Global Warming

Wikipedia makes no secret  of global warming caused by the increase in the burning of fossil fuels and the exploration for oil and other resources. 'United States Geological Survey and many leading polar bear biologists have expressed grave concerns about the impact of climate change, including the belief that the current warming trend imperils the survival of the species. The key danger posed by climate change is malnutrition or starvation due to habitat loss.' As various countries scramble to claim their ownership of the Arctic  region and grab the potential mineral resources little heed will be paid to the future of global warming whose impact will not only affect the wildlife in the area but future generations of humanity throughout the globe. To hell with the future, profit today is the mantra of capitalism. RD

Cyber Warfare

In a review of Shane Harris's book @War: The Rise of Cyber Warfare Toby Harden is very straight-forward in describing the ruthless way government agencies utilise the web to destroy their enemies. 'What is more startling is the capability of America, which views the cyber area as the "fifth domain" of warfare (after land, air, sea and space), to use online to kill as well as jam and hack. Harris, a writer at Foreign Policy magazine who has specialised in cyber warfare for a decade, details how US forces in Iraq became the "the vanguard of a new cyber war", sending fake text messages to insurgents that directed them to places where they would be met by US troops or a Hellfire missile." (Sunday Times, 9 November) Inside a socialist society the cyber network would be utilised as a valuable source of knowledge, education and entertainment inside capitalism it is used as a massive destructive force. RD

Another Empty Boast

The government recently boasted that unemployment figures had fallen beneath 2 million but what they were more reluctant to advertise was that the number of workers in low-paid jobs had reached a new record of more than 5 million, according to the Resolution Foundation.  'The think tank found that that the proportion of employees in low-paid work across Britain has risen from 21 per cent last year to 22 per cent, or 5 million people.' (Sunday Express, 9 November) When they say low-paid they mean low-paid as Resolution defines low paid as those earning less than £7.69 per hour, which is two-thirds of the UK medium hourly rate. Hardly boasting material is it? RD

Work and wage slavery

Nearly 36 million people worldwide, or 0.5% of the world's population, live as slaves, a survey by anti-slavery campaign group Walk Free says. Bondage and slavery are supposedly over but enslavement continues for the majority of people throughout the world. We are all enslaved economically yet blindly and unknowingly accept it. That form of servitude is called wage slavery.

Automation only happens when machines are cheaper to run than people. Automation should both require fewer people to work as well as  enable people to work less. Unfortunately this isn’t the case: the owners of automated industry use reduced production cost as an opportunity to take more profit which leaves us with increasing inequality alongside increased unemployment. And in a world where the capitalists own the physical means of production like factories, robots and patents this will also result in greater inequality as labour becomes less and less important as an economic factor. The owners of capital will be able to produce to satisfy market demand with little labour input.

There is an optimistic vision of the future. Physical work may become totally obsolete. If every house has a decentralised energy source like solar panels and reliable energy storage, as well as an advanced 3-D printer or molecular assembler that can produce almost physical object imaginable from a few basic recyclable chemicals then human poverty will essentially have been abolished. We can just spend the vast majority of our time doing things that we enjoy, while spending only a few minutes or at most hours a day programming our machines to fulfil our material desires.

However, there exists a more possible but less optimistic vision, that only a small minority of people will have access to such technologies as while the technology may exist, the costs of mass distribution remain too high. The masses, will be stuck in impoverished material conditions — dependent on welfare, and charity — without any real prospect being able to climb the ladder through selling their labour. Only a lucky few — who have a creative skill that cannot be replicated by a robot — will have a prospect of prosperity and security. Perhaps as the reformists hope the government will take a larger chunk of the capital-owning class’s income or wealth, and redistribute it to the poor to avoid social breakdown or even revolution.

The optimistic vision of a world of abundance without exploitation, hunger and war must galvanize the working class into a movement for socialism now that the global capitalist system has reached a stage where goods can be produced with little or no labour. The transition of industrial capitalism by new technology and computer is forcing an economic change and reorganization of society. A level of production has been achieved that makes communism possible. This is the turning point at which we stand today. Humanity today faces the choice: will we do away with private property and build a future for all to share in. Attempts to do no more than blunt the worst effects of capitalism may be well-meaning, but they divert energy from the real tasks ahead.

