Mediaboss Marketing

Common Dreams

Restore American Democracy Mobilize Your National Network Common Dreams We can break the grip of powerful individuals on Congress and restore democracy of, by and for the people. But if we want to win, you and I must mobilize. A new approach, FiftyNifty.org, makes this not just possible, but actually easy. How is any ...

Read the original:
Restore American Democracy Mobilize Your National Network - Common Dreams

Students at UC Berkeley organized a strike after mass arrests in a Free Speech Movement protest (Don Kechely)

THE PRESIDENT of the United States is an ignorant autocrat, willing to trample on any right he can, with an administration filled with bankers, generals and ideologues who "represent" the richest and most reactionary margins of society.

And he only managed to become president by relying on the Electoral College relic of 19th century slave owners, the disenfranchisement of many of the most vulnerable in society, and the total alienation of nearly half of those still eligible to vote after all the restrictions.

Welcome to the "world's greatest democracy."

It's understandable that people who oppose injustice might be cynical about "democracy" as practiced in the U.S. And when we hear lectures about our supposedly "inalienable rights" from political leaders who constantly try to do away with them, it can seem like they aren't worth much.

But it's a problem when skepticism about the existing political system tips over into something else: Individuals and organizations on the left disregarding or minimizing the importance of basic principles of democracy.

Add to this the fact that the "left"--it's really official liberalism, but don't expect the mainstream media to make the distinction--has become associated in popular consciousness with restrictions on speech and different forms of expression, particularly in schools and universities.

According to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, the Millennial generation is more likely than older generations to say that the government should be able to ban or otherwise prevent offensive statements against oppressed groups.

The intention of this sentiment may be positive--to prevent racism and bigotry from polluting the world. But fully 40 percent of Millennials, according to Pew, are willing to let the state--not even an institution generally thought of as well intentioned, like a university, but the government, with all its obvious unfairness--be the judge of what gets forbidden.

This is dangerous ground. First of all, a ban doesn't stop the bigots--it doesn't banish their ideas from people's minds. The right has to be challenged politically by a left that can win the majority to a different vision.

Moreover, the state in particular, and many other institutions to boot, have a long history of using restrictions on democratic rights and practices against the very people who are meant to be protected.

Historically, socialists have fought not for the restriction of democracy, but for the widest possible expansion of it. Some of the most important struggles in our history--for the abolition of slavery, for the right to vote in the Jim Crow South, for the legal recognition of unions, for the freedom to assemble and protest--were partly or wholly about winning democratic rights and making them real and meaningful.

When we challenge the right--whether in protesting the policies and actions of a reactionary government, or in confronting individuals and groups which try to spread right-wing ideas and organize on the basis of them--we want it to be clear that our side is fighting for more democracy.

We can't pin any hopes to some shortcut of getting the "powers that be" to curb the right's influence or stop their actions. We need to defeat the right, politically and organizationally, by winning the majority of people to oppose them.

The eruption of mass struggle against the Trump presidency proves this is possible. But to make the possibility a reality, we need to rely on our rights--won by preceding generations through struggle--to speak out, dissent, persuade and protest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FOR KARL Marx and Frederick Engels, socialism and democracy were bound together from the very first struggles they were part of in the middle of the 19th century.

As the American socialist Hal Draper wrote, the two things are woven together in Marx's theory, which "moves in the direction of defining consistent democracy in socialist terms, and consistent socialism in democratic terms."

This flows from the most essential building block of Marxism--that socialism must be the self-emancipation of the working class and can't be accomplished on its behalf.

Our goal is only possible as the act of the conscious masses of the majority class in society, and that requires the fullest expansion of democracy--whether workers achieve democracy on the basis of their own actions and organization or by relying on rights established under the existing system and defended by their mobilization.

The defenders of the capitalist system need the opposite. They need to straitjacket and contain mass involvement, whether within the political system or in struggles and movements outside it. So they seek to undermine or diminish or even abolish democracy. This applies not just to right-wing ideologues, whose contempt for actual freedom is obvious, but to liberals whose defense of status quo puts them in opposition to mass expressions of democracy that threaten it.

For Marx, this conflict--between the expansion of democracy and the limitation of it--was an essential part of the class struggle.

Some of the confusion arises because the government is routinely on the wrong side of the conflict--even though it's the place where democracy is supposed to "happen."

This is because the state, including its elected component, isn't neutral. Under a capitalist system, it's on the side of the capitalists--which means in the struggle for democracy, it's ultimately on the side of limitations and constraints.

As Marx and Engels famously wrote in the Communist Manifesto, "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."

That doesn't mean the state always does the bidding of each and every capitalist. First of all, there are conflicts among them, and some members or sections of the ruling class lose out.

Moreover, "managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" may mean restraining individual capitalists or sections of capital to protect the system that benefits them all. In cases where the war on workers or support for repression and oppression threatens to unleash unrest and instability, the state is there to manage the problem. Sometimes, the form of that management is to cite norms of democracy and political rights that supposedly apply to all people equally.

