Wealthy investors and their political stooges kill as many Americans in a month as were killed in the terrorist attacks on 9 11. This outrageous crime against humanity must be named for what it is.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centres have steered foreign policy toward more violence and more war. Violence in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan continues to grab top news spots. The subtext is; 'there are enemies out there and they are everywhere'. They leave us with a clear impression of who the enemy is. Although 2,977 people were murdered on September 11, 2001 by terrorists, an equal number (more or less) of Americans die each month because they lack health care. The fact that these deaths are caused, that they are the result of calculations aimed at maximizing profit, makes them murder. Victims that are dying every 20 minutes die because some very wealthy people want to become even more wealthy. Terrorists that kill through acts of terror are rightly called murderers. Those that kill for investment opportunities are not thought of as murderers but that is what they are. We need to look at this ugly reality directly. The situation promises to get much worse.
American Deaths Due to Health Care Profits
Families USA released a report (June 2012) entitled 'Dying for Coverage: The Deadly Consequences of
Being Uninsured'. The report indicates:
• Across the nation, 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage in 2010 (Table 1). That works out to:
• 2,175 people who died prematurely every month;
• 502 people who died prematurely every week;
• 72 people who died prematurely every day; or
• Three every hour. Between 2005 and 2010, the number of people who died prematurely each year due to a lack of health coverage rose from 20,350 to 26,100.
• Between 2005 and 2010, the total number of people who died prematurely due to a lack of health coverage was 134,120.
• Each and every state sees residents die prematurely due to a lack of health insurance. In 2010, the number of premature deaths due to a lack of health coverage ranged from 28 in Vermont to 3,164 in California.
• The five states with the most premature deaths due to uninsurance in 2010 were California (3,164 deaths), Texas (2,955 deaths), Florida (2,272 deaths), New York (1,247 deaths), and Georgia (1,161 deaths).
Not a single Canadian dies because he or she can't afford health care. This is true of most developed nations and it drives home the point that these deaths are a result of decisions made by politicians. They are responsible.
Grinding Poverty
Across the developed world austerity measures are stripping individuals and nations of their spending power. The strategy is to secure wealth at the upper echelons and to make the poor and the middle classes pay for the excessive financial abuses of the ultra wealthy. As Mainstreet suffers, the politicians focus is almost exclusively on the health of the private sector, the stock markets. And in that spirit, austerity measures grind the poor to their deaths to make sure that the world is safe for investors.
The absurdity of industrial plants rusting while millions are unemployed, of homes being emptied by large banks while thousands are homeless should catch our attention. Something is seriously wrong.
According to the Nation Alliance to End Homelessness:
• There are 643,067 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States.
• Of that number, 238,110 are people in families, and
• 404,957 are individuals
• 17 percent of the homeless population is considered "chronically homeless," and
• 12 percent of the homeless population - 67,000 - are veterans.
"These numbers come from point-in-time counts, which are conducted, community by community, on a single night in January every other year. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities to submit this data every other year in order to qualify for federal homeless assistance funds. Many communities conduct counts more regularly."
The capitalist world is on a one track austerity mission and human needs are beside the point. Protection of profit is all that counts. When human needs are routinely ignored and when mounting evidence suggests that this is a zero sum game; that the more they get the less we get, it is time that the meek claim our inheritance.
Individual Needs
It may be argued that vital needs define human needs and apart from that, you could switch much of what are called 'needs' to the ‘wants’ category. This crude definition of needs is not sufficient however. Wheelchairs for those that need them may not be vital in any strict sense, but they are needs nonetheless.
People in Toronto need heat in the winter. They also need telephones and transportation. As technology and social structures change, people’s needs change. Kids in Toronto also need a myriad of items and services that hunter gatherer kids in the Amazon do not need. These may not be vital needs but they are not simply 'wants'; they are real needs. When a society slips beyond providing those needs it will pay an ugly price. When a society does not even provide what people need to survive, and a person dies from a lack of medicine, the price has already been paid.
To rise above barbarism, we have to move beyond providing food and shelter and hoping for the best. For people to develop and grow to their potential, obstacles to growth must be removed. If we don't provide these apparently non-vital needs, social problems grow exponentially. Apparent non-vital needs may be ignored and the price of that ignorance is increased numbers of children growing up in high stressed environments resulting in attachment problems, pathologies resulting from living in violent homes, pathologies resulting from living in addicted homes etc. which in turn results in far more addictions, attachment disorders, and violence in the future. And in the future costs associated with jails, rehabilitation programs, and mental health will not only cost in monetary terms, the problems will reduce our collective quality of life and standard of living. By being austere on the front end, we spend much more on the other end. Silent violence has very strange and very ugly, expensive karma.
Most are a single accident away from reliance on social services to provide for them. An accident may result in a physical or mental disability. Very few people are immune from having to potentially rely on the state or community for vital and other basic needs. People that have this misfortune and are not covered by insurance or if their insurance company finds a way out of paying the bills may be shocked to find out how barbaric and cold social welfare systems can be. And they are on a downward trajectory.
Collective Needs
Western nations have long held that freedom is the ultimate goal, the single most important issue worth fighting and dying for. This concern along with 'national security' concerns have driven many young men and women to their deaths - for profit. The key pre-requisite to freedom however is security. In real terms, freedom is predicated on economic and social security.
Society must take care of its material production needs. This includes production, processes of exchange, distribution and so on. We need to produce before we can consume. We also need to distribute adequately for everybody to consume adequately.
As the spectacle of the Republican debates for Presidential candidate revealed for the world to see, the candidates agreed, including Ron Paul, that people that need wheelchairs or food should fend for themselves or rely on the whims of philanthropy. This is another way of saying that the needs of the poor and disadvantaged are not our collective responsibility.
This extreme of selfishness and callous individualism has become the mantra of the extreme right which is parroted by mind numbing corporate media shills. From there an Orwellian group-think download indoctrinates citizens that only want to keep up with what's happening in the world. The result is, those that are exposed to American media learn to think in a certain way. The less exposure, the more we get to keep some semblance of elemental morality. As a result, statements that are jaw dropping over most of the world have become a bizarre and macabre 'normal' in the USA.
Outside the cult of monopoly capitalism, we understand the need to build and maintain a public commons that satisfies the vital needs of each and every individual. No human being should die due to his or her financial status. The fact that this is promoted and encouraged by elected politicians is unforgivable.
MWC news, Counterpunch, Global Research and alternative media in general are quite limited in persuading masses of people to notice what may appear to be obvious to you (a reader of MWC news). The bulk consume mainstream news and this is key to maintaining corporate callous indifference to human suffering. In fact, we all need to do a better job. This enemy is far worse than the terrorists and all the foreign threats they can't stop talking about. This enemy is very real and it is pretending to be your friend.
That is the very worst kind.
This blog is an archive of articles I've published in MWC News, Indymedia, and on Newsgroups.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Saturday, June 09, 2012
The Death Throes of Capitalism
Everything that is being said, written, and discussed throughout the financial press, mainstream media, and throughout closed door discussions between business leaders and politicians are 180 degrees wrong. They have swallowed a bill of goods that had been invented by neo liberal economists which legitimizes theft on the grandest of scales. And it is you they are stealing from. That is not to say the majority of these 'experts' are necessarily insincere or malevolent. We need to accept a fact that appears absurd at first. And that fact is; when it comes to economics, the stupidity of our political and business 'betters' is mind boggling.
To say that reading the financial press and trying to follow the machinations of economics is confusing is more than an understatement. It is an exercise in futility. They, the wizards and masters of the financial universe, really don't know what they are talking about. What is crucial is that we, the people, don't turn our backs on the fundamentals of political economy just because 'they' have taken the art of scam to whole new level of confusion and bewilderment. It is important that we look at, examine, and debate the fundamentals of what our material world consists of and how it's made.
The Value of Work
Everything around you that you own and use is the result of effort of a vast army of unseen workers. The material reality we live in and with is not only the basis of wealth, it is wealth. The great attribution error of our economic gurus is that wealth emanates 'from' the top and finds its way to the rest of us. In reality, the very genesis of wealth starts in the process of work. The erroneous assumption that we need thieves and parasites to make it all possible has us all in a bind with nowhere to turn. Maintaining this assumption has devastating consequences for us as societies and as individuals. We need to pay attention.
We find ourselves in the midst of a grand Globalization experiment gone bad. The promise is, it will get much worse. It is an economic experiment penned by Milton Freidman of the Chicago School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises and Freidrich Hayek of Austria, French economist Jean Baptiste Say, and generally the authors of what we call neo liberal economics.
On the question of value, these marginalists have parted company with Adam Smith and David Ricardo who knew that analysis of the role of work itself was central to scientific economic study to understand what it is that determines value. They tackled questions about what it is that encourages wealth to grow and what determines its distribution between classes in society. They saw an objective measure of value as a precondition for coming to terms with these problems. Smith suggested it was to be found in labour. Ricardo built his work from these notions and they developed the idea of use-value as opposed to exchange-value. This was to be elaborated on later by Karl Marx.
There is no doubt that that the shallow focus of the marginalists and the concept of marginal utility which serves as their basis for economic theory is valid on a micro level. It suits the interests of business. But when we consider the multiple confounding factors of the larger economy, marginal utility curves do not and cannot take us where we need to go. It is a superficial and vulgar view of economics. We must go deeper to discover what it is that determines value. We must go to Ricardo, Smith and for more depth, Marx.
The Limits of Capitalism
Aside from a passionate revolutionary condemnation of capitalism as an evil entity, we must consider the limits of what it can achieve as a motivator and player in our societies. The marginalists and capitalists themselves will not even suggest that it is meant to provide jobs, care for the poor, or bring the majority to a level of material satisfaction. It not only won't do those things, it can't do those things. It is limited in its utility and it has been unfairly cast into a role that it cannot live up to. Moreover, the notion that the so called 'market' will produce what is best for society is simply wrong. For instance, the vital needs of citizens such as medicine or health care, housing, food, whatever the case may be, may be lacking to a small or large degree. The easiest and most profitable way to invest however may be in the production of play stations or in buying and manipulating stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies and so on. (For the sake of staying with more grounded and less ethereal concepts, let us stick with the manufacture of commodities.) If play stations sales will result in the most profit, then research, energy, and investment will focus on play station development, manufacture, and distribution. Research and development related to human beings vital needs is relevant if profits can be made.
Capitalism goes beyond the possibility of marginalizing human needs. It is often an impediment to human needs and the security of human health. Again, this is not the fault of capitalism per se. It is a problem of misattribution and overdependence. As we can see in the bizarre health care configuration in the United States, if there is a way to make a buck, your needs will be served and served well. If not, good luck with the mirage Americans rely on for public health.
Capitalist motives are very good at compelling the production and provision of trinkets, shiny toys, and killer hamburgers. It is abysmal as an engine for the provision of human needs. It is our collective dependence on it that is the crux of the matter. It runs governments and rules the world. It even controls us down to the most basic elements of our lives.
We need to criticize and condemn our dependence on this rather simplistic method of making a buck; this sleight of hand. Like all things, overdependence leads to disaster. Like dependence on heroin, it will sicken and eventually kill the host body. It had been a solution, a source of energy for production and material security and has evolved to become our overarching collective nemesis. It has become a social sickness and has the characteristics of addiction.
Our Wealth is Our Work
Supply and demand graphs help explain the price of something in a given time or place but it does not explain why things have the exchange value they have. Adam Smith's labour theory of value has far more relevance to our understanding of how we value commodities. According to Smith, the exchange value of commodities is determined by the amount of labour measured in working hours necessary to make them (given current levels of technology). Bicycles sell for less than cars in part due to the fewer hours to making bicycles than cars. In the same period of time, a person may make many bicycles (notwithstanding technological factors) but only one car. Smith and other economists tested this theory by comparing prices of commodities with the necessary labour time needed to produce them. They found that while it does not explain the exact price of things, it does explain why they exchange for their approximate prices.
This theory takes the mystery out of the concept of value by relating exchange value to human labour. Consider the fact that the basis of capitalist economies is surplus value, that is, the hours of labour beyond what the worker is paid for and the value that is appropriated by the capitalist; that this is the basis of the wealth of capitalists. When we consider what can be done with labour power in terms of developing priorities, goods and services, we may then consider possibilities beyond the poor and short sighted rationality of the marginalists. We might abandon the superstitious nonsense that the theft of the value that is produced by labour as an indispensable ingredient to economic success. In other words, we can afford to abandon the notion that exploitation, greed, and theft are necessary evils for societies to function well. At that point, we may go beyond the limitations as well as the financial tyranny of capitalism itself.
The upshot is this: everything you see around you in terms of material goods is real, tangible wealth. You computer, you stove, your television are tangible items that make your life better. Money is but a means of getting them. It is not the actual wealth itself. And each and every one of the items that make your life better that you are willing to pay for is probably some form of modified rock or energy; modified by work. We can, minus our collective addiction, provide all the goods and services we all need and then some.
What Happened?
What Happened to the Golden Age of Capitalism? Not so long ago the trajectory was upward. The sky was the limit. Wages were increasing, social programs were being implemented everywhere, material deprivation seemed a thing of the past. What happened to the American Dream? The answer is, that is what it was; a dream. It was based in gross exploitation of the capitalist hinterland (formerly known as the Third World) where starvation and brutal oppression were essential ingredients to our soft lives. It was also based on the clever wealth sharing mechanisms of John Maynard Keynes which, due to the diminishing rate of profit (that's another story) as well as the need for capital to grow, are no longer a realistic option.
At this point capitalism has grown beyond Keynes. Keynes policies and recommendations have become archaic. Keynes provided capitalism with a longer shelf life than classical unbridled capitalist anarchy could have expected otherwise. But now, we're back to square one.
It also could be argued that defense spending has done more for the overall health of capitalism in the 20th century than Keynes distribution policies. It certainly cultivates and maintains hegemony. The United States government doesn't spend more than all nations on earth to save women from the Taliban.
At this point we can see that advanced capitalism is not living up anything close to stability or equilibrium. Capitalism is showing itself to be an anarchistic loose hose, flipping and whipping depending on the mood of speculators. Rather than stability, the economy is subject to the whims of a bizarre grand global casino game. Furthermore, it is becoming clear that what is good for profiteers is not good for the general population and vice versa. The stock market booms with news of bailouts or quantitative easing (printing money) for the wealthy or, when announcements of austerity measures against the general population are made.
The neo-classical experiment is on and we are in the midst of it. The patterns that are emerging looking grim. And from these patterns and hardships an awareness of the true nature of capitalism is growing.
A specter is haunting the planet…
To say that reading the financial press and trying to follow the machinations of economics is confusing is more than an understatement. It is an exercise in futility. They, the wizards and masters of the financial universe, really don't know what they are talking about. What is crucial is that we, the people, don't turn our backs on the fundamentals of political economy just because 'they' have taken the art of scam to whole new level of confusion and bewilderment. It is important that we look at, examine, and debate the fundamentals of what our material world consists of and how it's made.
The Value of Work
Everything around you that you own and use is the result of effort of a vast army of unseen workers. The material reality we live in and with is not only the basis of wealth, it is wealth. The great attribution error of our economic gurus is that wealth emanates 'from' the top and finds its way to the rest of us. In reality, the very genesis of wealth starts in the process of work. The erroneous assumption that we need thieves and parasites to make it all possible has us all in a bind with nowhere to turn. Maintaining this assumption has devastating consequences for us as societies and as individuals. We need to pay attention.
We find ourselves in the midst of a grand Globalization experiment gone bad. The promise is, it will get much worse. It is an economic experiment penned by Milton Freidman of the Chicago School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises and Freidrich Hayek of Austria, French economist Jean Baptiste Say, and generally the authors of what we call neo liberal economics.
On the question of value, these marginalists have parted company with Adam Smith and David Ricardo who knew that analysis of the role of work itself was central to scientific economic study to understand what it is that determines value. They tackled questions about what it is that encourages wealth to grow and what determines its distribution between classes in society. They saw an objective measure of value as a precondition for coming to terms with these problems. Smith suggested it was to be found in labour. Ricardo built his work from these notions and they developed the idea of use-value as opposed to exchange-value. This was to be elaborated on later by Karl Marx.
There is no doubt that that the shallow focus of the marginalists and the concept of marginal utility which serves as their basis for economic theory is valid on a micro level. It suits the interests of business. But when we consider the multiple confounding factors of the larger economy, marginal utility curves do not and cannot take us where we need to go. It is a superficial and vulgar view of economics. We must go deeper to discover what it is that determines value. We must go to Ricardo, Smith and for more depth, Marx.
