US coal firm launches NAFTA suit against Alberta over coal phase-out

Click here to access article from ISDS Platform.

The ISDS Platform, a non-profit NGO, tracks such cases throughout the world. I am posting this article to illustrate the powerful control that the advanced version of capitalism, neoliberalism, has, and that their capitalist beneficiaries enjoy, under the domination of the US-led Empire. One little clause that is inserted in every neoliberal agreement requires a nation to submit to a private court any laws that are passed that might result in a loss to private owners. 

ISDS is a mechanism included in many trade and investment agreements to settle disputes. Settling these investor disputes relies on arbitration rather than public courts. Under agreements which include ISDS mechanisms, a company from one signatory state investing in another signatory state can argue that new laws or regulations could negatively affect its expected profits or investment potential, and seek compensation in a binding arbitration tribunal. Corporations typically seek compensation which may amount to millions or billions of US dollars.

Capitalists have always regarded the ownership of economic property as sacred. International corporations have managed with the backing of the US Empire to insert such clauses in every economic agreement between and among nations. Nations must accept such neoliberal clauses if they want to do business with nations under the control of the US Empire which is most of the world. Also recalcitrant nations will likely be denied loans from international banking agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank. Such agreements are especially onerous for nations that have suffered many decades, even centuries, of exploitation by foreign corporations under colonial regimes.

In this example where a Canadian province decided to stop coal production as a means to allay global warming, they are likely to be forced to pay billions of dollars in compensation to the coal companies. While reading this article, you might also notice other examples this organization has tracked.

Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

Click here to access article by Jon Schwarz from The Intercept.  (Updated with more commentary at 11 PM Seattle time.)

Strange, but I've never heard of this verse, or heard it sung. So, I googled it, and sure enough Kaepernick is right! Now I will forever associate that verse with the national anthem.

Almost no one seems to be aware that even if the U.S. were a perfect country today, it would be bizarre to expect African-American players to stand for “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Why? Because it literally celebrates the murder of African-Americans.

Few people know this because we only ever sing the first verse. But read the end of the third verse and you’ll see why “The Star-Spangled Banner” is not just a musical atrocity, it’s an intellectual and moral one, too.

Francis Scott Key, the author of "our" national anthem, was obviously from well-heeled and well-educated British stock who saw the US has any opportunist bourgeois of the era saw it: splendid opportunities to grow rich by plundering the American continent. And he apparently unconsciously accepted the Marxist axiom that all value comes from labor by casually accepting the use of human property to create value for this new class of capitalists. The latter just needed workers to work for them to help them plunder and clear the continent of those "savages" who were living there. They couldn't get enough workers from Europe to immigrate, so they captured, imported, purchased, and used Africans to produce their wealth. 

Meanwhile, the British tried to undermine the economy of the USA by offering slaves freedom if they could make it to their Canadian colony. What treachery! Those British scoundrels who taught Americans to believe in the sanctity of property were trying to steal American property!

Ron Paul Drops Wiretap Truth Bombs

Click here to access a 9:49 video featuring James Corbett, who expands on some recent comments by Ron Paul and posted on his website.

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that Corbett has labeled himself as an anarchist which is someone who "advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions". Thus he loves new companies like Uber, Bitcoin, and Airbnb, which he refers to fondly as a new "peer to peer economy". 

He like many others, especially young people, are easily influenced by the older American conservative views espoused by Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, and Pat Buchanan who have been superseded in the ruling capitalist class by the more imperialist and Zionist neoconservatives (aka "neocons" or "ziocons"). Paul and Roberts especially like to run critical articles about the current ruling class that is dominated by neoconservatives. The latter combined with liberals have vigorously promoted policies of neoliberalism and imperialist adventures which they like to criticize.

