The Election Issue That Dare Not Speak It's Name

What election am I referring to – whatever one is next in whatever jurisdiction you are in.

Yes I am talking about that which we dare not speak – the need to change our economic system before its ultimate collapse.

Karl Marx predicted the collapse of capitalism, and it was happening, only to be rescued by of all things socialism – the pooling of the masses resources to rescue their exploiters.

However unless we act to change the system we can only put off the ultimate demise of capitalism as we know it.

It is not so much private ownership or even profit that I am speaking of, although they contribute to the problem. I am speaking of something much more fundamental – the need to redefine what we consider to be a successful economy. The problem is we currently measure economic success as continuous and increasing unsustainable economic growth based on the continuous unsustainable exploitation of finite resources.

Capitalism also only values wage employment discounting all activities not done for a paid wage as economically meaningless, including the caring for children by parents and volunteer work or other unpaid creative work. How capitalism values work is also subjective and very fucked up, someone playing playing a game earning a million dollars a year contributes 10 time as much to the economy as someone earning 100 thousand dollars a year finding a cure for cancer. The actual value of work to society has no relation to the economic value capitalism gives it.

We also have to rethink our historic attitudes to what we call civilized and primitive. I was brought up within a society that taught that our industrialized societies built on dominating and exploiting nature were far superior to those “primitive” societies where people lived simpler lives in harmony with nature. Unfortunately our civilization is bringing our society and planet to the edge of collapse.

Capitalism has it’s religious tenets as well, the most revered being the belief (very much in a religious sense, being based on faith rather than evidence) that competition is superior to co-operation and promotes innovation.

The belief is if you have a problem and tell ten people to solve it, it will be solved faster if each person works separately inspired by the fact they will make a fortune if they succeed or become a bankrupt failure if they don't. Indeed under capitalist dogma money is the only possible motivator.

The rational understanding that ten smart people working together, and off of each others ideas, striving for the common good, will be more successful sooner than ten individuals working separately is simply capitalistic heresy. The idea that people might be motivated by something other than money is anathema to our greed based economic system.

According to theory competition is supposed to result in multiple campaniles competing for customers business resulting in the ones that provide the best value for money thriving. In reality we see that what happens is the most powerful (most ruthless) driving out the weakest in an increasing move to a more monopolistic economy, with a few dominant corporations that are deemed to big too fail and must be saved by the socialism of taxpayer funded corporate bailouts.

Whether it was the aim or expectations of it’s creators, the most important and evil result of capitalism has been the rapid increase of inequality to the point of immorality.

We have moved along way from the original promise of capitalism, if it ever existed, where entrepreneurs formed businesses to make products or supply services to customers at decent quality for a decent price paying workers an honest days pay for an honest days work, in return for a fair profit. Today’s corporations (with a few exception) are only in one business, maximizing shareholder profits.

And that is not serving the needs of society or the people.

The only real election issue (except perhaps where democracy itself is the election issue) should be what do we replace capitalism with.

Is There a Conspiracy to Break and Then Fix Health Care ?

So how would this work. I suggest first you underfund public health care as well as simply not spending budgeted funds. As the public facilities fail to meet the needs you claim private facilities are needed. You then transfer funds from public to private facilities further reducing the public facilities capability. You then claim the private facilities are the answer to the crisis and start increasing funding diverting more to the private sector. As care improves you declare that privatization has solved the crisis and is the saviour of health care. You then claim to be spending more on health care than ever as the added profit expenditures make it appear that more funds are being spent on care.

The winners are the private heath care corporations and the political parties they support that made this all possible and we get a bunch of new multi-billionaires as a bonus.

The stages of corporate social media

Corporate social media essentially goes through three stages.

The first is new, free and wonderful, lots of functionality, user friendly and free, or at least pretending to be free. It’s purpose is to build a customer/product base (as the customer is the product).

The second stage is monetization. The purpose is to make money so once the free loss leader period is over measures to create revenue are introduced. These are usually things the users can live with and are introduced along with measures to make the customer dependent on the product.

