And thus no Marxist could make that claim because the originator made no such claim.
And to the point of exhaustion, our public education system has in its traditions gone towards being devoid of training individual within their class and more towards a Marxist ideal of classless education.

I just don't understand why people have opinions on something they know they no nothing about....

It means the idea didn't originate with him and crediting with it is not accurate. What is hard to grasp about that.

You implied it was his idea that is why you got the response you did.

Yeah right. First I imply it then Marxist's claim it. You keep changing which is what trolls do.


Falling under a platform is not an inference as to claiming its invention. What you have wrongly stated Marxists claim, and stated I implied is merely your inaccurate comprehension.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by cwa1984

It's not a political ideology and economic ideology that has failed repeatedly like communism has. It has shown itself not to be good or evil but a rather human system, whereas communism isn't because it requires human beings to go against their very nature.

I'm sure the victims of these abuses under Capitalism are happy to hear that.

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hamlet chicken processing plant fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Products of Labor Abuse « Fight Slavery Now!

3. Child Labor In The U.S. Is Worse Today Than During the 1930?s | Project Censored

I believe Capitalism forces humans to go against their nature by working for long hours in unsafe conditions for low pay. It's against human nature to put yourself into positions such that all your pay goes back to your employer via the "Company Store." It's against human nature to unknowingly eat foods that are likely to not even be food.

[Neuling]

The devil or the deep sea...

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

I don't understand....

That pretty much sums it up.

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

America ALREADY is a socialist country.

No it is not. The US might employ philosophical concepts of socialism, but the US does not practice socialism as a Property Theory. If the US practiced socialism as a Property Theory, then the US would be like many present Socialist countries (eg Norway) or like former Socialist countries (et Britain).

Before Thatcher began privatization, the British government either owned everything outright, or owned a controlling interest (except for Sainsbury's and the Doner Kabab stands and the pubs).

Who owned Astin-Martin, Triumph, British Leyland, Jaguar, MG, Rolls-Royce, British Rail, British Air, British Telecom, The Post (the mail service), British Petroleum, British Aerospace, the coal mines, the coal industry, the steel industry and everything else (except Sainsbury's, the Doner Kabab stands and the pubs)?

The British Government.

What does the US Government own or have controlling interest?

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

I learned that senior year of HS. When the teacher asked what kind of economy we had, students answered a "pure free-market economy." He pointed out otherwise.

Then he had no business teaching, because he's just as clueless as you are.

Like your teacher (and nearly everyone on this thread) you are unable to make the distinction between Property Theory and Economic Theory.

They are not the same.

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

When a government makes transfer payments, for social security, disability and the like, that country's economy is, by definition, a socialist economy.

Wrong.

It is by definition an Hybrid Economy using Capitalist Property Theory.

Going back to your opening remark, "I don't understand..."

Here, I'll explain it to you so you do understand. Maybe you can go back to your old school and explain it to your idiot teacher as well.

There are three Property Theories: Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Each has variants. There are also hybrid systems, for example where the people [the government] owns the natural resources, but everything else is privately owned. And then you have countries where the government owns the natural resources (the people have no say or control over their use), but all other Capital is privately owned.

There are also three Economic Theories: [Free] Market, Command, Traditional and hybrid systems.

An Economic Theory does what Property Theory can never do, and that is answer three basic questions:

1] What shall be produced;

2] How it shall be produced;

3] For whom it shall be produced.

KEY (BIG HINT):

****The answer to each question is the Economic Theory itself.***


Shall corn be produced?

In the [Free] Market System, the Market decides if corn shall be produced.

The Command System is run by the Command Group which is an oligarchy; a government agency, committee, office; or some other bureaucracy that may or may not be affiliated with the government. It is the Command Group who will decide if corn shall be produced, and not the Market.

In a Traditional System, it is Tradition that decides what shall be produced. This system is still practiced by many aboriginal groups and tribal or tribal-like societies in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. As an example, the Shaman, chieftain or tribal leader may drink a potion made of certain roots then go sit in a cave for three days fasting and having hallucinations while waiting for the spirits of ancestors to come tell him what to plant.

Yes, that actually happens even in the 21st Century.

So, who still does not understand?

Let's move on.

How shall we produce corn?

That is not a stupid question. You can produce corn using modern agro-mechanical means with GMOs. chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides.

Or you can use neo-traditional methods, or you can go organic.

If the Market decides that Franken-Crops shall be produced, then that is what the Market gets. If there is a Market for non-Franken Crops, then they will be produced. If there is a Market for organic foods, then they will be produced.

