Fox News host Glenn Beck rails against college education, and sites Stony Brook's GSEU as an example of indoctrination.

The Graduate Student Employees Union at Stony Brook University earned a badge of honor last week, courtesy of Glenn Beck.

On his nightly show, Beck devoted his 5pm hour to exploring the evils of a college education, using a new study that shows that colleges are in fact liberal breeding grounds as evidence that students are being “brainwashed.”

Here’s the offending piece of video. Scroll to just about the 4:00 mark and keep your eyes on the screen behind Beck.

Awesome, no?

Beck’s attempted demonization of the organizations involved with the March 4 Day of Action was part of a broader theme, a special entitled “Indoctrination of our Kids, An American Epidemic.” In addition to calling out university student groups, he resurrected two videos of elementary school classes singing about President Obama; a video from the campaign where a college-aged student (Beck estimated her age to be “no more than 14.”

President Stanley and SUNY Chancellor Zimpher are on the precipice of initiating the biggest fundamental change since SUNY was created in 1948.

Barely six months into their tenures as heads of their respective institutions, Stony Brook University President Samuel Stanley and State University of New York Chancellor Nancy Zimpher are on the verge of initiating the biggest fundamental shift in the way Stony Brook, and indeed all of SUNY, operates.

The change revolves around the so-called Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act, an initiative that would end, or at least greatly reduce, the strict oversight by the state on tuition costs at each of the 64 campuses that compose SUNY.

If the plan is enacted, it would allow the SUNY Board of Trustees to set varying tuition rates at each campus, rather than one blanket rate. That new freedom will translate immediately to tuition hikes for all SUNY campuses.

The plan calls for a 6%-7% increase in tuition annually for the next 10 years across the board, with certain campuses potentially receiving even greater increases. At minimum, those increases would nearly double the current tuition rates by 2020. Supporters of the plan argue that the additional revenue—which, unlike previous tuition increases, would remain mostly at individual campuses—will help schools like Stony Brook hire more and better faculty, improve infrastructure, and boost the overall quality of education.

But those potential benefits are not enough to offset mounting anger over the plan. The increase, some argue, will inevitably make SUNY unaffordable to low-income families.

President Stanley addressed those concerns, saying that SUNY ran a series of models based on the proposed increases and are committed to ensuring that lower-income families are not shut out of SUNY.

“We plan on allocating 25 to 30 percent of the tuition increases for scholarships,” he said. “We would cover the gap between TAP and our costs.”

Still, doubt remains over whether those scholarships will be enough to maintain the current demographics of the university. And while low-income students would benefit from these scholarships, middle-class families would ultimately be asked to pay significantly more without the benefit of scholarships.

But President Stanley stands firmly behind the plan.

“It will do a great deal to improve the quality of education” he said.

Stanley and SUNY Chanceller Zimpher have also made it a point to emphasize the “predictability” of these increases as a benefit. Past tuition increases have been delivered suddenly and met considerable anger, and that is not fair to students and their families, says Stanley.

“It breaks a compact with our students,” he said.

Instead, these increases will be announced right up front, so families can know what to expect every time the bill arrives.

Another potential variable is a proposal made by former SUNY Chancellor Robert King, who suggested that incoming freshmen be guaranteed the same tuition rates for their four years in SUNY as they paid their freshman year. In other words, even if tuition were to increase during their time there, those students would not have to pay the increased rate.

That is not currently a part of the proposal, but President Stanley is open to the idea.

“I’d like to take a look at that,” he said.

SUNY spokesman David Henahan also added that the current proposal would effectively eliminate the fickleness that SUNY has dealt with in the past.

“This would take tuition costs out of the political arena,” said Henahan. “It would remove a lot of red tape.”

Currently, the SUNY board of trustees is restricted by the state of New York on what they can charge for tuition, and the cost is maintained across the state. Students at SUNY Fredonia, a smaller college in upstate New York with 3,500 undergraduate students, pay the same tuition as students at Stony Brook University, a school with almost five times as many students and many more associated costs.

