The Pardox of Capitalism

Why is it that the most egregious and destructive industries to our environment and health have the capability of becoming the most successful capitalists? Oil companies are flush with cash, as they have been since their inception. However, our children’s children will pay the detrimental costs that are derived by their success. Tobacco companies have so much excess funds, they can (and do) spend millions on anti-smoking campaigns, in fact, telling people not to buy their own product…It is a reality that appointes a very unfortuante question to be asked by our society; to be a successful capitalist, do you need to be…Bad?

Of course, it should be noted that certain economic aspects have played in favor of certain “bad-boy” industries. For example, one could argue that oil is a finite resource, making it more valuable. Continuously, furs from exotic animals are rare, thereby having the association with luxury. Unfortunately, the profit achieved by such comapnies in “adverse’ industries is also in large part the result of a mis-pricing; These products have not priced the “unforseeable” economic costs, which, in reality, should be accounted for at the time of the transaction. Interestingly enough, if we were to price the adverse ecological effects of oil on our planet, OPEC would need to cut you a cheque every time you went to the pump.

Certainly, adverse industries are not capable of assuming the burden of the damages (present or future). And, of course, liability does rest on us for using their products. What we now need is to implement a different mindset. We need to see that the “good guys” do make money. And this, more than ever, is becoming a reality. In their 1999 Harvard Business Review article A Road Map for Natural Capitalism, Amory Lovins et al. put forth a new approach that not only set forth guidelines to protect our environment, but gave us the tools to be successful “good guys”. Their article provides examples of many companies that are utilizing innovative and sustainable approachs and reaping large financial rewards.

I can personally attest to this; As a business and corporate finance consultant, I see a huge trend of companies realizing the financial benefits of a sustainable approach. Plenty of files that have come across my desk have carried the name “eco” or “recyclo” or some other enviromently friendly term. And, even better news is that a lot of them are the real deal; One client’s value proposition is “rather than having your house made out of a small forest, you can have a house made from 7 recycled cars”. Another’s is “There are 30,000,000 scaffolding planks sold each year, which is just over 1 million trees per year. Not anymore. Imagine a plastic composite board which lasts twice as long, holds double the weight, and is made out of recycled plastics.”

On a final note; I recently had a meeting with a client and at its conclusion, an associate came to me and said “Isn’t it ironic… These guys provide services for Non-Profits and they are going to make tons of money”. I reflected about that comment for a moment and thought to myself “Could it be true; are we so sensitized to seeing bad guys make money that when the good guys do it, it’s like a crime!”. Just because someone works for a good cause should not preclude them from making a profit or, even worse, mean they should do it for free. In fact, if they don’t make money, its sure to cease to exist. The best thing we can do is reward the good doers. Eventually, if we do it enough, the bad guys will become good; they will do what they need to do get their economic return. And that might just be the nicest aspect of capitalism!

Documentary Binge

Hello friends and fellow allies. My name is Jenn and I am from Vancouver BC. This is my first attempt at posting a blog (yes, I AM new to this whole blog thing!), and I feel I have found the perfect first posting. It is something I wrote just a few weeks ago after a “documentary binge”. I welcome and ask for your thoughts, opinions and contributions. As a young student I am still seeking to improve my communication skills and thus I also invite technical feedback on how you think I can improve my informal writings. This piece in particular is what I would call personal ramblings, but even in personal writing there is room for growth. So without further ado here is my first blog post of personal ramblings…

I just finished a two day documentary marathon. I watched three documentary films entitled Jesus Camp, Paper Clips and Radiant City (2 of three I have posted to my Rethos profile). These documentaries solidified my belief that I must act and that I must act immediately. Moreover, in the last few months (and also throughout my lifetime) I have also watched a slew of Hollywood blockbusters, ( such as V for Vendetta, Pulp Fiction, Accepted, Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda, 300, An Inconvenient Truth, Spy Game, among many others), that I believe pointedly, although dramatically, serve to reflect the state of our global society.

Through these films I have been able to extract information – via their themes and messages – that leads me to believe two key things: 1. history can and will repeat itself in passive societies, and, 2. the only way to counteract a passive society is to mobilize it. While some may not initially agree, I do believe that it is our responsibility as liberated, democratic, free citizens to enact a movement to actualize the changes which will allow us to function as a transparent, sustainable global society. As an analogy, I suggest that it is time we merge from the fast lane of no-limits progress into the “slow lane” of forethought, sustainability, science and information. Essentially, we as a greater global society need to put the breaks on long enough to pause, reflect and change course. Regardless of acceptance of these ideas, I personally believe that a new age, a new way of living will impose itself on us as humans as we enter an era of resource scarcity – realizing this and deciding to act is how you too can enter the “slow lane”.

Another realization I’ve had is that we are living in a world of extremes. Through our collective passivity and consumerist lifestyles, we are continually propagating these extremes. Everyday, the contrast between rich and poor, privileged and under-privileged, educated and uneducated becomes sharper, clearer and more tangible, while the division between church and state, private and public becomes oppositely and equally more obscure. Therefore, I believe one of the only paths to change left is to attempt to temper our extremes (foot off the gas, onto the break, signal on, merge right (figuratively, not politically!). By doing this, we will begin to clarify the ever so important independence of our governments from big-business and religion.

How do we do this though, is the question. I believe we do this by acting and acting in a collective, cohesive, goal oriented direction. The direction should be forward, towards a sustainable, socialist and information based society, with a course mapped by science and momentum driven by citizens, consumers and voters empowering themselves to act, non-violently and transparently towards goals of resorting balance in all arenas of life. By identifying the social problems, fallacies and misinformations that have lead to our current state of existing, the countering each of those problems with equal and opposite reactions to the problem’s root causes we increase the probability of achieving the greater goal of positive societal progression. By addressing root causes we slowly, and naturally stop the cycles which are perpetuating said problems, and thereby begin change. I hate to sound apocalyptic, but I do believe that without intervention, the probability of societal collapse is inevitable (this according to theories from comparative civilizations studies and general chaos theory).I for one refuse to stay passive and I will choose to engage myself in every arena. Even if my dreams are never actualized, I will have the peace of mind afforded by the knowledge that I tried.

Furthermore, the more I educate myself, the more I feel as if I am successfully breaking down the lifetime of conditioning and excuses that I have lived and propagated in my daily life to feel better about doing nothing. The more I know the more I want to change. It is time for someone to stand up for the principals of democracy, the true meaning of freedom of information and assume responsibility for the for the effects of a damaged capitalist system. We may not have purposefully created any of these problems, but we are allowing them not only to continue, but to mutate exponentially by accepting, excusing and generally being passive in our consumption and involvement in the political process. I am committing to act and I invite you to join me.

The Pitfalls of Neoliberal Capitalism

This is a paper I wrote for my “Visions of a Good Society” class. A general overview of my opinions about modern capitalism and where I think society should be headed.

Stephen Moore’s Bullish on Bush articulates the neoliberal argument that the economic policies of George W. Bush are strengthening America’s economy and citizens by creating an “ownership society” in which the state does not interfere with commerce, and in which all members would prosper by owning a piece of the corporate pie. This approach to the problem of the elusive “good society” is an alluring one, with promises of a car in every driveway and a chicken in every pot; however, Moore’s focus is narrow, and fails to mention the serious drawbacks of relying on laissez-faire capitalism to solve societal ills.

The main shortcoming of the neoliberal position is its excessive emphasis on the individual and the concept of personal wealth, to the detriment of community and the goal of mental wellbeing. Modern capitalism has led American society to its present state of hyper-commercialism, extreme consumerism (at the cost of the environment), and social isolation. The neoliberal policies of the last two decades have focused on cutting social programs (what Moore designates “handouts,”) and creating economic policies that favor economic growth and the creation of wealth (Bush’s “hand up,” according to Moore.) Social programs for the less fortunate are not seen as aid in overcoming economic obstacles out of one’s control, but as excessive government interference that only creates an unhealthy dependence on the state.

