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.