The proposal, if approved, would likely create a tiered system much like the public education system in Pennsylvania. There, students who attend a “flagship” campus—Penn State’s University Park campus in this example—pay more than students who attend smaller state colleges.

Opponents of the plan are furious that SUNY and Stony Brook would even consider the proposal, which would significantly increase tuition costs.

I began by asking how many Senators were members of the Student Advocates party. The reason for doing this was to highlight the name of the party, not the party itself. I (clumsily) segued into how the Senators at large should be “student advocates” and represent student interests. The point was largely rhetorical and meant to highlight a very obvious but overlooked part of student governance. It rubbed some people the wrong way, though. Why? I don’t fully understand.

Whatever the student party, whatever the university, whoever the senators- the point stands firm. The USG should represent the students. Higher tuition is not in the interest of the students. Lower budgets are not in the interest of the students. Private encroachment of a public facility is not in the interest of the students. This is a no-brainer.

Despite this, though, I was met with blank stares. A few interested souls approached me afterward for more information and to meet with me in the future. The vast majority, however, seemed to be glazed with disinterest and boredom. Lovely. It was silly of me to think that much would come from tonight, really. Representation is hardly ever truly representative. The real power is going to come from the students. From below. Representing themselves.

http://www.defendeducation.org

http://watcny.wordpress.com

Let’s take a look at our political system. We lack direct democracy and vote through a convoluted electoral college system. Third party candidates are shoved to the side through a sideshow of flaming hoops in order to even get placed on the ballot. Democrats and Republicans don’t have to jump through these hoops because they’re established parties.

Next, the Commission on Presidential Debates (run by the two major parties) makes prohibitive polling requirements to exclude third party candidates, thus denying them a voice.

Somewhere in here, corporations and lobbyists bombard candidates with campaign money, support and promises of future support should things go their way. There’s no such thing as “money for nothing”. In the past, these corporations could only solicit so much money in donations and only spend so much on the candidates. Now, though, they have free reign. They don’t even have to solicit donations. They can use money from their own coffers.

Big media (owned by six companies with the same interests) then uses “news” broadcasts to steer public opinion. Sometimes they outright lie. Other times they simply exclude major details. Most of the time they present one sliver of an issue as the entire thing. They manipulate the perspective of voting citizens by manipulating what they’re exposed to.

At this point we’ve narrowed the field of candidates to those who either already subscribe to an ideology favored by big business and the two major parties (who, if you lift the sheets, you’ll find in bed with big business) or who can easily be made to do the bidding of the corporate elite because they’re too compromising or easily corrupted.

Now we get to vote. This is the democracy we live in. One in which candidates are groomed and vetted by elite interests. One in which voters’ perception of truth is distorted. One in which the truth is obscured and nothing is transparent. One in which, ultimately, your vote matters very little and money rules the day. That day is November 4th, by the way.

So, Peep The Strategy

Does it make sense to participate in a system in which even when you win you lose? People say that socialism is idealistic. They say that anarchism is idealistic. They say that direct, participatory democracy is idealistic. What, though, is more idealistic than voting for candidates who benefit from a system that is an insult to democracy and expecting them to change it? What is more idealistic than voting for candidates who have survived the corporate gauntlet and expecting them to disempower the very people who allowed them to succeed? What is more idealistic than sitting day after day, election after election and seeing the people you’ve elected not just disappoint you, but work against you and still expect them to change?

I know it’s scary. It’s scary to think that we live in a country with a completely broken political system. It’s scary to realize that there is a neo-aristocracy running the show. Fear, though, does not negate reality. You can keep voting and keep waiting for change but you reap what you sow.

It’s time, then, that we end this reliance on politicians, our political system and traditional methods of activism. Don’t change the world with your vote. You won’t. Don’t write letters to your representative. Most of them, honestly, don’t care. In fact, they’ll likely come up with some poor legislation which looks like it addresses the issue but is designed to have no impact whatsoever. A good example of this is the Democrats’/Obama’s credit card legislation. Don’t petition.