The Limits of Capitalism
Aside from a passionate revolutionary condemnation of capitalism as an evil entity, we must consider the limits of what it can achieve as a motivator and player in our societies. The marginalists and capitalists themselves will not even suggest that it is meant to provide jobs, care for the poor, or bring the majority to a level of material satisfaction. It not only won't do those things, it can't do those things. It is limited in its utility and it has been unfairly cast into a role that it cannot live up to. Moreover, the notion that the so called 'market' will produce what is best for society is simply wrong. For instance, the vital needs of citizens such as medicine or health care, housing, food, whatever the case may be, may be lacking to a small or large degree. The easiest and most profitable way to invest however may be in the production of play stations or in buying and manipulating stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies and so on. (For the sake of staying with more grounded and less ethereal concepts, let us stick with the manufacture of commodities.) If play stations sales will result in the most profit, then research, energy, and investment will focus on play station development, manufacture, and distribution. Research and development related to human beings vital needs is relevant if profits can be made.
Capitalism goes beyond the possibility of marginalizing human needs. It is often an impediment to human needs and the security of human health. Again, this is not the fault of capitalism per se. It is a problem of misattribution and overdependence. As we can see in the bizarre health care configuration in the United States, if there is a way to make a buck, your needs will be served and served well. If not, good luck with the mirage Americans rely on for public health.
Capitalist motives are very good at compelling the production and provision of trinkets, shiny toys, and killer hamburgers. It is abysmal as an engine for the provision of human needs. It is our collective dependence on it that is the crux of the matter. It runs governments and rules the world. It even controls us down to the most basic elements of our lives.
We need to criticize and condemn our dependence on this rather simplistic method of making a buck; this sleight of hand. Like all things, overdependence leads to disaster. Like dependence on heroin, it will sicken and eventually kill the host body. It had been a solution, a source of energy for production and material security and has evolved to become our overarching collective nemesis. It has become a social sickness and has the characteristics of addiction.
Our Wealth is Our Work
Supply and demand graphs help explain the price of something in a given time or place but it does not explain why things have the exchange value they have. Adam Smith's labour theory of value has far more relevance to our understanding of how we value commodities. According to Smith, the exchange value of commodities is determined by the amount of labour measured in working hours necessary to make them (given current levels of technology). Bicycles sell for less than cars in part due to the fewer hours to making bicycles than cars. In the same period of time, a person may make many bicycles (notwithstanding technological factors) but only one car. Smith and other economists tested this theory by comparing prices of commodities with the necessary labour time needed to produce them. They found that while it does not explain the exact price of things, it does explain why they exchange for their approximate prices.
This theory takes the mystery out of the concept of value by relating exchange value to human labour. Consider the fact that the basis of capitalist economies is surplus value, that is, the hours of labour beyond what the worker is paid for and the value that is appropriated by the capitalist; that this is the basis of the wealth of capitalists. When we consider what can be done with labour power in terms of developing priorities, goods and services, we may then consider possibilities beyond the poor and short sighted rationality of the marginalists. We might abandon the superstitious nonsense that the theft of the value that is produced by labour as an indispensable ingredient to economic success. In other words, we can afford to abandon the notion that exploitation, greed, and theft are necessary evils for societies to function well. At that point, we may go beyond the limitations as well as the financial tyranny of capitalism itself.
The upshot is this: everything you see around you in terms of material goods is real, tangible wealth. You computer, you stove, your television are tangible items that make your life better. Money is but a means of getting them. It is not the actual wealth itself. And each and every one of the items that make your life better that you are willing to pay for is probably some form of modified rock or energy; modified by work. We can, minus our collective addiction, provide all the goods and services we all need and then some.
What Happened?
What Happened to the Golden Age of Capitalism? Not so long ago the trajectory was upward. The sky was the limit. Wages were increasing, social programs were being implemented everywhere, material deprivation seemed a thing of the past. What happened to the American Dream? The answer is, that is what it was; a dream. It was based in gross exploitation of the capitalist hinterland (formerly known as the Third World) where starvation and brutal oppression were essential ingredients to our soft lives. It was also based on the clever wealth sharing mechanisms of John Maynard Keynes which, due to the diminishing rate of profit (that's another story) as well as the need for capital to grow, are no longer a realistic option.
At this point capitalism has grown beyond Keynes. Keynes policies and recommendations have become archaic. Keynes provided capitalism with a longer shelf life than classical unbridled capitalist anarchy could have expected otherwise. But now, we're back to square one.
It also could be argued that defense spending has done more for the overall health of capitalism in the 20th century than Keynes distribution policies. It certainly cultivates and maintains hegemony. The United States government doesn't spend more than all nations on earth to save women from the Taliban.
At this point we can see that advanced capitalism is not living up anything close to stability or equilibrium. Capitalism is showing itself to be an anarchistic loose hose, flipping and whipping depending on the mood of speculators. Rather than stability, the economy is subject to the whims of a bizarre grand global casino game. Furthermore, it is becoming clear that what is good for profiteers is not good for the general population and vice versa. The stock market booms with news of bailouts or quantitative easing (printing money) for the wealthy or, when announcements of austerity measures against the general population are made.
The neo-classical experiment is on and we are in the midst of it. The patterns that are emerging looking grim. And from these patterns and hardships an awareness of the true nature of capitalism is growing.
A specter is haunting the planet…
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Nature of the War on Islam
The American state is asking you to harass, attack, and bully Muslims. And, you are doing it.
In America, there is an emerging, less than official, doctrine that places Muslims under the same spotlight where millions of Africans, Aboriginal Americans, Mexicans, and various other ethnic groups that have suffered a campaign of sustained and brutal racism. Victims have been attacked within the culture and the attacks have been not only accepted by the state, but in many cases the state has taken the initiative. That is what has been happening to Muslims since the collapse of the Soviet Union. State (official) antipathy against Muslims is growing and becoming more dangerous.
In this endeavour, Canada, the UK, and many European nations are working in concert with the United States.
With the exception of the enemy du jour, this is not new. The state has taken the initiative to single out and attack a particular ethnic group and have been doing so since the first colonies rooted in New England. Individuals that happen to be born into the group that the state deems a lower caste will be harassed, bullied, enslaved, beaten, raped, tortured and murdered. Once the state unleashes its many racist hounds, it only needs to play a supporting role. Lumpen-racists are happy to carry out the dirty work. History shows many willing accomplices have been found within the domestic, European population. They don't only support the state's nefarious view of the threatening or inferior population but have often taken their own initiatives as they have with Emmitt Till, Trayvon Martin, and countless others.
Understanding the Threat to America
According to Al Jazeera,Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley had been teaching a course at a military base in Norfolk, Virginia, entitled "Understanding the Threat to America" where he states that Geneva Conventions no longer apply when fighting Muslims. The course comes dangerously close to counselling genocide when it calls for teaching soldiers to engage in "total war" on Islam and to take the war on Islam to the civilian population "wherever necessary".
Rampant anti Muslim feelings through the American military are acknowledged by Morris Davis, a retired Air Force Colonel and past chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. Davis acknowledges that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that anti-Muslim feelings are widespread throughout the military. Davis states in an interview with Josh Rushing (Al Jazeera) that a significant number of people in the U.S. military have an attitude that says, 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim'. He describes Dooley as "the tip of the iceberg". Ibraham Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR (Muslim Civil Liberties Advocacy Organisation), echoed Davis view. CAIR itself was named as one of many Muslim organizations that have connections to HAMAS. Hamas has already been established as a terrorist organization and a threat to Israel and America by commentators through Western mainstream media. Hooper goes on to say that this type of anti-Muslim teaching is widespread throughout military and security organizations in the United States such as the CIA, the FBI, and DHS.
While this may be dismissed as military psychological indoctrination in a similar way that marines learned that Vietnamese 'gooks' were not human, the widespread attack on Muslims is far more sustained and pernicious. While this attack is not 'just like' the European demonizing of the 'menacing Jew' of 1930s, there is an undercurrent, a subtext, of shared similarities. Muslims are fast becoming the lowest caste on the Western rung. They are also being attacked along the same lines as alleged communists did under the suspicious gaze of Senator Joe McCarthy.
Participants in the course have been taught that the "historical precendents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are applicable to Mecca and Medina's destruction" and "Given the factual basis of what "Islamists" say they seek to impose on the world, the United States has come to accept that radical "true Islam" is both a political and military enemy to free people throughout the world.... It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self destruction."
Dooley also taught that Hamas has infiltrated the US government at the highest levels. The course material simply lies in order to make its main point; that many disparate Islamic groups are in cahoots with each other and their aim is to infiltrate the US government, to take over.
Although the official position of the Pentagon does not support this and no official anywhere within the American, Canadian, British or any government would openly agree, widespread antipathy toward Muslims throughout military and law enforcement organizations appears to be encouraged. There is no significant movement to see it as a problem or to eradicate it. On the other hand it is denied, minimized, or, Muslims are blamed for it.
Dooley has been suspended for this hate fueled presentation which implies the promotion of genocide. He still teaches at the military college however. The important point is that he isn't alone, he is one of many - too many in fact. His teaching material includes quotations from a variety of right wing media outlets and authors.
The state will deny or minimize their own racism and deny that Dooley's course reflects the official position of the state. Not many political leaders express the same overt messianic fervour. What politicians will say in public rarely lines up with what they really believe. To see what they think, we must look at their actions. Obama is far too polished to say anything that would make his PR handlers cringe. His actions however, give him away. He ignores the ongoing abuses of Palestinians, especially in Gaza. He has protected torturers, increased spying against Muslims, intensified and expanded the war against the Afghani people, dramatically increased the frequency and scope of drone murders in many Mid East locales, and he has given himself the power to kill, in a first degree murder kind of way, Muslims. He will not close Guantanamo. He is further curtailing free speech rights for Muslims and he is expanding wiretaps against them. He has justified a war against Libya citing human rights abuses and at the same time protects the brutal dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain. Behind the scenes, we can be sure him and Hillary Clinton are ensuring Egypt's return to the status of tame lapdog.
He is also threatening Iran with war and, like most attacks against Muslims, facts don't get in the way of a good story line (lie). Against all credible evidence available, he is pushing ahead against this Islamic nation as Bush has done against Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama continues to militarize his nation through speech, symbolism, and deed. He will not admit to being a war hawk but he is. He will not admit his hostility toward Muslims but it is obvious.
Separate Justice System for Muslims
In an article for the New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal suggests that the current justice system in the United States makes little distinction between Muslims and terrorists. There are, " Special detention centers for Muslims (Guantanamo Bay and the network of secret C.I.A. lockups, now said to be closed, where prisoners were almost routinely tortured); special trial procedures for Muslim prisoners (military tribunals); special allowances for agents dealing with Muslim suspects (extraordinary rendition, i.e. officially sanctioned kidnapping of foreigners)."
This, against a backdrop where Muslims are searched, followed, spied upon, and generally harassed by the state as well as citizens suggests an overarching system of widespread human rights abuses. The New York Police Department is becoming well known for its anti-Muslim witch hunts as are many other 'departments'.
Rosenthal points out in his article that the F.B.I., in response to an expose (by Wired magazine) of offensive and blatant anti-Muslim training materials which have been described by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois as “crude stereotypes of American Muslims and Arab Americans”, will not respond in any meaningful way. As the author states: "When confronted with abuses and misbehavior in the so-called “war on terror,” government agencies start with denial, follow up with a grudging admission of missteps and then refuse to hold anyone accountable."
This is the situation in the United States of America and in the UK/Europe the situation may be worse. Perhaps the most vocal and blatant politician (notwithstanding far right fascists) against Islam has been Tony Blair who seems to have no limits to his capacity in describing Islam and Muslims as a threat to Western civilization. Whether Mr. Blair intended it or not, he has energized extreme right wing nationalism in the UK. He has made it clear that Muslims are suspect. Today in the UK Muslims are under attack from lumpen-racists, media, and politicians.
The Rise of European Fascism
Western media have been pushing the Islamic threat and it is they, perhaps more than anything or anybody else, that have pushed Muslims in a very dangerous corner. As economic conditions deteriorate, the danger increases. Attacks on immigrants in general are easily encouraged in a climate of economic uncertainty and insecurity. It is this type of environment where nationalism and fascist sentiments thrive.
In the 1930s, in Europe, when economic instability compelled the press and politicians to urge citizens seek out lateral enemies (Jews, Gypsies, African Europeans) to distract citizens from horizontal enemies (the ultra wealthy), extreme and violent anti-Jewish, anti-African, anti-immigrant and anti-anything that 'isn't us' reactions followed culminating in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. Signs of a re-emergent fascism are on the rise throughout Europe as it had in the 30s. This time it will not be Jews but Muslims that pay the price.
In this backdrop, established, irresponsible, and hysterical political voices like that of Tony Blair make statements like “...there is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. You can’t take a risk with that happening.” Anders Breivik was listening and he acted. He was also listening to mainstream media, right wing alarmists, and various rightist and 'moderate' politicians spewing hatred against a religion of over one billion people. It is only a matter of time before deranged psychopaths pick up their cues from these 'legitimate' sources and run with it. And Breivik ran with it. He murdered, not Muslims, but what he perceived as leftists/Marxists for being soft on Muslims and immigration. He has declared that there is a conspiracy by Muslims aimed at taking control of Europe.
The very same political movement that killed Jews (because they were Jews and no other reason) in the 1930s, namely far right fascists, are now flirting with right wing Zionists and Zionists are flirting back. In a bizarre twist of political reality, they stand together against a common enemy. Tom Heneghan, writing for Reuters states: "Geert Wilders, whose populist far-right party supports the Dutch minority government, told Reuters last week (December 2010) he was organizing an "international freedom alliance" to link grass-roots groups active in "the fight against Islam.
Earlier this month, Wilders visited Israel and backed its West Bank settlements, saying Palestinians there should move to Jordan. Like-minded German, Austrian, Belgian, Swedish and other far-rightists were on their own Israel tour at the same time.
"Our culture is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism and (the Israelis) are fighting our fight," Wilders told Reuters in Amsterdam last week. "If Jerusalem falls, Amsterdam and New York will be next."
Heneghan makes the point that extreme attitudes against Muslims are creeping into mainstream political normalcy. He observes, "Campaigns aimed at Muslims have been gaining ground in Europe, most notably with the Swiss minaret ban last year and France's law this year against full facial veils in public, which Wilders said the Netherlands should copy next year.
Support for these steps has spread beyond anti-immigrant parties and toward the political center as globalization and the aging of Europe's population fuel voters' concerns about national sovereignty, according to a leading French analyst.
Political scientist Dominique Reynie said the financial crisis had prompted more voters to agree with the far right that their political elites were incompetent."
The right wing alliance with Zionists will provide them with legitimacy and support from quarters they would never gain trust with otherwise; namely Jews, the very same people they slaughtered two generations ago.
Far right zealots are in the margins in every corner of Europe from Russia to the UK. And as they stand in the margins and listen to the likes of the former Prime Minister, as they watch the murderous zeal of Barack Obama, and they listen to and watch mainstream news organizations demonize Islam, they are empowered and encouraged.
When established individuals and organizations are silently in cahoots with the extreme right; when they agree in hushed tones to fight Islam and to harm Muslim people, we all need to take notice. That is the first step and although it may seem insurmountable, it isn't. From there we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with people that are potential victims of cowardice and hatred. We need to stand up and defend them.
We need to imagine that we managed to travel back in time; we are standing in Europe in the 1930s. We know what's about to happen. We need to find a way to stop it before it gets out of control. We need to do it because it is possible, maybe even probable, that this is more than a metaphor.
In America, there is an emerging, less than official, doctrine that places Muslims under the same spotlight where millions of Africans, Aboriginal Americans, Mexicans, and various other ethnic groups that have suffered a campaign of sustained and brutal racism. Victims have been attacked within the culture and the attacks have been not only accepted by the state, but in many cases the state has taken the initiative. That is what has been happening to Muslims since the collapse of the Soviet Union. State (official) antipathy against Muslims is growing and becoming more dangerous.
In this endeavour, Canada, the UK, and many European nations are working in concert with the United States.
With the exception of the enemy du jour, this is not new. The state has taken the initiative to single out and attack a particular ethnic group and have been doing so since the first colonies rooted in New England. Individuals that happen to be born into the group that the state deems a lower caste will be harassed, bullied, enslaved, beaten, raped, tortured and murdered. Once the state unleashes its many racist hounds, it only needs to play a supporting role. Lumpen-racists are happy to carry out the dirty work. History shows many willing accomplices have been found within the domestic, European population. They don't only support the state's nefarious view of the threatening or inferior population but have often taken their own initiatives as they have with Emmitt Till, Trayvon Martin, and countless others.