Once that is achieved we move into stage three, equivalent to the final stage of capitalism. We move from earning a fair profit to profit maximization with no regard for the user, the assumption being that by this time the user is convinced their very existence is dependent on the product, also known as the Facebook effect.

With the introduction of Brand X, EvilElon is clearly telling us he is moving Twitter into Stage Three as capitalism moves into it’s final stage.

Is Charity Evil

We supposedly live in a major developed industrialized country which is one of the seven most advanced economies in the world, yet:

many people depend on charity to be fed and not starve,

many people depend on charity for a place to sleep so they do not freeze to death in winter,

many people depend on charity to have a place to stay to protect them from being killed by their domestic partners,

despite our so-called public health care system we depend on charity to fund major medical research and many of our public hospital are in permanent fund raising mode to provide the beds and equipment they need to provide that care,

even our public education system depends on charitable fund raising to provide such basic amenities as library books, as well as extra programs, leading to a class-based public education system depending on the wealth of the neighbourhoods schools are located,

and the list goes on and on.

Do we not have a social responsibility to provide these basic human rights to our citizens. Should we not be funding these basic human rights collectively through a progressive tax system.

Who really benefits from charity.

Certainly corporations use charitable donations not just for tax benefits but for brand image enhancement. The wealthy use it not just as a method of tax management but also personal promotion. But it no doubt also provides a way of easing one's guilt for one's greed.

What would it be like for society if instead of making tax deductible charitable donations corporations paid all their employees a living wage. What would it be like for society if instead of making tax deductible charitable donations the wealthy paid their fare share of taxes, including a wealth tax.

What would it be like if we did not need charity because we fully funded a complete public health care and education system from a progressive tax system where everybody paid their fair share.

What would it be like if we eliminated the need for charity by establishing a minimum wage and a guaranteed basic income that allowed everyone to have a decent standard of living.

What would it be like if we did not have charity because we didn't need charity because we recognized as a society that everyone had the right to a decent quality of life.

What is the role of government if not to ensure citizens have a decent quality of life.

Does charity enable government to shirk that responsibility.

Is charity evil.

Why #DeleteFacebook

Not because Mark Zuckerberg is a self-entitled white-privileged frat boy who based Facebook on an app he developed called Facemash to rate students “hotness”.

Not because of Facebook’s Predatory Business Model that leverages users and their friends personal information to maximize profits.

Not because Facebook wants to replace the open Internet with a proprietary for profit service.

And not because Mark Zuckerberg is a Trump enabler who either supports, sympathizes with, or fears the American President's power.

BUT because no corporation should have the kind of control over the amount of personal (and in many cases corporate and government) information and data that Facebook seeks to have for the sole purpose of maximizing profits, and no person should willingly give them that.

Rogers and Me Part 2: When You Have A Monopoly I Guess You Don't Have to Tell Your Customers What They Are Paying For

After my original attempts to get Rogers to answer my questions via e-mail failed I posted my questions to Google Drive (originally Google Docs) and tweeted the location to them and finally got answers via Twitter, 140 characters at a time.

That brought me to the next stage of the decision making process, which was deciding between the Digital Plus and VIP packages. So that should be easy - go to the Rogers website and see just what the differences between the two packages are. Not so easy I discovered. I expected to find a listing and description of the Basic package, and then what Digital Plus adds, and then what VIP adds. But it does not work that way. They only list the full complement of channels for each package and you have to go through them yourself to determine just what additional channels you get with the each package and then you only have a list of names. So then I went looking on the Rogers web site to find descriptions of the channels they wanted me to pay to subscribe to, without success so, I tweeted @RogersHelps again, resulting in this exchange.

Richard W. Woodley ‏@the5thColumnist @RogersHelps is there a place on your website where I can find a DESCRIPTION of all the channels in the VIP package, not just list of names

Nicolas @ Rogers ‏@RogersNicolas @the5thColumnist Hi Richard, I'm afraid we don't have a description of each channel individually.

