Harry,
Thanks for calling me clever. I thought I was merely plagiarizing!
I sent you examples of oppression due to capitalism,
and with the mention of U.S. initiated wars alone, feel I
have made my point. You obviously only see the side
of the manufacturers, who consider this 3RD world slavery
as beneficial to both worlds, but can you stretch your
vision to understand that the work slaves could be at
the very least, paid a decent wage? Don't cite competitive
market rhetoric when you know full well that the C.E.O.'s
of these corps make egregious salaries which they could
easily do without in favor of making a difference in the
lives of their workers. Sports celebrities could think about
that too, but the real issue is, of course, does the consumer?
You can try to be cute by asking,
"What Wars?", but the whole point of the original email
was to contribute to Selma's challenging query. My
sources of information obviously offend your beliefs in
a system that serves you well. Funny thing is that these
alternative sources have proven to be almost entirely
accurate given a little time and investigation.
My responses follow the*** 's below.
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Selma Singer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Harry Pollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Ideal world
> Natalia,
>
> There is little difference between the mixed economies of capitalism and
> socialism - or their extremes, fascism and communism.
>
> By all means refute the points I've made below. It's the only way we'll
> both learn.
>
> You said:
>
> NATALIA: "Indonesian and Asian workers, including children, who work for
> Nike earn 40 pence for every L100 sold of product. Some locations in those
> countries get as little as 72 pence a day, shifts 24 hours or longer, to
> work Nike, Adidas, Puma, Reebok, and live in disease-infested slums for
the
> privilege. In N. India, children hand stitch Mitre footballs for 14 pence
> per ball."
>
> HARRY: Why do they accept such terrible conditions All they need do is say
> "A pox on you" and work for better wages elsewhere. Don't understand your
> point.
>
***An example of oppression, Harry. There is no recourse in order to
survive, feed the family. Capitalism invests the least possible to reap the
highest rewards. Slavery has not been eradicated, it's just been
redistributed
and disguised. Far more economical to keep the slaves where they cost the
least to employ.
NATALIA: "Production to the 3RD World means employment crisis
> for the West--eventually forcing workers here to take a wage at poverty or
> below."
>
> HARRY: Have you no thought for those deprived workers in the Third World?
> You are against our providing them with work? Shame on you.
>
***If the capitalists actually helped to improve their living conditions,
and contributed to sustainable work projects with their vast and shameful
profits,
then they would be helping. Keeping slaves is keeping slaves. These people
are not only working for peanuts, they are terrorized by their foremen,
fined for
using the bathroom more than twice in a shift--which can be a lot longer
than
just eight hours. You can say to me, that's just propaganda. But show me
the good news, Harry, show me the happy workers. I've seen some out of
India, who work in the garment business, who know they are being taken
advantage of, but are grateful to get by. Theirs is still a workplace that
could use
substantial improvement, and just because they are not revolting does not
make it all right. Western capitalists needn't perpetuate the very tactics
that
didn't work in the West just because they can. It is criminal because these
are the people without whom they would never enjoy these profits. It is
immoral because they can do a lot better for these people, but profit
is their god.
> On the other hand, why was employment increasing before the present
> recession. Were we not providing jobs for the Third World during the years
> of boom?
***If you mean employment here, it's because the money lenders were
lending out money both to industry and government. The jobs created by
government were short-term, mostly, and primarily focused within
industry, with
subsidized wages that were not likely to be perpetuated. Sure, there were
a few
real jobs created in 3RD world countries. Again, not much that was
sustainable
for the masses.
>
> NATALIA: "General Motors now has a bigger economy than Denmark,
> >and Ford a bigger one than S. Africa."
> >
> >"Brazil is now owned by transnational corporations."
>
> HARRY: Hey! And China has more people than the US. Why the numbers? I
> suppose you mean that GM and Ford are pretty efficient, but so what?
>
> Brazil is owned by large landowners. Read about it. (My favorite - which
> I've posted before - is the 84,000 cattle ranch that supports 200 cattle.)
>
> Landlordism is responsible for the exodus of landless peasants to the
> favelas. (Look at Ed Weick's web page for an intimate look at a favela.)
>
> Spend a little less arrogance time on the inadequate intellectual
> capacities of ordinary people and a little more searching for facts rather
> than accepting propaganda.