See how easy that is?

In a Command Economy, the Command Group will decide how corn shall be produced. Since organic corn yields are less than agro-mechanical and neo-traditional, you can bet the Command Group will make every effort to maximize production and so not produce organic corn (even though a market may exist for it).

In a Traditional Economic System, the corn would be produced in accordance with tradition.

Who still doesn't understand?

Let's continue.

For whom shall we produce corn?

Earlier I said the Market decides if corn shall be produced in the Market System. The Corn Market includes all of the sub-Markets of those who use corn. There is a market for corn as ethanol; as corn oil; corn syrup; corn starch; corn flour; corn meal; corn syrup for conversion to high fructose corn syrup; corn as feed; corn as silage; corn as raw corn; corn as canned corn; corn as alcohol for medical use; and corn as alcohol for alcoholic beverages.

Those are just some of the markets for corn (the list is neither inclusive nor exhaustive).

In the Market System we produce corn for any market that demands it.
Each of those markets competes against the others for corn. The demand for corn by each of those markets in connection with the supply of corn determines the price of corn.

The entire corn market in the US also competes against all other corn markets in the world for corn. The world-wide aggregate demand for corn as measured against the world-wide aggregate supply of corn determines the price of corn on the world market.

The price of corn on the world market can influence the price of the corn on the regional or local market.

The Command System pretends to remove competition by simply dictating the amount of corn each market receives. In a Command System, the market for corn starch receives a predetermined number of bushels of corn per month or quarter or year, and no more. When corn starch manufacturers run out of corn, they simply stop production. If corn starch manufacturers do not receive the amount of corn as planned, they also simply stop production.

Command systems heavily regulate and control each market, often also setting the prices for each market.

If the Command Group, the entity that runs or controls markets, decides that no corn shall be produced, then none is. It's just that simple.

In the Traditional System, corn is allotted by tradition. Perhaps the largest family gets the most; or maybe the oldest family; or the elders; or the tribal council or whatever. That is for whom the corn is produced.

For those of you with Big Brains, a light bulb probably went on.

You can use Capitalist Property Theory with the Free Market System. You can also use it with Command System, and also the Traditional System.

You can pair Socialist Property Theory with the Market System (look at Europe), or with the Command System (look at many former East Bloc countries), or with the Traditional System.

You can marry Communist Property Theory with.....the Market System. Yes, you most certainly can. Has anyone ever done that? No. But you can do it. Communist Property Theory also works with the Command and Traditional Systems.

So, now that you know that, you can go back to your old school and punch your teacher in the face for feeding you a line of BS and making you look like a fool on the world-wide internet.

Economically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Gee maybe I'm saying that its indoctrination since the course is being taught by socialists who obviously agree with what Marx says.

Then by your definition, every university course is "indoctrination."

If an economics professor agrees with Mankiw then he is "indoctrinating" his students with what Mankiw says, right?

You can substitute, Keynes, Friedman et al for Mankiw.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

The course is not being taught by professors who are neutral....

Why would you want neutral professors?

I'm going to slam you with this...

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Communism completely lacks the ability to be practical since it requires humans not to be humans. Human Beings do not possess the ability for pure equality...

...which completely contradicts your demand for neutrality.

You think I was neutral when I taught International Relations? Hell, no, I'm a Contructivist. I taught everything from the Constructivist perspective.

I rather gleefully pointed out the failings of US Foreign Policy from the classical conservative, classical liberal, neo-conservative and neo-liberal institutionalist views.

So, uh, like what, a course on Marxism should be taught by a Capitalist?

That would be like having a course in Evolutionary Theory or Geology taught by a radical fundie christian who thinks Planet Earth is only 6,000 years old (and yes there are people like that on this forum).

Originally Posted by cwa1984

... since they would talk about what happens when communism is actually put into practice in the real world and not just Marx in theory. Essentially these professors are going to be preaching nothing more nothing less.

Okay, let's talk about what happens when communism is actually put into practice.

Ready?

Are you sure?

Okay, here we go.....

First, two world powers, specifically to wit: the United States and the United Kingdom; worked in concert for 50 years to block the ascension of all East Bloc currencies to the world market.

Effectively, in plain ordinary English, it was not possible to buy or sell Soviet Rubles, Romanian Lei, Magyar Forints, East German Marks etc etc etc on the world market.

If you fail to mention that key fact when teaching about communism as it was practiced, then you have lied by omission.

What would be the implications for any country, if its currency was prohibited from being traded on the world market?

Specifically, what would happen in the US if the US Dollar was suddenly banned from being traded on the world market?