Richard W. Woodley ‏@the5thColumnist @RogersNicolas rather astounding that you can't provide customers with a description of what you're trying to sell to them @RogersHelps

So I did my own research and made my own list which I posted to Google Drive here and I am still considering my options. But it is rather astounding that they expect people to buy a package without knowing it's contents, and more so that they can get away with it. The power of a monopoly.

Rogers and Me: Father Corporation Knows Best in Mister Rogers Neighbourhood

I prefer to deal with companies using email because it allows me to carefully ask questions and carefully consider the answers before asking follow-up question, as well as providing a written record of the information received.

I was quite surprised to find that Rogers Communications, which considers itself to be the best Internet service in the country, does not provide a means for customers to communicate with them via e-mail.

I searched Rogers website looking for an e-mail address for customers to ask questions about upgrading our analog cable TV service to digital and could not find any. The only place that had any sort of form for submitting questions to get an email response was here - https://www.rogers.com/web/content/contactus - and the closest form was for for Cable Media Relations, hardly the place for customer information requests.

I then queried the @RogersHelps Twitter account and was told first that Rogers didn't answer customer questions by email and then a further response referred me back to the same place on the website so I submitted the questions with no answer after a week, and none expected.

I am aware that Rogers has telephone and live chat help available and I know some customers prefer that. However, as stated above, I prefer to use e-mail to deal with companies I do business with.

Perhaps I am being stubborn and should just trust that the big corporation knows best how I should communicate with them but I believe that companies should let their customers choose which way to communicate with them, as long as it is reasonable and normal, which of course email is, in fact being the norm with most companies. Twitter on the other hand may be trendy and an effective way for customers to get a corporations attention but it is not an effective medium for seriously asking and answering complex questions.

These are the questions we are trying to get an answer to from Rogers.

The first question is about the PVR purchase and rental options. We noticed a rent to own option of $15 a month for 36 months which was appealing because by renting we do not have to buy a PVR outright that only works with Rogers if we want to change TV providers but yet if we are happy with the service after 36 months we own the PVR and have no more rental payments. However we also noticed a $25 rental option without purchase after 36 months. Why would anyone opt to pay more to get less. My best guess is that the $15 rent to own option is really not a rent to own option but simply a financing option and we are committed to keep paying for 36 months no matter what. Can you tell us what the differences between the $25 rental forever option and the $15 rent to own after 36 months option are.

Oh, and does the $500 PVR come with the recommended HDMI cable, or is that extra.

We understand there is a $50 installation charge. Is it possible to do the install ourselves by picking up the necessary outlet signal splitter and digital boxes at one of your stores, or having them delivered to us.

Also is it possible to connect TVs to the additional outlets without a digital box and get the basic analog channels on it.

Also if it is possible can I indicate all this during the online ordering process.

So we are left considering our options as to whether to just do as we are told by Rogers, who obviously believes they, not their customers, knows best, or simply seek out a different Television Service Provider who has more respect for their customers.

Vale Wins 2012 Public Eye People's Award for Worst Company of the Year

Click Here for More Information

Generation Inspired - Let Capitalism Fail

No comment required.

However, I cannot help but comment as I watch this and think about how we are supposed to react to the international response to the economic crisis and the measures being taken to save capitalism from collapse. What is happening is exactly what Karl Marx predicted except that he did nor foresee the use of a form of socialism for the rich to save capitalism. As governments world wide use austerity measures against workers to bail out the banks and corporations that have exploited them for years we are supposed to sit back and take it because there is no alternative.

But, there is an alternative. Let history happen. Let capitalism fail and build a new society from the ashes of the old.

Who Is To Blame For The Olympics

So is it all just fun and games and are we all just blind to what is wrong with the Olympics.

I don't think so. I think many people have problems with what the Olympics have become with more emphasis on profit than sport and more emphasis on sponsors than athletes, not to mention the impact on the communities the Olympics are held in, which is more often positive for the wealthy and negative for the poor. On the other hand, many have been sucked into the spectacle that the Olympics have become, a spectacle that is dependent on, and supportive of, corporate money and sponsors. Sponsors money feeds the spectacle and the spectacle feeds corporate profits and somewhere in there is IOC empire building.