However these old fashioned conservatives also are strong advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights while opposing any tax funded measures to alleviate the worst effects of laissez-faire capitalism for working class victims. Moreover they oppose legislation that promotes regulatory agencies that (pretend to) reign in the excesses of capitalists in pursuit of profits. However because they enjoy their new popularity, you won't see them criticizing any similar measures passed by Trump (examples: the new Trump proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act or the appointment of a dedicated opponent of the EPA to head the EPA). Should they return to power in the US ruling capitalist class, you will then see their true views expressed in all their dark anti-working class colors. (see this regarding Paul)

Life Itself Is Being Patented, Privatized and Re-engineered

Click here to access a transcript of an interview with Ashley Dawson, author of Extinction: A Radical History, posted on TruthOut.

The periodic crises of the capitalist system also drive it to seek out new and easily exploitable natural resources. Capitalism's frontier consequently expands outward incessantly. ....

Today, this expansionary dynamic of capital is playing out through the commodification of life on the genetic level. Large corporations are moving genetic material around from one organism to another and, increasingly, seeking to turn living organisms into factories to produce lucrative products. In the process, life itself is being patented, privatized and radically reengineered.

New trade deals legalise corporate theft, make farmers’ seeds illegal

Click here to access article from GRAIN.

This topic has often been discussed and condemned before, but this report goes into much greater up-to-date details that the issue deserves.

The patenting of life has been hotly contested for decades. For farmers, it makes seeds and livestock more expensive and takes away their right to freely reproduce them. It also reduces life and culture to a commodity that corporations can own and control. While the WTO agreement allowed countries to exclude plants and animals other than microorganisms from their patent laws, it required that they provide some form of intellectual property protection over plant varieties—the seeds that farmers sow—without specifying how to do that. According to industry representatives who helped draft the text, the US corporations got 95 per cent of what they wanted from TRIPS.

FTAs negotiated outside the WTO go even further and help US and European corporations get what they weren’t able to achieve under TRIPS.

'Free Basics' Will Take Away More Than Our Right to the Internet

Click here to access article by Vandana Shiva from Common Dreams. (Note: Shiva uses a couple of abbreviations commonly used in India: "SEZ" and "TRAI".)

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, has raised the ire of activists in India to what they see as another corporate attempt to exploit their society for profits.

Facebook’s Free Basics is a repackaged internet.org, or in other words, a system where Facebook decides what parts of the internet are important to users.

These activists have already witnessed the devastation that Monsanto Corporation has caused for farming in India (see numerous articles by Colin Todhunter by entering his name in one of my search boxes), and they don't like his latest profit-making effort to act as a gatekeeper to limit what people see over the internet.

Vandana Shiva has been one of the most vocal critics of this trend of corporate takeover and makeover of Indian society. As a strident critic of Monsanto Corporation and frankenfoods produced by using grains from Monsanto's bio-engineered crops, she writes:

The right to the internet is the right to choose what spaces and media we access; to choose spaces that enrich us — not what companies think should be our ‘basics’.

Our right to know what we are eating is as essential our right to information, all information. Our right to an open internet is as essential to our democracy as our right to save, exchange and sell open pollinated farmers’ seeds.

In the ultimate Orwellian doublespeak, “free” for Zuckerberg means “privatised”, a far cry from privacy — a word Zuckerberg does not believe in. And like corporate-written “free” trade agreements, Free Basics is anything but free for citizens. It is an enclosure of the commons, which are ‘commons’ because they guarantee access to the commoner, whether it be seed, water, information or internet. What Monsanto’s IPRs [Intellectual Property Rights] are to seed, Free Basics is to information.

Aspiring to Rule the World: US Capital and the Battle for Syria

Click here to access article by Stephen Gowans from his blog What's Left. 

This article really consists of two essays: 1) an analysis and exposition of what people outside of the US refer to as "bourgeois democracy", and 2) how the latter influences our policies toward Syria. Essay #1 is Gowans' most important contribution. I regard it as a "must read".