How would, um, you know, the US brand of Capitalism fare?

Your turn....

Originally Posted by cwa1984

They are both for the removal of private property rights. The only way to do that is to empower the government to do so.

No, that is not the only way to do it. You could empower the people to do it. I guess that never donned on you.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Because capitalism (a term invented by Marx no less) is basically being able to buy and sell goods and own property.

Wrong. Capitalism is a Property Theory. It is about the ownership of Capital and has nothing to do with buying or selling, nor does Capitalism determine the prices of goods or services sold.

You need to read Two Cheers for Capitalism and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, written by Kristol and Bell respectively. They are the gurus of Neo-Conservatism, and essentially what they advocate is Feudal Capitalism.

That would be like Robber Baron Deluxe™. Not only would they control all of the means of production, but they would function as an oligarchy in a Command System and set the prices of goods and services.

See, if you had taken a course in Marxism, and studied Marxist history, you would see that Capitalists do not necessarily prefer the [Free] Market System.

They have repeatedly demonstrated that at every available opportunity, they will engage in price fixing and other monopolistic practices.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

They haven't worked because they literally can't work. That is what you and others on here promoting communism and trying to dismiss its faults don't grasp. The only way for pure equality to work is through the use of force and all that creates in the end is corruption and tyranny.

That's an obtuse statement.

I will grant you that the Soviet Union failed, but you must consider all of the facts, namely that the US and UK constantly interfered with the Soviet Union.

As I said, the United States and Britain conspired for 50 years to prevent the ascension of any East Bloc currency to the world market.

You want to ignore the implications and results of that?

Of course you do. The world has never seen unfettered communism or socialism. I suppose conversely, we could ask what would have happened if the United States and Britain had not economically interfered with the Soviet Union and East Bloc countries.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

No first world country practices socialism.

Norway does. So do quite a few other countries.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

The welfare state if that is what you are referring to is not socialism.

It is not Marxism either.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

Adam Smith advocated the government using resources for the general welfare of society

Then that is Socialism or Communism, depending on how much input and control the people have.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

It's about centralized control of the economy run by a few with the government being all powerful.

That is neither Socialism, Communism nor Marxism. Marx never advocated centralized control, rather that is how Lenin et al interpreted it, in part due to the circumstances that existed at the time that they gained power.

I would remind you that Tsar Nicholas outlawed slavery in 1905.

And no, I didn't stutter...1905, that was just 107 years ago. And even though he did so, slavery (ie Serfdom) was still practiced in most of Russia up through the Revolution.

What you and so many others ignore is the simple fact that in 1905, your average Russian had no idea about property ownership of any kind, and as a result, it was not something tied to the culture, nor was there are large body of case law on the matter, nor were there any of the things you would expect to find in a culture that was rooted in freedom and ownership rights.

In the early US and even in the Colonial Period, there was an entire culture based on the "pursuit of happiness" which is the acquisition of private property. It is ingrained in the culture, and there is a plethora of case law as well as laws and ordinances to protect the rights of those who own property, whether it is used as Capital or not.

And you expect the Russians to instantly know what took Americans 800 years to learn?

Interesting. You must think the Russians are super-human god-like super heroes.

You're a little weak on your Russian history. The Russians did not have a Reformation in the Orthodox Church, nor did they experience the Enlightenment or Renaissance Periods. The Russians and all East Bloc countries were way behind the West in terms of technology and other advances.

That's one reason why a centralized economy was attractive -- it was a means to speed up industrialization and bring the East up to speed with the West.

Why do you think Ceausescu forced people at gun-point from the country-side to the cities? To shift Romania from an Agrarian Society and Agrarian Economy to an industrialized State. I'm not saying he was right, I'm just telling you why he and others did what they did.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

It's about centralized control of the economy run by a few with the government being all powerful.

You mean like the United States?

I didn't vote for the American Hospital Association, yet they wrote much of Obamacare.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

So the only way to have a purely classless equal society is to use force to do so.

Or educate people; or demonstrate its benefits.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

That requires the government to implement communism or any type of collectivist system.

Like a corporation?

A corporation is as communist as you can get.

The people own the Capital, right? The people being the share-holders, right? The share-holders, ie the people, make all of the decisions on how the Capital should be used, what Capital should be sold, etc etc etc, right?

You're saying communism cannot work, when quite clearly it can and corporations would do better if the government did not interfere with them, right?

Now you have something new to think about.

Originally Posted by cwa1984

The problem when a government becomes communist is that they end up with people who enjoy being in charge of others and for the most part could care less about there citizens. They will repress anyone who dissents against them as well.