Understanding the Threat to America
According to Al Jazeera,Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley had been teaching a course at a military base in Norfolk, Virginia, entitled "Understanding the Threat to America" where he states that Geneva Conventions no longer apply when fighting Muslims. The course comes dangerously close to counselling genocide when it calls for teaching soldiers to engage in "total war" on Islam and to take the war on Islam to the civilian population "wherever necessary".
Rampant anti Muslim feelings through the American military are acknowledged by Morris Davis, a retired Air Force Colonel and past chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. Davis acknowledges that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that anti-Muslim feelings are widespread throughout the military. Davis states in an interview with Josh Rushing (Al Jazeera) that a significant number of people in the U.S. military have an attitude that says, 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim'. He describes Dooley as "the tip of the iceberg". Ibraham Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR (Muslim Civil Liberties Advocacy Organisation), echoed Davis view. CAIR itself was named as one of many Muslim organizations that have connections to HAMAS. Hamas has already been established as a terrorist organization and a threat to Israel and America by commentators through Western mainstream media. Hooper goes on to say that this type of anti-Muslim teaching is widespread throughout military and security organizations in the United States such as the CIA, the FBI, and DHS.
While this may be dismissed as military psychological indoctrination in a similar way that marines learned that Vietnamese 'gooks' were not human, the widespread attack on Muslims is far more sustained and pernicious. While this attack is not 'just like' the European demonizing of the 'menacing Jew' of 1930s, there is an undercurrent, a subtext, of shared similarities. Muslims are fast becoming the lowest caste on the Western rung. They are also being attacked along the same lines as alleged communists did under the suspicious gaze of Senator Joe McCarthy.
Participants in the course have been taught that the "historical precendents
Dooley also taught that Hamas has infiltrated the US government at the highest levels. The course material simply lies in order to make its main point; that many disparate Islamic groups are in cahoots with each other and their aim is to infiltrate the US government, to take over.
Although the official position of the Pentagon does not support this and no official anywhere within the American, Canadian, British or any government would openly agree, widespread antipathy toward Muslims throughout military and law enforcement organizations appears to be encouraged. There is no significant movement to see it as a problem or to eradicate it. On the other hand it is denied, minimized, or, Muslims are blamed for it.
Dooley has been suspended for this hate fueled presentation which implies the promotion of genocide. He still teaches at the military college however. The important point is that he isn't alone, he is one of many - too many in fact. His teaching material includes quotations from a variety of right wing media outlets and authors.
The state will deny or minimize their own racism and deny that Dooley's course reflects the official position of the state. Not many political leaders express the same overt messianic fervour. What politicians will say in public rarely lines up with what they really believe. To see what they think, we must look at their actions. Obama is far too polished to say anything that would make his PR handlers cringe. His actions however, give him away. He ignores the ongoing abuses of Palestinians, especially in Gaza. He has protected torturers, increased spying against Muslims, intensified and expanded the war against the Afghani people, dramatically increased the frequency and scope of drone murders in many Mid East locales, and he has given himself the power to kill, in a first degree murder kind of way, Muslims. He will not close Guantanamo. He is further curtailing free speech rights for Muslims and he is expanding wiretaps against them. He has justified a war against Libya citing human rights abuses and at the same time protects the brutal dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain. Behind the scenes, we can be sure him and Hillary Clinton are ensuring Egypt's return to the status of tame lapdog.
He is also threatening Iran with war and, like most attacks against Muslims, facts don't get in the way of a good story line (lie). Against all credible evidence available, he is pushing ahead against this Islamic nation as Bush has done against Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama continues to militarize his nation through speech, symbolism, and deed. He will not admit to being a war hawk but he is. He will not admit his hostility toward Muslims but it is obvious.
Separate Justice System for Muslims
In an article for the New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal suggests that the current justice system in the United States makes little distinction between Muslims and terrorists. There are, " Special detention centers for Muslims (Guantanamo Bay and the network of secret C.I.A. lockups, now said to be closed, where prisoners were almost routinely tortured); special trial procedures for Muslim prisoners (military tribunals); special allowances for agents dealing with Muslim suspects (extraordinary rendition, i.e. officially sanctioned kidnapping of foreigners)."
This, against a backdrop where Muslims are searched, followed, spied upon, and generally harassed by the state as well as citizens suggests an overarching system of widespread human rights abuses. The New York Police Department is becoming well known for its anti-Muslim witch hunts as are many other 'departments'.
Rosenthal points out in his article that the F.B.I., in response to an expose (by Wired magazine) of offensive and blatant anti-Muslim training materials which have been described by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois as “crude stereotypes of American Muslims and Arab Americans”, will not respond in any meaningful way. As the author states: "When confronted with abuses and misbehavior in the so-called “war on terror,” government agencies start with denial, follow up with a grudging admission of missteps and then refuse to hold anyone accountable."
This is the situation in the United States of America and in the UK/Europe the situation may be worse. Perhaps the most vocal and blatant politician (notwithstanding far right fascists) against Islam has been Tony Blair who seems to have no limits to his capacity in describing Islam and Muslims as a threat to Western civilization. Whether Mr. Blair intended it or not, he has energized extreme right wing nationalism in the UK. He has made it clear that Muslims are suspect. Today in the UK Muslims are under attack from lumpen-racists, media, and politicians.
The Rise of European Fascism
Western media have been pushing the Islamic threat and it is they, perhaps more than anything or anybody else, that have pushed Muslims in a very dangerous corner. As economic conditions deteriorate, the danger increases. Attacks on immigrants in general are easily encouraged in a climate of economic uncertainty and insecurity. It is this type of environment where nationalism and fascist sentiments thrive.
In the 1930s, in Europe, when economic instability compelled the press and politicians to urge citizens seek out lateral enemies (Jews, Gypsies, African Europeans) to distract citizens from horizontal enemies (the ultra wealthy), extreme and violent anti-Jewish, anti-African, anti-immigrant and anti-anything that 'isn't us' reactions followed culminating in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. Signs of a re-emergent fascism are on the rise throughout Europe as it had in the 30s. This time it will not be Jews but Muslims that pay the price.
In this backdrop, established, irresponsible, and hysterical political voices like that of Tony Blair make statements like “...there is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. You can’t take a risk with that happening.” Anders Breivik was listening and he acted. He was also listening to mainstream media, right wing alarmists, and various rightist and 'moderate' politicians spewing hatred against a religion of over one billion people. It is only a matter of time before deranged psychopaths pick up their cues from these 'legitimate' sources and run with it. And Breivik ran with it. He murdered, not Muslims, but what he perceived as leftists/Marxists for being soft on Muslims and immigration. He has declared that there is a conspiracy by Muslims aimed at taking control of Europe.
The very same political movement that killed Jews (because they were Jews and no other reason) in the 1930s, namely far right fascists, are now flirting with right wing Zionists and Zionists are flirting back. In a bizarre twist of political reality, they stand together against a common enemy. Tom Heneghan, writing for Reuters states: "Geert Wilders, whose populist far-right party supports the Dutch minority government, told Reuters last week (December 2010) he was organizing an "international freedom alliance" to link grass-roots groups active in "the fight against Islam.
Earlier this month, Wilders visited Israel and backed its West Bank settlements, saying Palestinians there should move to Jordan. Like-minded German, Austrian, Belgian, Swedish and other far-rightists were on their own Israel tour at the same time.
"Our culture is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism and (the Israelis) are fighting our fight," Wilders told Reuters in Amsterdam last week. "If Jerusalem falls, Amsterdam and New York will be next."
Heneghan makes the point that extreme attitudes against Muslims are creeping into mainstream political normalcy. He observes, "Campaigns aimed at Muslims have been gaining ground in Europe, most notably with the Swiss minaret ban last year and France's law this year against full facial veils in public, which Wilders said the Netherlands should copy next year.
Support for these steps has spread beyond anti-immigrant parties and toward the political center as globalization and the aging of Europe's population fuel voters' concerns about national sovereignty, according to a leading French analyst.
Political scientist Dominique Reynie said the financial crisis had prompted more voters to agree with the far right that their political elites were incompetent."
The right wing alliance with Zionists will provide them with legitimacy and support from quarters they would never gain trust with otherwise; namely Jews, the very same people they slaughtered two generations ago.
Far right zealots are in the margins in every corner of Europe from Russia to the UK. And as they stand in the margins and listen to the likes of the former Prime Minister, as they watch the murderous zeal of Barack Obama, and they listen to and watch mainstream news organizations demonize Islam, they are empowered and encouraged.
When established individuals and organizations are silently in cahoots with the extreme right; when they agree in hushed tones to fight Islam and to harm Muslim people, we all need to take notice. That is the first step and although it may seem insurmountable, it isn't. From there we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with people that are potential victims of cowardice and hatred. We need to stand up and defend them.
We need to imagine that we managed to travel back in time; we are standing in Europe in the 1930s. We know what's about to happen. We need to find a way to stop it before it gets out of control. We need to do it because it is possible, maybe even probable, that this is more than a metaphor.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
La Gratuite Scolaire
The students of Quebec are not only fighting tuition hikes in their own province, they are leading the charge against crippling austerity measures forced upon citizens throughout the capitalist world. The importance, the vital necessity, of fighting austerity is reflected in this single issue.
If we fail to succeed in this fight, we will be aiding and abetting the criminal and wholesale theft of and destruction of a standard of life that is rightfully ours and it will be lost to our children. The legacy of this will be a legacy of barbarism. The importance of this struggle cannot be overstated. The students are fighting one of many fronts.
The Right to Education
Prior to Sputnik, access to higher education was almost exclusively a privilege of the monied classes. The Russians beat the Americans into space and as a result, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 was established in the United States. Other Western nations followed suit and the importance of higher education was widely recognized. Funding into scientific research and development and education in general was now a top priority.
It is no coincidence that access to education, health care, and the erosion of public infrastructure throughout the Western world follows the collapse of the Soviet Union. Competition between the two superpowers was directly and indirectly beneficial to citizens in many countries, most notably in the West. The disappearance of the evil Red menace, our collective nemesis, has ended the compulsion of Western governments to provide for a healthy 'commons'.
Access to higher education should be based on the individuals capacity to succeed. It should never be based on financial means. The latter only entrenches class privilege and divisions and it assigns scores of highly intelligent members of the working class to a life where they do not utilize their capacity. This is not only detrimental to the individual, it is detrimental to society as a whole; the end result being an educated class, many of which are in over their heads and an uneducated class, many of which resent their occupations and lives. Most of us know many examples of both in spite of access to student loans and bursaries for working class people.
The principle we need to uphold is that if an individual has the capacity and desire to be a doctor, an engineer, or a rocket scientist the individual should be granted the means and the encouragement to do so.
The Student Strike
The intensity and the breadth of the strike is impressive. It has been energetic and sustained now for almost three months and shows no signs of slowing down. The protests are not only shaking the Liberal government of Jean Charest, it is becoming internationally recognized a force to be reckoned with. For his part, Charest has conceded that tuition hikes will proceed at a slower pace than was planned. He aims to appear to kick the can down the road and let the less formidable ten year olds deal with it. Charest is offering to spread tuition hikes over seven years instead of five, adding a paltry $35 million in bursaries, linking student loan payback to post graduation income, and several other fuzzy concessions that amount to lies. The offer is right called by student organizers what it is; an insult.
In spite of attempts by establishment media to divide students and turn public opinion against them, the students of Quebec are showing remarkable integrity, solidarity, and collective intelligence. The ruling Liberals had aimed to separate the largest of student groups, the CLASSE, by forcing them to humility after a constituency office was invaded. The Liberals demanded they denounce the incident. Charest is refusing to negotiate with CLASSE. Student federations involved responded by supporting CLASSE. They point out that such a denunciation would require an agreement by their congress.
This type of divide and conquer strategy is used by the state to divide strong social movements and to gain control of them. The issue is not violence on the part of the students. It is about government gaining control. In all protest and political movements, the state will utilize several strategies to weaken movement and control the outcome. They will be infiltrated by agent provocateurs, they will be criticized as extremist and unreasonable by the media, they will be arrested and attacked by police and/or military. The state will do its utmost to break solidarity. The student strikes in Quebec are certainly the targets of such campaigns and the insult offered up by Charest is a tactical move to divide the students.
For its part, CLASSE appear to be a highly sophisticated organization. Their aim is beyond freezing tuition rates. Their aim is la gratuite scolaire, free and universal access to post secondary education. They are well organized and appear to be on top of state strategies and tactics that aim to crush them.
These are days of increasingly aggressive attacks on unions and the working class in general. Wages are being slashed and infrastructure is crumbling. Profits are at an all time high on the backs of average citizens. Unions and the Occupy movement need to join in solidarity with the protesters.
Canada and Quebec
In spite of established Canadian media and politicians proclivities, Canadians and especially the people of Quebec are not subservient, docile, quisling whores. Canadians see inequality as 'the' major social issue. A recent poll suggests that Canadians are willing to pay more in taxes to lessen the advantages the wealthy enjoy over the working class. 64% of Canadians are willing to pay more taxes to save social programs. Even Conservative voters tend to agree. 58% of these agree that they would pay more taxes to save social programs.
Right wing organizations like the Fraser Institute, CTV News and other established corporate media have been working overtime for decades to indoctrinate Canadians to their way of thinking. Canadians have been hearing the corporate right scream hysterical about the evil of taxation, the pernicious nature of the 'welfare state', the glories of unbridled free enterprise and so on. In spite of all this, Canadians remain even more vigilant about maintaining socialized health care and are highly sensitive to fairness and the public good. The more the corporate right and their politicians establish unbridled neo liberal financial anarchy, the more left wing Canadians turn.
The protests will likely ensure that Quebec will remain the province in Canada and region of North America with the most accessible post secondary education. The citizens of Quebec will have the greatest potential for the Sputnik of the 21st century. Through access to universities, is they that will receive the greatest quantity and as a result, the greatest quality education.
They are already teaching us a valuable lesson.
If we fail to succeed in this fight, we will be aiding and abetting the criminal and wholesale theft of and destruction of a standard of life that is rightfully ours and it will be lost to our children. The legacy of this will be a legacy of barbarism. The importance of this struggle cannot be overstated. The students are fighting one of many fronts.
The Right to Education
Prior to Sputnik, access to higher education was almost exclusively a privilege of the monied classes. The Russians beat the Americans into space and as a result, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 was established in the United States. Other Western nations followed suit and the importance of higher education was widely recognized. Funding into scientific research and development and education in general was now a top priority.
It is no coincidence that access to education, health care, and the erosion of public infrastructure throughout the Western world follows the collapse of the Soviet Union. Competition between the two superpowers was directly and indirectly beneficial to citizens in many countries, most notably in the West. The disappearance of the evil Red menace, our collective nemesis, has ended the compulsion of Western governments to provide for a healthy 'commons'.
Access to higher education should be based on the individuals capacity to succeed. It should never be based on financial means. The latter only entrenches class privilege and divisions and it assigns scores of highly intelligent members of the working class to a life where they do not utilize their capacity. This is not only detrimental to the individual, it is detrimental to society as a whole; the end result being an educated class, many of which are in over their heads and an uneducated class, many of which resent their occupations and lives. Most of us know many examples of both in spite of access to student loans and bursaries for working class people.
The principle we need to uphold is that if an individual has the capacity and desire to be a doctor, an engineer, or a rocket scientist the individual should be granted the means and the encouragement to do so.
The Student Strike
The intensity and the breadth of the strike is impressive. It has been energetic and sustained now for almost three months and shows no signs of slowing down. The protests are not only shaking the Liberal government of Jean Charest, it is becoming internationally recognized a force to be reckoned with. For his part, Charest has conceded that tuition hikes will proceed at a slower pace than was planned. He aims to appear to kick the can down the road and let the less formidable ten year olds deal with it. Charest is offering to spread tuition hikes over seven years instead of five, adding a paltry $35 million in bursaries, linking student loan payback to post graduation income, and several other fuzzy concessions that amount to lies. The offer is right called by student organizers what it is; an insult.
In spite of attempts by establishment media to divide students and turn public opinion against them, the students of Quebec are showing remarkable integrity, solidarity, and collective intelligence. The ruling Liberals had aimed to separate the largest of student groups, the CLASSE, by forcing them to humility after a constituency office was invaded. The Liberals demanded they denounce the incident. Charest is refusing to negotiate with CLASSE. Student federations involved responded by supporting CLASSE. They point out that such a denunciation would require an agreement by their congress.
