The timeline of what happened to the DEI-intoxicated Harvard president is well-known. However, the question of why it happened somehow eluded the commentariat. To answer the “why” question requires a deep dive into the fundamental issue of private property and its theft.

While conservatism and leftism do not touch the subject (it is considered a secondary, not a primary dispute), for the proletarianized strain of leftism – Marxism -- it is a fundamental, existential core belief. Since the Marxists’ takeover of the Ivy League institutions at the end of the last century, detailed analysis is impossible without an excursion into Marxist tenets.

Victorian Marxism postulated that private property would dissipate after the proletarian revolution. Along with that, the government would gradually wither away because it is no longer needed: there is no more private property to protect. Unfortunately, that simplistic thesis managed to brainwash millions.

While compulsory property reshuffle has been condemned since pre-Biblical times, orthodox Marxism offered one notable exception: the confiscation (expropriation, theft, robbery, embezzlement) of property from the “oppressor” and its allocation to the “oppressed.” Thus, Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” motto has a deeply-rooted tradition in left-wing circles. He was not acting alone: during the Cold War, intellectual property (IP) theft was, for all practical purposes, legalized and normalized by the International Left.

At the heart of Soviet intelligence activities lay a quest for strategic advantage; thus, IP poaching became a significant aspect of their efforts.

In Soviet hands, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress became a Tupolev Tu-4 bomber. The first Soviet atomic bomb, RDS-1, modeled after the third American........

© American Thinker