The neoliberal position does not emphasize equality, a necessary consideration if our society is to be fully just and democratic. When the “compassionate conservative” discusses equality, he or she is typically referring to a supposedly existing equality of opportunity to own capital, which is perhaps an admirable goal, but a false reality at present. Most low-income Americans would, ostensibly, benefit financially from the opportunity to own capital, but there are currently inequalities in access to resources such as the means of production and advanced financial options like stocks and bonds. Furthermore, these inequalities actually benefit those who own the means of production, for capitalism thrives on an oppressed underclass of laborers who must remain fairly destitute and desperate for employment if their exploitation as workers is to be continued. Therefore I do not believe that the ruling class actually wishes to remedy these inequalities by providing increased access to wealth, but rather to further that elusive dream in the minds of the working class in order to ensure their continuing adherence to the capitalist system.

Another inherent flaw in capitalist logic rests in the mistaken belief in the self-regulation of the market; this fetishism of capital is nearly a religion for neoliberal thinkers. By shifting the responsibility for the welfare of all the citizens of a state onto the shoulders of a deified market, the neoliberal position insists that economic policies alone will provide wealth for the masses, if capitalism is only allowed to run free without government intervention. This outlook falsely attributes agency to a system that is, in fact, very much regulated by federal and independent organizations, groups composed of people who make choices about issues such as interest rates, budgets, development programs, loans, and currency value. To say that we should allow capitalism to regulate itself is really to argue that we should allow a select group of wealthy elites to manage the financial policies for the entire country, and this plutocracy is not an example of the free, universally prosperous and democratic society that Moore and other conservatives would have us believe they espouse. This vision does not seem especially well-equipped to confront social issues such as poverty.

The issue of poverty, often thought to be somehow eradicated in the mostly prosperous United States, seems to be a non-issue for neoliberal thinkers. Their philosophy holds that poverty is not a socially constructed phenomenon, nor is it one out of an individual’s control—if one wishes to be wealthy, one simply works hard, hoards earnings, and ultimately achieves. The current system may seem highly effective and productive to those at the top of the financial pyramid, but I am wary of such faith in unregulated market forces to simultaneously reward the industrious and punish the lazy. For every rags-to-riches, American-dream success story, in which hard work and determination allow a low-class individual to “pull himself up by the bootstraps” and achieve material prosperity, there is a “rags-to-rags” counterpart in which hard work, often manual labor, proves ultimately fruitless for a working-class family, the employed-but-struggling are ineligible for decreasing social programs, and the cycle of generational poverty remains unbroken. Therefore, I find Moore’s blithe rhetoric and complete espousal of free-market capitalism somewhat problematic, most notably his belief in the “trickle-down” effect, whereby wealth created for the investing class ultimately leads to benefits for the middle class, and presumably the lower classes, whom he rarely deigns to mention. Representing the neoliberal position on wealth and poverty, Moore endorses the idea that an ownership society will help all members of society, and that wealth generated for elites will find its way to the lowliest American.

To further examine the problems inherent in this rhetoric, Moore and other neoliberal analysts assume that the drive to accumulate wealth is a universal, or at least universally American, goal. By listing, “freedom, opportunity, and prosperity,” as fixed variables, as historically American ideals, Moore surreptitiously projects the goals of the upper classes onto the American public. While it may be true that all people desire some level of financial security and material well-being, I do not believe that every American wishes to be part of the class of capitalists that owns corporate stock. Prosperity is a socially defined trait that is not compatible with the desires of all Americans. Moore, however, does not question this assumption, but rather touts this supposedly universal drive to hoard money as a healthy cure-all for various social ills.

I believe the conservative response to poverty is largely ineffective, even detrimental, as is often the case when operating under the assumption that ignoring problems somehow solves them. Moore’s casual dismissal of social ills like poverty leads me to believe that, regardless of the actual situation, neoliberals will attempt to gloss over the negative trends with complex economic explanations. For example, Moore and other conservative economists might point to statistics showing an increase in GDP per capita, never mind that the wealth is concentrated in the top financial tier, never mind the increase in other variables such as homelessness, unemployment, and families applying for federal aid.

However, I realize that the liberal approach to poverty—increasing government spending for social programs—also has its downfalls. The limitations of a bureaucratic system become frustrating realities when individuals navigate the complex procedures of procuring welfare benefits, for example, or seeking emergency care at state-run health care facilities. The solution to issues of poverty may not depend exclusively on the state; however, I believe that the state should not leave low-income citizens to fend for themselves in a world ruled only by “market forces,” monetary policy, and capitalist logic.

Based on what little I know of the communitarian position, I believe that it would, theoretically, be the best suited to confront the issue of poverty. Small, tightly-knit community groups tend to view such problems as sickness, homelessness, and poverty as problems facing not individuals, as postulated by the neoliberal position, but as issues facing the whole community, and deserving of a community-based response and remedy. The model response would be a combination of voluntarism and mutual aid to help families and individuals out of poverty, bolstered by more efficient state programs. It would be ideal if the state could provide anti-poverty funds to all communities, and each community would utilize the budget as each saw fit. This idea is similar to Etzioni’s explanation of the process of “devolution” as outlined in Next—greater freedom of the community to solve the economic and social problems in a highly specific and local context. Admittedly, such a model would only work on a fairly small scale. But it is with this flexibility and creativity that poverty should be treated, and only with this issue in the forefront of an economic system can it someday be eradicated.

Capitalism and Inequality: If Only Time Could Tell...

Inequality is an extremely frustrating issue that I truly believe will plague our societies around the world for quite sometime. Solutions to the problem are far from found and there truly is no one great alternative. So, how do we tackle the topic of creating a more level playing field and what would the world look like if we did? Would we all be truly happy, healthy, individuals?

When looking at the problem, I think it is important to ask ourselves whether poverty exists because of capitalism, or whether poverty exists for other reasons? Maybe its not the fact that money provides the dissparity? Maybe its the fact that there is disparity in educational systems that create the problem?

The essence of capitalism, I believe, is viewed often in the wrong light because we look at the extremes of the spectrum in our economic systems and speculate on these elements. For example, the rich suppress the poor for their own personal gain; this may have been the case in the past, but I truly believe this is not sustainable, specifically because of capitalism. The new corporate world and the business leaders of tomorrow (in the majority) understand that the old management ways of yesterday no longer apply. Truly smart leaders realize that the only way to grow ones business and become successful is to make sure that your people are successful too. With proliferation of competition in the business world, people have choices (though it may not always seem that way). If you take advantage of your talent, you will quickly find them scrambling out the door.

If this being the trend, observation tells us that a key to securing some form of success for all in the world is having access to education, the true supplier of talent. And this, I believe, is where the most work can be done. Schools are the grounds where we become socialized and learn to tackle problems, train ourselves in the ways of how to learn and improve, and become creative and innovative individuals. It is in school where we learn to dream, imagine, and create. It is there where the seeds of passion are planted only to blossom as we age and seek the next chapters of our lives.

The greatest investment any of us can make, capitalist or non-capitalist, is in oneself. We need to take the time and effort to expand our minds and continuously learn, while pushing others to do the same. Creating better access to higher education is an imperative, and we all need to play our part in improving our systems.

On a final note; We are all frustrated on the state of affairs in which we live. We always seek to better our society and make the world a better place, which I think is the best thing that we have going for us. But, our problem is that we are impatient. We want things to be perfect today. But, the reality is, our economic systems are to young and immature to really know; even at thousands of years, they still can be considered so in the eyes of evolution. With time, our world will know a different place then the ways in which we do. Solutions to our problems take time.