More and more are joining the ranks of those dispossessed by capitalism world-wide. A class that has nothing to gain from private ownership of the means of production has to take the reins of power and construct an economic system that can sustain a better world. The struggle today is not the struggle of the last century to expand industrial production. Nor is it the reformist’s struggle to increase the crumbs that fall from the table of the world’s billionaire plutocrats. Though people may have different ideas about and different ways of describing it, at this moment in history, the essence of every struggle for a better life is objectively the struggle for socialism which is no longer just an ideal, but the practical resolution to immediate problems.

If we remove scarcity from our vocabulary and replace it with abundance, we would also see dramatic changes in the way we live. We have been programmed to believe things are scarce when the opposite is true. We have an abundance of resources and should not be influenced to think different. The only reasoning for wanting the people to believe in scarcity is to increase profits for the rich. Let us plainly re-state this, we live in abundance and little is scarce. We should be here to enjoy life, not to overwork, to stress out, get sick and then die. We should spend the majority of our time, doing what we enjoy. Spending time with family, loved ones, vacationing, fishing, gardening, building new relationships, or whatever it is we enjoy. Let us start focusing on uplifting everyone, from the bottom upwards. The big picture is, we are all connected and we stand and fall together as humanity. The system of working everyday and barely making enough to pay for basic living expenses is not the way life should be yet it’s a system crafted by design to keep the masses earning meager wages.  The rich and powerful want the masses to remain enslaved and living on the skirts of poverty and completely beholden and indebted to them. We are too busy concerned about paying bills and having the basic necessities to live, then we don’t realise how the system we live under is corrupt and continues to enslave us all.  We are still enslaved regardless of your ethnicity or sex.  It’s not about color or gender, it’s about money.  Those in power want to keep us divided and believe that every man or woman should defend for him or herself when that certainly should not be the case. Think about capitalism and how many who actually benefits from it, go back and think of all the people you know in your life and be honest with yourself.  How many of your friends own several houses in multiple states and countries, yachts, cars, and get million dollar bonuses for running and even ruining a business? Capitalism has created an illusion to us all, leaving the majority thinking that they can one day become rich while knowing that the system of capitalism only allows those with money to keep on making it and those that don’t to keep dreaming and thinking that they can one day become rich and wealthy. The curse of capitalism is starting to be revealed and guess what?  The people don’t like what they are beginning to see.

We live in a world where there is an abundance of everything but scarcity allows the powerful to have control and make lots of money.  What if we abolished money and our political system that supports those privileged few?  What if we lived from a resourced-based society where everything was in abundance and there was no need for money? 

Fix Bayonets

Governments face many harsh decisions when running capitalism and this is especially true when confronted by economic problems like business slumps. 'David Cameron opposes cutting the number of British soldiers after the next election, the head of the Armed Forces has said, as he pledged to "fix my bayonet and fight to the last" against further redundancies. General Sir Nick Houghton admitted financial pressures would remain when the next government takes office but pledged to oppose cuts to army numbers from "inside the system".' (Daily Telegraph, 10 November) Welfare cuts may be unpopular but they are a lot easier for the government to contemplate that cutting Houghton's bayonets. RD

Future Conflict?

FUTURE CONFLICT?                                          

The US President's official visit to China highlights the tension between the two nations. 'We've seen indications that Xi Jinping has an ambition to increase China's influence in east Asia, central Asia, and the western Pacific, said Shi Yinhong, an international relations expert at Renmin University in Beijing. Many statements and actions imply that this will come at the cost of American predominance in the same regions. I think that this is already raising concerns in Washington.' (Guardian, 10 November) Political commentators would like to portray this as a conflict between two different social systems or at least two different outlooks, but it is not. Both the US and China are capitalist nations and as such they are in fierce competition over markets, sources of raw materials and political influence. Potentially it is a frightening scenario. RD