Let’s abstain from a system that insults us. The electoral system, as it stands, is only legitimate if it is used. As long as people vote, the politicians are justified in their actions. They have “democracy” and “the people” on their side. One may argue that an even worse candidate will win, then! We voted (well, I didn’t) overwhelmingly for Obama. He gave us air raids in Pakistan and Yemen. He gave us an economic branch of the federal government made up of white collar criminals from the Savings and Loans Scandal days. He gave the banks all of our money. He glossed over torture and extraordinary rendition but somehow made everyone believe they had ended. He did nothing about rampant home foreclosures or skyrocketing unemployment. He defanged the already weak UAW. He approached popular support of the legalization of marijuana as if it weren’t extremely important to both domestic affairs but international ones, too. He snubbed the LGBTA community but plans on throwing them DADT as a consolation. He surged the war in Afghanistan. He continues to allow Blackwater to receive government contracts. He didn’t touch NAFTA. He didn’t touch the USA PATRIOT Act. He saber-rattled with Iran and North Korea. He did nothing about the overturning of democracy in Honduras. He remained silent on Israel’s massacre of Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead. Does he sound like a Republican yet? There are two parties in this country, but they’re a siamese twin. I don’t buy that McCain would be worse. He’d be terrible in much the same way. There is no least-worst candidate. Both candidates are the worst. One is just better at making you believe he’s not as bad.

Instead, let’s organize ourselves. No one’s saying it will be easy, but at least it will be honest. We can tackle many of the domestic issues ourselves if we stop relying on the unreliable and commit ourselves to action. As far as international concerns? The majority of our security problems are caused by the economic and military interventionism of the elite. The current War on Terror is a product of U.S. intervention in the Middle East since the Cold War. America’s safety is being further compromised by the War On Terror which is adding massive amounts of fuel to the flame.

I’m not saying that we can have cooperative health care facilities, democratic free schools, community militias, free housing and democratic workplaces by tomorrow. I’m not even saying that we’ll have them in my lifetime. What I am saying is that throwing your effort towards this process isn’t idealistic. Whereas voting for the same candidates and parties within the same system and expecting different results is just plain insane.

It always starts with a spark. Gather some kindling. By that I mean get together with people in your community. Find people with common issues. Make a commitment to one another and people in similar situations to at least try to find ways to solve these problems collectively. That’s how it starts. The revolution is social before it’s political. We need to break free from our current, individualistic, government-centered mindsets and start thinking as if our neighbors are our family and our neighborhoods are our homes. You’ll be surprised what you can accomplish.

If you want me to be a part of your community, send me an e-mail. We’ll chat.

Brookhavenprogressive@gmail.com

“They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.’ True story. And so the devil said, ‘Ok it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another,”

Pat Robertson doesn’t know it, but he’s right. Haiti is involved with a devil of sorts. That devil is eternally cursing Haiti; sweeping in when the country is at its most vulnerable and working against its best interests. That devil is the United States.

The United States has been interfering in Haitian affairs since the very beginning. First it was a State Department supported move by American investors to take over Haiti’s national bank. Then Wilson’s subsequent nineteen year long occupation of Haiti with the sole interest of protecting those investors under which the US basically ran Haiti’s government for them. This was followed by a road building system, crafted by the US, which amounted to indentured servitude. Peasants would build roads in lieu of paying a tax. When the United States finally left Haiti, we left them with a $40,000,000 debt to us. Let’s break this down. We take over their national bank. When social unrest starts hurting American investment in the country, we invade and take over their government. Our officials acting as their government take a loan from us for them and we leave them with the debt.

This debt, continuous social unrest and overall lack of true independence put Haiti in a never ending unstable position. This worked out perfectly, though, for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which preys on unstable third world countries to globalize the reach of multinational corporations and foster market/state relations which advance corporatist agendas and undermine democracy and the common good. Is it any wonder that corrupt leaders took structured IMF loans? The United States can hardly keep tabs on where Pentagon money is being spent. How easy do you think it is for Haitian leaders to cut some favors and pocket the cash?

How do the global capitalist elite win? The IMF tells Haiti that they can receive “aid” (loans) if they drastically change up their economic policy. Haiti agrees not to subsidize their farmers (despite the fact that their agricultural sector is enormously important to their economy). They agree to open up their borders to foreign investors. They agree to drop tariffs on imports. So, what happens?