The point, though, is that the state plays this role in the service of the ruling class as a whole. Its first priority is to maintain the essentials of the status quo: most of all, capitalist rule over the whole working class.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THIS UNDERSTANDING of the state was developed further by the Russian socialists Bukharin and Lenin in the lead-up to the 1917 revolution.

They were especially concerned to contrast the bourgeois state under capitalism with the socialist vision of a workers' state.

One contrast to start with: Under capitalism, the part of the state that's subject to democracy is only a part, and not even the most important part. Beyond the elected government is the military and the bureaucracy, both of which are supposed to be subject to the control of an elected executive, but which have unaccountable powers that have been used against elected officials.

Further, the state under capitalism is concerned with political democracy, but not economic democracy. Under the classic models of representative democracy, even the most liberal governments have no formal power over private capital, which remains a collection of petty tyrannies.

And even the formally democratic part of the capitalist state is warped and constricted in all kinds of ways, owing to its central role in protecting and serving the minority ruling class that dominates society economically and socially, and therefore politically.

The British socialist Paul Foot captured the contradictions in writing about the supposedly sacred principle of "one man, one vote":

An industrial magnet has one vote, and so does each worker he can fire or impoverish. A millionaire landlord has one vote, and so does every person he evicts. A banker has one vote, so does every person impoverished by a rise in [interest rates] or a financial takeover. A newspaper proprietor has one vote, so does each of the readers he deceives or seduces every day of the week.

Are all these people really equally represented? Or does not the mighty, unrepresentative economic power of the wealthy minority consistently and completely overwhelm the representative power of Parliament?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SO MARXISTS maintain that democracy under capitalism isn't so democratic at all. But that doesn't mean we are agnostic about the form of political rule under capitalism. Obviously, it matters very much to socialists whether we live under a dictatorship or under a representative democracy, where elections take place and political rights exist, however qualified.

"Whatever its chronic weaknesses and paralyses," Foot wrote in a book on how the vote was won in Britain, "the parliamentary system and then rule of democracy it offers us are indispensable to any agitation for progress."

But part of that agitation for progress, Foot continued, is making the case for more democracy. "The weakness of representative parliamentary democracy lies in the fact that it is nothing like representative or democratic enough," he wrote.

As Hal Draper wrote in the first of his several books outlining the essentials of Marx's theory of revolution, Marx didn't let his disgust with the hypocrisies of the political system under capitalism overshadow his understanding of its advantages and importance.

"It was rather a matter of making a class analysis of the elements of bourgeois democracy: sorting out what was specifically bourgeois (for example, property qualifications for voting) from what furthered the widest extension of popular control," Draper wrote.

Socialists need to make that analysis at every step--about how, and by what means, we can best to move things in our direction in the overall conflict between the expansion or limitation of democracy.

This point is obvious when you make it concrete to our own times.

Socialist Worker has always argued that in almost all elections in the U.S., the choice for voters is limited to the candidates of two capitalist parties, the Republicans and the Democrats--which is to say, a far too narrow choice.

But no one can seriously believe that the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s was directed at a trivial distinction in defeating Jim Crow restrictions on the vote.

Winning voting rights for African Americans was an essential part of a mass social struggle for racial justice, with huge class dimensions in its own right--and it opened the way for struggles that went even further for the whole population of the U.S.

To put it in Draper's words, the struggle for this "element of bourgeois democracy" pointed toward "the widest extension of popular control," well beyond the limits of the U.S. political system.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IT WAS exactly on these terms that Marx and Engels took their first practical steps as revolutionaries.

They came into political activity as part of the extreme left wing of the democratic struggle against the old aristocratic order in Germany and around Europe. In fact, the author August Nimtz makes the case that no two people contributed more to the struggle for democracy--and at a decisive period for that struggle.

Europe in the mid-19th century was a place of explosive struggles against the old ruling order--kings, tsars, dukes and lords who held power on the basis of hereditary titles. The economic power of capitalism had been born and developed within this order, and the rising bourgeoisie had grown in wealth and economic power. But it remained politically subordinate to the monarchs and aristocrats.

Just as the Communist Manifesto was published in early 1848, a wave of revolutions swept across Europe, everywhere throwing the rule of the old order into question.

Marx and Engels were totally committed to these rebellions against the old ruling class. But they were also merciless critics of those in the rising new order, representing the bourgeoisie, for their concessions and betrayals of the effort to replace autocracy with democracy.

After the revolutionary wave crested and fell back, leaving the old order intact, Marx nevertheless devoted a portion of his writing to analyzing the new constitutions proclaimed at the high point of the struggle in 1848.

Marx showed how the forces representing the bourgeoisie were willing to compromise on the promise of democracy. Even as they established expanded suffrage, freedom of the press and so on, they left loopholes. Thus, the constitution of the short-lived French Republic stated that freedom of association, opinion and the like could not be limited in any way except to protect "the equal rights of others and the public safety." Then as now, "national security" was the escape clause for would-be tyrants.

Marx concluded that the goal of the capitalist class was to provide only as much democracy and freedom as would guarantee their own power and legitimize the rule of their minority class as representing all the people. Even in the midst of the revolutionary struggles of 1848, the representatives of the bourgeoisie took care to restrict any further expansion of democracy as a threat to their rule.