>
*** Examples of corporate reach, scope and power. With this, fascism
eventually strangles out the individual. Brazil is owned by wealthy
landlords,
and most of these acquired their land by deposing the poor farmers in hard
times, as is the capitalist way. But they are not the ones who are
contributing
to the economy. It is because of the working population, and the greatest
percentage of cash infusion is as a result of Western manufacturing or
agricultural installations.
You and I have very different definitions about arrogance. Yet,
consider the following: arrogance can also represent one's insistence
that they feel incapable of doing something for which they actually have
capacity. I think you are mostly ignoring your capacity to make a
difference.
This is not to insult you, Harry, it is to express that you are supporting
that which you would be best to investigate thoroughly through the eyes of
anyone but the corporate propagandists and government agencies.
> NATALIA: "Just 200 corporations account for one quarter of the world's
> economy, and are all possibly owned by one corporation."
>
> HARRY: Now we agree. Market competition is needed and both socialist and
> capitalist support of privilege for the favored has debilitated market
> competition - allowing the giants to take over. Let's support the free
> market together!
>
> NATALIA: "The U.S. E.P.A. stated that fossil fuels energy accounts for
> about 80% of airborne pollution. The pursuit of oil and the
> investment in its related industries, (which must now include
> all military, weaponry and many transportation corporations)
> accounts for one of the biggest chunks of capitalism out there."
>
> HARRY: The whole world uses oil, so I suppose China is a big chunk of
> capitalism. As are capitalistic countries like Norway, Sweden, and
Denmark.
>
> I hope you are not suggesting we go back to wood stoves that are
dreadfully
> polluting.
>
> Maybe we should use coal. Oops! Some 25 years ago, the government issued a
> mammoth tome (The Direct Use of Coal)estimating that pollution from coal
> caused a premature 85,000 American deaths a year.
***The above response is tantamount to saying that there are no
alternatives.
We know that's not true. Methane gas has been shown to be most
ecologically
sound, that it could be used to heat and cool large structures as in New
York
without much conversion cost. Then there's hydrogen, again cleaner.
Electro-
magnetic sources, wind and solar power all deserve attention. Instead the
pursuit of oil and the enormous cost of stealing it, then extracting it,
all detracts
from sustainable energy projects, simply makes sure that we run out of
oil,
and possibly the stuff that the tectonic plates require to move smoothly.
Yes, we
help BushCo and the S.U.V., but eventually we are going to get lousy crop
yields,
because sunlight will not be abundant enough. I remember the days, say
twenty
years ago in Toronto, when a pollution factor of 5 was considered high.
Then it
crept up to 15, then to 30, and today they have days of 55 or so. When we
left
Toronto 16 years back, it had the brown haze of New York from ten years
prior.
Today it's possibly worse than New York because it doesn't have an ocean
to
carry off the mess. It's oppressive, and costly to our health and that of
the rest of
the life that sustains us.
>
> NATALIA: "The wars and ensuing oppression
> resulting from this sector has and will continue to cause intense
> world fear, cause countless deaths and continuing deformities,
> ruin entire nations' economies and cultures, will leave behind
> millions of land mines, will exercise use of depleted uranium
> on civilians, bio/chem and atomic weapons will be used, and
> this is all corporate stuff, not a matter of defence! It affects
> the world adversely to the tune of 100%."
>
> HARRY: Terrible, terrible! What wars are these?
***Harry, does it hurt too much? Is this where you must resort
to common callousness to negate the reality of the price of
the comforts you so enjoy?
> > NATALIA: "Fishing: perhaps 22% sustainable today, and that's government
> legislated only.
>
> HARRY: I earlier showed how ocean fishing should be handled by the market.
> However, the ball is now being dropped by governmental incompetence. Why
do
> you trust them to do anything right.
*** I don't trust them.
>
> We really need market mechanisms.
>
***We need responsible legislation. We can't trust capitalists to do the
right thing.
> NATALIA: "Forestry: 92% of indigenous forests are gone, just in the last
> 100 years. That leaves 8% to a world population growing
> at a rate of about 95 million X 1.25/annum. Good capitalism!"
>
> HARRY: Doubt is the beginning of wisdom. When in doubt, count. The US
> Forestry wood count has increased every year since the mid-twenties. (I
> haven't looked at the last few years.) So, it must be those socialist and
> communist countries that are destroying the northern forests (maybe they
> are secret capitalists?)
>
***Planting monoculture crops is not replacing old growth forests,
and entire eco-systems. Say good-bye to the violin as you know it,
if you do. Say good-bye to the approximate 75-150 species wiped
out every time they go for the giants. Say hello to boring--and that
which is subject to greater disease.