Bourgeois democracy can also be described as "capitalist democracy" because the capitalist class created this fake form of democracy after they took control of the US and France during their revolutions and more gradually in Britain. It became the model that all capitalist countries at least aspire to. This form was a product of capitalist class rule disguised as democracy because of the early embryonic capitalist classes need for the support of the lower classes (peasants, laborers, skilled craftsman, etc) to overturn the rule of monarchs and aristocracy. Thus the lower classes were induced to support the capitalist revolutionaries with vague promises of "freedom" and the rule of law celebrated with such slogans as "liberté, égalité, fraternité". What they really seriously advocated was the sanctity of private property.

Gowans essay #1 provides a very concise understanding of how the capitalist class rules the US behind the facade of "democracy". 

TPP's Copyright Trap

Click here to access article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Capitalism is famous for encircling and fencing off areas of private property the major fruits of which can be mostly enjoyed by their "owners". For many decades we have witnessed the growth of "ownership" related to creative and intellectual works under this system. The owners can range from someone who is directly connected to the "property" to someone who merely purchases the ownership of that property. The latter is true because under capitalism nearly everything can be, and often is, converted into a commodity.  Now we see that this is another dangerous anti-social feature of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that will accelerate inequality.

One of the defining battles in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations is whether its signatory countries will standardize copyright terms lengths to a minimum term of the life of the author plus 70 years. This would effectively set the maximum duration of copyright holders' monopoly rights to over 140 years. ....

But the world's leading economists agree that such an extraordinary long copyright term makes no sense. It provides no further incentive for creation and provides little additional income to creators or their families—except for a very small, successful minority. 

VIDEO: Aaron Swartz And The Fight For Free Information

Click here to access article by Abby Martin from MintPress News.

This tragedy is another illustration of how capitalism turns everything into commodities for the rich to profit from.

The majority of the wealth of human knowledge is owned by a few publishing companies that hoard information and make billions off licensing fees, although most scholarly articles and journals are paid for by taxpayers through government grants. Aaron sought to change this. 

The script in this post is mostly repeated in Martin's video, but the video is better. So, if you are short of time, I recommend viewing the video and skipping the text. 

Her commentary was inspired by the release of a full length film on Aaron Swartz posted at the end of the article. She explains the legacy of Aaron Swartz: his fight to have the internet serve people instead of profits. 

Unfortunately, we lost a brave warrior whose valiant efforts were crushed by capitalist ruling class authorities whose only concern was to preserve their "ownership" of information. We, the living, must join the battle for which he fought or his short life's struggle will be in vain.  (I was particularly moved by Swartz's comments beginning at 5:18m.) 

 

Monsanto & Seed Patent Laws

Click here to access a 4:24m video on the John Stewart's The Daily Show.

Notice at one point in the dialog the farmer expresses a fundamental insight: "Monsanto patenting our plants is a theft of our genetic heritage."

I've always wondered why most people cannot see that our economy is also a social heritage and as such cannot be owned by private individuals or "corporate persons"?

The Lunacy of Gene Patenting & Angelina Jolie's Mastectomy

Click here to access article by Prabir Purkayastha from NewsClick (India).

Jolie is an icon and her body is an important element of her appeal; therefore her decision and its consequences are clearly of great public interest. While commentaries and TV programmes have focussed on breast cancer detection and what kind of medical intervention should or should not be done, what has slipped the world's attention is that one particular company – Myriad Genetics – completely controls not only all diagnostic tests but also all research for this particular form of breast cancer.

The author reveals that the genes were originally discovered by the "University of Utah with public funds", which then sold the patents to Myriad Genetics. Ain't capitalism wonderful?

She also explores the many implications of having corporations owning the building blocks of our bodies.

Are Genes Patentable? An Insider's Review of the ACLU's Supreme Court Argument on Gene Patenting

Click here to access article by Lenora M. Lapidus from American Civil Liberties Union. 