But where the balance falls at any point depends not only on what the rulers of society are willing to live with, but what they're forced to concede--that is, what our side fights for and achieves.

The reason the struggle for democracy was so important to Marx and Engels was that the ruling class--both the reactionaries and the liberals who speak the language of change--want the minimum possible expansion of rights and political participation, while it's in the interests of the working-class movement to have a maximum, unlimited expansion.

In other words, struggles over democratic rights are part of the terrain of the class struggle. The goal of socialists is to expand democracy and freedom to the maximum extent within the political system--and to extend democratic forms and the principle of popular control outside it, into the economic sphere and every corner of society.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MARX'S VIEWS on the democratic struggle remained a cornerstone for socialists who came after him--maybe none more so than Lenin, who in an article written at the beginning of his political life in 1898, restated Marx's central principle on this question: "It is in the interests of the proletariat alone to democratize the political system completely."

It probably didn't hurt that Lenin lived under the worst tyranny in Europe--the rule of the Tsar. In a society where the most basic democratic rights and institutions didn't exist, there was no minimizing the importance of struggles to claim those rights or their connection to the wider social struggle.

Throughout his writings, Lenin emphasized the need to embrace all democratic demands--a republican government, popular elections, equal rights for women, self-determination for the subjugated nations of the Tsar's empire--as contributing to the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. As he wrote in 1915:

The proletariat cannot be victorious except through democracy, i.e., by giving full effect to democracy and by linking with each step of its struggle democratic demands formulated in the most resolute terms...

While capitalism exists, these demands--all of them--can only be accomplished as an exception, and even then in an incomplete and distorted form. Basing ourselves on the democracy already achieved, and exposing its incompleteness under capitalism, we demand the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, as a necessary basis both for the abolition of the poverty of the masses and for the complete and all-round institution of all democratic reforms.

There can be doubt from that passage about the commitment of Marxists to "winning the battle of democracy," as the Communist Manifesto put it.

Socialists are harsh critics of the false and limited "democracy" that exists under capitalism. But this isn't to minimize it, but rather the opposite: To state the central importance of extending democracy to the fullest extent as part of the struggle for socialism.

The centrality of democracy to our vision of a future socialist society can't be stated often enough--especially with the meaning of socialism so distorted in most people's minds by the tyrannies, like the former USSR or China to the present day, that claimed to rule in its name.

Democracy, popular control, equal rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to protest--all of these things must be cornerstones of our struggle for a new world. Because if they aren't, then we aren't fighting for socialism.

See the original post here:
Marxism and democracy - Socialist Worker Online

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin todays show with a Democracy Now! exclusive. One of the New Yorks best-known immigrants rights advocates joins us on what might be his last day as a free man in the United States. Ravi Ragbir is executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City. This morning, right after our broadcast, Ravi heads for a check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement here in New York City. He plans to go to the meeting, even though he may not be released.

The usually predictable process of checking in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as part of a regular supervision process has become a source of anxiety for many immigrants since President Trump ordered changes to enforcement in January. In just one example, last week in Phoenix, Arizona, a single father of three U.S.-born children had plans to celebrate his sons 17th birthday after a check-in meeting that he thought was to discuss his request for asylum. An hour later, Juan Carlos Fomperosa Garcas daughter says officials, quote, "brought me a bag with his stuff and that was it." Her father was deported the next day. Meanwhile, other immigrants have gone to their check-ins and were released as expected.

No matter what happens this morning at Ravi Ragbirs check-in, he will not go alone. As part of his work, he has conducted trainings on how to accompany people to their check-ins in order to show support and document what unfolds. He, himself, will be joined by faith leaders and elected officials, including several city councilmembers and New York state Senator Gustavo Rivera. Just last month, Ravi was recognized in Albany, the New York state capital, with the Immigrant Excellence Award by the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, given to those who show, quote, "deep commitment to the enhancement of their community," unquote. The Indypendent newspaper recently featured him in a cover story called "Walk With Me," by Democracy Now!s Rene Feltz. And a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation film crew is following him today.

Ravi legally immigrated to the United States from Trinidad and Tobago more than 25 years ago, but a 2001 wire fraud conviction made his green card subject to review. Even though hes married to a U.S. citizen and has a U.S.-born daughter, the government refuses to normalize his status. Instead, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has exercised prosecutorial discretion to grant him a stay of deportation. His current stay lasts until 2018. But his 15-year-old criminal record makes him an easy target for removal.

Last night, his supporters and legal team met for one last time before this mornings check-in. This is Rhiya Trivedi, a third-year law student at NYU School of Law, whos helping represent Ravi through the schools Immigrant Rights Clinic.

RHIYA TRIVEDI: You can see that, for many, many years, the ICE office has recognized the outstanding contribution that he has made to the community as a leader, as someone in the faith community and the immigrant rights community. Hes a very important person to a lot of people. And they have recognized that, and we expect that they will continue to do that. So, we prepare for the worst; we expect the best.