And so, maybe we need to be more virtuous… lets us be patient with what we have and be proactive with our faith in changing the world.

Wealth Distribution

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/weal th.html

This is the end result of private ownership of the means of production. Turns out greediness is not good…

History has taught us one very good lesson again, and again, and again. Man is not meant to have concentrated power for one very good reason – individual man is primarily concerned with his own interests. Even kingships that began with altruistic intentions inevitably evolved into corrupt institutions of oppression. This happens over and over. And, we have let it happen again. Even if it began with altruistic intentions, like letting the people own whatever they can so society will regulate itself with the market. If the people don’t like a product they will switch to another…sounds good right?

Well…what if the product is indispensable to modern life. Lets imagine a world so polluted we have built domes over cities, and in these domes we have to have purified air. In keeping with the capitalist mentality we decide to let air be privatized. So we let air companies start up. Naturally it will be a very big industry, and these companies will become very rich. Money will flow from the people to the pockets of these few people. Now, these people have become very powerful, and, based on historical probability, will become corrupt. They will continue to try and make more and more money, gain more and more power, they will raise prices, reduce wages, and essentially exploit the poor, after all there is no better way to get lots of production at little cost. I think we can imagine what would happen in this world of privatized air…the air companies would rule the world…they would have all the most crucial resource. The people would clamor for regulation and taxes, which the government might even impose. Well you know what, the air company doesn’t take crap from anyone. “You wanna tax me, you get no air…and everyone dies.”

But, what if the air industry wasn’t subject to private ownership. What if it was controlled by the very workers and communities who need it. Would it not be maintained at an affordable price, and would its profits not be used for the betterment of the community? Would it not maintain more ethical practices …Maybe even help do away with some of that pollution.

This is no different than what goes on today with the agriculture industry, the oil industry, mass communications, you name it. Corporations go to the Third World, get their cheap labor and come to the US and sell their products for god knows how much (as long as theres a market right). As a result of privatized means of production 80% of the American population is left with 16% of its wealth. I think it is actually a great testament to our country’s riches when eighty percent of its people get along pretty well with only sixteen percent of its money. On a global scale, however, half the population is left with a sordid 1 percent of wealth.

Imagine the prosperity that would be spread if these industries were controlled democratically. We would have a standard of living high above anything we’ve ever known. Just imagine the wealth of the top 1 percent being redistributed and controlled democratically. Is it not more logical to have these incredibly profitable and powerful industries be subject to democratic rule. Is it not logical to avoid having so much power rest with so few individuals. These individuals have their own interests in mind. They don’t need to fix public schools, they send their children to private ones. They don’t care about poverty, its gross to even think about. They want everyone to think like them. They want everyone to be self-interested. We must say no more. Because we should care if the kid down the street goes to school, that the Third World isn’t allowed a proper development because of US private interests, that millions have been slaughtered in the name of profits. Our world can be a much better place, the resources just have to be controlled differently. When democratic interests dominate, we all have a meaningful participation, we can reach the optimal decision through lively debate and uncontentious discourse. Democracy, real democracy, is a ubiquitous check and balance. Let’s expand this idea into the economic realm… tyranny should exist nowhere.

Are Americans Too Dumb for Democracy?

Currently the US is bogged down in an untenable military situation ostensibly in the name of bringing democracy to the Middle East, specifically to Iraq. The US proclaims the American model of democracy a triumph and a governmental ideal that the rest of the world should emulate, but is it? With widespread election fraud rampant in the last two US Presidential elections and less than a 12 % approval rating for both the sitting President and Congress, is democracy really working in the US? Who is to blame for the problems with democracy in the US? Does the blame belong to corrupt politicians who bend and even break laws and morality to further their own gains while they manipulate the American populace into believing their lies? Or does the fault lie ultimately with us, the American people, for living like pigs in a consumerist pen, content to allow the politicians free reign to chase their agendas as long as we have HDTV, TiVo, Nike, and all the McDonald’s we can eat.

Liberal Democracy

In theory, the idea of a Liberal Democracy that the US aspires to is a credible form of government. In a Liberal Democracy, the “common” people elect leaders to represent their interests in the nationwide government. There is a series of checks and balances to make sure that no one branch of the government has too much power over any of the others, and all the branches need to work together in order to create real change. In practice however, it’s usually the case that slickest politician with the best campaign ads and sound bytes gets elected, goes to Washington and lives high on the hog for a few years funded by special interest groups while doing just enough work to convince voters that their issues are being addressed. The day after an election politicians start planning out their re-election campaigns. The next Presidential race is 18 months away but already the hopeful candidates are starting to hold debates and create TV and radio buzz for themselves. Campaigning becomes a full time job, and the candidates who are already serving in Congress or other elected posts ignore those jobs in favor of spending time on the campaign trail. The idea of a Liberal Democracy is sound, but in practice it’s just not working.

The Blame Game

So who is to blame for the failure of democracy in America? In a recent NY Times column Gary Bass suggests that ultimately is the politicians who are at fault for not better guiding the American people to make better choices. Is it really the fault of the politicians for being greedy, self-serving elitists? Or is it the fault of the American people for putting those kinds of people into elected office based on advertising campaigns? Most people don’t vote in an informed way, if they vote at all. They vote randomly, based on sound bytes given in TV commercials or radio ads. Or, more often, they vote on a partisan basis. Once they ally themselves with a particular party they will vote along party lines, often knowing nothing about the candidates. Despite the massive amounts of information now available to Americans most people are happy to stay ignorant of anything regarding politics. There is disgust or anger about certain policies but that is overcome by apathy. Americans no longer believe that the common people can truly create change in the world, so we’ve stopped trying. We self-medicate with mindless TV, movies, shopping, food… anything that will fill out time without asking us to think or participate. Ultimately, the responsibility rests on us, the American people, for the failure of our leaders to lead and massive blunders that have ruined our reputation throughout the world. We put our leaders in office, either through our direct action (voting) or indirect action (not voting, not fighting voter fraud, not making informed votes etc).

Is There Hope for Democracy?

Will eight years of disastrous “leadership” by President Bush be enough to convince us that we need to be more informed and more active in politics? No ne can really know for sure. The sweeping election of Democrats in the mid-term election was a very hopeful sign that possibly American voters had realized their mistake and wanted to correct things but the Democratic legislature’s complete in ability to be at all effective signals that it might be too late to fix the system we have broken. And it is the American people who have broken it. Schools no longer teach civics or the fundamentals of democratic rule and theory, people no longer care about being politically active, people feel disconnected from the politicians they elect to office. Many people don’t have the first clue about how American democracy works. When the framers set up American government they were operating on the principle that with inalienable rights come inalienable responsibilities. One of those is the responsibility to be educated on the political process and to be active in government. Even if it’s just being more informed about the people we vote for, Americans have dropped the ball on doing the things we need to do in order for a Democracy to function effectively.

It’s still possible to save the Liberal Democracy that the framers intended for this country but it remains to be seen if the American people can pull themselves away from the trough of popular culture and advertising based culture long enough to do it. If we don’t, real democracy in this country will be replaced by oligarchy, where a group of businessmen and corporations make decisions that effect every aspect of our lives, even our health care. Or worse, a theocracy, where a group of “Christian” businessmen will decide those things. If the American people can’t take back the power of self-government that they willingly traded for Big Macs, SUV’s, reality TV and designer clothes, maybe we don’t deserve democracy.

