Some Basic Problems with Capitalism

Capitalism encourages greed, exploitation and corporate wrongdoing of the Enron variety. Too much power is in the hands of massive trans-national corporations that are not accountable to the public as governments are [Note 1], and which have a single motive: profit.

The basis is exploitation - the means of wealth production are controlled by a tiny minority of the population. The rest of us have to sell our skills to them for a wage which, because of profit, is necessarily beneath the value of what we produce.

The result is that a tiny percentage of people enjoy huge wealth, while millions of people live in abject poverty. There are sufficient resources to feed, clothe and educate all of humanity but that doesn’t happen: millions of people die every year because of poor food, housing and medicine, while the rich get richer. This is a direct result of capitalism.

The competitive struggle for profits leads to stress, environmental damage and lack of job security. It also leads to war and the tremendous cost to the public purse that arms spending represents. Cost to the USA of the Iraq war so far: $750 billion. Arms companies do very well out of wars [Note 2].

Politics and Profit

Capitalism is a profit-making system that puts profits before everything else and cannot work in any other way. This is why changing governments changes nothing: they are bound by the economic laws of capitalism. Hence, governments elected on a manifesto to reform capitalism normally end up squeezing wages, benefits and public services to keep costs down (e.g. Tony Blair‘s New Labour). The profit system constrains what government actions are possible.

Most governments are in league with Big Business, so any political party with a genuine chance of power acts in the interests of the big corporations and the privileged few at the top.

Motivations

It is expected under capitalism that people will accumulate as much property as possible, with the intention that that people in general will benefit. Unfortunately, this accumulative motivation does not have the desired effect because most people do not benefit.

There are other motivations besides salary: travel, education, interesting work, holidays, more free time, helping people, a feeling of importance, the happiness that comes from doing a good job, and so on. Management theory has it that the single thing most likely to motivate employees was the feeling that what they were doing was important. [Note 3]. Whether you agree with this or not, the important point is that pay is not the only factor.

The primary support for the wage incentive principle is the falsehood that luxuries brings happiness and this falsehood is ruthlessly perpetuated by employers and advertizers alike - they are in collusion with each other, of course. So, selfishness and greed are encouraged. Greed is sometimes even taught in schools;  in the words Albert Einstein: “An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career”. [Note 4]

Fairness

Fairness and business are antithetical.  Business condones profiteering, pollution and exploitation as long as they remain within the letter of the law (or sometimes even outside the law if they think it‘s worth the risk). Fortunes are spent by businesses every year, lobbying against laws to prevent their worst excesses. Anti-pollution regulations are almost always vigorously opposed by businesses because they impact on profit.

The mass media tends to reinforce the system because it is not free of financial constraints. Advertizers gain influence over content because their money is required to keep the TV stations and newspapers in business, so inevitably the reliability of what is broadcast is suspect. This, of course, reinforces the luxuries falsehood mentioned above.

The media onslaught is so intensive and consistent that many people no longer question it and lead their lives untroubled by self-examination. Why don’t schools teach the whole picture rather than merely one facet, and show people how to think critically about economics, politics, ethics and how they live their lives?

Starving

Under capitalism, insensitivity to human needs is rampant.  Many Western countries actually pay for crops to be ploughed back into the fields, while people starve throughout the world (The EEC does this and so do both Canada and the USA). 

Production should be determined by human need, by necessity.

Antisocial Behaviour

Strong Capitalists are typically against nationalized healthcare, environmental regulations, and other socially and environmentally beneficial programs. These attitudes are not only anti-socialist, they are antisocial. The opposition is because these programs  reduce profit.

The profit requirement prevents capitalism from resolving the injustices that it causes.

A More Socialized World

A more socialized world is possible in which people come before profit. Societal control would be more democratic and less influenced by the rich and by Big Business. The world’s resources could be put to meeting human needs, rather than using them solely to make the rich even richer. It should be a matter of shame for all of us if anyone in the world is starving to death.

People would still work to make a living and they would still buy and sell - there is no excuse for laziness. Some jobs would, of course, pay more than others. The minimum wage would be sufficient to live adequately and healthily.

Excessive bureaucracy has been an issue in some socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, so we must learn from them and maintain the rights of the individual whilst avoiding too much government and bureaucracy. The tax laws should be able to be printed in large print on one side of one sheet of paper, for example.