The ownership of property that can be used to extract wealth from other citizens has always been a cornerstone of capitalism, and it doesn't matter to the people who own such property if this arrangement causes widespread suffering in any form to the rest of humanity. People with sociopathic tendencies are attracted to this system and the ownership of such property which ultimately gives them and their heirs enormous wealth, and with wealth comes the even more deleterious effect of enormous power. Such people constitute a socioeconomic class, also known as the One Percent or capitalists, who work daily to preserve and enhance their system.

In recent decades we've seen this class enter the world of biotechnology in search of more things to "own". Although the question in the title of this article is a fundamental one, it seems a little late to pose it. The courts controlled by the One Percent have already ruled that life forms created by tinkering with the basic ingredients (genes and DNA) of non-human life forms can be owned, so why not those of humans? The only thing that this class of people regard as sacred is property.

Introducing: Open Source Philosophy

Click here if you wish to access the source of these two videos on Open Source Ecology. The 4:12m and 6:59m videos are narrated by Dr. Marcin Jakubowski and the OSE team from Open Source Ecology.





These people are demonstrating what technology could do not only to liberate humans from want, but to enable them to thrive by creating leisure time to devote to enriching everyone's lives. 

However, the Open Source people seem to be totally unaware of the resistance to their ideas coming from the existing system of capitalism which, for the few people who control it, provides them with so much wealth and power. These powerful people have no interest in designing a new social-economic system, and they will fight any attempt to change systems. 

In any case it looks to me like OS's demonstration of the benefits of removing intellectual property barriers can provide the necessary foundation for a revolutionary challenge to capitalism. Their ideas about, and the benefits derived from, liberating information clearly subvert the existing assumptions about private ownership: competing over the private "ownership" of factors of production--resources, labor, ideas, etc--benefits society as a whole. No amount of media propaganda can cover up the disasters of this system which are becoming so blatantly obvious: extremes of wealth and poverty; powerlessness and alienation of the vast majority; conversion of avarice, greed, and envy into virtues; reliance on police state methods to suppress popular opposition; devastating wars of conquest; and worst of all, climate destabilization; etc.

Locked in the Ivory Tower: Why JSTOR Imprisons Academic Research

Click here to access article by Laura McKenna from The Atlantic.

As has often been observed, under the system of capitalism everything, including knowledge, tends to become a commodity from which capitalists derive their profits, with major capitalists benefiting from added influence over governments. This author while writing for this capitalist media source only alludes to this characteristic. The headline suggests that JSTOR is the bad guy. However, the substance of the article points the finger at publishers.

The publisher is key, because he needs money to print and distribute the journal for its tiny community of readers. To make that money, the publisher sells the rights to an academic search engine company, like JSTOR. For the publisher, this venture is highly profitable because, unlike traditional publishing, the publisher does not have to pay the writer or editor. It only has to cover the costs of typesetting, printing, and distribution.

There has recently been a slight improvement in this situation. This article from Tadween Publishing reports:

After years of restricted access, JSTOR announced on January 9 that it will make the archives of more than 1,200 journals available to the public for free, giving those who sign up for an account with JSTOR the ability to read up to three articles every two weeks. 

Aaron Swartz, Canary in a Coal Mine for the Information Cartel

Click here to access article by Nozomi Hayase from Dissident Voice.

An American Hero

On Jan 11, 2013, a bright light burned out. Aaron Swartz was not only a prodigy. He was a genius with technical skills and articulated political thoughts. But more importantly, he was a thoroughly good person. Many who were touched by his life noted that he was always so willing to help people. “What can I do? I can build it. I can solve it. I can make it possible”. All of his work was based on that simple yet extraordinary generous heart.





This "canary", one of the finest examples of American youth, died while fighting against a core value of US capitalist society--property rights. Aaron was one of the key leaders of the victory over internet censorship which would have given the government the right to shut down sites that infringed on information commodities.