A Challenge

Has anyone looked around them lately? What do you see? Has anyone asked themselves lately if they’re actually 100% or at least close to 100% happy in their daily real lives? Since I don’t know even half of you, or probably even a quarter of you personally, the cool thing about this group is that somehow, I do know all of you through someone else. Through this group and this project we are showing the world in a simple, logical way that we as human beings are all connected. Yes the internet (a non-human form of contact) is our means for exposing this phenomenon as probably true, however the essence of the experiment is to PROVE TO PEOPLE THAT WE ARE ALL CONNECTED. Therefore, as many of you have probably already realized the most basic deduction one can make from this realization, is that if we can all be connected via the internet then we are all essentially connected as a people, end of story, bottom line. We all also share some other common knowledge: We know that first and foremost we are all human beings, we know that we all have feelings, we know that we are all biological organisms, we know that we are all innately creative, compassionate and caring individuals.

Some of us also know that there is something about our physical environments right now that is destructing us as a people. The evidence is all around us: there is historical evidence that conclusively shows our societal patterns as merely replications and mutations of the exact same patterns which existed in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY THAT HAS COLLAPSED BEFORE US; there is tangible evidence available to each and everyone of us that the majority of our global population lives in poverty while a very few of us live in luxury – even in the western world, the dichotomy between rich and poor has grown so drastically that people of the “middle class” are now experiencing oppression on a regular basis; we have evidence that our forms of entertainment are serving to purposefully and intentionally desensitize us to extreme violence, extreme injustice and blind us to the dangers of extreme power. Have you ever stopped to question these things?

What’s even scarier to me, is that we are a collective global people have come to think it is common place and “socially acceptable” that our friends and family members are suffering because of our inaction – and let’s be honest even if we personally feel we are not suffering from any type of affliction, disease, oppression or any of the other atrocities which are happening everyday in the world around us, as members of this group and as citizens of the information age, we know that even though these things are not being physically experienced by ourselves, they are in fact being physically experienced by SOMEONE YOU PROBABLY KNOW INTIMATELY, LOVE and CARE FOR. The thing is, once you have been smacked in the face with this realization I believe you too will see clearly how important it is to take action.

And, the cool thing about action is that it is most effective when it has a powerful force behind it. Historically, when it comes to any type of action for change, the most powerful movements were those which were rooted in collective, unified, organized, goal oriented action. Moreover, the most successful movements for change within past societies and generations are those which have been led by everyday citizens who came together under the unified goal of change and peacefully and purposefully used the tools, systems and means available to them to bring about the change they wanted. Unfortunately, almost every society before us, and even some that exist today, have used violence to achieve their ends. I do not believe this is necessary in a truly democratic society. Actually, its really not at all because its against the laws as they exist right now.

Do me a favor: ask yourself what kind of future you want to live in: Does it involve personal wealth? does it involve being a mother or a father? does it involve being a family member of any type? does it involve you spending your free time as you wish, and having the financial means necessary to do so? Does it involve wanting to live in physically beautiful places? Now based on your image of your perfect future that you’ve now constructed in your imagination, ask yourself if you think that future is possible if our global village continues on its current path. If the future of your private dreams is not available to you then you should probably do something about that, hey?

Lets face it: by the collective us of western society not demanding: 1. the Ultimate transparency of our governments (within the restraints of logical reason of course); 2.complete disparity between our institutions and our governments; and, 3. Respect for the land that we live on the peoples that we share it with, we have served to disappoint and disrespect the people, principals and ideals the New World was founded on. Moreover, our passivity in the political process to date is only serving to detrimentally and exponentially propagate our problems as a society. We have only ourselves to blame. And when I use the expression that we’re not demanding these things from our governments I only mean to say: Because we are blatantly choosing to not hold those in power accountable for their actions (which in a democratic society, the idea is the people keep their governments in check, not the other way around), we as a people have then by definition given up our democratic rights through inaction. Which subsequently, logic says inaction = guilt. Guilt even for the international human sufferings we think we do not cause or have influence over. If we actually believe in freedom its time we friggin stand up for it, because face it people, just because we live in a place where we have “all the comforts of modern life” doesn’t mean we are living freely.

I realize I am raising very controversial issues by sharing these ideas, but that’s great. I’m not here to try to tell you what to do. I don’t have all the answers. I’m 22 years old and I’m scared of what will happen to my future if I don’t share what I know with everyone around me. The unfortunate situation of our world is that even our access to information is constantly being regulated, controlled and manipulated so that certain powers that be can keep an eye on us and therefore use that information to keep us wherever it is we need to be for them to continue to gain power. We as a people are being watched, patrolled and herded like cattle where-ever our governments tell us and it scares me – bottom line. I am not trying to spark some massive violent political uprising – what myself along with some very dear friends of mine – are trying to do is give you information that will shock you deeply enough so that you will be forced to question the world around you. If you start to question the world around you, you will be forced to act I’m sure about it. Also, if you’re wondering what sparked my passion to write this, among many other things you should definitely check out the movie zeitgeist (www.zeitgeistmovie.com). I have no attachments, affiliations or am otherwise involved in this project at all, although I #$$$ well would like to be and am looking into it.

Furthermore, to be clear, the only action I’m talking about is passive, non-violent and simple. If we actually ARE living in democratic countries (which I currently question if we are), then we have the tools and means available to us to create change with little disruption to our lives as we know them. Remember, there’s safety in numbers and ultimate transparency will set you free: If a big enough group of us acts together in various but collective, cohesive and transparent movements we cannot be persecuted, charged or otherwise be held liable for our actions according to the fundamental meaning of living in a free, democratic society (side bar: the rule of engagement in this case being the actions in the name of change must be checked by and within the confines of the law as it currently exists at the time if they are to be meaningful and lasting. if you don’t like the laws you should probably change them. guess what you live in a democratic free society – you can). Therefore that means that taking political action and actualizing societal change in the 21st century, especially in a western democratic, internet-based society, should never have to be violent, complicated or beyond your personal means regardless of your age, sex, race, creed or any other orientation by which you choose to define yourself. Do me a favor…investigate that idea. If you realize I am speaking truth its that easy, please for don’t *#$*#@* let anyone tell you differently. one easy, passive, law-abiding thing I was thinking we could all do together is vote – what do you think about that? neat idea hey? we should probably also keep each other informed and figure out if who we vote for really represents what we want in our future. sounds simple I hope. Id hate to hear this is really more complicated because im not sure if i have time for such big complications right now. I’m a very busy young student, with a demanding part time job, a boyfriend, a wide social circle, a loving family and many other things I wish to attend to in my life. If this movement gets complicated it would really %**@ with my whole program right now.

I’ve almost reached the end of my speal and well, If you are still not convinced, if you’re saying “give me a break, this girl thinks we’re not living in free societies – she’s another crazy hippie, fundamentalist yahoo,”, thats PERFECT! That means you will question what I’m saying…what do they call that? A catch 22 or something…either way you’ll probably do what i want, is all im saying. All I want is for you to question and get invovled ;). The point is: If you don’t believe me when I say that we are living in an absolutely crucial time in history and that the time for action is NOW, then I want you to do something for me. If you’re intrigued at all, please try this little exercise.

I want you to use this website: http://www.etymonline.com and look up TWO words: 1. DEMOCRACY (the socio-political state that operates most western countries, also known as the world super powers, all us good guys in the G8 or whatever) and 2. FASCISM. Then I want you to compare these definitions to your experiences in your daily life. Maybe make a sort of a list, write democracy and fascist state at the top (oooh wait, I’m feeling a lesson plan coming on – educators are you picking up the potential i’m throwing down right now?). Then list different life experiences you’ve had which fall under each category as you understand it after reading that word. Ok, done that? Great! Now look at your list. Ask yourself why, if we are living in a democratic country, do I have any life experiences listed at all under the fascist column? Ask yourself how you feel about that – if you so dearly value the idea of being a free thinking, free choosing, free roaming citizen, are you not at least a little bit interested in at least exploring this idea further?