But we support the Olympics anyway because we still believe in the ideal, and more importantly because it is the only Olympics that the athletes have.

As for the Olympic sponsors, some seem to be really bizarre.

I do find it ironic that the company that has been exploiting Canadians longer than any other company is an official sponsor, especially since their Canadian Olympic clothing is "Made in China", but they do have the protection of the Fashion Police.

I also find it really strange to watch world class athletes promoting McJunk food and I have to wonder how many IOC or VANOC dinner meetings have been held at the Official Restaurant of the Olympics. And then there are the official Olympic drugs, not to mention official beer and wine suppliers. And what is a sporting event without an official gambling provider.

And I am offended by the fact that the Olympic organizers are forcing Canadians, and visitors, who want to use a credit card at the Olympics (and do not have the right card) to get a new one.

And then there is this.

There have been protests raising serious concerns about the Olympics, although protesting at an international sports/cultural event obviously does not receive the same amount of public acceptance as protesting at international political/economic events. The protests have included some damage to the property of corporate sponsors by masked "protesters". They state their case here.

While I can certainly agree that the minimal physical damage done by these masked "protesters" is nowhere near the damage done to the poor and disadvantaged by the holding of the games I cannot condone it, primarily because it does more harm than good to the cause.

I am one who believes people should stand up for what they believe in and not hide behind masks. I am even uncomfortable with the concept of anonymous blogging, but I can understand the reason for it and it does no harm to anyone. If these "protesters" want to make a point about damage done to the poor by doing damage to the property of those they consider to be causing it, then do it out in the open, surrender to the police, and then argue your case in the courts of law and public opinion.

But what I would suggest, as an alternative to protests that alienate the public, is that in the future the emphasis be put on the People’s Summit aspect of the protests and that the protesters propose to the Olympic organizers that they will not take to the streets in exchange for the Olympic organizers sanctioning and publicizing a People’s Summit that examines all aspects of the Olympics. The media should pledge to give the People’s Summit reasonable coverage, especially the host broadcaster. The People’s Summit should be completely independent, possibly university based, and include full criticism of the Olympics. It should provide for some participation by Olympic organizers, which would allow them to state their case and, more importantly, allow them to be held accountable by the public for their actions.

This will be to both sides advantage - the serious protesters will be better able to make their case and reach the public without a public backlash and they will not be tainted by the actions of so-called anarchists, who will be marginalized and easier for the organizers to deal with.

This is not to say that the problems are not serious enough to justify taking to the streets but that the alternative can be more effective in reaching, rather than alienating, the public.

Of course if Olympic organizers are not prepared to be subjected to public scrutiny and public criticism they can always reject the idea and suffer the consequences of continuing, and probably escalating protests at future Olympics.

In closing, I want to say, as a Canadian, that I am proud of all our Bronze Medal Winners and others in the world can make as many jokes about that as they want. I do not believe that you're a loser if you don't win a gold medal. Indeed, if you've worked hard enough to actually be good enough to participate in the Olympics you're already a Winner and I am proud of all of our Olympic athletes.

Completing The Cuban Revolution - An Open Letter to Raul and Fidel Castro

The time is ripe for the completion of the final stages of the Cuban Revolution and the transition to a truly democratic and socialist society. Let us be clear. This must not be an American style “capitalist democracy” where wealthy corporate interests control the economy and political system, but a true peoples democracy.

I see three components to this transformation.

Economic Democracy – Beyond State Enterprises

This will include the expansion of the economy from state institutions to include small businesses, (where the owner works in the enterprise and earns his income from his labour and not from capital invested in the businesses) as well as co-operative enterprises, including both producer and consumer co-operatives.

Economic democracy must above all else ensure that foreign corporate interests are not allowed to dominate the economy.