Piety And Profit

The government used to restrict the sale of arms to countries with poor human rights records, but former Tory defence minister Sir John Stanley, who chairs the Commons committees on arms export controls, says this is no longer the case. "He said in a recent parliamentary debate that the government has not acknowledged that such a change has taken place, and it "should consider most carefully whether they should now offer an apology to the committees". The government used to reject arms export licences where there was concern they might be used for "internal repression", but now a licence will be refused only if there is a "clear risk" that military equipment might be used in violation of international law." (Observer, 9 November) Why has there been this change in policy? One consideration may well be that sales have already hit £60m this year. RD

Poppies And Poppycock

Under the headline 'Joy and song bloom with poppies at the Tower', the following piece of news appears. 'As the last of the poppies was planted in the Tower's moat .... most of the attention has concentrated on the extraordinary crowds that have queued patiently every day to see the display of 888,246 ceramic poppies, one for every British and colonial life lost in the First World War.' (Times, 8 November) One spectator is reported as saying it was fantastic and when the crowd burst into song the crowd absolutely loved it. It is understandable that newspapers are "celebrating" the event, after all it is their job to promote mindless patriotism, but why are workers doing the same? They must lead particularly dull lives if the death of millions of workers in their master's quarrels lead them to this outlandish behaviour. RD

Why Work? (2)

Long ago, technology promised that it would free us from the mundane tasks of life and work so we would have more free time to enjoy ourselves. It was long heralded the imminent arrival of the "post-industrial society" in which automation will have done away with work and our main problem will be how to cope with an excess of leisure. But it is only in a rational (i.e., socialist) society, where the means of life serve the community as a whole, that higher productivity will equal less work and capitalism is not a sane society.

Capitalist production is not primarily about supplying needs it is about making profit and accumulating capital. It can only work with a constant market pressure to renew its capacity for sales. Under capitalism a surplus of commodities, in excess of market capacity means they cannot be sold for a profit. This can bring about recession, workers thrown out of jobs, governments having to pay out more in doles when strapped for cash trying to finance a reasonable health service, it means companies going bankrupt. It means the whole mad market system being thrown into yet another crisis simply because the goods cannot be sold. These are some of the destructive features of a money-driven economy which is long past its sell-by date.

Work has been "rationalized" as well as increased. That means greater intensity of effort and reduced opportunity for rest, social interaction, and even going to the toilet during the workday. It means "variable" or "flexible" schedules flexible for the boss, not the worker with more night and weekend work to keep costly machinery in nonstop operation. Many couples now meet only to hand over the kids as they change shifts. And while some are mercilessly overworked, others are thrown out of work altogether, all in the name of profitability.

In socialism, with the abolition of the market, and acting with voluntary co-operation, people will produce goods and distribute them to stores without any of the barriers of buying and selling. The cash tills will disappear, shoppers won't be held up and the operators won't have to do their boring, meaningless jobs. What it also means is that for the production of component parts of machinery or household goods, etc, intense production runs using automated systems could supply not just sufficient components for immediate use but also stocks for anticipated future demand. These could be distributed as and when required and this would be an economical use of production facilities which could then be either shut down until when required again or with different tooling used for other production runs. The important point being that in socialism this could happen without any of the problems and chaos that an oversupply of commodities for the market causes under capitalism.

The problems of unemployment are huge – worldwide problems affecting millions in some countries and billions globally if we include the massive numbers of 'informal' workers, those recognised as outside of the system, many of them non-persons living on the very edge of existence with no access to even the basic services. Many are suffering the misery of unemployment while much useful, necessary work remains undone. One of the contradictions of capitalism. We want free time, to reduce the working day so that we can move beyond the tyranny of survival into free and creative mutual activity. Both employment and unemployment are capitalism preventing our human development in this direction.

If we were to approach the problem from a different angle we could see how to turn something totally illogical into something that would work better for everybody wherever they are in the world. Doing this would entail ridding ourselves of useless work and wasted time and effort and result in getting the work that is widely recognised as necessary to be done for the good of the people done, by the people. Useful includes the production and distribution of material goods and food, scientific research and development, aesthetic and artistic endeavours, service of all kinds including installations, communications, infrastructure, maintenance, health, education, recreational, technological and social; producing and providing the goods and services required and needed by society as a whole on an ongoing basis. Work that offers no product, service or benefit to society must surely be considered useless work. What cannot be considered useful or necessary includes all the jobs currently involved in the huge financial industry; jobs which are tied to the movement of money from one place or person to another. Being considered unnecessary because they produce nothing of use, provide no useful service and are of no benefit to society a large number of institutions would be redundant. All banking establishments, insurance companies, tax collection, benefits and pension offices, to name a few, would no longer be required and, as a consequence, many buildings would be freed up for use to be decided upon by civil society whilst technicians, office and other associated staff would be available for more people-beneficial work schemes.