Schools should teach critical thinking and the responsibilities of living in a society and should present all sides of issues rather than just one side.

These ideas may sound outlandish to many, and that is a result of the propaganda machine that relentlessly reinforces the current system and dismisses alternatives.  If you only take away one thing from reading this short piece, let it be this:

Those with wealth and power want things to stay exactly as they are. Why do you think that is?

Notes

1. If Wal-Mart were a country, its 2002 sales of $245 billion would make it No. 31 on the list of the world's largest economies richest nations, ahead of Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Austria.

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-fi-walmart24nov2403,1,7288517.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

2. “In 1 year, Halliburton's stock doubles as troop deaths double”
“Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War”

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/stock_troop2.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/15445/

The “10 Most Brazen War Profiteers“:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083/

3. This is basically Maslow level 4: “The supervisor can help fulfil esteem needs by showing workers that their work is appreciated”.
http://telecollege.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/4directing/motivatg/motivate.htm

“Certain things like money, a nice office and job security can help people from becoming less motivated, but they usually don't help people to become more motivated. A key goal is to understand the motivations of each of your employees”
http://www.managementhelp.org/guiding/motivate/basics.htm

4. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

Plant rights ... it was only a matter of time

http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf

Hi to everybody...I've just watched a programme on BBC2 called The Birth of Israel. I hope some of you here managed to see it because it was a very in depth study of how Israel came into existence...after watching it, I still retain my feelings that the Palestinian people have been very wronged and have been left to their fate by the rest of the world, including the Arab countries. The disgrace is the fact that the surrounding Arab countries could not unify to defend the Palestinian people...in the Arab war against Israel, several Arab countries sent armies into Palestine to allegedly defend the Palestinians, but each of their leaders had their own personal agenda for going in with regard to the lands of Palestine, namely they sought control of it and to expand their own territories...and none trusted the other. The Israelis did not come out of this programme with clean hands, but defended what they did and only one regretted what had happened in one of the Palestinian villages they entered where one of many massacre by the Israelis took place. The rest of those interviewed included Shimon Peres, the current President of Israel, and fighters for the Hagganah and Irgun forces all of whom showed no remorse whatsoever for the driving out of the Palestinians from land rightfully belonging to them. It is 60 years now since the foundation of Israel and the wounds on both sides in this on going conflict are still raw and bleeding. Israel is still expanding its settlements into Palestinian land, and it looks to all intents and purposes that it will continue to do so now that it has established itself as a powerful state albeit under constant siege...I can see no way that peace will ever come unless the Palestinian people are completely and utterly crushed, which looks to be the aim of Israel now...it is an on going tragedy that contains within in it a fuse that is smouldering away and at the end of it is a time bomb of a catastrophe on a terrible scale...

What Is the Difference Between a Hacker and a Cracker?

There have been many articles written (particularly on the Internet) about the difference between hackers and crackers. In them, authors often attempt to correct public misconceptions. This chapter is my contribution in clarifying the issue.

For many years, the American media has erroneously applied the word hacker when it really means cracker. So the American public now believe that a hacker is someone who breaks into computer systems. This is untrue and does a disservice to some of our most talented hackers.

There are some traditional tests to determine the difference between hackers and crackers. I provide these in order of their acceptance. First, I want to offer the general definitions of each term. This will provide a basis for the remaining portion of this chapter. Those definitions are as follows:

A hacker is a person intensely interested in the arcane and recondite workings of any computer operating system. Most often, hackers are programmers. As such, hackers obtain advanced knowledge of operating systems and programming languages. They may know of holes within systems and the reasons for such holes. Hackers constantly seek further knowledge, freely share what they have discovered, and never, ever intentionally damage data.

A cracker is a person who breaks into or otherwise violates the system integrity of remote machines, with malicious intent. Crackers, having gained unauthorized access, destroy vital data, deny legitimate users service, or basically cause problems for their targets. Crackers can easily be identified because their actions are malicious.
These definitions are good and may be used in the general sense. However, there are other tests. One is the legal test. It is said that by applying legal reasoning to the equation, you can differentiate between hackers (or any other party) and crackers. This test requires no extensive legal training. It is applied simply by inquiring as to mens rea.