> To find the problem with the rain forest, check the policies of the
> Brazilian government. They are even more fatuous than those of most
> governments.
>
***Yes. Of course, if Western capitalists helped out a bit more,
this could be discouraged. True that our own governments care
less about our own old growth forests.
> NATALIA: "Farming: The practice of sustainable farming was tossed in
> >favor of large corporate profit in the West. More pesticides
> >are being introduced, G.M.O.'s and Pharming. More cancer,
> >more pests, new pests, and Frankenfoods. Monoculture
> >alone is depleting soil vigour. Now the crops are infected world-
> >wide with freaky, radiated stuff that can end up in our cereal.
>
> HARRY: Although there are relatively unimportant exceptions, so-called
> sustainable farming produces less food at higher prices. You should be
poor
> to appreciate this.
>
***Only true in the short-term. Organic has been growing sustainably
for thousands of years where monculture was not a practice,
and is fast on the rise not just because of demand,
but because in the long run the yields are better. It was the infusion of
pesticides and herbicides that created the ever resistant pests and
diseases.
A few years ago, organic crops were growing at a rate of about 1-5%,
now it's up 25% in some areas, though I don't know what their yard stick
really is. Organic is the only sustainable crop.
> Corporate profit arises from the immense subsidies given farming by the US
> and Europe, which incidentally leads to mono-culture. I am pleased you
> oppose government policies to heap huge privileges on to corporate
farmers.
> Soil vigor is reduces by producing large amounts of food we don't want.
> This leads to our cheese caverns, and European butter mountains.
>
> "Freaky, radiated stuff?" I bet they said that when we first began using
> electricity. I'm sure they said it when everyone began using micro-wave
> ovens, I know they are saying it about cell phones.
>
*** Just wait, Harry. It will hit mainstream soon. Then you can believe
it.
> NATALIA: "Industry in general: causes most air, water and land pollution,
> >which will effect everyone. Cows who cause a fair portion, are corporate
> >slaves who suffer too."
>
> HARRY: So let's get rid of industry.
>
> Cows are corporate slaves? Yesterday, I ate a very tender piece of
> corporate slave and enjoyed it. (My son is a good cook.)
>
***Great! Hope you enjoyed the G.M.O.'s they were fed too.
> NATALIA: "Lets move onto the real money maker corporations: banks"
>
> HARRY: You have a large paragraph about the banks that looks as if you
> copied it from a pamphlet. I agree that the present banking situation is
> awful. We should certainly go back to free banking and remove the
> government regulations designed to ensure bank profit. Let the free market
> cut them down to size. There is nothing that beats market competition if
we
> want to control licence.
>
> Meantime, I get many services from the banks. My credit cards that I use
> for practically everything are immensely useful. My bank pays most of my
> bills and doesn't charge me. All in all, their competitive services are
> first rate.
>
> If the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Royal
> Institute and the Bilderbergers are so secretive, how do you know about
them?
>
> It's not enough to be clever. You must learn to question everything you
> read and hear - particularly when they are saying what you want them to
say.
>
***You missed the point here. Capitalism/fascism controlling the economy,
therefore making us all subject to its needs. Centralization of power,
Hitler's
dream alive and well and bigger than he figured. I refer you to Patriot
Act
I & II at this point. Did the mainstream bring you these to review? It
was
so secretive too.
I do question everything, which is why mainstream media is not good
enough. There are other perspectives and other nation's sides to a story.
Relying on text books is not the wisest either. I'm aware that the
noblest
of environmental groups have been infiltrated by capitalist/fascist
plants, but
are you always content to read and believe what you've been absorbing?
Can't you just look at the skies and question whether they have to be
brown?
In other words, try exercising common sense rather than chronically
seeking
out the "official" point of view.
Regards,
Natalia
> Harry
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Natalia wrote:
>
> >Harry,
> >
> >Where do I begin?
> >First, I shouldn't have used the word capitalism,
> >I should simply have said fascism! The latter is where the
> >first takes us when no humane legislation or controls
> >are established. Today, from a mere 100 years of
> >capitalistic freedom, we have global corporations who
> >have turned the world into gigantic labour camps.
> >Production to overseas locations has resulted in sweat-
> >shop labour, and sky-high profits.