Well, first world countries aren’t held to the same standard as third world countries. They can subsidize the heck out of anything they please. They can set tariffs, close borders, tighten health and safety standards and even embargo countries they disagree with. So, when the US subsidizes rice (a former cash crop in Haiti) it can sell it way below it’s actual value. This is called dumping and other countries aren’t allowed to do it, so says the IMF. Haitian farmers (lacking subsidies) are now entirely exposed to the foreign rice market. They have to compete with US agribusiness but can only do so with what’s in their pockets. They’re not backed by a wealthy state. Naturally, they go out of business. It becomes too costly to even maintain their farms and so they sell their property to foreign investors. While all of this is going on, US corporations are setting up sweatshops in urban centers across Haiti. Farmers, now jobless and likely homeless, flock to these urban centers to find work (think of the Industrial Revolution). The only difference is that Haitians can’t afford to purchase the products they’re making in these sweatshops due to abysmal wages and living conditions. The majority of what is produced is exported to first world nations and the profit is pocketed by foreign investors and maybe, just maybe, a handful of Haitian elite. Haiti doesn’t benefit. Period.

If I may, I want to talk a little bit about the multiplier effect which is present in first world urban centers but missing in countries suffering under neo-liberal colonialism. When you work in your community, you create value. This value is measured in money. Normally, the goods you help produce and sell go to people within the community and the money comes back to you and your co-workers who, in turn, spend that money within the community. This creates a circulation of capital in which the community becomes a real market place where independent businesses can thrive as well as services. You’ll find everything from coffee shops to law offices in most communities and these types of businesses are able to remain afloat due to the local circulation of capital. This doesn’t happen in Haiti for exactly the reasons listed above. Haitian sweatshop workers are making less than enough to actually survive. They can’t afford legal advice or coffee shops. They can barely afford to live. They don’t live paycheck to paycheck, they live penny to penny, hour by hour. There is no community. Only slavery.

So, in the wake of this current tragedy, is it any wonder that the IMF is swooping in with $100,000,000 in structured loans for Haiti? This is stacking debt on top of debt with the sole purpose of maintaining control of them. Some of the stipulations for receiving the loan? Freeze public service sector wages (y’know- doctors and nurses. People you don’t really need during a crisis). Raise the price for electricity. Hold down inflation (this means less government spending… During a crisis).

So, Peep The Strategy:

Aid is aid. Loans are loans. Loans are not aid. I really don’t have much to say here. There is no strategy short of dismantling institutions like the IMF and dethroning the corporate elite. This is not to say that all hope is lost but rather that it’s going to take a complete overhaul in how we view politics and economics before we can take out the trash and rebuild the world as we see fit. Oh, yeah, and Obama’s an IMF cohort. Don’t be fooled.

Now, almost a year later, I expect that we’re beyond partisan partiality. Maybe I’m being naive, but let’s hope we’re beyond the favoritism and living, once again, in the reality of a corporatist state and rigged political system.

How can we not call Obama a carbon copy of Dubya? More charming? Sure. Nicer rhetoric? Definitely. More intelligent? Absolutely. Further left? Absolutely not.

Obama has managed to simultaneously continue and extend Bush-era policies while convincing the public that he has not. His moves to end torture and shut down Guantanamo Bay have been little more than face-value politicking that does little to address the issues. Torture continues under this administration as well as extraordinary rendition (captivation without a fair and proper trial). His health care reform was hashed out with corporate insurance and drug lobbyists. It’s no wonder that the health care reform has become a funnel for corporations since nurses and doctors (majority single payer activists) were granted no voice while K-Street folk got an EZ-Pass into the White House. Raids on Pakistan and Yemen (forgiven thanks to the concept of the “War On Terror” which allows us to stick our grubby fingers into whatever country whenever we please) and the surge in Afghanistan are exhibitions of Obama’s loyalty to the militarism and interventionism of Bush. A pledge to end nuclear proliferation in the midst of saber rattling against Iran and North Korea while turning a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear arms (and even ours) signal a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. Massive bank bailouts, his handling of the auto-industry crisis, the basic neglect of the hundreds of thousands of struggling American families displaced from their homes, and staffing the economic wing of his administration with ex-bankers are signs of Obama’s commitment to market-based exploitation and general disregard for the public. His maintenance of the Merida Initiative (aka Mexico Plan) with the Calderon administration, south of the border, in addition to his treatment of widespread popular belief in decriminalization are demonstrations of his disregard of the public, as well. This doesn’t include popular resistance to the surge, popular support of public health care or popular resistance to the bank bailouts, either.