AMY GOODMAN: Thats Rhiya Trivedi. Well, this morning, Ravi Ragbir joins us in our studio before he heads to check-in. Also joining us, his wife, Amy Gottlieb, a longtime immigrant rights lawyer with the American Friends Service Committee.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

RAVI RAGBIR: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: I know this is a really tough time for you right now. Ravi, talk about what you will do after you leave Democracy Now!

RAVI RAGBIR: Well, I will just head to the subways. You know, basically, Im going

AMY GOODMAN: Youll head to the subway.

RAVI RAGBIR: Im going to the subway.

AMY GOODMAN: Youre going underground.

RAVI RAGBIR: I am going underground. Thats absolutely true. But weyou know, normally, some people will say, why dont I go underground? But thats not an option here. And thatsI am not going to do that. I am going to Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices at 26 Federal Plaza. And Im going to basically turn myself in and hope and expect that they will allow me to come back out. And theres a stay. You mentioned the stay of removal that expires in 2018. That will be a normal expectation, that they will release me, because they gave me this stay. But as you said, there are many instances that people have not beenhave been taken away and end up deported.

AMY GOODMAN: When you say youre going to turn yourself in, what youre doing is youre going for a check-in, which can be very routine in the United States for immigrants.

RAVI RAGBIR: Absolutely. So, it is a routine check-in. Its like a paroleright?for analogy. And you just go in to meet your deportation officer, and he would make sure all information is correct, and normally we would walk out. But not in this instance. And thats what is going to happen. And thats whyyou know, you mentioned the accompaniment. When we partner U.S. citizens with immigrants who are in this crisisnot only for myself, for many othersthey are able to get the support from the community, and so they are not in this fearful space, but also getting the officers to treat that person with respect.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this is actually amazing, because you really pioneered this accompaniment program for check-ins, which most people dont really think about, where people accompany an immigrant to check-in.

RAVI RAGBIR: So, people have been accompanied before, but we have had a training to have them understand what they need to do, their response in different scenarios, and not only to the check-ins, but to the court. So, a lot of times the lawyers will say they dont need any family or friends: "Im the lawyer. I will get you out." But, in actual fact, when the community is there, the ministerespecially the ministerand the congregation, it makes a difference when, in that judges eyes, there is such a large support and such a large community here, that they makeit makes a difference. And we have gotten people freed. We have gotten peoplethe judge has said, "OK, you have won your case because of the large community support." So, yes, it is something that is unique to the New Sanctuary, where the training is very, very important for the immigrant as much as the volunteers.

AMY GOODMAN: But here, there is no judge. You will meet with an ICE officer.

RAVI RAGBIR: I will meet with a deportation officer.

AMY GOODMAN: A deportationand do know that person? Youve been doing this for years.

RAVI RAGBIR: Ive been doing this for years, and it changes every time. Maybe one time we have had the same deportation officer. But we never know who is going to be the officer on file, and I never know who Im going to be meeting today. So, sometimes the officers are friendly. Sometimes theyre not. And that uncertainty of who were going to meetyou know, before, when I hadI had a two-year stay in 2014. The officer said, "OK, well see you in two years." In 2016, when I went back to renew it, theand we got itthe officer said, "Ill see you in one year." Theres nothere was no rhyme and reason why I had to go back in today. But, you know, as my wife will say, its probably the best thing, that we had to come in, so I will not be looking over my shoulder every day.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Amy, youre Ravis wife. You also happen to be an immigrants rights attorney. How long have the two of you been married?

AMY GOTTLIEB: Weve been married about six-and-a-half years. We got married in September of 2010.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Ravi, how long have you been in the United States?

RAVI RAGBIR: Ive been in the United States since 1990, just over 25 years.

AMY GOODMAN: For a quarter of a century. So, Amy, how are you doing today?

AMY GOTTLIEB: Ooh, Im OK. You know, we have been through this before. It does feel different. What feels good is the outpouring of community support that we have right now, knowing that we, honestly, have the best legal team on Earth, the best organizing team on Earth. We have a committee, a defense committee, that is helping us kind of strategize about what to do if he gets taken in, how to celebrate if he doesnt get taken in. So, weve been taking it one day at a time, feeling, of course, anxious, not sleeping so well, but at the same time holding out hope that ICE will, you know, continue the existing stay and that we have more time to continue real legal options to help Ravi get full legal status here.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you go in together toits almost like a DMV-like room, right? Department of Motor Vehicles. Youve got Fox News on the television. And then your number is called?

RAVI RAGBIR: Well, not a number, but we will turn in the paperwork, the supervision paperwork, to the window, like a DMV window. And they will put itthey will leave it for the deportation officer to pick up. And then the officer will come out and either call me to the door and say, "OK, come back in six months or a year," but in another scenario, he will call me in to say, "I need to talk to you." And you will not see me again.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Amy, can you be with him through this time?

AMY GOTTLIEB: It dependsI mean, I can be with him, waiting. And it depends if they bring him back or not. In previous years, they have allowed me back, if they call him in to like have a quick conversation. But you just cant predict, right? You just dont know how theyre going to act.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you could be taken, and you just never see Ravi here in this country again.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Its possible. We have heard of times where a person we knew a couple years ago got taken in, and he was accompanied by people we knew, and they allowed them back there to say goodbye. So its possible that they would do something like that. But as I said, you know, it depends on the officer. It depends on a lot of different scenarios.

