We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Posts that I especially recommend today: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 (might add posts later)

With the assumption that mainstream reports are accurate regarding the current pandemic, I don't care of you read the article or not because the more informed readers will know beforehand the gist of this story as an illustration of how capitalism functions. Such readers already know the rest of the story. They will already know the socially dubious ways property owners have by taking advantage of public subsidies to acquire more of this type of intellectual property for their own, and their families', benefit.
But, aren't the authors indulging in a bit of confusing contradictions? Their only defense is an argument that matters of life and death deserve some suspensions of capitalist rules which "liberals" such as these authors like to argue. But this is a specious argument that soon collapses under the weight of another argument that people should be provided all necessary goods for their health and survivability such as shelter, food, sufficient clothing, and health care. But why stop there? 
Don't people need to be productive so that they can contribute to an economy that supplies these needs? The first thought that comes to mind is education, and then training in a productive specialty. Shouldn't all people have access to these fundamental needs? Is the capitalist system which considers all property, intellectual and real economic property, as privately owned and controlled to be used for their, and their families', benefit? Isn't this system, which has succeeded in bringing vast types of all property under private control for the benefit of a relatively few individuals and their families, considered almost sacred by it proponents, many of whom "own" much of this property? Because property rights are considered by such people as sacred, does this not justify in the minds of these people the right to exploit others, force others to comply with property owners ideas and demands with threats of harm, even maim or kill them? But you say, that is fascism! (Neo-fascism, which is prevalent today, relies more on controlling your mind with censorship and manipulation of information. However, if that doesn't work there is always the police and military to enforce compliance.)

In spite of the heavy censorship provided by media corporations, you might know that this happening everywhere in the world today. Given such thoughts, you might reconsider your commitment to capitalism by supporting efforts to end all property rights (except over personal property). But, you say in horror, that would be socialism/communism!
This collective type of ownership of economic property is often described as a alternative to capitalist enterprise, even as a revolutionary alternative for some enthusiastic supporters. The latter are usually employed in educational institutions and enjoy comfortable careers. 
Some 50+ years ago even I was taken in by their rhetoric. I studied them in the few obscure sources that I discovered, and even participated in a few collective type enterprises.  However, the proponents rhetoric failed to live up to the reality I encountered. Such enterprises barely survived, and most workers had to supplement their income from conventional sources of employment. Many failed or were taken over by private owners who turned them into conventional industries. 
It seems that conventional enterprises are supported by the legal, educational, and social institutions of capitalist countries and collective enterprises are not. This adversely affects collective enterprises in two decisive ways: 1) such enterprises could not compete with conventional enterprises because of lower costs of labor for the latter, and 2) many people who participate in these enterprises have experienced capitalist culture all their lives. 
The first difference results in the employment of people exclusively based on their philosophical preference of working in such a collective enterprise, but not on their skills or productivity, and because less productive members can't fired. The second reason resulted in workers who were socialized in selfishness and competitiveness of the larger culture and were unable to function effectively in a collective enterprise.
  • Dangerous Provocations Ahead for Iran by "Tony Cartalucci" from New Eastern Outlook. My reaction: Once again the author relies on a Brooking's document to demonstrate the US/Anglo/Zionist Empire's plans for Iran. This is sound because the ruling capitalist class never allows exposure to their plans in a mainstream source which are for self-serving propaganda purposes only.
at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,