This type of divide and conquer strategy is used by the state to divide strong social movements and to gain control of them. The issue is not violence on the part of the students. It is about government gaining control. In all protest and political movements, the state will utilize several strategies to weaken movement and control the outcome. They will be infiltrated by agent provocateurs, they will be criticized as extremist and unreasonable by the media, they will be arrested and attacked by police and/or military. The state will do its utmost to break solidarity. The student strikes in Quebec are certainly the targets of such campaigns and the insult offered up by Charest is a tactical move to divide the students.
For its part, CLASSE appear to be a highly sophisticated organization. Their aim is beyond freezing tuition rates. Their aim is la gratuite scolaire, free and universal access to post secondary education. They are well organized and appear to be on top of state strategies and tactics that aim to crush them.
These are days of increasingly aggressive attacks on unions and the working class in general. Wages are being slashed and infrastructure is crumbling. Profits are at an all time high on the backs of average citizens. Unions and the Occupy movement need to join in solidarity with the protesters.
Canada and Quebec
In spite of established Canadian media and politicians proclivities, Canadians and especially the people of Quebec are not subservient, docile, quisling whores. Canadians see inequality as 'the' major social issue. A recent poll suggests that Canadians are willing to pay more in taxes to lessen the advantages the wealthy enjoy over the working class. 64% of Canadians are willing to pay more taxes to save social programs. Even Conservative voters tend to agree. 58% of these agree that they would pay more taxes to save social programs.
Right wing organizations like the Fraser Institute, CTV News and other established corporate media have been working overtime for decades to indoctrinate Canadians to their way of thinking. Canadians have been hearing the corporate right scream hysterical about the evil of taxation, the pernicious nature of the 'welfare state', the glories of unbridled free enterprise and so on. In spite of all this, Canadians remain even more vigilant about maintaining socialized health care and are highly sensitive to fairness and the public good. The more the corporate right and their politicians establish unbridled neo liberal financial anarchy, the more left wing Canadians turn.
The protests will likely ensure that Quebec will remain the province in Canada and region of North America with the most accessible post secondary education. The citizens of Quebec will have the greatest potential for the Sputnik of the 21st century. Through access to universities, is they that will receive the greatest quantity and as a result, the greatest quality education.
They are already teaching us a valuable lesson.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Fatal Betrayal
Benjamin Netinyahu is urging an Iranian attack on Israel. He is begging for it.
He has recently made statements that are parroted and backed up throughout mainstream media that state, clearly, Iran should be attacked. A pre-emptive attack will safeguard Israelis against an Iranian attack against them. Iran is, according to Netinyahu, a threat to Israel and he makes it clear, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that Israel is a threat to Iran. It follows then, that he would have no ethical objection to an Iranian attack on Israel.
It is quite possible that Benjamin Netinyahu presents more serious threat to Israel than he does to Iran.
International Law
Pre emptive war or, preventative war, is clearly against International Law. Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits all members from using or threatening to use pre-emptive war: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Further to this, Article 51 states that self defense is acceptable only if an armed attack has occurred. These principles are vitally important if we intend a future without capricious barbarism.
Detractors will argue that the United States and Israel are modern democracies and rightfully have a role to police the region and the world; most especially the backward and barbaric Middle East. These notions ignore historical and contemporary reality. The Middle East was civilized and at relative peace long before the European tribes got there. And the killing and the oppression that are current in the Middle East is the handiwork of Occidental Empires.
Certainly, the United States and Israel should not be given benefit of doubt considering the death, oppression, and suffering that is occurring and has occurred throughout the Islamic world at their hands.
Dangerous Precedents
Aside from International Law and aside from moral and ethical considerations civilized nations should hold to, there is the equally compelling strategic weakness underlying this whole affair from the point of view of the average Israeli citizen. Their Prime Minister is not only proclaiming to the world that Israel can and should use pre-emptive force against any nation that Israel feels a threat from, he is also telling the whole world that doing so against Israel is fair game. This is clearly implied when he issues threats against Iran. In other words, he is telling Iran you'd better build nuclear arms and you better do it quick because we are going to attack you; it's just a matter of time. He is also suggesting to other nations, including nuclear armed Pakistan, that attacking Israel is not only a good idea, it's a matter of survival and it's perfectly acceptable.
No serious analyst considers Iran a threat to Israel. Hawkish speech spews from the mouths of simple shills and war mongers, or from consequential players with serious intent. Iran is not realistically in a position to build nuclear weapons and if had them it could never use them against Israel. One reason is that it would be suicide. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) during the cold war it worked between the USA and the USSR for a reason.
The right wing in Israel tell the world that Israel feels threatened over some ambiguous comments made by Ahmadinejad in an interview; comments that were actually not a threat to the nation of Israel. They believe they can justify waging war because possibly, maybe, someday, Iran might have nuclear weapons and if they do, possibly, maybe, someday, they could attack Israel. Think of how threatened Iranians feel at the moment when month after month, week after week, and day after day both Israel and Western powers issue both implicit and explicit threats against them.
The Real Threat
The upshot is - it is a lie. Iran presents no threat to Israel. Israel and/or Washington are intent on waging war against Iran and we are not being told the real reasons for it. We were not told why Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked. As Buffalo Springfield warned in the 60s; 'There's something's happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear'.
Currently, in the midst of Obama and Netinyahu playing an ominous 'good cop bad cop' routine against Iran, the Israelis are actively planning for war. They are getting absolutely manic about it:
"Israel is to test an advanced anti-ballistic missile system in the coming weeks, inevitably fuelling speculation about preparations for a possible military confrontation with Iran.
The announcement that the first test of the Arrow 3 interceptor system would be performed "in the near future" was made as the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, flew to the US ahead of a crucial meeting with President Barack Obama at which Iran will top the agenda. Netanyahu is expected to press for a clear US commitment to military action if diplomacy and sanctions fail."
In the face of the lies and the wars that follow the lies, we really need to analyze what has occurred and what is occurring. We need to look for patterns. Something's happening beneath the surface. The real intent may be discovered if we examine action and not words, if we examine outcomes instead of the official rationale.
Ominous Patterns
It may be that the United States had no intention of destroying the Taliban or Al Qeada. If we look at outcomes, we may conclude; on the contrary. The pattern suggests that the Americans aim to empower the clerics throughout the Middle East and to destroy the more secular and rationally based governments. Rational based, quasi democratic, and secular lite governments are being toppled in rapid secession. Even America's close ally and friend, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, has fallen to be replaced with what will probably be a more cleric based government. While this may not have been engineered by Washington, it may play into their hands if they are pushing secular governments out in favour of theocracies.
Syrian rebels are positioned to oust Bashar Al Assad of Syria; another more or less secular leader with a measure of control of the nation that may be unacceptable to Washington. It is worth noting that Assad, a Bathist (as was Saddam Hussein) has been somewhat resistant to American style economic liberalization.
To suggest the United States simply reacts like the hapless buffoons they appear to be would be to make an enormous error in judgment. They certainly have a game plan. Naturally, it isn't shared with the public. We can almost predict the aims of Washington by watching Anderson Cooper on CNN. Whenever his handlers tell him to put forth a full righteous sneer at a particular leader or government, you can almost be sure that leader will soon be dead. He sneered at Gaddafi and various others. It appears to be a death sneer. And now he is sneering at Assad.
There is speculation that the Americans are supporting the uprising and may be behind the uprising in Syria. It's hard to say. What is easy to say is that it fits into a larger pattern.
Within that pattern, the Taliban are stronger than ever. Al Qeada, an element foreign to Iraq and an element that Saddam Hussein would have summarily executed with brutal force, is now operating in Iraq on a large scale. They will soon gather strength in Syria. That is, if this pattern has merit.
Washington's reasons for courting and facilitating emerging regressive Islamic dictatorships over secularists is unclear. It is likely the same reasoning that places politicians in Washington and London in lock step with the vicious established religious dictators of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and so on.
If the pattern continues, all hints of rational based and possibly progressive elements to governments in the Middle East will be wiped out in favour of a return to regressive and absolute feudal rule. The destabilization of Iran through internal dissent, a government that is both ruled through democratic elections as well as the Leader of the Revolution, or, Supreme Leader, may be seen as futile. Assassination may also be futile and pointless. Destabilization through war (for whatever reason) may get them to their objectives. America had a measure of control of Iran under the CIA installation of the Shah that was comfortable for them. The combination of a cleric and a democratically elected government may be impossible for them to control.
Although it is difficult to imagine what the end game may be, if these observations of patterns have any merit, it would also suggest that promoting tremendous instability into the region is another desired outcome. An era of destabilization rife with terrorism and competing religious factions waging civil war against each other may be in the cards. An environment like that would ostensibly require strict control and those controllers (dictators) may be the optimal choice for Washington.
Where Does Israel Fit?
Israel is standing in quicksand if this pattern is what it appears to be.
As it is, the demise of Mubarak, the destabilization of Syria, the ongoing abuse of Palestinians and so on do nothing to secure the safety of the Israeli people. As is often the case, what is promoted as security is anything but. The ongoing destabilization of the region and the empowerment of clerics is doing nothing to help long term Israeli security. Attacking Iran may push their situation over a tipping point.
If the people of Israel think that Washington is loyal to anything or anybody, they need to really examine history. They need to examine what happened to various puppet/minions, from every corner of the globe when they are no longer useful to the designs of Empire. Loyal - they are not. Ruthless - they are. When your enemies are more useful to them than you are, you are finished.
The right wing in Israel has been shocked by what they see as America's betrayal of Mubarak. They shouldn't be. America bears no loyalty, not even to its own working classes. The state made no apologies when it facilitated the export of millions of American jobs offshore for profit. They are beholden only to those that have bought and paid for the President and Congress. And when you, dear Israeli citizen, are no longer useful, you too will be shocked. Between now and then, reach out to your Palestinian brothers and sisters, to your Iranian and Arab comrades. They need you and the day is coming when you will need them. Say 'no' to war against Iran.
Eventually, we may see an aging, sneering, Anderson Cooper outraged at Israel's considerable crimes against humanity. Don't give him anything to sneer at.
He has recently made statements that are parroted and backed up throughout mainstream media that state, clearly, Iran should be attacked. A pre-emptive attack will safeguard Israelis against an Iranian attack against them. Iran is, according to Netinyahu, a threat to Israel and he makes it clear, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that Israel is a threat to Iran. It follows then, that he would have no ethical objection to an Iranian attack on Israel.
It is quite possible that Benjamin Netinyahu presents more serious threat to Israel than he does to Iran.
International Law
Pre emptive war or, preventative war, is clearly against International Law. Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibits all members from using or threatening to use pre-emptive war: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Further to this, Article 51 states that self defense is acceptable only if an armed attack has occurred. These principles are vitally important if we intend a future without capricious barbarism.
Detractors will argue that the United States and Israel are modern democracies and rightfully have a role to police the region and the world; most especially the backward and barbaric Middle East. These notions ignore historical and contemporary reality. The Middle East was civilized and at relative peace long before the European tribes got there. And the killing and the oppression that are current in the Middle East is the handiwork of Occidental Empires.
Certainly, the United States and Israel should not be given benefit of doubt considering the death, oppression, and suffering that is occurring and has occurred throughout the Islamic world at their hands.
Dangerous Precedents
Aside from International Law and aside from moral and ethical considerations civilized nations should hold to, there is the equally compelling strategic weakness underlying this whole affair from the point of view of the average Israeli citizen. Their Prime Minister is not only proclaiming to the world that Israel can and should use pre-emptive force against any nation that Israel feels a threat from, he is also telling the whole world that doing so against Israel is fair game. This is clearly implied when he issues threats against Iran. In other words, he is telling Iran you'd better build nuclear arms and you better do it quick because we are going to attack you; it's just a matter of time. He is also suggesting to other nations, including nuclear armed Pakistan, that attacking Israel is not only a good idea, it's a matter of survival and it's perfectly acceptable.
No serious analyst considers Iran a threat to Israel. Hawkish speech spews from the mouths of simple shills and war mongers, or from consequential players with serious intent. Iran is not realistically in a position to build nuclear weapons and if had them it could never use them against Israel. One reason is that it would be suicide. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) during the cold war it worked between the USA and the USSR for a reason.
The right wing in Israel tell the world that Israel feels threatened over some ambiguous comments made by Ahmadinejad in an interview; comments that were actually not a threat to the nation of Israel. They believe they can justify waging war because possibly, maybe, someday, Iran might have nuclear weapons and if they do, possibly, maybe, someday, they could attack Israel. Think of how threatened Iranians feel at the moment when month after month, week after week, and day after day both Israel and Western powers issue both implicit and explicit threats against them.
The Real Threat
The upshot is - it is a lie. Iran presents no threat to Israel. Israel and/or Washington are intent on waging war against Iran and we are not being told the real reasons for it. We were not told why Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked. As Buffalo Springfield warned in the 60s; 'There's something's happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear'.
Currently, in the midst of Obama and Netinyahu playing an ominous 'good cop bad cop' routine against Iran, the Israelis are actively planning for war. They are getting absolutely manic about it:
"Israel is to test an advanced anti-ballistic missile system in the coming weeks, inevitably fuelling speculation about preparations for a possible military confrontation with Iran.
The announcement that the first test of the Arrow 3 interceptor system would be performed "in the near future" was made as the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, flew to the US ahead of a crucial meeting with President Barack Obama at which Iran will top the agenda. Netanyahu is expected to press for a clear US commitment to military action if diplomacy and sanctions fail."
In the face of the lies and the wars that follow the lies, we really need to analyze what has occurred and what is occurring. We need to look for patterns. Something's happening beneath the surface. The real intent may be discovered if we examine action and not words, if we examine outcomes instead of the official rationale.
Ominous Patterns
It may be that the United States had no intention of destroying the Taliban or Al Qeada. If we look at outcomes, we may conclude; on the contrary. The pattern suggests that the Americans aim to empower the clerics throughout the Middle East and to destroy the more secular and rationally based governments. Rational based, quasi democratic, and secular lite governments are being toppled in rapid secession. Even America's close ally and friend, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, has fallen to be replaced with what will probably be a more cleric based government. While this may not have been engineered by Washington, it may play into their hands if they are pushing secular governments out in favour of theocracies.
Syrian rebels are positioned to oust Bashar Al Assad of Syria; another more or less secular leader with a measure of control of the nation that may be unacceptable to Washington. It is worth noting that Assad, a Bathist (as was Saddam Hussein) has been somewhat resistant to American style economic liberalization.
To suggest the United States simply reacts like the hapless buffoons they appear to be would be to make an enormous error in judgment. They certainly have a game plan. Naturally, it isn't shared with the public. We can almost predict the aims of Washington by watching Anderson Cooper on CNN. Whenever his handlers tell him to put forth a full righteous sneer at a particular leader or government, you can almost be sure that leader will soon be dead. He sneered at Gaddafi and various others. It appears to be a death sneer. And now he is sneering at Assad.
There is speculation that the Americans are supporting the uprising and may be behind the uprising in Syria. It's hard to say. What is easy to say is that it fits into a larger pattern.
Within that pattern, the Taliban are stronger than ever. Al Qeada, an element foreign to Iraq and an element that Saddam Hussein would have summarily executed with brutal force, is now operating in Iraq on a large scale. They will soon gather strength in Syria. That is, if this pattern has merit.
Washington's reasons for courting and facilitating emerging regressive Islamic dictatorships over secularists is unclear. It is likely the same reasoning that places politicians in Washington and London in lock step with the vicious established religious dictators of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and so on.
If the pattern continues, all hints of rational based and possibly progressive elements to governments in the Middle East will be wiped out in favour of a return to regressive and absolute feudal rule. The destabilization of Iran through internal dissent, a government that is both ruled through democratic elections as well as the Leader of the Revolution, or, Supreme Leader, may be seen as futile. Assassination may also be futile and pointless. Destabilization through war (for whatever reason) may get them to their objectives. America had a measure of control of Iran under the CIA installation of the Shah that was comfortable for them. The combination of a cleric and a democratically elected government may be impossible for them to control.
Although it is difficult to imagine what the end game may be, if these observations of patterns have any merit, it would also suggest that promoting tremendous instability into the region is another desired outcome. An era of destabilization rife with terrorism and competing religious factions waging civil war against each other may be in the cards. An environment like that would ostensibly require strict control and those controllers (dictators) may be the optimal choice for Washington.
Where Does Israel Fit?
Israel is standing in quicksand if this pattern is what it appears to be.