 In socialism everyone would have the opportunity to contribute to the community for as long as they could. Their contributions would not have to be strictly rationed nor controlled and all would be able to share in the common produce. The creation of second class cast-off workers known as pensioners would cease to be and in its place we could have a fair share for all. The struggle for such a society is in our immediate practical interest.

Another Cunning Plan

Governments like to claim that they are in charge of the capitalist economy and by skilful manoeuvres can turn a slump into a boom, but further evidence that the UK economic recovery is losing some momentum came from the dominant service sector this week. 'The latest Purchasing Managers Index survey for the sector showed a score of 56.2 for October, down from 58.7 in September and the weakest reading since May 2013. The sector is still expanding rapidly, any score over 50 indicates growth, but the slowing pace adds to the sense of the UK's 'escape velocity' beginning to wane.' (Investors Chronicle, 7 November) In addition,despite previous optimistic forecasts, PMI data from the services sector in Europe remains anaemic with France's service sector shrinking at its fastest pace in four months and German service sector growth at a seven-month low. Politicians don't control capitalism's markets - it  is the other way about.  RD

A Corrupt Society

Capitalism corrupts everything it touches - even sport. 'An American baseball star is alleged to have paid nearly $1 million to a cousin in hush money to cover up his use of performance-enhancing drugs. After securing a ten-year contract in 2007 worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars, Alexander Rodriquez of the New York Yankees, became the highest-paid player in baseball.' (Times, 6 November)  Now it seems his cousin has been charged with conspiracy to distribute testosterone and human growth hormone. The old dictionary that described sport as a pleasurable exercise for amusement has been superseded by the awfulness of capitalism. RD

An Unequal Society

Worried by the obnoxious propaganda of UKIP the Tory Party are making noises about restricting migration, but of course this will only apply to workers attempting to settle in Britain. 'Wealthy Chinese and Russians looking to escape unrest at home and secure a bolthole in Britain have invested more than £700 million in the country through a visa programme that allows them to buy entry. Nearly 300 Chinese citizens spent at least £295 million through the UK's Tier 1 Investor scheme, which allows foreigners to gain residence permits if they are prepared to invest at least £1 million in domestic shares or British government debt.' (Times, 6 November) That is how capitalism works - one rule for the rich and one for the poor. RD

Surprise, Surprise

Imagine the astonishment in New Zealand when an inquiry found that the native Maoris had been cheated out of ownership  of their native land. 'British colonial authorities cheated the Maoris out of  their birth right in New Zealand by misleading them over an agreement that allowed the Crown to take  control of the country, a tribunal has decided.' (Times, 15 November) It is difficult to understand any sense of astonishment. That is what colonial powers have done over the years and will do today if they can get away with it. Anyway the New Zealand authorities seem to be taking the judgement in their stride as Chris Finlayson, the attorney general is reported as saying in The New Zealand Herald: "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This report doesn't change that fact." RD

Why Work? (1)

Upholding the common well-being, via socialism, is the only way to create a sustainable future that ends deprivation and insecurity. Capitalism has failed to provide the basic needs of society; even the “social welfare” state only manages to mitigate capitalist greed and corruption.

The most cited objection to socialism is incentive. Capitalism argues that without money to motivate, there is no reason to go to work. Under capitalism, it is insecurity that motivates people to go to work. Eliminate insecurity and the result is that incentive for worth-while work increases. The benefits of work itself – human interaction and social recognition for one’s contribution provide incentive to go to work. the incentive for turning up to work is to receive social advantages, such as meeting potential partners for dating/marriage, friends with whom to go out for meals/drinks and the gratification of social admiration for having performed to a high standard and being recognised formally as having done so. Would most people decide not to go to work and sit idly in front of a television if all their basic needs were provided for?