Civil Democracy – Freedom of Expression and the Press

The revolution is truly strong enough to withstand competing ideas. The people of Cuba can be trusted with the full right of free expression, including full access to the Internet and the right of free expression on it, whether on forums, blogs or other means of communication.

As well a free press will invigorate the people and enhance the revolution. But we are not talking about the rights of corporate interests to build propaganda machines. We are talking about the rights of the people to have free journalistic expression by means such as newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, through their organizations such as labour unions and co-operatives, including co-operatives of journalists.

Political Democracy – Free Elections

It is time to move beyond one party politics - but not into corporate politics, where corporate interests dominate elections and conduct them as marketing campaigns. It is time to have real alternatives to the communist party candidates. These should come in the form of candidates from peoples organizations, such as labour unions and co-operatives, as well as independents. But election campaign funding and expenses must be restricted to ensure elections are grass roots activities and not marketing campaigns conducted by the wealthy.

Towards A Free Democratic and Socialist Cuba

Some will say that because this model does not mirror that of western democracies that it is not truly democratic.

Remember that Cuba had an American style “capitalist democracy” and when the people were about to elect Fidel Castro into government the corporate interests scuttled the election and it took a revolution for the people to put their chosen leader into power.

And I ask is our system truly democratic when the economic and political system is so heavily dominated by wealthy corporate interests as current events so obviously demonstrate.

I say to the leaders and people of Cuba you have a chance to set an example for the world of what a peoples democracy can truly be.

Building A New Society From The Collapse of Capitalism

This is the first of a series on the economic crisis opportunity.

Karl Marx said “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. In other words we are all expected to contribute to society what we can and only expected to take what we need. Under socialism laziness and greed are both vices.

Unfortunately under modern capitalism greed is considered more of a virtue than a vice and has become the driving force of the economic system. It is greed that has brought capitalism to where it is today.

So is socialism the answer. Rather than try to insert a lengthy treatise into the middle of this post let us just all agree that we are not ready to move to that stage at this point in time.

But we do need to change our way of thinking and the way we live in this world for the good of the planet and it’s peoples.

Capitalism has simply gotten out of control, especially American capitalism where most corporations today operate on the principle that “corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value”, that is profits, without regards for employees or customers, or communities, or the broader public good.

We have seen it in our communities with the decline of local businesses and the growth of mega corporations. As owners become more disconnected from their businesses concerns for workers and customer value disappear to be replaced by the pursuit of, not just a fair profit, but maximized profit.

And we are all complicit as we sell out our friends and neighbours who worked in the locally owned businesses and local factories, for cheap goods produced abroad by near-slave labour.

Alongside greed, but driven by it, are false assumptions. The first false assumption is that wealth creation is all that matters, and wealth redistribution is an evil of socialism. The assumption being that as long as we keep creating wealth the rich will keep getting richer but enough “crumbs” will trickle down to working people and the poor to keep them happy. This is based on the same theory that sees recessions as the worst thing that could possibly happen. But it is a theory based on continuous and unlimited growth, a dangerous false assumption, The planet simply does not have the resources to support unlimited economic growth without self-destructing.

So where do we go from here. For the moment those responsible are still living their lavish lifestyles, pausing only to fly to Washington in their corporate jets to ask the common people to bail them out with their tax money. But the fact is that the American economy, and even the Canadian economy is so dominated by these mega corporations that their failure would have serious implications for working people.

In the short term governments need to keep the economy from collapsing, for the broader good, But they should not do it on the corporations terms but in a way that serves the common people. In the long term this is an opportunity to change the way the economy works – to an economy that serves the common good, not just corporate interests.

We have seen that countries with mixed economies, in particularly Canada, with a greater degree of government regulation and involvement in the economy have done better than the American pure capitalist approach. We need to learn from that, and build on it. But we need to go much further in building an economy for the people and the planet rather than an economy just for the corporations.

We can build an economy that can provide everyone with a decent quality of life if we responsibly and sustainably utilize and distribute the planet's resources.

Future posts will look in more detail at what we need to do in the short and long term.

It's Our Web