As it is, the demise of Mubarak, the destabilization of Syria, the ongoing abuse of Palestinians and so on do nothing to secure the safety of the Israeli people. As is often the case, what is promoted as security is anything but. The ongoing destabilization of the region and the empowerment of clerics is doing nothing to help long term Israeli security. Attacking Iran may push their situation over a tipping point.
If the people of Israel think that Washington is loyal to anything or anybody, they need to really examine history. They need to examine what happened to various puppet/minions, from every corner of the globe when they are no longer useful to the designs of Empire. Loyal - they are not. Ruthless - they are. When your enemies are more useful to them than you are, you are finished.
The right wing in Israel has been shocked by what they see as America's betrayal of Mubarak. They shouldn't be. America bears no loyalty, not even to its own working classes. The state made no apologies when it facilitated the export of millions of American jobs offshore for profit. They are beholden only to those that have bought and paid for the President and Congress. And when you, dear Israeli citizen, are no longer useful, you too will be shocked. Between now and then, reach out to your Palestinian brothers and sisters, to your Iranian and Arab comrades. They need you and the day is coming when you will need them. Say 'no' to war against Iran.
Eventually, we may see an aging, sneering, Anderson Cooper outraged at Israel's considerable crimes against humanity. Don't give him anything to sneer at.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Wanted For Murder: Barack Obama
On February 8 (2012), eight young boys were slaughtered by American bombs as they tried to keep warm as they tended sheep. NATO apologized and excused themselves by saying, " “The decision to bomb this group was made because they were seen as adult-sized and moving in a tactical fashion", according to the New York Times. Relatives of the boys said that one boy was 12 and several others were younger. NATO countered this: “Our view is that initial assessment suggests they that they are closer to 15 to 16 with one older.”
This is not an isolated event. While MWC readers know this is not an isolated event, those that rely on mainstream media for their news probably don't know about this and the ongoing NATO atrocities that have been happening with disturbing regularity over the past number of years.
On February 4 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report entitled, "Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals".
The report states that since Obama took office three years ago, "between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners."
The report also states that unmanned Predator or Reaper strikes occur in Pakistan averaging one every four days. John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, argues that the US has the right to unilaterally strike terrorists anywhere in the world, not just what he called ‘hot battlefields’. The targeting of rescuers after an initial attack as well as funerals is clearly a deliberate massacre of civilians.
Many legal experts disagree with Brennan. "Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said killing people at a rescue site may have no legal justification.
‘Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution’, she said. ‘We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.’
Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.
Overall, there have been approximately 3,000 killed in drone strikes and 175 of those killed are reported to be children. Of 314 strikes, 262 were carried out by Obama.
The Crime
As human rights abuses go, as war crimes go, as crimes against humanity go, the dropping of bombs on populated areas is among the most egregious methods of mass murder in the history of humanity. Aside from recent drone attacks in Middle Eastern countries, many thousands have been slaughtered by NATO or American bombs in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and all the watchdogs that have the self appointed responsibility for raising the alarm about human rights abuses seem to overlook the dropping of bombs on civilians. They mention it when its status as a crime is not controversial but considering what is actually happening, perhaps it's fair to say they don't want to rock the American boat. The civilians that are killed in these bomb attacks are dead as surely as the Jews that died in Hitler's ovens. They live in terror as the people of New York felt on September 11, 2001 and they live with it on a daily basis.
If you compare this crime with torture, first degree murder, sex crimes or any conceivable crime, none can compare with the terror and suffering that accompanies the dropping of bombs on populated areas. Serial killers stalk, rape, and murder women and its front page news. Psychopaths cruelly carry out their nefarious deeds and it haunts our nightmares. Yet NATO murders as a matter of habit and we don't even notice.
The most outrageous act that has affected public consciousness in the West was the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in New York. That was the mother of all terrorist attacks. Those attacks have taken on an air of sanctity, of religious seriousness. There is not much argument from anywhere; those attacks were singularly brutal in their indiscriminate violence and they ripped through the collective consciousness of America. America has been changed by it and unfortunately, that change is not pretty. We are right to view this act with the horror and disgust that is the common reaction to them.
White House Mafia
The President of the United States recently carried out a ‘hit’ on Anwar al Awlaki. And what did he use to kill this American citizen? He used a bomb. He not only killed Awlaki but anybody that was in the vicinity. Did Obama care about anybody that was in the vicinity? No he did not. Did he care that he carried out an illegal murder of an American citizen?
A week later he killed Awlaki's 16 year old son, again with a bomb that killed anybody near the boy that might have been guilty of being Awlaki's son.
There is no member of organized crime families or street gangs that can come close to the psychopathic callousness found among those in the employ of the American state. Their lofty status does not make them immune from prosecution. Those that have attacked civilians and murdered them are guilty of war crimes. President Obama has joined an exclusive club. A club whose current members include but is not exclusive to Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, Paul Wolfowitz.
Given the history, it's not much wonder we've come to expect the murder of civilians as par for the course. But when we consider the open boasting about the current savagery - as Obama basks in the limelight of extrajudicial murder, we may feel as if the most crude 'B' rated movies of late night TV, the movie where a mad man takes over the word, to be prophetic. We don't live in interesting times as much as we live in bizarre times.
To be fair, they do sometimes offer weak justifications for the ongoing mass murders. They will justify it and say that the terrorists are at fault for using human shields. That is why innocent people die. They imagine a scenario where the locals that are defending their invaded homeland (terrorists or 'insurgents) leave the home when the Americans approach, stand in the desert with an AK 47, and let the American bombs rain down on them as they shoot in the general direction of the planes that sail safely through the stratosphere and obliterate them.
Or, they may argue that terrorists live in the village and that the pragmatic utility of killing women and children justify getting the terrorists to save the lives of good clean 'White people'. When arguments are made in such a way, we know we are dealing with rationalizations that are not even vaguely connected to rationality.
In the coming months and years, it is likely that thousands of people; people that are now reading opinion pieces as you are reading this one, people that are being tucked into bed by their parents for a good night's sleep, people that are falling in love and people that are embarrassed because they said something silly, will be slaughtered by American or, NATO bombs. Those people will be guilty of being born in Iran.
References
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/google-map/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-28/world/pakistan.drone.strike_1_drone-strikes-drone-attack-tribal-region?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.dailyamericannews.com/newsnow/x1738176407/Suspected-US-missiles-strikes-kill-11-in-Pakistan
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/01/20101613294018697.html
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/asia/nato-acknowledges-bombing-killed-eight-young-afghans.html?_r=2
This is not an isolated event. While MWC readers know this is not an isolated event, those that rely on mainstream media for their news probably don't know about this and the ongoing NATO atrocities that have been happening with disturbing regularity over the past number of years.
On February 4 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report entitled, "Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals".
The report states that since Obama took office three years ago, "between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners."
The report also states that unmanned Predator or Reaper strikes occur in Pakistan averaging one every four days. John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, argues that the US has the right to unilaterally strike terrorists anywhere in the world, not just what he called ‘hot battlefields’. The targeting of rescuers after an initial attack as well as funerals is clearly a deliberate massacre of civilians.
Many legal experts disagree with Brennan. "Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said killing people at a rescue site may have no legal justification.
‘Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution’, she said. ‘We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.’
Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.
Overall, there have been approximately 3,000 killed in drone strikes and 175 of those killed are reported to be children. Of 314 strikes, 262 were carried out by Obama.
The Crime
As human rights abuses go, as war crimes go, as crimes against humanity go, the dropping of bombs on populated areas is among the most egregious methods of mass murder in the history of humanity. Aside from recent drone attacks in Middle Eastern countries, many thousands have been slaughtered by NATO or American bombs in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and all the watchdogs that have the self appointed responsibility for raising the alarm about human rights abuses seem to overlook the dropping of bombs on civilians. They mention it when its status as a crime is not controversial but considering what is actually happening, perhaps it's fair to say they don't want to rock the American boat. The civilians that are killed in these bomb attacks are dead as surely as the Jews that died in Hitler's ovens. They live in terror as the people of New York felt on September 11, 2001 and they live with it on a daily basis.
If you compare this crime with torture, first degree murder, sex crimes or any conceivable crime, none can compare with the terror and suffering that accompanies the dropping of bombs on populated areas. Serial killers stalk, rape, and murder women and its front page news. Psychopaths cruelly carry out their nefarious deeds and it haunts our nightmares. Yet NATO murders as a matter of habit and we don't even notice.
The most outrageous act that has affected public consciousness in the West was the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in New York. That was the mother of all terrorist attacks. Those attacks have taken on an air of sanctity, of religious seriousness. There is not much argument from anywhere; those attacks were singularly brutal in their indiscriminate violence and they ripped through the collective consciousness of America. America has been changed by it and unfortunately, that change is not pretty. We are right to view this act with the horror and disgust that is the common reaction to them.
White House Mafia
The President of the United States recently carried out a ‘hit’ on Anwar al Awlaki. And what did he use to kill this American citizen? He used a bomb. He not only killed Awlaki but anybody that was in the vicinity. Did Obama care about anybody that was in the vicinity? No he did not. Did he care that he carried out an illegal murder of an American citizen?
A week later he killed Awlaki's 16 year old son, again with a bomb that killed anybody near the boy that might have been guilty of being Awlaki's son.
There is no member of organized crime families or street gangs that can come close to the psychopathic callousness found among those in the employ of the American state. Their lofty status does not make them immune from prosecution. Those that have attacked civilians and murdered them are guilty of war crimes. President Obama has joined an exclusive club. A club whose current members include but is not exclusive to Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, Paul Wolfowitz.
Given the history, it's not much wonder we've come to expect the murder of civilians as par for the course. But when we consider the open boasting about the current savagery - as Obama basks in the limelight of extrajudicial murder, we may feel as if the most crude 'B' rated movies of late night TV, the movie where a mad man takes over the word, to be prophetic. We don't live in interesting times as much as we live in bizarre times.
To be fair, they do sometimes offer weak justifications for the ongoing mass murders. They will justify it and say that the terrorists are at fault for using human shields. That is why innocent people die. They imagine a scenario where the locals that are defending their invaded homeland (terrorists or 'insurgents) leave the home when the Americans approach, stand in the desert with an AK 47, and let the American bombs rain down on them as they shoot in the general direction of the planes that sail safely through the stratosphere and obliterate them.
Or, they may argue that terrorists live in the village and that the pragmatic utility of killing women and children justify getting the terrorists to save the lives of good clean 'White people'. When arguments are made in such a way, we know we are dealing with rationalizations that are not even vaguely connected to rationality.
In the coming months and years, it is likely that thousands of people; people that are now reading opinion pieces as you are reading this one, people that are being tucked into bed by their parents for a good night's sleep, people that are falling in love and people that are embarrassed because they said something silly, will be slaughtered by American or, NATO bombs. Those people will be guilty of being born in Iran.
References
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/google-map/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-28/world/pakistan.drone.strike_1_drone-strikes-drone-attack-tribal-region?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.dailyamericannews.com/newsnow/x1738176407/Suspected-US-missiles-strikes-kill-11-in-Pakistan
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/01/20101613294018697.html
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/asia/nato-acknowledges-bombing-killed-eight-young-afghans.html?_r=2
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Caterpillar: Symptoms of Social Cancer
As surely as cancer rots away the individual body, there are malignant forms of social cancer that sicken and eat away at the social world of human beings. Some forms are fast, violent, and deadly. Other forms of cancer rot away at the collective body, year in, year out. The host becomes progressively ill and eventually, it dies.
There is no way to spend one billion dollars in one lifetime. Yet, the now infamous one percenters have become so addicted to accumulating wealth, they can't seem to stop. A billion isn't enough. Like a virulent virus, like a pernicious addiction, their habit becomes pathological. They will do anything in their grasp to fill the gaping needs of the affliction. Nothing is beyond them. Ethics and morality are not factors. They will wage war, they will destroy communities, they will stop at nothing. Only one thing counts and that thing is profit. They cannot stop. They are utter evil and they are our enemy.
Caterpillar
450 workers in London, Ontario, have just been evicted from their means of living by their employer, Caterpillar Inc. This follows months of negotiations, if that’s what you call it when one side is told; Take a 50% wage cut or you're finished.
Canadian Autoworkers President, Ken Lewenza, said, "We were never in the ring here in a meaningful way." That's understating the obvious to say the least.
Pat Byrne, the managing director heading management consulting at AlixPartners LLP in New York, said labour unions in Canada need to show more willingness to adjust. That is code for: You are serfs. Take it or take nothing. And shut up.
He said, "The labour unions - I'm not sure they really get it in terms of globalization."
He speaks for the ugly capitalist class. He speaks for the Donald Trumps and the Mitt Romneys. The terms of exploitation must be reduced to the lowest possible denominator.
We are well on our way to the world Charles Dickens wrote about in 19th century London. A social cancer has set in and we are in deep trouble. We are in financial and social crisis. And it will get much worse.
As Thomas Walkom points out in the Toronto Star, regarding the abuse of the Caterpillar workers in London:
On Wednesday, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law a so-called right-to-work bill making his state the first in the U.S. industrial north to directly take on private-sector unions.
Two days later, Caterpillar — which is based in next-door Illinois — closed its unionized London plant.
Since it locked out 460 Canadian workers in January, the giant U.S. firm had made little secret of its intent to move their jobs to Muncie, Indiana.
All it was waiting for, apparently, was a signal that the state government there was serious about crippling trade unions.
The London plant closing is not an isolated event. It is part of a coordinated attack across North America on unions and wages.
As Walkom points out in the article, there is a coordinated attack on labour across North America. And it is not only North America. It's global. The current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is positioned to help coordinate these attacks on the middle class/working class. Harper doesn't just side with employers in labour disputes. He rubs salt in the wounds as he does it. He, like many right wing ideologues like him is not only callous. He is cruel. His treatment of workers in past disputes with employers display his cruelty in spades.
Class War
This isn't new. It has started in earnest in the 1980s under the reign of Brian Mulroney, Maggie Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. Their neo liberal voo doo economics has since resulted in the devastation of the middle classes in Europe and North America. They were merely in the employ of the same finance capitalists that Bush, Obama, and the Europeans are currently bowing and scraping toward. It is all about ushering in a new era of financial feudalism. The wages, the pensions, the benefits that have provided a decent standard of living for workers and small business is all but dead.
On deck are civil servants and public sector unions. They too will be and are under accelerating attack from the capitalist class. And the capitalist class can justify the attack. They cite record high deficits and bankrupt governments that cannot pay the bills. And the reason they cannot pay the bills is because the wages of auto workers, miners, construction workers and public sector workers had been paying, and now they can't.
And when they are finished with evaporating public sector wages to a pittance, wages that had been demanding goods and services, wages that had been paying taxes to build roads and schools, another shock to our collective system will impact each and every one of us; one way or another.
We are in a protracted class war, a war that is well under way, and we are only now waking up to the fact that the war is on.
The time to fight is here. We cannot continue to tolerate this ongoing abuse of workers and their families. In the past our fight was a fight for wages, for benefits, for decent working conditions. Now the stakes are much higher.
As the workers in London Ontario go home, devastated, with no future. With little hope of retuning to a job with decent pay, business owners in London and their employees will also suffer. Local suppliers of goods and services to Caterpillar will suffer. And so will their families. And when they suffer, the local Tim Hortons, the local pubs - everybody hurts.
London will endure increased violence in homes, alcohol and drug consumption, crime, and those factors will in turn increase crime, drug addiction and so on. It's a downward spiral to purgatory for some, hell for others.
Capitalism, like sugar, cigarettes, gambling and alcohol is an addiction. It is an addiction that sickens and kills the collective body. It is an addiction that has turned to social cancer. A cancer that is promoted and facilitated by the likes of Stephen Harper and his subservient peers. And we have all become dependent on it.
And under capitalism, it is only when the host dies that the cancer dies.
It's about time we work on a better cure than that.
There is no way to spend one billion dollars in one lifetime. Yet, the now infamous one percenters have become so addicted to accumulating wealth, they can't seem to stop. A billion isn't enough. Like a virulent virus, like a pernicious addiction, their habit becomes pathological. They will do anything in their grasp to fill the gaping needs of the affliction. Nothing is beyond them. Ethics and morality are not factors. They will wage war, they will destroy communities, they will stop at nothing. Only one thing counts and that thing is profit. They cannot stop. They are utter evil and they are our enemy.
Caterpillar
450 workers in London, Ontario, have just been evicted from their means of living by their employer, Caterpillar Inc. This follows months of negotiations, if that’s what you call it when one side is told; Take a 50% wage cut or you're finished.