RAVI RAGBIR: And that was the accompaniment program, right? The volunteers from the accompaniment was allowed to speak, to be there. But its a different era now and different atmosphere. So, what we would have expected, we cannot expect anymore. So, its totally unknown.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if President Obama were still in office, theyunder him, they had granted you a two-year stay. So, although they said you had to come back this year, you would have another year until hoping to get another stay, as you work out your green card and your residency status.

RAVI RAGBIR: Thats right. We would have expected to go in, it would the routine check-in, and theyll say, "Well, you have the stay. We will see you back in anotherin another year." But even if there was another administration, we would have expected something similar.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let me turn to President Trump speaking just last month.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I said we will get the criminals out, the drug lords, the gang members. Were getting them out. General Kelly, whos sitting right here, is doing a fantastic job. And I said, at the beginning, we are going to get the bad ones, the really bad ones. Were getting them out. And thats exactly what were doing. I think that in the end, everyone is going to be extremely happy.

AMY GOODMAN: "Were going to get the really bad ones out." Amy?

AMY GOTTLIEB: Yeah. You know, for so many years working on these issues, we have been really struggling to eliminate this idea that theres a good immigrant and a bad immigrantright?that we have people who come to our country who are people who have lives thatyou know, sometimes theres a criminal conviction, theres a bad act, but we want folks to be able to look at the whole person. And when you hear that kind of language about, you know, getting the bad people out, it stirs up something inside of me thatyou know, thats not Ravi, right? Like, were not talking about bad people here. Were talking about the people who are part of our communities. Thats just rhetoric that, you know, kind of pits people against each other.

AMY GOODMAN: Ravi, you had a criminal conviction how many years ago?

RAVI RAGBIR: I was convicted in 2000.

AMY GOODMAN: For a wire fraud conviction.

RAVI RAGBIR: For wire fraud, working as a salesman for a mortgage lender.

AMY GOODMAN: And how long did you serve in jail?

RAVI RAGBIR: I was sentenced for two-and-a-half years. I was under house arrest, before I was sent and before I served the two-and-a-half years, for three years before that. So, three years I was under house arrest, and then I went into jail, prison, for two-and-a-half years, and then I ended up in detention for two years.

AMY GOODMAN: So then they wanted to deport you right after that.

RAVI RAGBIR: Thats right.

AMY GOODMAN: But you fought that and won.

RAVI RAGBIR: I fought that, and we have been fighting that since then. So it has beenthis is where the legal team, Rhiya and my legal team, my attorney, Alina Das, have been saying that this processthat "this process"and I use air quotes, right? Because the process itself was completely wrong. And they can point to many errors in the process itself.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a different case, to Rose Escobar, speaking last month in Houston, Texas, after her husband, Jose, the father of their two children, was detained when he showed up for his annual check-in, and almost immediately deported.

ROSE ESCOBAR: My husband is not a criminal. My husband is a good man who works hard and provides for me and my children. My husband already makes America great. You take him away from me, you have me going to welfare, food stamps. Thats not the life that I want. Im not saying its a bad life, but thats not the life I had, and its not the life that I want.

AMY GOODMAN: Amy, thats the wife of Jose. Youre the wife of Ravi. Your feelings right now as you head down to Federal Plaza? The two of you, as soon as you arrive, will be holding a news conference. Is that right? Hundreds of people are expected. I went down to the offices at the Judson church last night. There were scores of people there saying goodbye to you, Ravi, being there to support you, making a whole big dinner, making signs. And in these last weeks, you havent stopped talking to people, advising them about what to do in their cases, taking phone calls, learning about ICE raids throughout New York.

RAVI RAGBIR: In actual fact, last week I went to Union City. The mayor of Union City had worked with us

AMY GOODMAN: In New Jersey, Union City.

RAVI RAGBIR: In New Jersey. And he issued a municipal ID six weeks after we talked to him, and he called for a town hall. And he expected 50 people. Sixteen hundred people showed up in a church that was only supposed to hold 500. And those were the people who were allowed inside. There were hundreds outside. People are afraid. They need to have this information. And, yes, youre right: I have not stopped speaking, I have not stopped doing presentations, because it isits a numberthe immigrants themselves, the people who want to support them, the churches who need to be ready to haveto create a safe space, weeveryone iswe need to coordinate that.

Now, what you saw yesterday wasntlast night wasnt a goodbye, but an empowerment dinner, because thats what we do. We empower people through this process. Theyre afraid. Most of them who you met there, the parents are undocumented themselves. But because we have been able to teach them how to deal with this process, they are strong, and theyre energized, and theyre motivated to speak up and also to move forward. So they will be down there today.

AMY GOODMAN: What is a Jericho walk?

RAVI RAGBIR: Jericho walk, it is biblical. Its in a story in the Bible, where they couldnt defeat the city. And God told them, "Well, you cannot defeat the city by army, but you follow my instructions, and you will win." So they were told to walk around seven times around the city. And after seven times, the walls came tumbling down. Theres a song about that.