Does anyone want to call him a socialist, now? Looks like a bonafide, rightwing capitalist to me.

So, Peep The Strategy:
Quit voting. Or, at least, quit voting Democrat. Quit blaming the individual and start blaming the system that grooms politicians to be the pets of corporate America. Quit expecting a corrupt state that benefits from our misery to solve our problems. Start organizing and solving your own problems. More than anything, though- stop bearing the cross. Individuals have borne the cross for far too long. We must solve global warming by changing our lightbulbs. If we have a shitty president, more people have to vote. If our economy sucks, we have to spend. We have to get second jobs. We have to cut back. If we’re being exploited at work, we have to find a new job. If we’re being sexually or racially harassed, we should know better than to dress a certain way, talk to certain people or play the “race card”. What a paradox. We bear the responsibility and the government bears the glory. Well, let’s take both. Ditch the state and start building our world from the remains.

Sources within and familiar with the Undergraduate Student Government have confirmed that USG Treasurer Matt Anderson will be resigning from his position effective Thursday after the USG Senate passed articles of impeachment. His resignation allows the Senate to confirm a new Treasurer to immediately take over.

“In the last senate meeting [on Tuesday], there was a vote on the resolution to impeach, and it passed unanimously,” said a source familiar with the situation.

Earlier this evening, USG President Jasper Wilson appointed Moiz Khan, currently a USG senator, to the position. If the senate confirms him at tomorrow’s emergency meeting, he will assume the responsibilities of treasurer on Friday.

The seat change is the result of weeks of building frustration with the office of the treasurer. Several student organizations have complained that they have yet to receive any notification about their fall budget revisions in writing, and within USG itself there have been a number of financial matters that have caused controversy.

According to multiple sources who wished to remain anonymous until this process is finalized, important paperwork had been laying around for weeks, club vouchers were not being signed and processed, and student-organized events were threatened with cancellation due to unresolved financial matters within the office of the treasurer.

Perhaps most egregiously, the spring budget process, which was supposed to be adopted by the senate a month ago, has yet to be addressed, and won’t be until the start of next semester, a source within USG has said.

Stay with Think and InTuition for the latest.

So, Peep The Strategy:

Let’s stop martyring ourselves about these budget cuts and use all that emotion to rally not only against further cuts, but for reimbursement of those funds. There are plenty of other budget solutions that New York State can enact which would not only generate much more income but also curb risk, exponentially improve health care and not come at the cost of the taxpayers. Public education budget cuts don’t just mean less books and less funding for clubs. It means department cuts, lay offs and lower quality education for the next generation. It salvages the state government by cutting the deficit but does so by impacting general population. With unemployment at record highs nation-wide, lay offs will result in more than just a shift in the workplace. It will result in higher unemployment, further depressing the economy. Generally speaking, it affects the lower-income brackets of New York State, too. The lowest-income employees are the most “disposable” and therefore the first to go. Talk about class warfare.

Let’s get this stadium name changed and start taking back the power that’s been concentrated in the hands of the few (even if this is only a baby step). Once we do that, let’s keep the momentum high. Let’s give the press a reason to focus on Stony Brook students the way our comrades in California recently did. First the stadium, next the budget and then we’ll see where we go from there. Either way, let’s put the pressure on. If you’re not willing to join us, though, then get out of our way.