> >Indonesian and Asian workers, including children, who
> >work for Nike earn 40 pence for every L100 sold of
> >product. Some locations in those countries get as little
> >as 72 pence a day, shifts 24 hours or longer, to work
> >Nike, Adidas, Puma, Reebok, and live in disease-infested
> >slums for the privilege. In N. India, children hand stitch
> >Mitre footballs for 14 pence per ball.
> >
> >Production to the 3RD World means employment crisis
> >for the West--eventually forcing workers here to take a
> >wage at poverty or below.
> >
> >General Motors now has a bigger economy than Denmark,
> >and Ford a bigger one than S. Africa.
> >
> >Brazil is now owned by transnational corporations.
> >
> >Just 200 corporations account for one quarter of the world's
> >economy, and are all possibly owned by one corporation.
> >
> >The U.S. E.P.A. stated that fossil fuels energy accounts for
> >about 80% of airborne pollution. The pursuit of oil and the
> >investment in its related industries, (which must now include
> >all military, weaponry and many transportation corporations)
> >accounts for one of the biggest chunks of capitalism out there.
> >The wars and ensuing oppression
> >resulting from this sector has and will continue to cause intense
> >world fear, cause countless deaths and continuing deformities,
> >ruin entire nations' economies and cultures, will leave behind
> >millions of land mines, will exercise use of depleted uranium
> >on civilians, bio/chem and atomic weapons will be used, and
> >this is all corporate stuff, not a matter of defence! It affects
> >the world adversely to the tune of 100%.
> >
> >Fishing: perhaps 22% sustainable today, and that's government
> >legislated only.
> >
> >Forestry: 92% of indigenous forests are gone, just in the last
> >100 years. That leaves 8% to a world population growing
> >at a rate of about 95 million X 1.25/annum. Good capitalism!
> >
> >Farming: The practice of sustainable farming was tossed in
> >favor of large corporate profit in the West. More pesticides
> >are being introduced, G.M.O.'s and Pharming. More cancer,
> >more pests, new pests, and Frankenfoods. Monoculture
> >alone is depleting soil vigour. Now the crops are infected world-
> >wide with freaky, radiated stuff that can end up in our cereal.
> >
> >Industry in general: causes most air, water and land pollution,
> >which will effect everyone. Cows who cause a fair portion,
> >are corporate slaves who suffer too.
> >
> >Lets move onto the real money maker corporations: banks
> >Banks do not have any money but yours and what other
> >investments they make off of it. Mostly this is in the form
> >of real interest, when they lend out fictitious sums, and
> >from foreclosures and bankruptcies when lending policies
> >tighten up, and interest rates rise. Land, buildings, businesses
> >all theirs on the practice of fractious banking--the lending out
> >of more than is on deposit. The more people in debt, the
> >higher inflation, all made on non-existent cash. Your taxes
> >go into Federal Reserve banks. Governments borrow from
> >private banking cartels, and pay interest on that. The
> >Federal Reserve has complete control over interest rates,
> >and is one boom or bust con. Real wealth, from real
> >deposits and real property and its improvements, are sucked
> >up to the top of the pyramid via interest rates, bankruptcies, etc.
> >A handful of fascists run the Federal Reserve, out of Europe.
> >
> >Have you heard of the Bilderberg Group? They are a secretive
> >cartel of bankers, heads of transnational corps, politicians,
> >academics & opinion formers, media bosses & military chiefs,
> >operating out of Frankfurt. They=European Union, and along
> >with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission,
> >which I believe brings in Japan, and the Royal Institute for
> >International Affairs forms a network of global shadow
> >government whose goal is to entangle humankind in materialism.
> >
> >Take a good look at Patriot Act II and tell me unrestrained
> >capitalism does not result in fascism, which affects 100% of us
> >adversely and oppressively.
> >
> >Thanks to Ray for that delightful piece from the Mogambo Guru!
> >
> >Natalia.
> >
> >
> >
> >P.S. The same people who are demonstrably dismantling the
> >world's ecosphere are hosting the "Earth Summits".
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Selma Singer
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:13 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Ideal world
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Darryl and Natalia,
> > >
> > > You said:
> > >
> > > "Capitalism has traditionally represented freedom of the individual &
> > > nation to pursue unlimited fortune, yet if you stop to think about its
> > > oppressive effect upon 80% of the world's people & resources, one has
to
> > > think in terms of revision for Ideal World."
> > >
> > > What is this oppressive effect?
> > >
> > > Harry
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.comcast.net/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/2003
>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