But, similarly, we have been doing a Jericho walk since 2011, which started as a result ofin response to SB 1070, the Arizona law. We walk around Federal Plaza seven times in silence. We

AMY GOODMAN: This is around Federal Plaza, 26 Federal Plaza, area?

RAVI RAGBIR: It is around 26 Federal Plaza. And we have done it around 26 Federal Plaza. Weve also done it around the Supreme Court. Five hundred people have walked around the Supreme Court. We have walked around Congress. We have walked around the Senate building. In silence. And, you know, when the guards or the officers see us, they dont know what to take ofwhat to think about us, because were not saying a word, but you know were there for a purpose. Similarly, the Jericho walk today is going to be doing that.

AMY GOODMAN: If you are taken, where would you be taken to? Where are immigrants taken in New York City when they are detained?

RAVI RAGBIR: It could be a number of places. They could be taken to New Jersey, Hudson County Correctional Center, the Bergen County Jail, or I could be taken to Orange County up in [Goshen], right? Upstate New York. So, any one of them, I will be held and detained until they findthey can put me on a plane and take me to Trinidad.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, Amy, you are an immigrants rights lawyer. For a long time you ran the Newark office of AFSC. Thats in New Jersey.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Yeah, thats right.

AMY GOODMAN: These detention centers mainly are for-profit detention centers. The Elizabeth Detention Center, I think, is run by CCA.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: The Corrections Corporation of America. These for-profit jails are enjoying massive profits since President Trump was elected.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Thats right. In New Jersey, theres actually only one thats private. Thats the Elizabeth Detention Center, as you say. Theres also these county jails that contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and make tons and tons and tons of money for the counties themselves. So they celebrate when they get these contracts, because theyre paid approximately, you know, $120, $130 per day per detainee. So, theyHudson County, for example, has over, I think, 900 beds. Essex County Jail has over 800 beds. So weve got people detained everywhere. Profits are soaring. Prior to President Trump, President Obamas administration had actually said they were going to stop using private prisons in the federal prison system. We were pushing to have that happen in immigration detention system. We got close to that. And then Attorney General Sessions came in and completely retracted that. So were back into private prisons and all the private companies that contract with public prisons that are making money on this.

RAVI RAGBIR: So, you know how much it costs to feedwhen I was locked in detention, do you know how much it cost to feed me for one day? Seventy-five cents. They were spending to feed one immigrant 75 cents. And you know how we knew that? Because they felt they were spending too much, and they wanted to bring that cost under 45 cents, so the numbers were thrown out, and we were hearing and seeing this happen. So, the profitsthe cost is low, but the profits are high, because theyre being paid $120, right?

AMY GOODMAN: So, have you packed? People often dont know that theyre going to be taken. But you confront this epic moment right now, after being in this country for 27 years. How did you prepare for this morning?

RAVI RAGBIR: I did not pack. My wife has been telling me to clean up, but I havent done that. Ive ignored that. Basically, how I prepared is throwing myself in my work. Ive been doing presentations two and three times a day, sometimes speaking for four hours straight to congregations or churches. So, thats how Ive dealt with this. Last night you asked me how I felt. Well, I told you I had no feelings, because if I was going to feel something, I was going to feel terror, I was going to feel anxiety. And to feel that and be able to work, be able to function, was impossible. And I couldnt allow myself to curl up in a corner and die, which is where they want us to be. I had to continue doing the work and continue to share the experience, so that as the privileged person that I am, meaning that I can go back to Trinidad without feeling that fear that I could be targeted, as other countries and other immigrants face, also Im able to speak, and I also have community support. So Im privileged, and I use this opportunity to highlight that situation.

AMY GOODMAN: Who will be speaking today at the news conference, just as this show ends, that youll be holding at right outside 26 Federal Plaza?

RAVI RAGBIR: We have been told that apart from the faith communities, that, you know, Reverend Donna Schaper will be speaking. But, we have heard, the elected

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Donna Schaper is the reverend of the Judson church, where the New Sanctuary Coalition has its offices?

RAVI RAGBIR: Thats right. And shes the one whoshe was one of the co-founders of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York, but also of the National Sanctuary in 2007. But apart from that, they have a lot of elected officials who are coming to support me, to walk in with me. So, Senator Gustavo Rivera will be there. You have Councilman Dromm, Councilman Williams, Jumaane Williams, Councilman Rodrguez. The speaker just confirmedSpeaker Melissa Mark-Viverito just confirmed she will be there.

AMY GOODMAN: The speaker of the New York City Council.

RAVI RAGBIR: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Melissa Mark-Viverito will be also speaking and accompanying you?

RAVI RAGBIR: Yes. We dont know if shes accompanying us, but shes speaking at the press conference. The controller is planning to be there. We have had two state Assembly people who also want to speak, [inaudible] and

AMY GOTTLIEB: Jo Anne Simon.

RAVI RAGBIR: Jo Anne Simon.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Is our assemblywoman.

AMY GOODMAN: The assemblywoman in the state Legislature.