 Socialists argue that the human urge for activity motivates one to contribute to society in one’s best capacity if only one is provided dignity and the means to pursue one’s full potential. Some might counter that people lose their “free time” when going to work, and should therefore not have the full burden of supporting those who choose not work, but the human compulsion to fill the hours with more than idle tasks – the boredom that comes of doing nothing – motivates one to do work if only there is more to it than a means to mere survival. The compensation comes in the knowledge that one’s contribution is valued for the work itself and all the social benefits that come from the recognition of one’s contribution. There is bound to be a small population of people who seem comfortable with doing nothing, but these people should be treated as having a psychological problem and referred to a doctor or psychologist, not threatened with a withholding of free access to the common larder. In socialism everyone has the opportunity to perform to their highest potential and formal acknowledgment of one’s work contribution – as opposed to cash in the bank for status – satisfies the craving for professional accomplishment. The Marxist phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is not merely an ideological argument, as if truly exercised, life satisfaction is a standard, as opposed to merely an ideal.

What does the slogan “Right to Work” really mean ? To the average trade unionist it is probably the "right" to have a job and the pay packet that goes with it. In other words, it should be more accurately called "The Right to Employment" or "The Right to Work for Wages"

The Right to Work is a completely unrealistic demand and  amounts to demanding that employers abandon the profit motive and operate their system on some other principle. But they could not do this even if they wanted to, since what they can do is limited by the working of capitalism's market forces. Nor could they be forced to do it even by the most militant trade union or political action. If pressed too far, they would merely shut up shop. The stark fact is that capitalism creates, and needs to create, rising unemployment from time to time.

The Right to Work for Wages, in our view, is demanding the Right To Be Exploited. It involves accepting capitalism and its wages system. The employer/employee relationship is based on exploitation since, if the employer is to make a profit, the wages he pays his employees must be less than the value of what they produce. The system of employment for wages shows that human brain and muscle power has become a mere commodity, to be bought and sold like some object. It signifies that those who actually produce the wealth of society are excluded from ownership and control of the means of production and so have no choice but to operate them for the employers on the employers' terms — and at the employers' convenience. The wage packet is in fact a badge of slavery.

No, socialists don't want the Right to Work. It would be more accurate to say that we want its opposite, the Right To Be Lazy. This isn't as way-out as might seem. Just think of developments in technology over the past hundred or so years, developments which  are still going on, and you will see that the bulk of the hard grind of production is now done, and could be done even more, by machines. Automation and new technology could now relieve human beings of the burden of boring toil. Nobody need do a job he or she doesn't like doing. The set working day could be reduced to two or three hours, freeing people to engage in the activities of their choice, including even producing useful things. This will never happen as long as the means of production are the property of a minority. It could only happen in a society where the factories, farms and other places where wealth is produced are commonly owned by all the people. There would then be no employers, nor wage-earners. Instead everybody would be an equal member of a free community organised to produce an abundance of good-quality consumer goods for people to take freely according to their needs.

As already been pointed so long as it is enjoyable, work is a natural human activity, not to say need and so  talk of the Right To Be Lazy can be misleading. But although men will always work, there is no reason for it take the form of boring toil. It could and should be interesting and so become like some of today's leisure-time activities — done for the fun of it. To convert work from boring toil to creative activity is now possible. The ethic of hard work — necessary perhaps in the past to build up the means of production to the point where they can now turn out abundance — is outdated, and worse: it helps to keep capitalism going.

Other critics of socialism ask "Who is going to do the dirty work?" The lowliness or nastiness of a job are subjective estimates . A doctor or nurse, for example, or a public health inspector, have to do some things which would disgust the most unskilled casual labourer who did not see these actions in their social context. Yet the status and prestige of such people is generally high. Above all, it is the prestige of the working group and his or her position in it which will influence the worker's attitude to such jobs. If the prestige of the group is high and he  or she is satisfied in his membership of it, the type of work that has to be done  becomes a minor consideration.