Mens ReaMens rea is a Latin term that refers to the guilty mind. It is used to describe that mental condition in which criminal intent exists. Applying mens rea to the hacker-cracker equation seems simple enough. If the suspect unwittingly penetrated a computer system--and did so by methods that any law-abiding citizen would have employed at the time--there is no mens rea and therefore no crime. However, if the suspect was well aware that a security breach was underway--and he knowingly employed sophisticated methods of implementing that breach--mens rea exists and a crime has been committed. By this measure, at least from a legal point of view, the former is an unwitting computer user (possibly a hacker) and the latter a cracker. In my opinion, however, this test is too rigid.

Hi to everybody...read this in the Independent today, and just feel that things are getting so much out of hand that something needs to be done about this....don't know what but something needs to be done...I saw some of the exhibition in Euronews I think it was and it's a very good exhibition on Palestine and the Palestinians...now the Barbican is being accused
of being anti-Israeli!!

Barbican's tribute to 1948 accused of demonising Israel

By Arifa Akbar, Arts Correspondent
Wednesday, 30 April 2008

As far as the organisers of the exhibition are concerned, these photographs of Arab refugees, displaced from their homes in Israel in 1948, are merely an artistic slice of life from a dramatic point in Middle Eastern history.

But the Barbican Arts Centre's show Homeland Lost, consisting of 16 black and white images taken by the photojournalist Alan Gignoux soon after Israel gained independence, is the unlikely frontier of new hostilities between Britain's Israeli and Arab communities.

Jonathan Hoffman, of the Jewish umbrella group the Zionist Federation, has complained to the London arts venue's director Nicholas Kenyon about captions accompanying the photos, which state that the 800,000 Palestinians who left their homes were "uprooted" and "dispossessed". He accused the Barbican of "falsifying" history.

Mr Hoffman insisted he was not speaking on behalf of the federation, on whose board he sits, but added: "The exhibition contains historical distortions which have the effect of demonising Israel."

Similarly, Lior Ben-Dor, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy, said the language used in the exhibition, which was originally funded by the British Council and staged in Jaffa, Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Belfast and Amsterdam without causing offence, did not reflect reality.

He claimed it ignored the fact that the "refugee problem" was caused by Arabs refusing to accept a United Nations resolution for the establishment of a Jewish state alongside an Arab one. "They refused a UN resolution and started a war. The result of war was the creation of a refugee problem," Mr Ben-Dor added.

He also criticised the Barbican for not staging an Israeli film festival for 18 years, despite repeated requests, yet regularly hosting a Palestinian festival, the latest of which closes this week. "We would like for them to open their doors to us," Mr Ben-Dor said. "The embassy would be very happy if the Barbican chose to balance its activities with the Palestinian Film Festival with an Israeli one."

Last night, the Barbican dismissed the accusations and insisted it would not bow to political pressure. It said it had received only two other complaints and defended the decision to stage the show, as well as the language used in the captions.

It said: "We appreciate that interpretations of historical events can potentially be controversial and may inspire strong reactions, but are clear that decisions on such matters need to sit firmly with our artistic and curatorial team.

"This exhibition is a serious, thought-provoking examination of the issue of home and exile, juxtaposing portraits of Palestinian exiles with present-day images of the places that they left in 1948."

London's Palestinian Film Festival is Europe's biggest and has been held at the Barbican for four years. The centre is planning a Yiddish film festival next year, and there was an Israeli Cinema Showcase across the capital earlier this month.

For Mr Hoffman, though, a celebration of Yiddish cinema is not enough. "If the Barbican thinks a Yiddish film season in 2009 goes any way towards balancing four successive years of Palestinian film festivals, they are wrong. It is about as much balance as would be putting chicken soup and salt beef on their restaurant menu."

Mr Hoffman said he objected to the language in a caption describing the forced expulsion of Palestinians. He said: "Many Arab inhabitants left or sold their homes to Israelis."

He claimed that a caption accompanying a picture of a grandfather, saying he was "allowed to stay in Israel after 1948", was inaccurate because Palestinians were not subject to systematic expulsions. Another photo, showing empty fields where a Palestinian village once stood, says its inhabitants fled after hearing of violence nearby where "dozens of Palestinians were killed". Mr Hoffman said this statement was "conjecture".