AMY GOTTLIEB: In our district, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And then you will, together, walk into the ICE office.

RAVI RAGBIR: Together, we will go through security. You know, they make you take your shoes offright?to get into that building, take your belts off and ask you for ID. And a lot of people who are going into that space dont have ID, so they intimidate you from the beginning. And when you go upstairs, you are having to turn into hand in this paperwork and sit down there in complete terror, because every minute that goes past, you are thinking that this is the day. And youre sitting next to people who are facing that same trauma. And they, themselves, arewe feel that fear. And you sit down, and you see the child and the wife, who may have accompanied them, and the tears and the heartbreak that is happening because they are being ripped apart. So, it isit is hard for me, as a person, to see that, all while Im going through it myself, but this is why we have had the accompaniment training. So we want people to see that, so they can take it back out and force and push for true reform, where people can live in dignity without that fear.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see yourself as a role model?

RAVI RAGBIR: I do not want to think of myself as a role model, because then it clouds where I need to be. You know, I need to be always aware that even though I maythat even though I may have support, I have to think about those who do not have support. So I always have to be ready to think about the consequences of a policy change on someone who do not havewho do not have that support. But, you know, what you saw yesterday is those immigrants who says Ive been a role model for them, so that they are now speaking up, and they are now empowered to go out and speak to the elected officials and go out and advocate for themselves and go out even though something may go wrong. They know that, as they go through this process, it will be good for them, because theyre ready for every step of the way. So, I do not want to be a role model, but I have been told I am.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have a message for President Trump?

RAVI RAGBIR: I will let my wife answer that.

AMY GOTTLIEB: Ooh, if only. God, I would desperately love for us to have a president who saw the humanity in every single individual and understood that every person should be treated with dignity and respect. Thats my message. And that all of our policies should reflect that.

RAVI RAGBIR: Not only for immigrants. Were talking about he has been, you know, using other rhetorics that hasis targeting and causingas a result, theres a lot of hate that is on the streets. We need to look at everyone as being part of a society that wants to grow together and walk together. So, we need toeveryone needs to be able to build that relationship together.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end back in your basement, where you were last night, the basement of the Judson church in New York City, to go to Judith Paez, who was speaking during what could be your last meeting at the New Sanctuary Coalition. People were making banners for todays Jericho walk outside 26 Federal Plaza. This is Judith.

JUDITH PAEZ: We started making these banners yesterday. And we had the idea a few weeks ago about doing all this kind of art to represent what we are here in the sanctuary. We are fighting for our rights, but not just a fight. Its not just a fight. Its something to show support, to show unity, to show strength in our communities, that have been suffering for all these new governmentyou know, the policies that are separating families, are breaking apart many, many families in this city and many other places around the U.S.A.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Judy Paez in the basement of the Judson church. As we wrap up, this is right when kids are going to school, but a lot of kids are afraid. Their parents dont want to send them to school, afraid, like we just played the video that has gone viral of the dad taking his 13-year-old to school, and he is arrested, and shes weeping as shes filming this on her phone. What do you say to these families? Are you finding that families are taking their kids out of school?

Read more here:
Exclusive: Facing Possible Deportation, Immigrant Activist Ravi Ragbir Speaks Out Before ICE Check-in - Democracy Now!

The unrestrained racism behind the calls for the expropriation of the countrys wealth including land indicates a growing impatience with the little that remains in our fragmented democratic dispensation.

South Africa is no stranger to the paradox of coveting to build a united, democratic, non-racial country, whilst slitting its citizens along its past racial lines, in the name of redressing the undefined imbalances of the past

However, democracy could not have featured prominently in the collective mind of the negotiators, when they engaged each other in an essentially self-interested industry of establishing a new constitution.

All participants had not experienced any other form of government, except racial segregation, and the tyrannical authority of various tribes.

Considering the vicious tactics that negotiators use to get their way in negotiations, it would be asinine to believe that the negotiators were in it for the people.

Negotiators do not shy away from attacking each others honesty whilst making use of dishonest tactics, such as feigning anger, or even threatening deadlocks, in order to get their way.

Therefore, whatever agreement the negotiators of our democracy reached at the negotiating table, their purpose could not have been to bequeath the people with the power to rule themselves, for themselves.

As, racism is considered to be the worst form of discrimination, which has resulted in the most horrific images of human sufferings, everyone needs to be aware of its new forms.

However, the past definition/s of race was too tenuous to base any legal certainty which is necessary for equitable application of a law. These were impracticable even when segregationist laws were in place, and now pose more danger to people who may not know what apartheid looked like.

The repeal of the laws that govern mixed marriages can have disastrous consequences for children born in such marriages.

The gateway to a new form of racism may have been left open by no other instrument than the constitutional equality clause.

By promising everyone a right to equality, and prohibiting discrimination on the stated grounds one of which is race whilst delegating the task of redressing the imbalances of the past to a winner by a simple majority, the constitution gave the new government too much of a space to redesign our society.

Surely, politics that had the potential of fragmenting our democracy along racial lines should not have been permitted, as they were bound to be exploited by those in power for their self-interest?