So that’s it for now my friends…that’s all I’ve got to say for now. I hope I got you asking some questions. I hope you don’t understand everything I’ve said because then you will ask me questions. %$#$, I’m still asking questions and I hope I will be until I’m old and grey and shrivled. I want you to ask your friends questions. I want you to ask your teachers, elders and parents questions. And you should DEFINITELY ask your bosses, superiors and government officials close to you questions. And 100% for god’s sake ask the friggin internet questions, but make sure you dont accept every answer it spits at you – critical thinking is crucial to this processes and i’m pretty sure every individual is capable of critical thinking. How do I know this for sure? We all do it everyday, yup, you do it every day. its how you make decisions – its the deduction or reduction of an amount of information until it fits into your personal world and then becomes what you know as your truth. when something becomes truth you act on it (consciously and unconsciously) and therefore you might say that critical thinking has the possibility to manifest things from your subconsicous to your conscious and into your life (quantum phsyiscs, can you hear me?! cognitive behavioral therapists unite!) Eventually when you are seeking truth you will find it if you look…or at least I think so.

And ps: If you like to question things, I just want you to think of the important role living in a democratic society plays in your ability to do that.

Launch Graphic: Fair Trade

This is a launch test and is my first piece of graphic journalism on and for rethos. Feedback greatly appreciated! Li Li

“What Will Save Us” c. Li Li 2007

A Corrupt Patience - Response to Ian Wooden

This is a response to Ian Wooden’s posting http://www.rethos.com/news/view/309-Capitalism-and-Inequality-If-Only-Time-Could-Tell-

Reclarifications: By “patience”, I mean the kind of patience a battered woman has when she sends her husband off to anger management therapy. I mean the kind of patience it takes to patch up a dilapidated house. All this while a nice guy and a lovely home call to you. No, sometimes patience isn’t the right approach. Will it take hard work and commitment to rehabilitate a violent husband or rebuild a crumbled house? Indeed. But you might as well invest that hard work and commitment in building a new home and getting a new man. You say, that takes more effort, I say more effort pushes us further away from capitalism in general – “why create a whole new system, when you have one to work with?” you ask. This is where my analogy fails…in economic systems and social attitudes you simply can’t “get a new house” one has to evolve from the other. But just as Capitalism grew from Feudalism, and Man arose from bacteria long ago, so a new system must emerge from the current. Getting a new house in economic terms, is creating an entirely different system, from the one we have now. Still why strive for such a radical change? Because capitalism and corporatism is an outdated, repressive economic and social model. It creates an unnecessary hierarchy, and disparity that is intolerable when we as society strive for equality, and self-management…i.e freedom. It may not be the people that are corrupt as much as the system.

Which gets to a clarification of the term “corruption.” The elite class is raised, pampered, groomed…socialized to care about certain things. Think of it this way. A rich person benefits from practices that hurt poor people. This is the worst case then to have the very people who have the resources, knowledge, and connections to actually mobilize and change systems benefit from systems that create disparity, isolation, deprivation and on and on. Consider the goals of a corporation – expand profits, protect shareholder investment…the corporate version of the Hippocratic oath – first lose no money. Short, sweet, laudable set of goals…right? Well, wage raises reduce profit..money lost. “In some cases, corporations will increase wages to attract the best and brightest, this competition creates a balance between pay cuts and raises” you might retort. In short, the effect is CEO’s get paid a shitload, and Janitors don’t get paid %*%*. Few rich people, many many poor people.. supply and demand says, poor people jobs won’t pay. Lots of hungry people willing to work for a little bit of food. In fact, this pool of hungry people is a corporate executive’s wet dream. Can you honestly think of a better scam than cranking out shoes for 5 dollars, then flipping them for 120. I sure as hell can’t. I think even crystal meth’s profit return is smaller. These poor people’s wages will be depressed for the shareholder’s benefit. Do you honestly think Disney will pay Haitian worker’s more when it can get away with a measly 2 dollars a day. That would be stock market suicide, and against the law because it knowingly devalues the shareholder’s stock. Now what kind of system fosters poverty this way? A corrupt one, all the while the employees carry on their duty feeling completely moral – one need not feel corrupt to act corruptly. “But the people won’t stand for this treatment and boycott the product.” Disney’s not going anywhere anytime soon. I’m sure you’re familiar with the consumer collective action problem that results in industry leader’s interest being more important to politician’s than consumers’. A problem exacerbated by the fact that Disney owns ABC, so ABC (who has the resources, knowledge, and connections to actually mobilize and change conditions) is highly unlikely to create a national awareness about the need for better working conditions for Haitians. Again, stock market suicide, and illegal.

How, then, are we supposed to rely on these institutions, who are practically bound by law to oppress and deceive, to be advocates of positive change. I also think it is a just a little disingenuous of you to imply that only powerful people can bring about change. Remember this, throughout history it has always been the disenfranchised, the trodden slice of society that has brought about revolutionary positive change. From the inception of our nation, to the abolishment of slavery, to secured labor rights, the weary have never failed to stand up in defiance of the powerful who benefit from their misery. Common sense tells us, people exploit others for an advantage, and upon gaining the advantage become more powerful and better at exploiting. Until the most exploitative group of people reach the top – that is, the few people that exploit all others, the class to which we cater to, and even aspire to join. It’s a form of social Darwinism. The great thing about society though, is it is a human construct, we can set the parameters for evolution. We can just stand up and say…those who exploit others will not survive, any institution that inherently causes exploitation, is fueled by ignorance and greed, will be dissolved. We can demand a system in which goods and services are provided in a way that leads to community betterment by inherently causing cooperation and progress. The structures await, nested within the capitalist world, just as the capitalist structures nested within the feudalist world – they await a social movement that will cultivate and focus them, that will allow them to grow and reshape our lives and planet.

For more on these structures, co-ops, go to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14085 Also check out the Fair Trade Federation, and always think of solutions..think big.

Alternatives to capitalism

I realise that there are many alternatives that people could put forward and many will disagree. However I believe that it is important to discuss these so that our ideas can develop.

Personally I believe in local democracy and governance. If things are done in this way then communities have the choice to decide their own future rather than that decided by the chief executives of Coca Cola, Disney etc. For this reason I like to describe my political position not as left or right but as pro-democracy. Freedom!

On Revolution: How and Why?

I’ve been thinking on this topic for a long time, close to ten years in fact, and done a lot of reading, a lot of thinking, and a lot of writing on and about it, but until now I’ve never actually laid out my ideas for the real nuts-and-bolts “how” of moving to a post-capitalist economy. This isn’t that complete article, but it’s a start; spurred by a couple posts I saw on here on Rethos ((http://rethos.com/news/view/683-Alternatives-to-capitalism and http://rethos.com/news/view/309-Capitalism-and-Inequality-If-Only-Time-Could-Tell-) ) about the nature of capitalism and inequality, alternatives to it, and how to make those alternatives a reality.

Lately it seems like it’s become popular for rich people to tell us how much they dislike inequality, just look at Bill Gates and his much-publicized efforts to support “development” around the world. Not that it’s a new phenomenon, really. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other titans of the 1900’s-era “Robber Baron” capitalist class did much the same thing. Thing is, even as those men publicly demonstrated their desire to “give back” by building public libraries and such, they continued to violently abuse working-class people who dared to form unions and demand things like living wages, weekends, shorter workdays, and things of that sort. While the nature of the software industry means that Bill Gates hasn’t ever had to be as overtly murderous as Carnegie (whose empire was built on Coal and Steel), I find it a bit hard to believe that he’s really as dedicated to the cause as he claims to be; if only because any meaningful reduction in global poverty would directly undermine the capitalist system which he and others like him rely upon to supply them with such obscene wealth in the first place. Let me explain.

