Response to a neoliberal

This was from a conversation I had with a staunch Ayn Rand enthusiast. In retrospect, I should commented on the superb welfare state that funds the corporations that he and Ayn Rand adore, and the 'socialism for the rich; capitalism for the rest'.

"My definition of human rights is this: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Your "definition of human rights" is the usual individualist oriented ideology that supports neoliberal doctrine. In turn justifying hegemonist corporate/capitalist atrocities and obviously in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's probably the different premises that is making this clash, from one that emphasizes property and the worries of the wealthy, to one that emphasizes universal welfare and the needs of the poor.

"But the fact remains that government has made it clear that they will be expected to continue to shoulder more and more financial burdens to pay for some politician's wet dream. That is what they seek to escape."

Oh boo hoo, the multi-billion dollar machine is expected to pay the federal government to help single mothers feed their children.

I think that your understanding of this situation is pretty flawed, not surprising considering the apparent neoliberal indoctrination. In this situation there are three entities: the corporations, the political entity (government), and the poor people. In this situation is John Dewey's efficient observation that "Government is the shadow cast on society by big business", most accurate and fitting. For one thing, big businesses, or as Chomsky appropriately calls them, "unaccountable private tyrannies," pretty much control the government to do the bidding of the "National interests," namely the interests of the rich and the strong. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels effectively illustrated the use of the government in the Communist Manifesto (I'm not a Communist BTW): "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." The poor people are left out of the decision-making process, which is not democracy, but in this case a plutocracy. But there is sometimes a burst of democracy where people try to force the government to care about them. The people try to realize material security, and pretty much Article 23.

Therefore that "politician's wet dream" you speak of is the guarantee of education, healthcare, in effect, material security of the people.

The real "politician's wet dream" you speak of is when the government is paid to ensure that the rich stay rich, the people are not heard, the Universal Declaration is ignored, and that the people who are powerful enough to pay the money to control the government live comfortably.

"Here's another fact: I don't care.

Taxes are a form of theft, done under the threat of force (e.g., give us your money or face the law). Regardless of their alleged uses (sorry, but I don't support punishing the wealthy for the problems of the poor. They earned that wealth and it is theirs to use as they please), it is immoral. And forcing more taxes on businesses that are already struggling to get money isn't going to help them expand, which is what leads to more employment."

That's funny, I took you for a patriot American exceptionalist.

Taxes aren't a form of theft. I want to pay taxes because it will go to the welfare of my community (in a just society, but we live in a hegemonist society so it goes to keeping the rich rich and to killing strangers to secure "National interests"). If you want to go around making bold pronouncements based in ideology like "Taxes are a form of theft", how about this? Wages are a form of slavery, and slavery is immoral (not to mention a violation of the UDHR). Today, the rich don't pay taxes, they live in comfort. Using the system above, the government (in the ‘80s, when troubles in the economy started off) lightened taxes on the rich, and laid heavy taxes in the poor. Taxes stopped going to the welfare of the people, but the luxury of the rich. To illustrate, the poor work as slaves to the masterly rich, and pay taxes which go to paying for the perfection of the military state or the limousine.

Let's look at one of the good things that taxes fund - education. Public education allows for the economy to become stronger. A more efficient education allows for the learning of skills which is crucial to the strengthening of an economy.

Where do the problems of the poor come from? The worker is only paid enough to survive. The sick are denied treatment because they are sick poor. The young are denied excellent education because their parents are blue collar and are meant to dwell within the caste. The poor don't receive the money to live in dignity (which, by the way, violates Article 25). America is not a meritocracy. There is an illusion that is common among citizenry (because they've been indoctrinated) that if you're rich, it's because you've worked very, very hard. It's true for the small business, but for the giant, they are rich because of ruthlessness, violation of treaties with workers, and working in the system above of socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. Essentially, the rich are so rich not because of honest work, but efforts toward vicious class war and inheritance.

Taxes may be immoral when it goes to war and fraud, but they are not at all immoral when they go to funding education and welfare, eventually healthcare (which is a human right). What is immoral is that some drive expensive cars, while many live hardship and submit to others because ‘they work harder', and it is declared that there is equality.

Now imagine a world where the plutocracy has total control of life, there being no obstacle such as a potentially democratic political institution to impose accountability. No social security, no medicare, no institutions sponsored by tax to protect people's material security. Not hard to imagine, especially in the Third World (where this reality exists). People would be given only enough money to survive and propagate more slaves to serve the lavish masters. Not to mention the horrifying working conditions.

Behind the colorful patriotic, and nationalist preaching in neoliberal doctrine, this is the goal, the victory of the class war.

"Land has no value in and of itself (honestly, you're talking about DIRT); its value is based on how it may improve the life of man (e.g., growing food, providing natural resources, etc). Also, if the land in question is privately owned, the owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with it, as the right to property includes the right to use and disposal."

I am not talking about dirt, I am talking about water. Take for instance hydrofracking, where thanks to dismantling laws to protect water, companies use unsafe drilling methods that pollute water. Let's imagine that someone allows a company to drill on their land, it poisons their water, and their neighbor's groundwater. What right does someone have to ruin someone else's water? Watch Gasland for the account.

"I would like to see you show me proof of what you're claiming. I've seen what the people like you define as slavery and how you blow things out of proportion."

Read Profit Over People by Noam Chomsky

Read No Logo by Naomi Klein

Watch : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4513202692382805096

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8firb73r67g&feature=related

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYaDY-xTzZ0&feature=related

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvnEc48A7yM&feature=related

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4se4jYI9KAc&feature=related

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0tIB9m_BBg&feature=related

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf2CSUoxyOk&feature=related

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUmyevPS2cY&feature=related

Pilger does pretty good movies, and Chomsky is refreshingly objective.