Just like a corporation.

Corporately...

Mircea

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

No matter how much lipstick they put on this pig, collectivism / marxism / communism / or socialism results in submission to the all powerful State, compulsory labor for the benefit of another (slavery) and expropriation of property for the benefit of another (theft).

Apparently so does Capitalism.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Let's try a different source:

COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.

- - - Webster's Dictionary.

But that isn't Marxism. Marx was a believer in the [Free] Market System. Marx never advocated a centralized or planned economy. Those were inventions of Lenin (and for the reasons I stated previously).

Contrary to what you might want to believe, you can marry Marxist Property Theory with [Free] Market Economics.

In plain English, the people would own the means of production (all Capital), but the [Free] Market would determine what is produced, how it is produced and for whom it is produced.

That has never been attempted.

Would it work? Hell if I know. All I know is some people on this forum don't want people to think outside the box about things like that.

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.

- - - Webster's dictionary

That's collective ownership by the Government, like Britain used to be.

When Triumph came up with the TR7, it was a radical departure from previous designs, and Triumph needed money to capitalize and re-tool their auto-works for the new design. They had to beg the British government for permission, since the British government owned controlling interest in all of Britain's auto makers.

By the time the timid bureaucrats got tired of wringing their hands and approved the money, it was too little too late, and Triumph ended up folding. In fact, that is the story of most of the British automakers. Ford ended up buying Jaguar, and someone, I think GMC bought Land Rover, and so on.

Collectively...

Mircea

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

Not really.

The best way to show that you've understood a policy is to apply it in practice.

That's true. MBAs sit around theorizing a lot, but never practice, and then when they get to the Real World™, the muck everything up.

Practicing...

Mircea

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Irony at its finest.

You don't back up anything that you say.

You fail to differentiate between Marxism and communist systems that have actually been implemented---but that's okay, because you hate communism and anything related.

You attack professors you don't know solely because they are socialists--but that's okay, it's fine to slander people you don't know based on their political persuasion, since you hate communism and socialism.

You assert that things will happen, without a sliver of evidence that it will--but that's okay, because you hate communists and socialists.

You argue that we should leave out gaping holes in educating college students about political and economic systems different than ours, despite the fact that every country has different political and economic systems than ours, but that's okay, since you cherry-pick the gaps to assure that it's only the topics you dislike that shouldn't be taught.

What you are is an advocate of censorship. Pure and simple. You don't like it, so you want it out of the school curricula. Because ignorance is better than knowledge. That's the basis for censorship. Ignorance is better than knowledge. And that's your argument.

What really is an irony is that a failed Marxist state completely abusing Marxist ideals is attributed to Marxism. Yet when we have failed states that claim capitalism , it somehow does not seem to dirty the reputation. Is that not bias?

While I find Marx to be particularly naive about many aspects of human nature , I think it is only fair to criticize him and not the false propaganda. There is just no objectivity in the West. It also robs us of his accurate accounting of the worst aspects of capitalism that was occurring. It is also why I expect it to be flawed since is inherently reactionary to a surprise mess that few anticipated an embarrassment of productive power would precipitate.


What is even more telling is Adam Smith and Marx were in perfect agreement about the looming threat of monopoly capital. Yet where have I seen this discussed? It hasn't been because few who discuss it have read one, the other or both.

[Neuling]

I would even say capitalism has only survived because there is government, laws, etc. which prevent the worst of human nature from destroying society in the process of living capitalist lives.

[SHABAZZ310]

How is this a waste of tax money? By the instructions and titles of these classes they look appropriate to me for young adults. If you’re not interested in these courses don’t take them simple as that.

Originally Posted by doctrain

"Portland State University is offering a number of controversial courses this semester, the likes of which include “Revolutionary Marxism: Theory and Practice,“ and ”Art Within Activism”..."

"The course’s instructors, Grant Booth and Wael Elasady, are both admitted socialists. They define the course’s goals as:

1. Students will learn the fundamentals of Marxist theory
2. Students will apply a Marxist analysis to current events
3. Students will apply Marxist theory to local political and community organizing
Moreover, students will seemingly be required to forge a “community connection” with a local community/political organization from a specified list. Some of the “approved” organizations include: Occupy PSU, Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights, Occupy Portland, Portland Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions Coalition (BDS), Jobs with Justice, and the May Day Coalition."

Portland State University Offering ‘Revolutionary Marxism,’ Course Where Students Work with Occupy Wall Street | TheBlaze.com

Why are our tax dollars paying for this???