Canadian Autoworkers President, Ken Lewenza, said, "We were never in the ring here in a meaningful way." That's understating the obvious to say the least.
Pat Byrne, the managing director heading management consulting at AlixPartners LLP in New York, said labour unions in Canada need to show more willingness to adjust. That is code for: You are serfs. Take it or take nothing. And shut up.
He said, "The labour unions - I'm not sure they really get it in terms of globalization."
He speaks for the ugly capitalist class. He speaks for the Donald Trumps and the Mitt Romneys. The terms of exploitation must be reduced to the lowest possible denominator.
We are well on our way to the world Charles Dickens wrote about in 19th century London. A social cancer has set in and we are in deep trouble. We are in financial and social crisis. And it will get much worse.
As Thomas Walkom points out in the Toronto Star, regarding the abuse of the Caterpillar workers in London:
On Wednesday, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law a so-called right-to-work bill making his state the first in the U.S. industrial north to directly take on private-sector unions.
Two days later, Caterpillar — which is based in next-door Illinois — closed its unionized London plant.
Since it locked out 460 Canadian workers in January, the giant U.S. firm had made little secret of its intent to move their jobs to Muncie, Indiana.
All it was waiting for, apparently, was a signal that the state government there was serious about crippling trade unions.
The London plant closing is not an isolated event. It is part of a coordinated attack across North America on unions and wages.
As Walkom points out in the article, there is a coordinated attack on labour across North America. And it is not only North America. It's global. The current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is positioned to help coordinate these attacks on the middle class/working class. Harper doesn't just side with employers in labour disputes. He rubs salt in the wounds as he does it. He, like many right wing ideologues like him is not only callous. He is cruel. His treatment of workers in past disputes with employers display his cruelty in spades.
Class War
This isn't new. It has started in earnest in the 1980s under the reign of Brian Mulroney, Maggie Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. Their neo liberal voo doo economics has since resulted in the devastation of the middle classes in Europe and North America. They were merely in the employ of the same finance capitalists that Bush, Obama, and the Europeans are currently bowing and scraping toward. It is all about ushering in a new era of financial feudalism. The wages, the pensions, the benefits that have provided a decent standard of living for workers and small business is all but dead.
On deck are civil servants and public sector unions. They too will be and are under accelerating attack from the capitalist class. And the capitalist class can justify the attack. They cite record high deficits and bankrupt governments that cannot pay the bills. And the reason they cannot pay the bills is because the wages of auto workers, miners, construction workers and public sector workers had been paying, and now they can't.
And when they are finished with evaporating public sector wages to a pittance, wages that had been demanding goods and services, wages that had been paying taxes to build roads and schools, another shock to our collective system will impact each and every one of us; one way or another.
We are in a protracted class war, a war that is well under way, and we are only now waking up to the fact that the war is on.
The time to fight is here. We cannot continue to tolerate this ongoing abuse of workers and their families. In the past our fight was a fight for wages, for benefits, for decent working conditions. Now the stakes are much higher.
As the workers in London Ontario go home, devastated, with no future. With little hope of retuning to a job with decent pay, business owners in London and their employees will also suffer. Local suppliers of goods and services to Caterpillar will suffer. And so will their families. And when they suffer, the local Tim Hortons, the local pubs - everybody hurts.
London will endure increased violence in homes, alcohol and drug consumption, crime, and those factors will in turn increase crime, drug addiction and so on. It's a downward spiral to purgatory for some, hell for others.
Capitalism, like sugar, cigarettes, gambling and alcohol is an addiction. It is an addiction that sickens and kills the collective body. It is an addiction that has turned to social cancer. A cancer that is promoted and facilitated by the likes of Stephen Harper and his subservient peers. And we have all become dependent on it.
And under capitalism, it is only when the host dies that the cancer dies.
It's about time we work on a better cure than that.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The People vs. The United Nations
The United Nations is empowered, under Article 1 of its Charter, to: "maintain international peace and security", to "develop friendly relations among nations", "to achieve international co-operation", and "to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."
Article 2 states that its members, "shall act in accordance with the following principles":
-The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.
-All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
-All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
-All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The United States of America assumes the role of international arbiter and the role of policing the planet. A role rightfully granted to the United Nations. It is widely and implicitly assumed the USA carries this burden and this assumption is rarely challenged.
The World Court was established by the UN as the body to enforce international law, to ensure that no nation or leader(s) can infringe upon the sovereignty of others. It was established after World War 2 to ensure no nation or body of nations can violate elemental principles of statehood and human rights. Germany did aim to take over control of the world through terror and their own brand of exceptionalism.
The UN and the World Court operate to ensure that basic rational principles governing relations between nations are not violated. The UN is careful to ensure the it does not infringe upon the sovereignty of nations and at the same time, ensure that human beings are protected, however minimally, against war crimes and belligerent states aimed at controlling others.
The United Nations did rule against the United States in 1986 during its war against the government and people of Nicaragua. The American war was in response to the FSLN ouster of dictator Anistosia Samoza in 1979. The World Court ruled that the United States violated International Law. The United States refused to recognize the World Court ruling and broke with UN regulations. From that point on, the United States adopted a policy where it will only accept the Court's jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis or, in less diplomatic language, according to their own interests and whims.
Before and increasingly since that ruling, the United States has violated and continues to violate International Law and generally accepted norms in favour of what it terms its national security or, national interests. It operates arbitrarily and is often outrageously belligerent and aggressive to the enemy du jour.
The time has come for the United Nations to stand up to the United States of America. It is a nation that, similarly to Germany in the last century, aims to take the role of overseer of all nations.
Rogue State Extraordinaire
The USA appears to be under the control of madmen. Barack Obama speaks and appears to be reasonable and even progressive. But his actions indicate that he may be quite mad and or/dull. It appears that he is neither. It appears he is under the control of very wealthy and powerful banks and corporations. His role as President has turned this apparently sensitive and intelligent man into a war criminal. Although he is well educated in Constitutional Law and was a Senior Lecturer on the subject at the University of Chicago Law School, as President, he signed away fundamental Constitutional and habeas corpus rights in favour of political expediency.
Something's amiss.
The problem is not madmen or criminals per se. It is much worse than that. It is systemic. It is a virus. A virus spreading throughout systems the world over. A virus programmed to turn hosts toward funnelling money to finance capitalists. A virus programmed to rule nations, and the world, through violence and fear.
It manifests most noticeably vigorously through the American state. It demands the state assume control of every corner of the world, as if it’s the American state's inalieable right. It renders the UN a servile body existing only to serve its national interests.
If we were to concede that view, that the United States has the moral high ground to police the world, we could take the notion seriously. For instance, if the USA did promote human rights (as it claims), if their interventions were not based in psychopathic designs, and if there was consensus the USA assume the role of the UN as arbiter of international conflicts, doing so would give one nation control of people that have had no choice in its leaders or decisions. Doing so would be patently undemocratic.
Mission Accomplished
No reasonable person could make such arguments. American 'missions' are being carried out all over the world. One such mission has left Iraq critically unstable. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a paradise compared to the current mess left behind by the Americans. Carnage and volatility continue in Afghanistan. Drone slaughters in Pakistan are starting up again after a brief hiatus. In short, everything the Empire touches turns to hell on earth. As bystanders, we get the impression this nation, the most heavily armed nation on the planet, should not be trusted to run with scissors.
Their pathetic accomplices like Canada, France, the United Kingdom etc. are no better. After NATO’s intervention, Libya is strained, unstable, and civil war is likely. Gaddafi loyalists and the Libyan people will not turn a blind eye to the loss of the most generous social programs and standard of living in Africa. A standard of living that easily surpassed anything millions of disenfranchised Americans or Canadians could dream of.
NATO, this 'axis of evil', is splattering blood all over the Muslim world and there isn’t much to suggest it’s going to stop.
Criminal Stupidity
Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are trying to out-do each other in their hawkish posturing. To the shock of anybody listening, they have uttered threats on Cuba and specifically, Castro, who has retired from politics. This doesn’t matter. The American narrative in no more sophisticated than a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Castro is ‘a bad guy’ and as such, is in real mortal danger. If Obama manages to ‘take him out’, it will play large to the mentally dull and extremely violent American audiences they aim to please.
Western nations (includes Israel/ not Venezuela or Cuba in this cartoon) are apparently okay with anything and everything that oozes out of the American insane asylum. Money and power rule, reason and diplomacy are not taken seriously. And now, at Israel's pleasure, Iran appears to be on deck. There promises to be plenty of war and excitement. And once again, politicians mouth dim rationalizations; Iran may produce weapons of mass destruction, they violate human rights, they support terrorism and so on. And in the meantime, the USA and its quisling lapdogs are more guilty of what they accuse ‘the bad guys’ (Iran) of possibly doing sometime in the future - maybe. The 'good guys' in this cartoon terrorize like nobody else. They actually drop bombs on populations, they spit on habeas corpus, they have the most and the largest weapons of mass destruction. And they use them!
The absurdity of all this is whispered behind closed doors. Politicians in Latin America, in Asia, in Russia, in the Middle East and in Africa cautiously discuss the alarming nature of this madness. They are at a loss of possible ways to respond. Obviously, they don't want to be labelled 'a bad guy'. The consequences are dire. Over the past few years, America’s enemies; Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Mohammar Gaddafi, Anwar al-Awlaki and his son and many others that are not so famous have been murdered by the President of the United States or proxies.
The man America and the world believed would be sane and reasonable, Barack Obama, has just delivered a State of the Union speech where he bragged about the bravery of the American military as they successfully carried out the murder of a sick old man in Pakistan. This was quickly followed up with GOP politicians trying to out-do each other, playing to Florida voters, promising to kill another old man. America has gone completely insane. It is a nation out of control.
The genesis of the United Nations was in response to a world hurting after Germany had gone completely mad. The UN was created to respond to this kind of developing climate. The uncomfortable and possibly dangerous task of standing up to these bullies must be done. The same weather patterns are become clear with each passing month. It is time to stop being polite and diplomatic to a nation that is anything but diplomatic and polite. It is time to make the madmen uncomfortable. The people of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are under imminent threat. In reality, the people of all nations, including the United States and Israel, are under the very same threat.
Supporting the UN
To restore sanity and to end the arbitrary and dangerous power held by rogue states (such as the current configuration in the United States) we must make our voices heard through protests and through activism. We must work in concert with the voices of reason at the UN. And they must work with us. The United Nations is far from homogeneous. There are voices for peace, reason, and rule of law that are being drowned out by the psychopath element. Their efforts are stonewalled. We must help them through increasing the level of discomfort for those that aim to wage war.
At this point the people of Iran are in grave danger. We, the people of the United States, Israel, Canada, the UK - and all nations, must stand up and demand that we will not accept war on Iran. We must empowered the voices of reason at the UN to enforce its Charter and demand that this drive to endless war be stopped. We need to develop connections in solidarity with each other and with politicians we may disagree with on many issues but remain committed to rule of law and reason. We may disagree with Ron Paul on the right and President Chavez on the left, but as long as they are committed to rule of law and reason, they are allies. Like them or hate them, they stand on principles and against the madness and irrationality of war and Empire.
Should the UN cower to the designs of the madmen of corporate America and nationalist Israel and sanction war against the people of Iran; if it allows the United States to continue to police the world in 'its' own interests, and if it continues to turn a blind eye to the excessive human rights abuses carried out against men, woman, and children; most notably, the dropping of bombs on them, we must then ask ourselves - and the UN must ask itself, what is the point of existing at all?
Article 2 states that its members, "shall act in accordance with the following principles":
-The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.
-All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
-All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
-All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The United States of America assumes the role of international arbiter and the role of policing the planet. A role rightfully granted to the United Nations. It is widely and implicitly assumed the USA carries this burden and this assumption is rarely challenged.
The World Court was established by the UN as the body to enforce international law, to ensure that no nation or leader(s) can infringe upon the sovereignty of others. It was established after World War 2 to ensure no nation or body of nations can violate elemental principles of statehood and human rights. Germany did aim to take over control of the world through terror and their own brand of exceptionalism.
The UN and the World Court operate to ensure that basic rational principles governing relations between nations are not violated. The UN is careful to ensure the it does not infringe upon the sovereignty of nations and at the same time, ensure that human beings are protected, however minimally, against war crimes and belligerent states aimed at controlling others.
The United Nations did rule against the United States in 1986 during its war against the government and people of Nicaragua. The American war was in response to the FSLN ouster of dictator Anistosia Samoza in 1979. The World Court ruled that the United States violated International Law. The United States refused to recognize the World Court ruling and broke with UN regulations. From that point on, the United States adopted a policy where it will only accept the Court's jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis or, in less diplomatic language, according to their own interests and whims.
Before and increasingly since that ruling, the United States has violated and continues to violate International Law and generally accepted norms in favour of what it terms its national security or, national interests. It operates arbitrarily and is often outrageously belligerent and aggressive to the enemy du jour.
The time has come for the United Nations to stand up to the United States of America. It is a nation that, similarly to Germany in the last century, aims to take the role of overseer of all nations.
Rogue State Extraordinaire
The USA appears to be under the control of madmen. Barack Obama speaks and appears to be reasonable and even progressive. But his actions indicate that he may be quite mad and or/dull. It appears that he is neither. It appears he is under the control of very wealthy and powerful banks and corporations. His role as President has turned this apparently sensitive and intelligent man into a war criminal. Although he is well educated in Constitutional Law and was a Senior Lecturer on the subject at the University of Chicago Law School, as President, he signed away fundamental Constitutional and habeas corpus rights in favour of political expediency.
Something's amiss.
The problem is not madmen or criminals per se. It is much worse than that. It is systemic. It is a virus. A virus spreading throughout systems the world over. A virus programmed to turn hosts toward funnelling money to finance capitalists. A virus programmed to rule nations, and the world, through violence and fear.
It manifests most noticeably vigorously through the American state. It demands the state assume control of every corner of the world, as if it’s the American state's inalieable right. It renders the UN a servile body existing only to serve its national interests.
If we were to concede that view, that the United States has the moral high ground to police the world, we could take the notion seriously. For instance, if the USA did promote human rights (as it claims), if their interventions were not based in psychopathic designs, and if there was consensus the USA assume the role of the UN as arbiter of international conflicts, doing so would give one nation control of people that have had no choice in its leaders or decisions. Doing so would be patently undemocratic.
Mission Accomplished
No reasonable person could make such arguments. American 'missions' are being carried out all over the world. One such mission has left Iraq critically unstable. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a paradise compared to the current mess left behind by the Americans. Carnage and volatility continue in Afghanistan. Drone slaughters in Pakistan are starting up again after a brief hiatus. In short, everything the Empire touches turns to hell on earth. As bystanders, we get the impression this nation, the most heavily armed nation on the planet, should not be trusted to run with scissors.
Their pathetic accomplices like Canada, France, the United Kingdom etc. are no better. After NATO’s intervention, Libya is strained, unstable, and civil war is likely. Gaddafi loyalists and the Libyan people will not turn a blind eye to the loss of the most generous social programs and standard of living in Africa. A standard of living that easily surpassed anything millions of disenfranchised Americans or Canadians could dream of.
NATO, this 'axis of evil', is splattering blood all over the Muslim world and there isn’t much to suggest it’s going to stop.
Criminal Stupidity
Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are trying to out-do each other in their hawkish posturing. To the shock of anybody listening, they have uttered threats on Cuba and specifically, Castro, who has retired from politics. This doesn’t matter. The American narrative in no more sophisticated than a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Castro is ‘a bad guy’ and as such, is in real mortal danger. If Obama manages to ‘take him out’, it will play large to the mentally dull and extremely violent American audiences they aim to please.
Western nations (includes Israel/ not Venezuela or Cuba in this cartoon) are apparently okay with anything and everything that oozes out of the American insane asylum. Money and power rule, reason and diplomacy are not taken seriously. And now, at Israel's pleasure, Iran appears to be on deck. There promises to be plenty of war and excitement. And once again, politicians mouth dim rationalizations; Iran may produce weapons of mass destruction, they violate human rights, they support terrorism and so on. And in the meantime, the USA and its quisling lapdogs are more guilty of what they accuse ‘the bad guys’ (Iran) of possibly doing sometime in the future - maybe. The 'good guys' in this cartoon terrorize like nobody else. They actually drop bombs on populations, they spit on habeas corpus, they have the most and the largest weapons of mass destruction. And they use them!