Capitalism requires poverty. Period. It requires poverty since it relies on economic coercion of the majority through the threat of poverty or starvation in order to force people to accept the low-paying jobs that form the basis of the capitalist pyramid. Rich people don’t need jobs making Nikes. And that’s before you even touch the fact that the profit system itself is based on systematic theft. For example:

Say I work in a shoe factory making shoes. In the course of a day the wealth I create is equal to the value of the number of shoes I produce minus the cost of materials and overhead (the value-added which my labor creates). Now that’s all wealth that I created and, by all rights, should own. In capitalism, however, the owner of the factory or workshop appropriates the vast majority of that added value and pays me some lesser amount, and it is that act of theft that creates profits for the owners since my labor becomes just another cost and they become free to appropriate (ie steal) all of the surplus value that my labor created. They do this by leveraging the fact that the means of production are owned by a minority to force the working majority to work for the owners instead of simply working for themselves. In other words, inequality – the fact that a minority owns most of the worlds wealth – is a vital and indispensable element of capitalism. Without that inequality the entire wage system would collapse.

Ordinary people, given free access to the means of producing wealth, could self-manage their own production without bosses or hierarchies, there are literally thousands of worker-owned businesses around the world that are doing it already. Existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth are the only thing standing in the way of the immediate and virtually instantaneous abolition of capitalism. All that is required is for us as a society to (1) recognize that humans do not own the earth because we did not create it and that therefore anyone who claims to own land is nothing more then a thief and (2) for us to realize that the accumulated wealth and technology of the planet – what Kropotkin termed the “common heritage of humanity” – also belongs to everyone. Not to capitalists, not to governments, but to all of us.

And no, that’s not a ‘communist’ argument. Notice that I’m not arguing that we should turn over control of the worlds wealth to the worlds governments and expect them to run things in the interest of the people. Anarchists denounced such plans as lunacy years before the Bolsheviks ever seized power in Russia and the massive failure of Marxism there just proved us right.

Instead I’m arguing for an entirely different approach to property and ownership, a model where no one owns the land but local communities take stewardship responsibility and have oversight powers over all businesses that operate within their borders. where factories, firms, stores, etc are all self-managed by the employees without a managerial class and decisions are made on the shop floor, democratically, by the people who work there. where the market actually becomes a meaningfully free market – one that is not constrained by the massive barriers to entry that accompany an economy based on private ownership of the means of production. An economy where how much you make in a year directly depends on how much wealth your labor creates – not on how much wealth you can extract from the labor of others or how little is left after the boss steals all the profits from your work. A society, in short, without significant institutionalized inequality – something that can never be achieved in a capitalist system.

the next big step forward is not armchair philosophy but to actually develop working alternatives. For me, the growing movement towards worker-owned non-hierarchical and self-managed businesses is a massive step in the right direction because it provides a glimpse of a better way to organize our production. What I’d really like to see is that movement growing and taking things to the next level – setting up credit unions that would provide bridge loans to workers seeking to purchase the businesses where they work and convert them into collectives, providing legal support and know-how to one another, really build it into a movement. Why is it that all over america skilled workers are being put out of work and factories left empty as manufacturing jobs get exported? Why not have the unions and the workers simply buy the factories from the corporations that are abandoning them in favor of cheap labor elsewhere, convert them into non-hierarchal self-managed worker-run collectives, and let the people who work there continue to work there but without the bosses?

In Argentina this is actually happening – after the massive economic collapse in 2001 thousands of factories all over the country were shut down as capital fled abroad and millions were pushed into unemployment, but instead of sitting on their #$%#$ and moaning about it the workers there broke back into their old workplaces, started the machinery back up, and kept right on working – only for themselves instead of their former bosses. Now, six years in, many of those new collectives have turned around and used the profits from their businesses to actually buy the factories and infrastructure from the bosses and are 100% legal.

My questions are

(1) why was it illegal in the first place? The fact that private property laws would force skilled workers into unemployment while the means of production sit vacant is such an incredible indictment of capitalism it’s almost beyond words. Far from being criminals, those workers are heroes and through their labor they helped prevent one of the worst economic crisis in south american history from spiraling out of control and wiping out the economies of the entire region. They are heroes in every sense of the word.

2) Why aren’t we doing this here? How many factories and businesses have been closed since the passing of NAFTA and the creation of the WTO as “american” corporations have fled abroad looking for easy access to slave labor maquiadoras? Why in the world are we letting all of that infrastructure – which was often built at public expense through massive corporate welfare – simply rot while workers starve? It’s insane.

The revolution is here, right now, we’ve just got to get off our #%%%* and actually make it happen. Capitalist Globalization is a massive threat to working people, but it’s also an opportunity. old-school radicals used to dream of the day they’d seize the means of production from the capitalist class and envisioned it happening through a massive global revolution. That revolution never materialized, but today we have an opportunity to make their vision a reality without ever even having to kill anyone. The capitalists are literally throwing away those same means of production, abandoning them in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere. There’s nothing in the world to stop local communities from using their powers of eminent domain to turn those factories over to the workers who’ve always worked in them and letting those people convert them into collectives. It’d be better for local economies – just think of all the countless communities across America that are slowly dying as the factories that powered their local economies are shut down. It’d be better for the workers – #@*% getting “retrained” and taking lower-paying jobs in the service sector! And, frankly, it’d even be better for America as a whole because it would revitalize our economy and reverse current economic trends that show millions of working-class people sliding deeper and deeper into poverty every year.

It’s not a cure-all solution, the State would still exist and the existing land-ownership structures would still be in place, but it would be a major blow against the power of corporate capitalism. It’d be a hell of a lot harder for top-down corporations to attract talented recruits if young people looking for jobs could instead sign on with a worker-owned business where they would be treated with dignity and respect as an equal among equals instead of being a mere “human resource”. And as that movement grew it would re-shape other aspects of our society too – the experience of living and working without hierarchy is incredibly empowering, and a healthy, empowered, secure public is a lot less likely to accept authoritarian bullshit from the government. Authoritarianism requires fear, after all, and it thrives in times and places where the economy is in shambles and people are scared. So no, it’s not the end cure. But then old-school radical ideals of a single massive revolution that would fix everything all at once were never particularly realistic to begin with. Revolution is a process, change is constant. We can’t make all the changes we’d like to see at once. But we can at least make a start. So why not start now?

The Silliness of "the Silliness of CSR": A Response to Kiadso

The following is a response to a post by Kiadso:

I see Rethos as a tool. A tool that allows us to educate, influence, and help make this world a better place. Rethos, from my understanding, is a platform for change. And the only way to start such a change is to initiate a discussion.

I want to see corporations on this site. I want to hear what companies are doing to make a difference and look at how genuine their intentions are. I want us to propose solutions and I want these corporations to listen to us. I want us to find their flaws, their misrepresentations, and encourage companies to pursue positive change.

Any corporation that comes on this site cares enough about CSR to open themselves to the mercy of Rethos citizens. This requires courage. These companies should be welcomed because they want to make a difference… As should we.

We are being afforded the opportunity to influence “powerful” corporations, and to discard such an opportunity is sensless. Instead of talking amongst ourselves, we can talk with people that have the resources, organization, and brands to make a difference.

Its possible that you might see Rethos in a different light then I. But, I can tell you one thing; I would hate to condemn Rethos to becoming a platform for ramblings rather than a platform where true change can happen.

What is Rethos to you?

Deadly Incentives - Response to Ian Wooden on Corporations

Response to Ian Wooden on Kiadso’s post “The Silliness of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)”

http://www.rethos.com/news/view/626-The-Silliness-of-CSR-Corporate-Social-Responsibility

I like to see corporations as well, but only to learn about their practices. The fact that they are on this site most certainly does not mean that they are courageously trying to make a difference by throwing themselves at our mercy. It means, we are a profitable market, and they are trying to get us to buy their stuff any way they can. Now I think this is a great idea. Let’s tell them what we want.