The London-based Palestinian Solidarity Campaign insisted that the language used was "appropriate" and hailed the festival and exhibition as a success. Its spokesman, Martial Kurtz, said: "It is widely accepted that the creation of Israel involved massacres and villages being erased."

I am aware I have put up quite a few posts on similar subjects, but I am growing increasingly alarmed by the constant accusations aimed at anybody who dares to criticize Israel, or to show any sympathy with the Palestinians, or to now even put on exhibitions showing their films and photographs and some of their history...it is going to end in a disaster at some point I fear...

Hi to everybody...in the Independent yesterday there was this article and it has me flummoxed...does anybody else think that it is extremely confusing...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/healthy-living/is-your-breakfast-making-you-fat-817165.html

Never do anything finite.

Hi to everybody...thought you might be interested in these two letters from the Independent yesterday...re Hebron and what's going on there..

Victims of settler violence in Hebron

Sir: I have worked as an observer three times in the Tel Rumeida district of Hebron and immediately recognised the portrait of injustice and casual brutality by members of the Israeli army, police and settlers (report, 19 April). The need for outside observers was also highlighted by the article: as long as Israeli authorities are responsible for the safety of all residents and property in areas of Hebron, but act only to protect the settlers, one of the few options is for observers with cameras to film settler and army violence and to try to bring these events to the attention of the media.

On many occasions, I have been attacked by settlers from the Beit Hadassah and Tel Rumeida settlements in Hebron, often in front of Israeli soldiers or police, who on every occasion except one did nothing to stop the attacks or to attempt to apprehend the perpetrators.

The most common response from Israeli soldiers was that they could do nothing to prevent the attacks and to imply that the attack was my fault, as my mere presence as an observer was a "provocation" to the settlers.

As long as such fanatical settlers are supported by the Israeli government with army protection, financial support and near-immunity from prosecution, the situation will not improve for Palestinians in Hebron, and anyone whose presence in Hebron is considered a "provocation" by the settlers risks being attacked.

Last week, the Israeli media reported that a delegation of German politicians to Hebron were forced to cut short their visit after they were attacked by settlers. The army did not intervene.

Joanna Welch

Manchester

Sir: It is a tribute to the courage of some of the soldiers, and of Donald Macintyre, that the brutality of Israel's occupation of Hebron has been revealed. The lesson of their testimonies is that occupation, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine, corrupts and dehumanises the occupier, even as it terrorises the occupied. Our duty should be to work towards the termination of this and other occupations.

But in this case, the occupier has encouraged foreigners, few of whom are even Israeli-born, to colonise the city and vent their fury on its defenceless citizens, against the tenets of the Geneva Conventions. The time has come to hold Israel to account by, at the minimum, making its privileges, such as the EU-Israel trade agreement, which gives Israel special export rights to the European Union, conditional on evidence that international human rights protocols are being observed.

Diana Neslen, Martine Miel, Carolyn Gelenter

There has to be a time when this behaviour is recognized as unacceptable by the rest of the world...we are rebuking China for its treatment of Tibet, Mugabe for his treatment of the Zimbabweans who oppose him, Russia for its treatment of some of its previous satellite countries and so on...but we rarely hear a strong public rebuke of Israel...this surely needs to change and it isn't anti-semitism either, just the same as it isn't anti-African to rebuke Mugabe, anti-Russian to rebuke Putin, anti-Chinese to rebuke them for Tibet...it's human beings shocked by what is perceived whether rightly or wrongly as injustices against other human beings...and by rightly or wrongly I mean there are always two sides to every story, and every country or person accused of injustices should have the right to explain why they are behaving in such a manner...if the explanation is considered valid then the two sides should be brought together to heal the rift...the efforts being made to bring Palestine and Israel together have failed constantly and every time one fails, the Palestinians end up far worse off than they were before...what we're witnessing is the systematic destruction of a people and their economy and the infrastructure of their country...that's profoundly wrong and must be stopped.

Hi to everybody...BBC Green are putting out information now about the environment and how we can help protect it...here's a good explanation of the pros and cons of biofuels.
What are biofuels?

