John Korber writes:
> In a response to Allister on the "socialism of public Universities"
> ( Allister thinks calling Public U's "socialist" off the mark)
> Martin writes:
> >A public university is supported by public funds.  Doesn't that make it
> >the slightest bit socialist?
>
>         Public universities, schools, social security, welfare are often
> enough attacked by the right as "socialist."  FDR's concessions to the
> working class are often refered to as "socialist," so I know where you are
> coming from when you use to term. I'm suggesting that you are attacking these
> things or that you are an extreme rightist ( libretarian capitalist
> ;-).

I think you left out a "not".  I mean they are socialist in the real
sense, although, obviously, not completely socialist (I don't
subscribe to the Bartlett "You can't be a little bit socialist"
model), and I think they should be socialist.

>         Allister and Brett are  suggesting that the socialism involves having
> the people who an institution like the public university serves and is
> serviced by having direct control over the institution.
>         This would involve running it through a general assembly, having
> forums, media vehicles where issues could be discussed and debated, etc....
> Most importantly, the people whose daily lives are intertwined with the
> university would need to control it.
> [remainder, all of which I agree with, snipped]

Ok, so *direct* control is a requirement.  Implementing that
requirement means losing the support of most of the tax money.  In
saying that a public univeristy is a socialist institution, I mean
that the community owns it.  Among the owners are students, faculty,
administrators, plant personnel, graduates, people who hire graduates,
potential future students, people who benefit indirectly from the
improved society that graduates of the university produce, and people
who can at least argue that they don't get any benefit from the
university at all, directly or indirectly.  It is from these last two
groups that the demand for the government to withdraw tax support of
the university will come.  The banks, as you pointed out, have already
done so, a process which continues.  Some groups of people in the
community believe the university not only does not benefit them
directly or indirectly, they believe it works against their view of
what society ought to be.

>         My theories about the changes to the the University system here are
> these. They are theories because I am not in attendence at banker's meeting
> or the gov's office:
>
> -Cuts to CUNY could make sense to capital because it doesn't need a lot of
> highly educated people for the economy. It needs a certain number of educated
> managers, and that's it. Most immigrants get low paying service jobs.
>
> -An educated working class is often troublesome. Particularly if they are
> educated at CUNY. CUNY has a pretty large number of leftist professors. There
> have been articles about "Marxists in the Universities !!! " I have seen in
> the business magazines.

I think you are reading too much evil intent into the effect.  I doubt
that bank managers are calculating how much money they need to lend to
the university to ensure the right number of manager graduates are
produced.  I suppose there are many short-sighted, profit-oriented
bank managers, who can calculate a better short-term bottom line if
they cut back university funding.  I expect there is pressure on these
bank managers from equally short-sighted investors who want higher
profits.

The requirment for an educated working class is increasing,
troublesome or not.  Not only do more jobs require increasing techical
knowledge, but workers must have the ability to retrain quickly.
Ignorant people simply can't do these things.

> -who knows????

I don't think there is a conspiracy.  I think there is rapid change,
and bank managers and governments can't adapt the financial systems
fast enough to keep up with it.  They *should* invest in universities,
but they don't.

>         When wage slaves are given a little education so they can be of
> better service to their masters, this that socialism? When they are thrown a
> few crums, to quell their discontent, is that socialism? When they are
> plucked out of high school, by lying bastard military recruiters and sent to
> the army where they will be trained to fire on their own brothers and
> sisters,  is that socialism?
>         It damn well isn't in my book, nor in my heart and mind. Not the
> least bit.
>
> Good night folks,

You are leaving the field after only stating the problem.  You have
said that direct control is a requirement to make a public university
a socialist institution.  You have made a statement about what is
required in the metamodel for a socialist structure, but that doesn't
say anything about whether and how that metamodel will generate a
socialist model.  You state a general requirement: For a public
university to be a socialist structure, the students, faculty, etc
must have direct control of it.  ...but you don't say how it can be
implemented.  You don't account for the problems it will create.  You
have added a requirement to the metamodel and then you have left the
field without actually building anything.  You get to bask in the
cheers from all the socialists in the stands, but then you disappear
into the locker room and the real work hasn't even started yet.  You
haven't built anything from the metamodel.  You haven't produced a
solution.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701