We want you, corporations, to pay laborers a standard minimum wage… 10 dollars an hour. We want you to become directly accountable to the public, meaning, if a community decides they don’t want you around, you have no right to set up shop. Wal-mart, I’m talking to you.. in Austin, Texas you are taking over Northcross mall and people are very upset about it. Please leave. We want you all to advertise on your product and on your commercials your labor practices, your percentage of profits given back to communities, results of independent studies comparing similar products, death and injury resulting from your practices, animal treatment, number of anti-trust violations, and other things I’m sure I’m leaving out. This type of advertising would undoubtedly slaughter profit-margins..public relations is a massive massive industry because psychology can be used to get people to buy things without actually making the “thing” better – it is a despicable, corrupting practice, and would essentially be done away with.

If DOW advertised its testing practices and deaths caused it would hemorrhage money. If IBM advertised its prior nazi support it’s profits would take swan dive. If KFC plastered its abuse of chickens on every bucket the ensuing shareholder lawsuit would be over before Judge Judy’s first commercial break.

Oh, and, corporations, you can’t own two or more businesses whose coinciding interests disrupt democracy. G.E. you’re out. G.E owns NBC, and is a war contractor. NBC, as a media station, should disseminate information in an unbiased way, but how can it? With profits as the sole motivating factor, It would be silly NOT to use NBC to make war more likely..people love war-related media which increases advertisement value, and war means big aircraft, water treatment, etc. contracts. Imagine Halliburton bringing you news. In fact, Halliburton is a good comparison. Former CEO, @$#% Cheney, is our Vice President. GE director, Sam Nunn, was senator of Georgia for 27 years. If that’s not a conflict of interest I don’t know what is. So you also can’t share politicians, OK corporations? And no lobbying as well, it’s not right to change the laws so you can make more money at our expense. AT&T and Comcast, stop lobbying to eliminate net neutrality so you can make a few more bucks, we like our websites being equal in cyberspace(I’d like to know your opinion on net neutrality, Ian). Rethos shouldn’t be disadvantaged by Change.org because Chang.org paid Comcast to have it load faster (not true to my knowledge). G.E might pay to have its websites load faster than DemocracyNow.org because Democracy Now dissuades people from supporting a war. All these things are kind of a bummer on that profit-margin..but that’s what we want.

In sum, if corporations did what we think they should do, a wave of suicides would wash over Wall Street.

Do you see the depth and width of the web we face. And rest (or don’t) assured it is a hard web to cast off, it is tenacious, powerful, and armed to the teeth with a ferocious greed and awesome power (something like half of the world’s 100 biggest economies are corporations). This web, undemocratically and unaccountably, reaches almost every aspect of your life, bowing only in the presence of profits. Why would we want a structure like this dominating our lives, if we had a say, we wouldn’t have them act this way.

For precisely this reason, we forge our say.. by creating structures that give everyone a voice, that allow those most affected by decisions to affect the decisions. I’m sure the residents of Richland, Washington would like to at least have known when GE released large amounts of radiation into the air to see how far it would travel. The soldiers who worked with Agent Orange would’ve appreciated a heads-up from DOW about its demonically deforming effects. It is our responsibility to do away with a system that encourages this type of behavior. The incentives run the wrong way – toward corruption not honesty, distortion not clarity, ignorance not enlightenment, authoritarianism not democracy. We can create a system with honorable and just mechanisms – we are human beings, the most complex information processing entities in the known universe. If we cannot come up with a freer and fairer way of producing goods and services, then I say we deserve the inevitable fate of corporatism.

A critical essay in reply to Ian Wooden's article re: Inequality and Capitalism

RE: http://www.rethos.com/news/view/309-Capitalism-and-Inequality-If-Only-Time-Could-Tell-

I have a number of problems with this article.

The author’s central thesis is apparently that “inequality” is a global problem that cannot be met with a single solution and that no solution(s) have apparently been found and therefore since this heretofore unattainable panacea is currently unavailable, the author proposes to brainstorm for possible solutions and to speculate as to what state we would find ourselves in if “we tackle[d] the topic of creating a more level playing field.” Then he utterly fails to do as he proposes.

I would point out that “tackling a topic” is a lot different than tackling a problem especially that of “inequality”. Inequality takes many forms in our societies. Some of them are organic (Weight, height etc.) Some are geographic (The residents of Kansas City, Missouri are no doubt unequal in surfing opportunities to their counterparts in say La Jolla, California.) Still others are socio-economic such as race, class, poverty, opportunity, literacy, health and welfare to name a few.

If the author purports to speculate as to a vision of the world where the “problem” of these latter inequalities is met by efforts to solve them, then he not only fails to do so in this piece, he fails to recognize that mankind has sought solutions for such inequalities for centuries arguably with very poor results.

Next we are invited to consider that capitalism is perhaps not the sole cause of poverty. Does the author now equate “inequality” with “poverty”? If so, then his conjecture is by definition erroneous. He then speculates that perhaps it is educational systems that create poverty. How they create poverty, he does not address.

Next we are treated to a bit of historical criticism and as readers we are chastised for viewing the “essence” of capitalism by looking at the polar extremities of capitalism and then speculating “on these elements”. What is the end result of this speculation which affords us this “wrong light”? The author never tells us but does next assert that “the rich suppress the poor for their own personal gain”. Does the author agree with this assertion or rather is this an example of the “wrong light” we have been told to expect in previous sentences? We are afforded a clue in his next utterance wherein this “suppression” is considered to be possibly true in the past but is not ‘sustainable”.

With a bit of judicious editing, lets assume that the author means to say that the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy has some true historical antecedents but cannot survive the present day “corporate world” (or at least tomorrow’s corporate world). How this modern day corporate model with its “seek talent” mandate will somehow embrace the illiterate masses of oppressed and impoverished peoples everywhere is conveniently omitted.

Next we get: “Truly smart leaders realize that the only way to grow ones (sic) business and become successful is to make sure that your people are successful too (sic). With proliferation of competition in the business world, people have choices (though it may not always seem that way). If you take advantage of your talent, you will quickly find them scrambling out the door.”

I can only speculate that the point here is that since there is competition, inequality will be worked out naturally by market forces. This is a philosophy of capitalism first proffered by Adam Smith who wrote of an “invisible hand” as the great equalizer. To his credit, Mr. Smith recognized that market equilibrium can only be found where the participants come to the table on an equal footing. For the last century or so, exploitative capitalists have borrowed the nomenclature of Mr. Smith with none of the substance. This author appears poised to do the same.

Finally, as an apparent exit strategy, the author seeks refuge in the time honored truism that equality of education is a corner stone of potential future socio-economic equality. How his reasoning and argument have brought us to this well heeled conclusion is anybody’s guess. Ironically, his parting shot is a cry for patience (one presumes with the status quo) and to ask us to appreciate what we have (or in other words, what the other guy doesn’t have.)

All in all the thesis presented is poorly constructed, argued, and articulated and hardly constitutes a stirring call to reform the wretched inequalities of the world which maim, kill and leave in perpetual agonizing despair, so many millions of our sisters and brothers and children around the world.

Do we accept the status quo?

We live in a world where there is more awareness then ever before about various pressing issues that are not new to the human race: violation of basic human rights, social welfare, the waging of wars, the menace of poverty, economic polarization, sanctity of the law, democratic norms, among many others. It is widely accepted that a common man, from any part of the world, deserves all the basic amenities of life, and has a right to demand them from the State.