The open internet has been embraced by nearly two generations of youth who have seen the incredible potential of the internet to connect people with each other, with ideas, with knowledge, all of which could vastly enrich their lives. Also, maybe because of their youth they were not fully indoctrinated in capitalist values and concepts, especially the core concept of private property which is the foundation of capitalism. And, the more private property the better to feed the appetites of wolf-like, predatory creatures called capitalists who created a system that would transform everything into a commodities to be bought, owned, and sold for profits. Even money became a commodity which they (the privately owned "Federal Reserve") lend to the larger society--with interest, of course.

The system was created by, and for, this tiny minority who could see its potential to force the rest of mankind to work for them. Their system was never designed to serve society, but only a small segment, their segment, who "owned" the implements of production and thus "owned" everything that was produced. 

The defeat, so far, of these censorship bills represents a rare grassroots victory won in the halls of Congress owned and controlled by the ruling capitalist class. Obviously, he became their target along with class warriors like Bradley Manning who dared to challenge this class's right to commit war crimes with impunity. We, the people, simply must carry on their fight and support such dissidents against the backlash of an angry, vindictive ruling class.

The corporate steamroller of gentrification is a deliberate process

Click here to access article by Pete Dolack from his blog Systemic Disorder. 

Gentrification is an ongoing process, of which we’ve had two reminders in the past month in New York City. The recent closing of the Bowery Poetry Club is a sad reminder of the dwindling number of community spaces — and one need only look across the street to see a high-end corporate clothing boutique occupying the space where CBGB showcased musical acts for more than three decades.

While witnessing recent changes in a neighborhood in New York, he discerns a pattern that may reveal a strategy of "deliberate gentrification" that remakes organic neighborhoods to serve the interests of profit for the One Percent. 

The author's breadth of vision sees this as a part of the historical experience of the capitalist class that first saw them clearing people from the commons in Britain in the18th century to make way for more profitable sheep farming. Many people were forced to work in their woolen mills for long hours and low wages. Others were forced to immigrate to the British Empire's newly conquered possessions.

The Rules of the Game

Click here to access article by Jim O’Reilly from his blog Comments on Global Political Economy.

Although one might dispute the last clause of the last sentence in the article, this retired maverick banker knows full well that there are other alternatives to "business as usual" with the implication that capitalist rules of their game might be subject to change by the 99 Percent.

Modernizing Henry George

by Herman Daly from CASSE.

Sacrifice of nature’s scarce services constitutes an increasing opportunity cost of growth, and that in turn means that nature must be priced, either explicitly or implicitly. But to whom should this price be paid?

                                                                *************

“Value added” belongs to whoever added it. But the original value of that to which further value is added by labor and capital, the value of scarce natural resources and natural services, should belong to everyone.

Marxists argue that capital is accumulated surplus value created by labor. Under capitalism capitalists claim this as their private property. If the Marxists are correct, then by the same reasoning as Henry George, because the capitalists did not create this stored value, they cannot legitimately lay claim to it, and it should belong to all working people.

Rich countries set intellectual property rules in secret: What’s ours will stay that way

by Philippe Rivière from Le Monde Diplomatique. 

Rich capitalist corporations of the West are secretly attempting to secure more rights of ownership over ideas. The private ownership of economic property is the foundation of the capitalist system. Intellectual property which includes many life saving drugs, even life forms, are the latest battles being waged by capitalists to secure the benefits for them to the detriment of the many. 

This is not about individuals being rewarded for their creative efforts. Individuals mostly work in corporate settings where the corporations own, under the property laws of capitalism, everything that is produced there. Or they work in public institutions where the institution owns the ideas and inventions, and in turn sells them at bargain prices to corporations.

From their start in 2008, ACTA negotiations were held behind closed doors by an ad-hoc club of rich countries. No one knew where the negotiations were taking place and who was representing which country, let alone the contents of the text, made available to a few select lobbyists for the music, cinema and pharmaceutical sectors in the US.