Skip to main content

A few questions

Capitalism system always values money over humanity

The rich are undeserving of much of their wealth. That is not envy of the wealthy, but instead a truth. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is worth $160 billion. He accumulated wealth on the backs of his employees, some who must get food stamps to survive. Bezos does not have the technological prowess or ability to build the statistical modeling, the intellect that designed the millions of products he sells, nor the labour to move his products. Yet we have an economic system that rewards him at the top of the chain. 
At some point, people will come to the realization that our economic system created our wealth inequality and disparity. People will question the “why” of every part of the capitalist economy.

Why can the individual or a corporation profit from natural resources that should belong to us all?

Why an investor may risk “capital,” but human beings are told to risk their bodies and well-being?

Why is it that the first question of a politician is always, “How will that affect business”?

Why do businesses place profits for the rich and powerful over the interests of people and planet?

Why under this system, capital and corporations are allowed to cross borders at will but not people?

Why even well-meaning governments are forced to submit to capital’s whims, and slash environmental and labour regulations in the hopes of attracting investment?

Why political demagogues can rise to power scapegoating their victims.

Why do people expect the world’s rulers to restructure the global economy when they are doing very well out of it, rather than we do it ourselves so we can benefit?


Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…