The eagerness with which our head of state leads this chorus, betrays a lack of faith in his pledge to uphold the constitution.

Any failure to abide by the oath of office by a head of state, has the effect of defrauding all citizens - without exception - of their hard-earned resources and time, used to effect these events, including the pomp and fanfare that accompanies them.

By rallying people along racial lines, for the purposes of effecting changes in the property clause/s of the constitution, the president contravenes the property clause, which protects property owners against arbitrary deprivation of their property, except in terms of law of general application, which law itself may not permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

Moreover, the reluctance of producers to invest time and money in the resulting uncertainty will threaten food security of everyone.

For this small return to a few cronies, the risks are too high for the whole nation.

As Nicola Machiavelli aptly puts it; desire always exceeds the power of attainment, with the result that men are ill-content with what they possess and their present state brings them little satisfaction. Hence arise the vicissitudes of their fortune.

Another useful quote from Machiavelli is that; all who attain great power and riches, make use of either force or fraud; and what they have acquired either by deceit or violence, in order to conceal the disgraceful methods of attainment, they endeavour to sanctify with the false title of honest gains.

Antonio Gramsci emphasises the hegemony of the ruling class that; once an ideology arises it alters profoundly the material reality and in fact becomes a partially autonomous feature of that reality

This means that even if this new form of racism were, miraculously, accomplished there is no guarantee that some form of racial categorisation would not be found for the objective of accessing and sustaining power.

The properties held by those who fit the so-called white capitalist bill, are too limited to satiate the glut of the undefined beneficiaries of these schemes, whilst the need for the votes of the people come at regular intervals.

Perhaps, the search for the true meaning of democracy should begin with the classical Greek, "demos" meaning people, and "kratia," meaning power.

Cyberneticists like Stafford Beer trace the origins of government or rule from kubernator- meaning governor.

Aristotle further categorised the numerous Greek city-states into three groupings, based on how many individuals ruled. His version of Democracy/polity was the rule by many, oligarchy or aristocracy, by few, and tyranny, by a single person

The rule by many is aimed at achieving equality according to number, not worth, so that majority decision may be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal sharewith the poor ending up more powerful than the rich.

The function of liberty is to live life as one likes, free of any social and other constraints.

These belong to an ideal world, not a real one, further rendering democracy no more than a pipe dream.

Defining democracy as the rule of people, by the people, and for the people, also has a hollow ring, which should unsettle even the most ardent advocate of this form of government (I think).

The principle involved is to govern and be governed in turn. As if this were attainable in a world where gaining power is the object of everyones endeavour.

A modern representative democracy is generally understood as formal equality, embodied primarily in the right to vote, which equality is according to number, not worth

This also sounds like a reverie, where competition is the norm, and not the exception.

Perhaps Paul Rahes polis is our solace; a moral community of men permanently united as a people by a common way of life and not a conspiracy of self-seeking individuals joined for mutual profit and protection in a temporary legal partnership that would be dissolved when it ceased to suit their interests

Paul Rahe also defines people as a multitudinous assemblage of rational beings united by concord regarding loved things held in common, so that a character of any given people can be discerned by investigating what it loves.

Probably this democracy was just a moment, whose fundamental vectors were similar to those of Athenian society, which were simply the needs for food, shelter, security, and conflict resolution and not much more than the accident of circumstance would distinguish the ancient Greek citizen from the modern bourgeois

And Polybius interpretation of the Golden Age of Athens as the beginning of its decline may be apt. This is feasible in a world of plenty as it was then.

Or, life itself could be such a big bore, without people coming into it, inventing vocabularies like democracy to justify plundering what others painfully piece together, only to die later, leaving the spoils to others to do the same again.

In this way democracy could have died whilst giving birth to dictatorship, and vice versa.

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.

See the original post here:
The demise of democracy - News24

Re: Peterson doesn't need your permission to speak at Western

It is easy to be concerned about the future of democracy when world leaders seek to muzzle the press and silence dissent. But when the expression of one individual poses an active danger to the security of another, we as citizens are responsible for the defence of the marginalized.

The Editorial Board of the Gazette has not argued that Dr. Peterson should be fired. It has not attempted to grant or rescind permission for him to speak. It has merely pointed out that the words of the powerful have powerful consequences.

As an ardent supporter of global democracy, I too fear growing authoritarian sentiment, and so I must agree that rhetoric threatening not just the comfort but the security of marginalized groups does not deserve a more powerful platform than it already has. Figures like Peterson a white, cisgender, male academic and recently-disgraced alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos, who couch their bigotry in the language of democracy, have, by virtue of their power, been given bullhorns far louder than those of most other private citizens.

Why is it the responsibility of Western to provide them another? I am not a triggered snowflake crying for a safe space. I am a student who is aware that words incite actions: dehumanizing messages invite demagogues to turn rhetoric into violence, as demonstrated by the recent wave of threats against Jewish and Islamic centres.

When we defend speech for speechs sake, we own the consequences of what is said.

Zayd Khraishi, Environmental Science II

See the original post here:
Hiding bigotry in the language of democracy - The Gazette Western University's Student Newspaper