Is this a reason to quit? Is this a reason to lay down and accept state oppression and repression? Neo-liberal exploitation? Environmental degradation and pseudo-democracy? I’m not talking specifically about Mexico anymore. I’m talking about students everywhere. The 60′s, despite many valid criticisms, present us with the potential that students have to effect change and the lengths to which the existing order will go in order to preserve power and please economic interests. We, as college students, are privileged in a way that many, many others are not. We have access to an education which (for many, anyway) will set us up for better futures. We have access to resources, an educated and able community and a visible stage from which to present our concerns. That being said, what has happened to student activism since the 60′s?

I posit, first of all, that a seemingly soft state has co-opted the majority of student activists. This dogmatic belief in the United States’ political system has taken students off the streets and put them behind their computers. E-mailing their representatives and petitioning for some modest reform. Compromise has become the name of the game. We don’t see things like democracy, health care or freedom from exploitation as rights but rather as pretty trinkets the politicians are keeping locked away in some beltway treasure chest. We pay our taxes and then grovel and plead with politicians to dole out services that they should be expected to dole out in the first place. Letter writing campaigns and petitions can bring about some changes, no doubt. Believing, though, that these paper pushing methods of begging for reform will make big business relinquish its grip over the state or effect widespread, substantial change is just silly. We’re asking the people who benefit from a system of pseudo-democracy and exploitation to please knock it off and grant us a voice. The only way this has ever happened has been to exhibit the consequences of continued status quo. The state needs to see that there is a disincentive to ignoring our demands.

Secondly, I believe that state sanctioned functions such as protests or rallies are relied upon by the supposedly “radical” activists on campus. This is not to say that we should be throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails, but if you’ve been given a permit to protest and riot police are blocking off roads so you can safely march, the state is signaling to you that your radical protest is more like a parade. If protests as such presented any real threat to the order of things you’d see them snuffed out right quick. Consider the record setting protests against George W. Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Compare this with the WTO demonstrations in Seattle. The difference? The latter entailed strategic roadblocks, civil disobedience and true freedom of speech outside the designated protest area. Certainly these methods are dangerous and provoke state repression. Did you think it would be easy? Too many radicals are willing to anonymously throw a brick and hide in a mass of black shirts or hold a sign and smile at the police officers as they pass while bragging their activist “cred” to their friends. Few are dedicated to fully engaging in a movement and showing that what they believe in is worth the risk.

Massive protests get little to no media coverage. They happen all the time, unspoken of, stuck in the activist bubble. Protests that result in civil disobedience and state repression often make headlines. Some will argue that this is negative press for activists. That there are those in the United States who will frown upon these student activists and their tactics. Do you think everyone in India praised Ghandi for his actions? How about civil disobedience during the 60′s? Has the lasting impact been a disdain for activists or substantial changes in governmental policy? Do people remember the 60′s for those troublemaking activists or for the Civil Rights Movement and the student movement against the Vietnam War? The fact of the matter is that the only bad coverage is no coverage. Whether or not viewers like the protesters, they’re now exposed to an issue and the lengths to which students and activists will go to state their grievances. This is a step in the right direction.

So, Peep The Strategy:
Let’s stop hiring DJ’s to blast reggaeton at our rallies. Let’s stop organizing marches (which end up being “radical” tours of our campus). Let’s organize larger letter writing campaigns in conjunction with similar minded organizations on and off campus targeting not only representatives but all those who have some kind of stake. Let’s bring back civil disobedience and stop putting on parades for police. Let’s not be afraid to take risks. Let’s stop throwing bricks through windows (seriously, you’re not accomplishing anything). Let’s start building a campus community, fostering political consciousness and democratizing the resources of student organizing so that we’re not relying on a handful of dedicated activists and every student who doesn’t have something better to do than show up to a protest for five minutes. Let’s drop elitism and value the organic intellectual- the one who doesn’t know because she knows but rather knows because she lives. Finally, let’s stop compromising. Why on earth would you compromise? If they’ve met you halfway it means you’ve had an effect, take it to the next level. If you’re at the table then use your position at the table. Compromise is a perfect way to get a quarter of what you’re demanding while simultaneously deflating the power your movement had in even achieving that much. This is not to say that we shouldn’t take what we can get when we can get it, but let’s stop swallowing every pill that gets handed to us and calling it a baby step towards real reform. We need to have higher standards- not all policy changes are of the same caliber. We need to weed out the tolerable from the insulting. Adelante.