The absurdity of all this is whispered behind closed doors. Politicians in Latin America, in Asia, in Russia, in the Middle East and in Africa cautiously discuss the alarming nature of this madness. They are at a loss of possible ways to respond. Obviously, they don't want to be labelled 'a bad guy'. The consequences are dire. Over the past few years, America’s enemies; Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Mohammar Gaddafi, Anwar al-Awlaki and his son and many others that are not so famous have been murdered by the President of the United States or proxies.
The man America and the world believed would be sane and reasonable, Barack Obama, has just delivered a State of the Union speech where he bragged about the bravery of the American military as they successfully carried out the murder of a sick old man in Pakistan. This was quickly followed up with GOP politicians trying to out-do each other, playing to Florida voters, promising to kill another old man. America has gone completely insane. It is a nation out of control.
The genesis of the United Nations was in response to a world hurting after Germany had gone completely mad. The UN was created to respond to this kind of developing climate. The uncomfortable and possibly dangerous task of standing up to these bullies must be done. The same weather patterns are become clear with each passing month. It is time to stop being polite and diplomatic to a nation that is anything but diplomatic and polite. It is time to make the madmen uncomfortable. The people of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are under imminent threat. In reality, the people of all nations, including the United States and Israel, are under the very same threat.
Supporting the UN
To restore sanity and to end the arbitrary and dangerous power held by rogue states (such as the current configuration in the United States) we must make our voices heard through protests and through activism. We must work in concert with the voices of reason at the UN. And they must work with us. The United Nations is far from homogeneous. There are voices for peace, reason, and rule of law that are being drowned out by the psychopath element. Their efforts are stonewalled. We must help them through increasing the level of discomfort for those that aim to wage war.
At this point the people of Iran are in grave danger. We, the people of the United States, Israel, Canada, the UK - and all nations, must stand up and demand that we will not accept war on Iran. We must empowered the voices of reason at the UN to enforce its Charter and demand that this drive to endless war be stopped. We need to develop connections in solidarity with each other and with politicians we may disagree with on many issues but remain committed to rule of law and reason. We may disagree with Ron Paul on the right and President Chavez on the left, but as long as they are committed to rule of law and reason, they are allies. Like them or hate them, they stand on principles and against the madness and irrationality of war and Empire.
Should the UN cower to the designs of the madmen of corporate America and nationalist Israel and sanction war against the people of Iran; if it allows the United States to continue to police the world in 'its' own interests, and if it continues to turn a blind eye to the excessive human rights abuses carried out against men, woman, and children; most notably, the dropping of bombs on them, we must then ask ourselves - and the UN must ask itself, what is the point of existing at all?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss - Part Two
The possibility of reformation of the economic system to a degree where citizens may enjoy a standard of living similar to the 'middle classes' in the 20th century may not exist (as implied in the previous article). This article will make the argument that even if reformation was possible, doing so is not desirable. But, that is debatable.
Reformation aims to maintain the existing institutions, tweaking them to suit our needs. Revolution on the other hand, aims to take control of the institutions that dominate our lives. It aims to place control of them into the hands of those that have made them work in the first place. It aims to remove control from those that have a goal in mind and one goal only. To serve themselves to the detriment of everybody else. Instead, the aim should be to abolish or change institutions that do not serve the public good.
Fundamentally, the plight of the general population is the same now as it was for hundreds of years under feudalism. Under feudalism, wealth was created on the ground and made its way, forcibly, to the lords and monarchs. The serfs, slaves, of yesterday and wages slaves today have little control of the whims of power that control our lives. Under feudalism, power was exercised through violent repression. Whatever arbitrary whim His majesty may entertain, at His pleasure, would be adhered to. Under capitalism, it is not a matter of arbitrary decisions made by some personality with power but rather, the fluctuations of global capital dictate life on the ground.
These fluctuations and processes affect us and our response is far from homogeneous. On the one hand citizens swallow the notion that we have but two choices; free market capitalism (so called) or, communist totalitarianism. They will naturally gravitate toward reform (if they can muster any tolerance of change at all). The second strain will see a myriad of choices about how we can produce and distribute goods and services. Unfortunately for the former group, there has never been any system and probably never will be as radical and shape shifting as capitalism. Especially now. Instability and insecurity are two features the system will never shake. Just when we get used to certain ways of doing things, more efficient and innovative means are invented. The results can be both good and bad.
In times of great upset and insecurity, as are occurring now, more radical overall changes are demanded by citizens, many of whom are now out of work and without income. They become less reform minded and demand revolutionary change. We are entering these times. The days of relative stability and security are behind us.
The Current Context
Over the past three decades the so-called 1% have declared, through institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and their runners (politicians), that government is the enemy and particularly, wealth redistribution. They have called for alarming reductions in government influence and control of financial and non financial matters. And as we have seen, they have ensured that government programs and institutions that serve the 99% are reduced or abolished but have made sure that the 1% is protected through bailouts and vast sums spent on their collective bodyguard, the military. As has been observed, it is a system of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
The upper classes, the 1%, are fast becoming explicit controllers of states. They are tossing political baggage such as Berlusconi and Papandreaou out into the street. Governments have been put into the hands of economists in the service of his majesty's pleasure. They demand, through the IMF and other sock puppets that governments follow the neo liberal line to the letter. This always means; privatize and control everything that can be bought and sold and to slash and burn anything and everything that looks like wealth distribution. The infrastructure that large portions of the population relied upon can't be scrapped quick enough for them. We are entering a bizarre and frightening twilight zone.
In response to all this, citizens are voicing outrage and disaffection with the capitalist system itself. Mainstream media and wealthy capital gamblers repeat endlessly the lie that the protesters do not articulate their anger. And in the meantime, the protesters repeat, over and over and over again that the top 1% have everything and are taking more and they (we), the general population, have little and are getting less. Implicit in this complaint is a call to end the capitalist system altogether. Perhaps the ruling class can't hear it out of disbelief; they may be in a state of shock and awe.
Protests like this are not altogether new. Prior to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, anti-capitalist protests were large and angry. The most memorable occurred in Seattle and in Quebec City. They were spreading and becoming a force to be reckoned with. After 9 11, the protests disappeared, the mood changed.
Anti capitalist protests had been absent in the heart of the hegemony prior the Seattle/Quebec City uprisings. Protests themselves however, are nothing new. We have become accustomed to single issue protests that are implicitly reformist in nature. There were civil rights protests, women's rights, gay rights, environmental protests, and protests for many various issues. They all had in common the underlying desire to tweak the system, to make the plight of a certain segment of the population better.
Protests against capitalism itself are a direct result of the excesses of modern monopoly capitalism. This is a result of neo liberal policies that have been shoved down our collective throats. This is a result of the policies of governments that have been at the beck and call of the ruling class. These statements would be viewed as excessively radical and unrealistic only a few short years ago. Now, they are hardly controversial.
Organizing A Substantial Movement
The breadth and depth of this organic movement is truly revolutionary. This movement is both radical and widespread. These are the conditions that make capitalist monarchs shudder, and with good reason. These are conditions that are revolutionary. The capitalist world is pregnant with revolution.
Thus far however, the comfortable minority have little to fear. So far, it is a protest movement and that's all it is. This movement is simply a reaction to excessive money hoarding and Imperial brutality. To take it a step farther would require organization.
Taking that step requires vision. An alternative to the status quo needs to be articulated. What would that society look like? How do we get there?
For the most part, much of our collective mentality is mired in traditional reformist mode. Reformation is all about redistributing wealth and tinkering and modifying the current system. At this point, there isn't much stomach for it either in the halls of parliament or on the ground. There certainly is not any ideas about redistribution of wealth amongst the rulers of us all. It's not that they don't want to. They couldn't, even if they did want to. The reasons for that are discussed in the previous article (Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss).
We are collectively in a bit of a pickle, so to speak. Do nothing and we are going to lose jobs, homes, and many of our vital needs. We need to do something but we are utterly unorganized. We can continue to protest. We can complain and make noise. But so what?
Our first step is to bring the debate out into the open. We need to reach some consensus as to where we go from here and we need consensus on broad goals. Will we aim to reform the crippled capitalist system? Can we? These questions need debate. If we can, and if we want to, let's get at it. Let's work together and make sure it happens. If we agree that we cannot, we have a lot of work to do.
At this point we need to sustain the protest movement. And as it develops, we will need to build solidarity and alliances. We need to develop broad goals and specific tactics. Secondly, we need to formalize alliances between individual organizers, writers, news outlets, and organizations. We need to call on past reformist groups; women's rights, gay rights, unions, anti-poverty activists, greens, and reds. We also need socialists, communists, social democratic parties, anarchists and we need to communicate in a genuine way. We need to accommodate and compromise within this movement and we need to develop a vision; a grand goal.
There will be distrust and conflict within the movement but that cannot deter us. There will be great efforts to fracture and splinter the movement. There will be fights among broad sections and there will be groups aimed at controlling and commandeering it. In response, we accept nothing less than democracy. If the majority want reform, we reform. If the majority want revolutionary changes, we aim for that. If the majority want to live off the avails of crass capitalism, so be it. It is vital to listen to others and to be willing to change our minds.
Let the best, and hopefully the most democratic and rational arguments carry the day. Now is no time to be rigid. The time for energetic, honest, and fearless debate has arrived.
One thing is clear. Reform occurs only when the threat of revolution is real.
Reformation aims to maintain the existing institutions, tweaking them to suit our needs. Revolution on the other hand, aims to take control of the institutions that dominate our lives. It aims to place control of them into the hands of those that have made them work in the first place. It aims to remove control from those that have a goal in mind and one goal only. To serve themselves to the detriment of everybody else. Instead, the aim should be to abolish or change institutions that do not serve the public good.
Fundamentally, the plight of the general population is the same now as it was for hundreds of years under feudalism. Under feudalism, wealth was created on the ground and made its way, forcibly, to the lords and monarchs. The serfs, slaves, of yesterday and wages slaves today have little control of the whims of power that control our lives. Under feudalism, power was exercised through violent repression. Whatever arbitrary whim His majesty may entertain, at His pleasure, would be adhered to. Under capitalism, it is not a matter of arbitrary decisions made by some personality with power but rather, the fluctuations of global capital dictate life on the ground.
These fluctuations and processes affect us and our response is far from homogeneous. On the one hand citizens swallow the notion that we have but two choices; free market capitalism (so called) or, communist totalitarianism. They will naturally gravitate toward reform (if they can muster any tolerance of change at all). The second strain will see a myriad of choices about how we can produce and distribute goods and services. Unfortunately for the former group, there has never been any system and probably never will be as radical and shape shifting as capitalism. Especially now. Instability and insecurity are two features the system will never shake. Just when we get used to certain ways of doing things, more efficient and innovative means are invented. The results can be both good and bad.
In times of great upset and insecurity, as are occurring now, more radical overall changes are demanded by citizens, many of whom are now out of work and without income. They become less reform minded and demand revolutionary change. We are entering these times. The days of relative stability and security are behind us.
The Current Context
Over the past three decades the so-called 1% have declared, through institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and their runners (politicians), that government is the enemy and particularly, wealth redistribution. They have called for alarming reductions in government influence and control of financial and non financial matters. And as we have seen, they have ensured that government programs and institutions that serve the 99% are reduced or abolished but have made sure that the 1% is protected through bailouts and vast sums spent on their collective bodyguard, the military. As has been observed, it is a system of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
The upper classes, the 1%, are fast becoming explicit controllers of states. They are tossing political baggage such as Berlusconi and Papandreaou out into the street. Governments have been put into the hands of economists in the service of his majesty's pleasure. They demand, through the IMF and other sock puppets that governments follow the neo liberal line to the letter. This always means; privatize and control everything that can be bought and sold and to slash and burn anything and everything that looks like wealth distribution. The infrastructure that large portions of the population relied upon can't be scrapped quick enough for them. We are entering a bizarre and frightening twilight zone.
In response to all this, citizens are voicing outrage and disaffection with the capitalist system itself. Mainstream media and wealthy capital gamblers repeat endlessly the lie that the protesters do not articulate their anger. And in the meantime, the protesters repeat, over and over and over again that the top 1% have everything and are taking more and they (we), the general population, have little and are getting less. Implicit in this complaint is a call to end the capitalist system altogether. Perhaps the ruling class can't hear it out of disbelief; they may be in a state of shock and awe.
Protests like this are not altogether new. Prior to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, anti-capitalist protests were large and angry. The most memorable occurred in Seattle and in Quebec City. They were spreading and becoming a force to be reckoned with. After 9 11, the protests disappeared, the mood changed.
Anti capitalist protests had been absent in the heart of the hegemony prior the Seattle/Quebec City uprisings. Protests themselves however, are nothing new. We have become accustomed to single issue protests that are implicitly reformist in nature. There were civil rights protests, women's rights, gay rights, environmental protests, and protests for many various issues. They all had in common the underlying desire to tweak the system, to make the plight of a certain segment of the population better.
Protests against capitalism itself are a direct result of the excesses of modern monopoly capitalism. This is a result of neo liberal policies that have been shoved down our collective throats. This is a result of the policies of governments that have been at the beck and call of the ruling class. These statements would be viewed as excessively radical and unrealistic only a few short years ago. Now, they are hardly controversial.
Organizing A Substantial Movement
The breadth and depth of this organic movement is truly revolutionary. This movement is both radical and widespread. These are the conditions that make capitalist monarchs shudder, and with good reason. These are conditions that are revolutionary. The capitalist world is pregnant with revolution.
Thus far however, the comfortable minority have little to fear. So far, it is a protest movement and that's all it is. This movement is simply a reaction to excessive money hoarding and Imperial brutality. To take it a step farther would require organization.
Taking that step requires vision. An alternative to the status quo needs to be articulated. What would that society look like? How do we get there?
For the most part, much of our collective mentality is mired in traditional reformist mode. Reformation is all about redistributing wealth and tinkering and modifying the current system. At this point, there isn't much stomach for it either in the halls of parliament or on the ground. There certainly is not any ideas about redistribution of wealth amongst the rulers of us all. It's not that they don't want to. They couldn't, even if they did want to. The reasons for that are discussed in the previous article (Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss).
We are collectively in a bit of a pickle, so to speak. Do nothing and we are going to lose jobs, homes, and many of our vital needs. We need to do something but we are utterly unorganized. We can continue to protest. We can complain and make noise. But so what?
Our first step is to bring the debate out into the open. We need to reach some consensus as to where we go from here and we need consensus on broad goals. Will we aim to reform the crippled capitalist system? Can we? These questions need debate. If we can, and if we want to, let's get at it. Let's work together and make sure it happens. If we agree that we cannot, we have a lot of work to do.
At this point we need to sustain the protest movement. And as it develops, we will need to build solidarity and alliances. We need to develop broad goals and specific tactics. Secondly, we need to formalize alliances between individual organizers, writers, news outlets, and organizations. We need to call on past reformist groups; women's rights, gay rights, unions, anti-poverty activists, greens, and reds. We also need socialists, communists, social democratic parties, anarchists and we need to communicate in a genuine way. We need to accommodate and compromise within this movement and we need to develop a vision; a grand goal.
There will be distrust and conflict within the movement but that cannot deter us. There will be great efforts to fracture and splinter the movement. There will be fights among broad sections and there will be groups aimed at controlling and commandeering it. In response, we accept nothing less than democracy. If the majority want reform, we reform. If the majority want revolutionary changes, we aim for that. If the majority want to live off the avails of crass capitalism, so be it. It is vital to listen to others and to be willing to change our minds.
Let the best, and hopefully the most democratic and rational arguments carry the day. Now is no time to be rigid. The time for energetic, honest, and fearless debate has arrived.
One thing is clear. Reform occurs only when the threat of revolution is real.
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Reform or Revolution: Facing Into the Abyss
The gravity of the current economic situation appears to be sinking in. Day by day, week by week, and month by month, we are waking out of our docile slumber. People are hitting the streets. This is not the handiwork of some dissident group with an ideological agenda. It is the natural outpouring of citizens anger, frustration, and hopelessness. The nature of the problem; capitalism, corporate greed, and careerist politicians has been expressed and expressed very well in many different forums. There seems to be some general consensus that we are in deep trouble.
Solidarity is crucial. We need to stick together and work together. The 1% will aim to fracture this new organic movement. We need to ensure that we don't do their dirty work for them. And no doubt, we will have enormous disagreements. Reformers will argue with revolutionaries, liberals will argue with socialists and so on. We need to use those differences of opinion to strengthen ourselves. The crux of the problem needs to be assessed and thoroughly analysed.