Biofuels are the plant-based alternatives to oil-based fuels such as petrol, diesel and heating oil. Burning biodiesel emits CO2, but this is offset by the fact that the crop used to produce it uses CO2 from the atmosphere to grow.

However, the environmental benefits of biofuels are hotly disputed, with some green commentators claiming that they cause more harm than good.

There are two main kinds of bio-fuel: biodiesel and ethanol.
Biodiesel

As the name suggests, biodiesel is designed for use in diesel engines. It is very similar to vegetable oil and is produced from the same kinds of plants – oil-rich sources such as sunflower, palm, rapeseed and groundnut. It can also be made from animal fats or oils recycled from restaurants.

Biodiesel can be used neat in some diesel cars. But at present it's more commonly found in a mix with regular diesel – typically 5 per cent biodiesel with diesel fuel. This mix can be used in any diesel car.
Ethanol

Ethanol-based biofuels are designed for use in petrol engines. It is produced mainly from sugar and maize but it can also be made from many other cereal crops, such as wheat and barley. Ethanol is particularly popular in Brazil, where around 30 per cent of vehicle fuel is produced from sugar cane.

Like biodiesel, ethanol is typically added to conventional petrol, which allows it to be used in any car. However, some special cars, such as the flexible fuel vehicles common in Brazil, can handle ethanol in much higher concentrations.
Driving destruction

Growing fuel in fields is an attractive idea but serious concerns have been raised over the side-effects of the burgeoning market for biofuels.

The main worry is that the rush for biofuels will impact on our ability to grow sufficient food crops, which would be disastrous for poor urban populations. The other concern is that it will boost the incentive for people in tropical countries to clear rainforests and grow crops – disastrous for the environment.

But production of biofuels is still rising and the EU wants them to account for 10 per cent of fuel for transport by 2020.
Hidden emissions

Another argument against biofuels is that they may not be as climate-friendly as they appear. It's true that burning a biofuel releases CO2 equal to or less than that soaked up by the plants as they grew.

But that doesn't take into account the greenhouse emissions caused by growing the plants in the first place. For example, CO2 from fertiliser factories and tractors, and nitrous oxides released by ploughing the soil.
Blessing or curse?

The total environmental impact of a biofuel is difficult to measure. It depends on the crop, the farming practices and even the degree to which rainforests are protected in tropical countries.

While biofuels continue to be promoted by some policymakers, on both sides of the Atlantic, many experts remain highly sceptical of their benefits. In January, the UK’s government’s Environment Audit Committee recommended dropping biofuel targets. Author and journalist George Monbiot has even gone so far as to describe biofuels as an "agricultural crime against humanity".
Future fuels

As for the future, cellulosic biofuels, made from low-input crops that can be grown on marginal lands, could bring clearer benefits. But it remains to be seen how long it will be before these next-generation fuels become practical and economical.

A more promising solution may be algae, say some experts. Algae doubles their size in a day, making them among the most efficient organisms at capturing light energy and converting it into biomass. And unlike biofuels such as corn, algae don’t use up land or water that could be used to grow food crops.

Some experts believe that algae on around 20 million aces of land would be enough to supply all of the US’s transportation fuel needs, which is a small fraction of its agricultural land. Algae need a good supply of carbon dioxide to grow at an acceptable rate, and they can feed on nutrients in sewage. Both of these resources are readily available so biodiesel from algae could offer real hope.

As a result, algae are getting increased attention from oil companies. Shell, which is building a pilot facility in Hawaii to grow and test marine algae for its potential on an industrial scale.

Hi to everybody...still here and struggling to keep my blogs going with all the probs BCUK has at the moment.
Here's a very interesting article in the Independent's Extra today...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/healthy-living/feeling-stressed-pull-yourself-together-813249.html
Interesting in that, if it doesn't exist, what causes the side effects of all that 'normal' behaviour, like ulcers and breakdowns etc..? Or, is that normal too, and we just take too much notice of it in our modern world...perhaps it has always gone on ever since humans first appeared on the earth, but quirky or erratic behaviour was just accepted as belonging to that particular individual...maybe I shouldn't be taking the pills I now take to calm the build of acid in my stomach caused my being rather stressed at the moment...LOL...who knows?
Big hugs to one and all...