How many countries can proudly own to providing its residents or citizens with all of the necessities of life. And if those aspects are not being taken care off, how does one demand these rights without violating any one else’s?

In this day and age of what i like to call “naked capitalism”, communities and countries have been sidelined by an undying hunger of political bigwigs and business conglomerates to gain global control of most of today’s world’s resources and to join hands to multiply their profits. In the process this has undoubtedly created economic instability in a number of third world countries, unequal distribution of wealth among a large proportion of the world population, monopolization in various industrial sectors, irreversible damages done to the environment; but the list does not stop here.

The status quo continues to deplete the common man in most nations of the basic aspects of survival i.e education, health care, shelter, employment, protection through law, etc. Only a select few countries around the world can be genuinely proud of proclaiming that they fulfill their obligations to people within and without their territory.

There are principles worth fighting for and oppression to be squashed. A compromise with the status quo often means nodding on the existent state of affairs and providing an uncontested victory to the variety of ruthless decision- makers that have one and only one interest in mind: how to advance their authority, influence and control on the masses.

This is a first of what hopefully would be a series of notes, blogs, articles or whatever one wants to call them. From my standpoint, it is nothing more then an expression of thought based on my nominal but passionate analysis of various socio-economic and political issues that grip the world of today. It is also an effort in maintaining and encouraging a free, independent and fearless stream of thought based only on the most principally-correct ideas.

Please feel absolutely free to engage yourself into this discussion. As Henry Ward Beecher (a prominent American clergyman, liberalist and social reformer) once said:

There is tonic in the things that men do not love to hear; and there is damnation in the things that wicked men love to hear. Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease, and bring new elements of health. And where free speech is stopped miasma is bred, and death comes fast.

Which future has a future?

Imagine that you had a choice as to how the world would come out. How would you choose it to be? This is a small piece of the puzzle to world in which we live. The scenarios rage from the demise of human kind to its salvation. No, I am not referring to the rapture of the Christians or any other religious salvation with too much damnation mixed in.

Organizations such as the US military, the United Nations and the World Bank rely on scenarios in order to try to predict the outcomes of their actions. Policy is then decided based upon these scenarios, which range from world war to a sustainable peace.

One future has developed rather recently on the historic time scale, the world of unconscious individualism. James Parriot, in his book Capitalism as if the World Matters, points out that the current system is a self feeding machine that is rampaging to its way to suicide by starvation. He observes that the market structures currently dominating different capital favor the financial. Money is the only focus at the expense of natural capital, human capital, manufactured capital (that we have already created such a roads and technology) and social capital have all been compromised. However, he is not a doomsayer of capitalism, but he does believe it is broken and needs a wider view.

Another future relates to websites such as Rethos.com and Facebook. Compared to other times in history, communication technology is well, futuristic. Hip events can be orchestrated using Meetup.com, and the latest news can be feed directly to whatever technology you prefer through RSS feed. It used to be smoke signals or marathoners that relayed this information. (Thanks to telecommunications the marathoner became obsolete.) In this scenario, energy and natural resources become scarce, our options to be hyper-mobile decrease, and societies become reliant upon more local resources. Cities like New York will take up vertical farms (agriculture in skyscapers) to compensate for the increase costs of imported food, but our ability to connect is easier than ever.

Other futures have been play out in the movies and predict any number of possibilities. Mad Max, iRobot, and Planet of the Apes are some of them. I am kinda biased towards the second scenario myself. President BUSH seems preferential to the international Neverland Ranch to be operated by America. What about you? What futures do you prefer?

The Results of a Weakened Dollar

A large and growing trade deficit with China under NAFTA threatens a dollar decline that could well set the stage for the emergence of the Amero as a unified North American currency.

In 2005, the U.S. balance of trade deficit with China was $201 billion, a 25% increase over 2004. In 2006, China’s foreign exchange reserves topped $1 trillion, a staggering amount considering that before 1979 China’s foreign exchange reserves had never surpassed $1 billion. Approximately 70% of China’s foreign exchange reserves, some $700 billion, are held in U.S. dollars, about half of which are invested in long-term Treasury bonds that in turn fund our federal budget deficits. Prior to Thanksgiving 2006, China’s central banks suggested a possible move to diversify foreign exchange holdings away from the dollar. As a consequence, the dollar sold off on world currency markets, hitting a new 20-month low against the Euro, a currency which is beginning to compete with the dollar as an international foreign reserve currency.

In the recent top-level cabinet officer meeting held in Beijing, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that China had pledged to allow a greater extent of rate flexibility on the Chinese RMB (the Yuan), but refused to give a timetable for achieving that objective. Since July 1, 2005, China has allowed the Yuan to fluctuate within a narrow range, pegged to a basket of international currencies. Still, China has consistently refused to allow its currency to float freely on international currency markets. In his Beijing speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s prepared text accused China of maintaining an undervalued currency on purpose, in order to provide an effective subsidy to Chinese firms that export their goods. In delivering the speech, Bernanke decided to moderate this criticism, noting only that a stronger Yuan would reduce “the incentive for Chinese firms to focus on exporting.” The December 2006 cabinet-level meetings in China showed progress, but no definite results.

[continued on the link provided below]

North Caroline: International IDs and Driver's Licenses?

The first “North American Union” driver’s license, complete with a hologram of the continent on the reverse, has been created in North Carolina.

“The North Carolina driver’s license is ‘North American Union’ ready,” charges William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration.

Gheen provided WND with a photo of an actual North Carolina license which clearly shows the hologram of the North American continent embedded on the reverse.

“The hologram looks exactly [like] the map of North America that is used as the background for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America logo on the SPP website,” Gheen told WND. “I object to the loss of sovereignty that is proceeding under the agreements being made by these unelected government bureaucrats who think we should be North American instead of the United States of America.

Security and Prosperity Partnership logo

“To protest, I don’t plan on applying for a North Carolina driver’s license,” Gheen told WND, “even though I am a resident of the state. I don’t see how a Division of Motor Vehicles authorized in a Department of Transportation of a state of the United States can force me to have a license that is designed with a North American Union insignia printed on the backside.

“My decision not to get a North Carolina driver’s license could have very difficult consequences for me,” Gheen told WND. “Without a valid driver’s license, I may not be able to drive a car, fly on an airplane, or enter a government building.”

Gheen told WND he does not have a U.S. passport.

[article continues on the link below]

Boston Herald: NAU Conspiracy Theory 101

In March 2005, those seemingly disparate worries found a banner under which they could unite. President Bush, along with then-President Vicente Fox of Mexico and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, held a summit in Waco, Texas, and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a framework for greater continental cooperation on trade and security issues.

Alarmed at the fact that the United States had entered into the arrangement without explicit congressional approval, and by what they saw as a lack of public detail about the meetings, a few conservative activists became convinced that the SPP was the first step in a secret plan to dissolve the three nations into one continental unit. Their suspicions were further inflamed when, two months later, a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank long viewed with suspicion by the conspiratorial fringe, published a report called “Building a North American Community.” The report recommended the establishment of a common North American security perimeter, the development of biometric North American border passes, and the adoption of a common North American tariff.

Boston Herald: NAU Conspiracy Theory 101

SINCE HE BEGAN his presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has held more than 125 “Ask Mitt Anything” town hall forums, and the people who have shown up for them have done their best to make the events live up to their name. There have been questions about medical marijuana, about abolishing the income tax, about Romney’s Mormonism and his potential vice president. more stories like this

Of course, certain topics come up more than others. One is healthcare. Another is Iraq. A third is the North American Union.

The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries’ leaders, but the NAU’s central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.

If you haven’t heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU – that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence – has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe, coloring political press conferences and candidate question-and-answer sessions, and reaching a kind of critical mass on the campaign trail. Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues. [to read the whole article visit the link below]