In my particular community, over 500 families live here for a fraction of their income. Many pay no more than the equivalent of $50USD a month. The money goes toward community projects, expansion and repair. One delegate from each household is selected to go to community meetings where decisions are made, committees are formed and volunteer brigades for things like safety and other community projects are organized. The houses and apartments cannot be sold by the owners. The community is not on the speculative housing market. The Frente is not opposed to exchange of capital (there is a family owned stationary and convenience store within the community) but are opposed to the exploitation which defines capitalism.

Police are not permitted to enter the community. Nor are drugs or alcohol. A vigilante committee handles safety within the community’s walls. Each family is given a whistle and a number of stories have been relayed to us about the effectiveness of this method. A drug addict once found himself within the community attempting to steal from houses. After the first whistle is blown, an ocean of whistles follow suit. The drug addict was beaten badly and evicted from the community. Ironically there are police officers who live in my particular community, but I was told that they “leave their jobs on the street.”

The FPFVI address real, pressing issues in Mexico. Sky-high poverty, unemployment and underemployment in the wake of Mexico’s neo-liberal revival have created an unsustainable living situation for most Mexicans. The low-cost, safe and democratic social organizing these people are engaged in does not only address their day-to-day concerns but also aids (so the Frente hopes) in raising political consciousness. Like the Zapatista caracoles, FPFVI communities provide an example of non-capitalist models for organizing.

There are roughly 20 FPFVI communities in Mexico City alone and about the same amount of political party (non-independiente) affiliated Francisco Villa communities. The state has, in the past, effectively co-opted revolutionary politics in order to divide and conquer the sprawling masses. Each community decides it’s own fate. One independent community that we visited today didn’t charge monthly dues to families and developed a system of free temporary housing while desperate families waited to obtain credit or grants with which to build their homes. It’s no wonder that the FPFVI is affiliated with La Otra Compaña (The Other Campaign)- an alliance of Mexican social movements organized “from below and from the left.”

Currently, my particular community is in the midst of building a primary and secondary school and eventually a community health clinic. The success they’ve had so far is outstanding and their destiny beyond 2010 (the centennial of the Mexican Revolution and bicentennial of Mexican Independence) looks bright. Especially considering the uneasy anxiousness with which the politicians await the coming year. 2010 looks ripe for another uprising a la 1994 considering the unsustainable situation in Mexico, “digna rabia” (dignified rage) of leftist organizations and enormously symbolic meaning behind the year.

So, Peep The Strategy:

The United States needs to ditch market-based solutions to market-created problems. Low-income housing needs a new face. The FPFVI began with students and so, too, can real counter-capitalist communities in the U.S. Low rent apartments are a major perk for college students, especially on Long Island where property value is high and taxes are higher. Land takeovers are not likely to be tolerated by the state, but grants are readily available for those who seek them out. No one in their right minds believes that such a process will be easy, but for those interested in urban development, non-profit work or activism in general this is an opportunity to provide both a real service to struggling families while countering capitalist encroachment on the necessities of life.

Communities are where real movements are built. Unfortunately, communities that are in need are often displaced through no fault of their own by gentrification or any number of financial troubles including job insecurity, defaulting on mortgages or health related bankruptcy. Allowing families to own their homes after a certain amount of time (5 years?) paying low monthly amounts ($200 or less?) with the stipulation that they cannot sell their homes (only hand them down to family or friends if they choose to) will give people most affected by the ups and downs of our economic system some stability, permanence and the ability to organize more effectively. Will each community be politically charged and active? Surely not. But the service provided to these human beings is certainly worth the effort, is it not?

If the land is outright owned (not leased or mortgaged) by a community organization (most likely to be a corporation) there is no financial peril in charging low rent, the bulk of which can be put towards expansion and community services. There are endless possibilities including classes on grant writing (to help democratize a relatively obscure and difficult process), technical skills such as electrical work and carpentry, a free community daycare or even an emergency fund that can be appealed to in case of medical bankruptcy or other tragedies.

Let’s think outside profit and start thinking about the value of human life.