"And what kind of governments do those countries have?"

These countries have dictatorships that obey the companies that fund them. Without these dictatorships, there would be labor laws, and the effort to out source would not have happened.

Now justify it for me =)"

We Are The Dead

The Third World War is over,
And the Fourth has begun.
You say it's a joke,
But when you see the starving and bleeding,
it's nothing but the war we face.
The piper plays for the plastic audience.
As a theatre screen burns,
And the fire spreads throughout the city,
Throughout the countryside,
Throughout the metropolis,
Thoughout the entire world,
An International Youth stands to speak,
"Theatre! Theatre!"
Our composition is blood,
And our expression is soul.
As the audience melts,
As the hollow dolls leak oil,
As the piper finally dies,
The lycanthropes notice that somethign went wrong.
Maybe it's that their children bleed for nothing.
Maybe it's that their water burns.
Perhaps the soma salesman was finally shot.
Perhaps it has come and gone,
We are already the dead.

July 7th, 2010

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill - Anything New?

BP is just another oil company, a capitalist corporation with its capital as oil production/refinery. What is the cause of this oil spill? It is the lack of safety precautions and disregard for regulations that caused the leak. If BP had bought and installed the precautions that would have costed next to nothing for them, we would not have an ecological disaster such as this.
Obama says he is angry at BP for the oil spill. Then why did he not drive for enforcing the safety protocol and regulations that would have prevented this tragedy? The aggression and avarice coupl;ed with the indiffreence towards the survival of the planet as long as their mansion remains uneffected, being allowed to run amok is also the fault of our failed attempt at a Welfare State.
Resolutions from the most collaborationist to Revolutionary:
1-Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call to the State to remind them of how Privatized Tyranny running amok leads to discontents in the populace, particularly that most affected. Which will lead to a few more safety regulations and restrictions on how said tyrannies will play a role in oil production and extraction.
2-Perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call to the populace to put stresses on the State and the Oil Bourgeoisie to do the functions mentioned above.
3-Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call to people that States and Corporations are never to be trusted, and that any good is done by the will of democracy, real authentic democracy. And this wake-up call will lead to a bit more of authentic democracy.
4- Maybe this will help point out that Capitalism is a dangerous system, and when looked at from the point of view of the decent human being, a flawed system, as it gaurantees an extreme imbalance of wealth and power, and will culminate towards the desctruction of the Neoliberal-Capitalist regime and the creation of the democratic and egalitarian society everyone longs for.
Who knows? Maybe nothing will happen.

Wage-slavery

Wage-slavery is what is wrong with capitalism. It deprives a worker of who she is, and what she could become. Workers are always at odds with eachother, competing to sell the only resource available to them (us), their labor. This is why wages can be so small, and struggles are made to survive on them, particularly in 'the third world' where labor law is pretty much non-existant and unions have been eradicated along with what semblance of a republic was remaining there. Wages are only as high to allow for the worker to still be a worker, that is to keep her alive and docile to serve her master, the capitalist.
Mean while... As the worker suffers from the plight of political disenfranchisement, an absence of economic liberty, a continual drop in her focus by the charade of the mass media, and ultimately a humiliating defeat for her dignity, the capitalist who owns her, reaps the benefits of her labors as a capital, and enjoys the luxuries of that capital through economic subsistence, political power, a decent education, and an elevation of his status. In this setting, we see the likelyhood of the persistence of class, that is the inheritance of the class a child was born into. The child of the worker has fewer chances of a decent and excellent education than the child of the capitalist.
Surely someone will respond alike Milton Friedman and attempt to quote Adam Smith out of era (18th century, and 21st century are different centuries) to say that the worker has as much freedom as the capitalist and has the option to quit her job from the capitalist if he treats her unfairly. Regarding the former, to consider the material conditions of the worker, and the wealth of the capitalist, this is a ridiculous and condescending lie. Regarding the latter, Bakunin said it best,
"Easier said than done. At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this particular industry. Other employers may be paying even less than his own employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another one. And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh." (Bakunin)
So it is seen that the worker is always in a sort of serfdom to her masters, the capitalists. No matter the turbulance of the economy, the worker suffers more than the capitalist.
Someone may say, yes I see that capitalism can be oppressive, but is it true to call it 'slavery'? Again, Bakunin says it best,
"M. Karl Marx, the illustrious leader of German Communism, justly observed in his magnificent work Das Kapital2 that if the contract freely entered into by the vendors of money -in the form of wages - and the vendors of their own labor -that is, between the employer and the workers - were concluded not for a definite and limited term only, but for one's whole life, it would constitute real slavery. Concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom. Yes, transitory and voluntary from the juridical point of view, but nowise from the point of view of economic possibility. The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery." (ibid.)
I admit that times have changed, and that technological advances and class mobility has increased, but it must not be forgot, that class mobility in one country, is at the expense of class mobility in another.
Hopefully I have helped to clear away the delusions of liberty and equality in Capitalism. But what hope does the worker have in achieving her liberties and rights? A Social Revolution would be most appropriate in gauranteeing the rights of all, maintaining that it is led by the people and not a vanguard (such as a militia or a party).

Bakunin, Mikhail. "The Capitalist System." Anarchy Archives. Pitzer College, 28 oct 2001. Web. 9 Dec 2010. .

The Capitalist System by Mikhail Bakunin

some poll: Capitalism, '10 edition

I made a poll about Capitalism... It's a bit of friendly mocking to comrades who work at The Revolution Script. But as everyone can see, it ends at the end of the Month of May, a month of revolution, so there is a sense of seriousness.