What is crucial is that we don't get mired in 'my opinion' or 'my ideology' and that we listen to each other. Debate is important and it is healthy. That is how we learn and grow. It is vital that you look at what I say and that I look at your analysis. After all, we all want the same things. We want stability, peace, and we want governance 'by, for, and of the people'. We want our kids and our neighbours to be able to eat. We are bound together by common goals. How we get there will need to be worked out.
What is presented here is a view, an opinion. You may not agree with it but please, take a minute to read it. If it is correct, our collective response then must take on a particular shape. If it is wrong, then we will need to point that out. We need to develop an assessment. We need to uncover the crux of the problem. If we can find some agreement on the nature of the problem, and we can, we may then develop a plan of action to correct it.
This then is an assessment of the current problem.
Analysis
The following analysis may describe the nature and scope of the problem. And if this analysis is correct, there is no easy way out. The upshot of this analysis is that capitalism itself has outlived its usefulness. Further to this, it has become financially toxic to all but those on the top of the heap. And the longer we depend on it, the worse the situation will become.
This view suggests that capitalism, due precisely to its efficiency and energy, has become antithetical to human needs. While the profit motive has served the majority in the developed world well, it will no longer do so. It will render the lot of us serfs without lords, slaves with no master. It will impoverish us and it will kill us. It will steal our vital needs or prohibit them from ever being produced.
The efficiency aspect, while impressive, is turning on us all. The wizard technology we've become used to has rendered many occupations obsolete. It can manufacture all we need with very little labour input. And, given time, it may be able to produce all we need with the push of a few buttons. While that may sound good, this condition does not suit capitalism. In fact, capitalism cannot survive this condition. It is impossible.
While capitalism may spit employees out onto the street, it needs consumers. Unfortunately for capitalism, an individual needs to be a worker before he or she is a consumer. The worker and consumer inhabit the same physical body.
The Diminishing Rate of Profit
As capitalism matures, the rate of profit from a given unit of labour diminishes. That is, it becomes more difficult to squeeze a dime of profit from an hour of labour. To make matters worse, global competition has rendered the old formula where firms were subsided by the state to pay decent wages, dead. Workers are now competing with the most oppressive terms of exploitation on the planet. The old (so called) 'American dream' is finished. It's time to wake up.
Individual firms are under constant strain from two sources; competition from other firms and ongoing costs such as maintaining payment of wages to employees.
Firms aim to increase productivity as much as possible. This is accomplished through improving technology and through squeezing as much work from a worker as is manageable. It is in their interests to get workers to work as hard as possible for as little pay as possible. On both counts, they are doing very well.
It is vital to out-compete other firms; to drive costs down. This allows the firm to lower prices. Efficiency and low prices are the objective. Profit is the goal.
Large scale production has become impressive in its efficiency. To lower costs firms utilize lateral acquisition of resources that are required goods and services that go into production or, they contract out to sources that will fetch the product at lower prices than anyone else. Generally speaking, the pressure to cut costs also cuts the rate of profit.
Suppose the rate of profit were to remain constant. In that case profit would expand according to what was invested in stocks. If the rate is falling however, profit is naturally more difficult to achieve. And when this occurs, the incentive to invest in manufacturing diminishes. As investing in stocks grows more risky, the growth of capital in stocks falls. The rot of the integrity of the value of liquid capital spreads. Capital itself loses its integrity and value. And as long as they depend on worker's wages to pay the bills when in reality they can't, the crisis related to the value of money is magnified.
Additionally, the ensuing lack of wages results in not only lack of demand but in an evaporation of the tax base. Workers that depend on the tax base such as civil servants and teachers are thrown out of work as a result, further eroding the diminishing tax base. This exacerbates the problem by driving down demand for goods and services which in turn forces more firms out of business and workers onto the streets. We are entering an economic black hole, a period of crisis.
This crisis is fundamentally different than cyclical fluctuations (recessions) which may be remedied in various ways such as investing in public works with tax dollars and borrowing until the ship is righted again. Similar crisis occurred in the periods 1873 to 1893 and from 1929 to 1941.
In its heyday, the capitalist system saw increased real wages in western economies. From 1947 to 1967 real wages grew in the United States by approximately 50%. Unemployment was not an issue, and deficits were miniscule. The so-called Western world was the base of manufacturing and consumption. But, as Professor Ismael Hossein-Zadeh points out in a recent article: "By the late 1960s and early 1970s ... both US capital and labor were no longer unrivaled in global markets. Furthermore, during the long cycle of the immediate post-war expansion US manufacturers had invested so much in fixed capital, or capacity building, that by the late 1960s their profit rates had begun to decline as the capital-labor ratio of their operations had become too high. In other words, the enormous amounts of the so-called “sunk costs,” mainly in the form of fixed capital, or plant and equipment, had significantly eroded their profit rates."
As the rate of capital accumulation decelerates, and capital, like a shark, needs to continually eat and grow, or die, the shark itself becomes more aggressive and ruthless. It will squeeze an extra dime from any unit of labour it can and, when that dries up, it will look elsewhere.
Since the 1980s capitalists and politicians have been kicking the can down the road. This mess has been coming at us for some time. Avoidance was helped by real growth due to the building of high tech infrastructure, which in turn has helped crucify the employee. The infrastructure, once built, will not need to be built again. And it's maintenance is not going to save us.
Various bubbles (like the dot com bubble) had put the reality of our collective abyss out of view. Some bubbles were based in widespread criminal behaviour on the part of large corporations, bodies like the Federal Reserve in the United States, and scores of politicians. They have propped up the illusion (with the help of mainstream media and whores that have degrees in economics) that all is well - for three decades. In the meantime, the rot of the capitalist system has been eating away at our real security. We have continued to depend on something we can no longer depend on.
John Maynard Keynes is Dead
In the coming months and years there will be sincere and intelligent arguments from the left to return to Keynesian economic policies. After all, this formula has worked, arguably, better than anything else in history to provide a decent standard of living for the most people. The good ship Fabian appears to have sailed however. As Professor Hossein-Zadeh points out:
"The US capitalist class pursued the Keynesian-type policies in the immediate post-war period as long as political forces and economic conditions, both nationally and internationally, rendered those policies effective. Top among those conditions, as mentioned earlier, were nearly unlimited demand for US manufactures, both at home and abroad, and the lack of competition for both US capital and labor, which allowed US workers to demand decent wages and benefits while at the same time enjoying higher rate of employment.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, both US capital and labor were no longer unrivaled in global markets. Furthermore, during the long cycle of the immediate post-war expansion US manufacturers had invested so much in fixed capital, or capacity building, that by the late 1960s their profit rates had begun to decline as the capital-labor ratio of their operations had become too high. In other words, the enormous amounts of the so-called “sunk costs,” mainly in the form of fixed capital, or plant and equipment, had significantly eroded their profit rates.
More than anything else, it was these important changes in the actual conditions of production and the realignment of global markets that precipitated the gradual abandoning of Keynesian economics. Contrary to the repeated claims of the liberal/Keynesian partisans, it was not Ronald Reagan’s ideas or schemes that lay behind the plans of dismantling the New Deal reforms in fact, steps to hammer away at those reforms had been taken long before Reagan arrived in the White House). Rather, it was the globalization, first, of capital and, then, of labor that rendered Keynesian or New Deal-type economic policies no longer attractive to capitalist profitability, and brought forth Ronald Reagan and Neoliberal austerity economics."
Let's not get caught up in the notion that the capitalist class and their paws (politicians) had decided to be kind to working classes or middle classes. Each and every benefit, including decent wages, social security, free medical care (except the USA), in developed countries were won through hard and sometimes deadly struggle. It was the threat of revolution and the preservation of the privileged class that compelled Keynes himself to distribute wealth.
We are about to witness a period unlike anything we have seen before. The tension on global capital, the increasing and continuing falling rate of profit, and the ensuing hunger of capital itself will reduce or eliminate your wages, your pension, social security, and it will find the change under the cushions of your sofa.
As we become increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, as our kids lose hope for a decent future, as homeless people stand alongside burning barrels next to empty and foreclosed homes, we will hit the streets. Predictably, we will aim, at first, to resurrect John Maynard Keynes. We will discover, eventually, that Mr. Keynes is as dead as a doornail. Perhaps it is best to let him rest in peace.
Solidarity is crucial. We need to stick together and work together. The 1% will aim to fracture this new organic movement. We need to ensure that we don't do their dirty work for them. And no doubt, we will have enormous disagreements. Reformers will argue with revolutionaries, liberals will argue with socialists and so on. We need to use those differences of opinion to strengthen ourselves. The crux of the problem needs to be assessed and thoroughly analysed.
What is crucial is that we don't get mired in 'my opinion' or 'my ideology' and that we listen to each other. Debate is important and it is healthy. That is how we learn and grow. It is vital that you look at what I say and that I look at your analysis. After all, we all want the same things. We want stability, peace, and we want governance 'by, for, and of the people'. We want our kids and our neighbours to be able to eat. We are bound together by common goals. How we get there will need to be worked out.
What is presented here is a view, an opinion. You may not agree with it but please, take a minute to read it. If it is correct, our collective response then must take on a particular shape. If it is wrong, then we will need to point that out. We need to develop an assessment. We need to uncover the crux of the problem. If we can find some agreement on the nature of the problem, and we can, we may then develop a plan of action to correct it.
This then is an assessment of the current problem.
Analysis
The following analysis may describe the nature and scope of the problem. And if this analysis is correct, there is no easy way out. The upshot of this analysis is that capitalism itself has outlived its usefulness. Further to this, it has become financially toxic to all but those on the top of the heap. And the longer we depend on it, the worse the situation will become.
This view suggests that capitalism, due precisely to its efficiency and energy, has become antithetical to human needs. While the profit motive has served the majority in the developed world well, it will no longer do so. It will render the lot of us serfs without lords, slaves with no master. It will impoverish us and it will kill us. It will steal our vital needs or prohibit them from ever being produced.
The efficiency aspect, while impressive, is turning on us all. The wizard technology we've become used to has rendered many occupations obsolete. It can manufacture all we need with very little labour input. And, given time, it may be able to produce all we need with the push of a few buttons. While that may sound good, this condition does not suit capitalism. In fact, capitalism cannot survive this condition. It is impossible.
While capitalism may spit employees out onto the street, it needs consumers. Unfortunately for capitalism, an individual needs to be a worker before he or she is a consumer. The worker and consumer inhabit the same physical body.
The Diminishing Rate of Profit
As capitalism matures, the rate of profit from a given unit of labour diminishes. That is, it becomes more difficult to squeeze a dime of profit from an hour of labour. To make matters worse, global competition has rendered the old formula where firms were subsided by the state to pay decent wages, dead. Workers are now competing with the most oppressive terms of exploitation on the planet. The old (so called) 'American dream' is finished. It's time to wake up.
Individual firms are under constant strain from two sources; competition from other firms and ongoing costs such as maintaining payment of wages to employees.
Firms aim to increase productivity as much as possible. This is accomplished through improving technology and through squeezing as much work from a worker as is manageable. It is in their interests to get workers to work as hard as possible for as little pay as possible. On both counts, they are doing very well.
It is vital to out-compete other firms; to drive costs down. This allows the firm to lower prices. Efficiency and low prices are the objective. Profit is the goal.
Large scale production has become impressive in its efficiency. To lower costs firms utilize lateral acquisition of resources that are required goods and services that go into production or, they contract out to sources that will fetch the product at lower prices than anyone else. Generally speaking, the pressure to cut costs also cuts the rate of profit.
Suppose the rate of profit were to remain constant. In that case profit would expand according to what was invested in stocks. If the rate is falling however, profit is naturally more difficult to achieve. And when this occurs, the incentive to invest in manufacturing diminishes. As investing in stocks grows more risky, the growth of capital in stocks falls. The rot of the integrity of the value of liquid capital spreads. Capital itself loses its integrity and value. And as long as they depend on worker's wages to pay the bills when in reality they can't, the crisis related to the value of money is magnified.
Additionally, the ensuing lack of wages results in not only lack of demand but in an evaporation of the tax base. Workers that depend on the tax base such as civil servants and teachers are thrown out of work as a result, further eroding the diminishing tax base. This exacerbates the problem by driving down demand for goods and services which in turn forces more firms out of business and workers onto the streets. We are entering an economic black hole, a period of crisis.
This crisis is fundamentally different than cyclical fluctuations (recessions) which may be remedied in various ways such as investing in public works with tax dollars and borrowing until the ship is righted again. Similar crisis occurred in the periods 1873 to 1893 and from 1929 to 1941.
In its heyday, the capitalist system saw increased real wages in western economies. From 1947 to 1967 real wages grew in the United States by approximately 50%. Unemployment was not an issue, and deficits were miniscule. The so-called Western world was the base of manufacturing and consumption. But, as Professor Ismael Hossein-Zadeh points out in a recent article: "By the late 1960s and early 1970s ... both US capital and labor were no longer unrivaled in global markets. Furthermore, during the long cycle of the immediate post-war expansion US manufacturers had invested so much in fixed capital, or capacity building, that by the late 1960s their profit rates had begun to decline as the capital-labor ratio of their operations had become too high. In other words, the enormous amounts of the so-called “sunk costs,” mainly in the form of fixed capital, or plant and equipment, had significantly eroded their profit rates."
As the rate of capital accumulation decelerates, and capital, like a shark, needs to continually eat and grow, or die, the shark itself becomes more aggressive and ruthless. It will squeeze an extra dime from any unit of labour it can and, when that dries up, it will look elsewhere.
Since the 1980s capitalists and politicians have been kicking the can down the road. This mess has been coming at us for some time. Avoidance was helped by real growth due to the building of high tech infrastructure, which in turn has helped crucify the employee. The infrastructure, once built, will not need to be built again. And it's maintenance is not going to save us.
Various bubbles (like the dot com bubble) had put the reality of our collective abyss out of view. Some bubbles were based in widespread criminal behaviour on the part of large corporations, bodies like the Federal Reserve in the United States, and scores of politicians. They have propped up the illusion (with the help of mainstream media and whores that have degrees in economics) that all is well - for three decades. In the meantime, the rot of the capitalist system has been eating away at our real security. We have continued to depend on something we can no longer depend on.
John Maynard Keynes is Dead
In the coming months and years there will be sincere and intelligent arguments from the left to return to Keynesian economic policies. After all, this formula has worked, arguably, better than anything else in history to provide a decent standard of living for the most people. The good ship Fabian appears to have sailed however. As Professor Hossein-Zadeh points out:
"The US capitalist class pursued the Keynesian-type policies in the immediate post-war period as long as political forces and economic conditions, both nationally and internationally, rendered those policies effective. Top among those conditions, as mentioned earlier, were nearly unlimited demand for US manufactures, both at home and abroad, and the lack of competition for both US capital and labor, which allowed US workers to demand decent wages and benefits while at the same time enjoying higher rate of employment.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, both US capital and labor were no longer unrivaled in global markets. Furthermore, during the long cycle of the immediate post-war expansion US manufacturers had invested so much in fixed capital, or capacity building, that by the late 1960s their profit rates had begun to decline as the capital-labor ratio of their operations had become too high. In other words, the enormous amounts of the so-called “sunk costs,” mainly in the form of fixed capital, or plant and equipment, had significantly eroded their profit rates.
More than anything else, it was these important changes in the actual conditions of production and the realignment of global markets that precipitated the gradual abandoning of Keynesian economics. Contrary to the repeated claims of the liberal/Keynesian partisans, it was not Ronald Reagan’s ideas or schemes that lay behind the plans of dismantling the New Deal reforms in fact, steps to hammer away at those reforms had been taken long before Reagan arrived in the White House). Rather, it was the globalization, first, of capital and, then, of labor that rendered Keynesian or New Deal-type economic policies no longer attractive to capitalist profitability, and brought forth Ronald Reagan and Neoliberal austerity economics."
Let's not get caught up in the notion that the capitalist class and their paws (politicians) had decided to be kind to working classes or middle classes. Each and every benefit, including decent wages, social security, free medical care (except the USA), in developed countries were won through hard and sometimes deadly struggle. It was the threat of revolution and the preservation of the privileged class that compelled Keynes himself to distribute wealth.
We are about to witness a period unlike anything we have seen before. The tension on global capital, the increasing and continuing falling rate of profit, and the ensuing hunger of capital itself will reduce or eliminate your wages, your pension, social security, and it will find the change under the cushions of your sofa.
As we become increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, as our kids lose hope for a decent future, as homeless people stand alongside burning barrels next to empty and foreclosed homes, we will hit the streets. Predictably, we will aim, at first, to resurrect John Maynard Keynes. We will discover, eventually, that Mr. Keynes is as dead as a doornail. Perhaps it is best to let him rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)