Again as stated, ordinarily men and women like their work, and at most periods of history always have done so. When they do not like it, the fault lies in the psychological and social conditions of the job rather than in the worker. Furthermore, work is a social activity . . . Even when their security and that of their children is assured, they continue to labour. Obviously this is so because the rewards they get from their work are social, such as respect and admiration from their fellow-men.

We can estimate that at least half of all the workers running the capitalist system would be redundant in a sane society where work would be organised economically solely for the needs of the community. This means that, including the present millions who are unemployed, socialism would more than double the numbers of people available to do useful work. Also, these vastly increased numbers would be free to use and further develop the most advanced techniques of production. All this would add up to a huge increase in our powers of production. The priority would be to ensure that every person is comfortably housed and supplied with good quality food of their choice. The construction of a safe world energy system would be another urgent project. The present great differences in the world distribution of machinery, plant and up-to-date production methods would need to be evened out. But with an adequate structure of production in place we can anticipate that in socialism, we would soon be in a position to relax in the necessary work of providing for needs. The idea of producing enough for the community and then relaxing to enjoy many other kinds of activity which may interest people is impossible under a capitalist system.

Crime And Punishment

American TV schedules are full of crime dramas wherein we are left to wonder at the brilliance of the police and the law courts. This is not a good example of that in reality though.  'A 90-year old man and two church wardens face being jailed for breaking a new law that restricts serving food to the homeless. Arnold Abbott was arrested as he handed out food in a park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "One of the police officers said, "drop that plate right now, as if I were carrying a weapon, he said." (Times, 6 November) The three men could be jailed for 60 days and fined $500. Could capitalism get any crazier? RD

More Hypocrisy

As spokesmen for the British capitalist class the press and TV love nothing better than having a pot at workers who may be illegally claiming welfare payments and blame them for ruining the country, but remain somewhat more mute when it comes to the owning class trying on a bit of a scam. 'Two-thirds of Britain's biggest businesses  are under investigation by the taxman, it was revealed yesterday. Tax returns submitted by 528 out of the country's 800 largest businesses have been placed "under enquiry" by HM Revenue & Customs after officials identified evidence of tax avoidance, non-payment or other potential errors.' (Times, 6 November) Considering that last year the amount under dispute was £18.8 billion any dodges by workers seem insignificant. RD

Drug Pushers

Imagine a capitalist concern that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice. Throw in widespread accusations of collusion and over-charging, and banking no doubt springs to mind. In fact, it  is Pharmaceuticals. Last year, US giant Pfizer, the world's largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42% profit margin. 'Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly. With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why. Last year, 100 leading oncologists from around the world wrote an open letter in the journal Blood calling for a reduction in the price of cancer drugs.' (BBC News, 7 November) Needless to say their call was ignored. RD

A Backward Society

The advance of technology inside capitalism is truly astonishing. 'There is more computer power in some of this years top Christmas toys than the first moon mission experts said. The 12 toys predicted to top children's wish lists feature the most advanced technology available. including voice recognition, photo  editing and video, while some connect directly to the internet and can be controlled via mobile apps and iPads.' (Daily Telegraph, 6 November) Despite these staggering advances this amazingly advanced society cannot solve a simple problem like feeding the world's hungry or even providing clean water for millions of dying children - but then there is no profit in  that. RD

Demanding more

If survival as a human species is our primary goal, then deep changes are necessary to the way we organise ourselves socially. Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organisations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Party. Socialism is something entirely different. Socialism means economic democracy. If socialist societies are to be run by, of and for the people, then the people have to be in charge and that includes within the economy. In socialist society there would be no wage system. No longer would workers live under the fear. We argue that socialism is the only solution. Marx opposed the leveling-down egalitarianism prevalent among the socialist and communist currents in the early 19th century. The goal of socialists is not to reduce people’s wants to some preconceived minimum. Rather, it is to realise and expand those wants. In a socialist society, everyone will have access to the great variety of material and cultural wealth accumulated over the course of civilisation. We socialists aspire to a future society in which all can pursue the creative scientific and cultural work hitherto restricted to a privileged few. The goal of socialist revolution is to resolve the contradiction at the heart of capitalism by collectivising the means of production, thereby making the bounty of society available to all and unleashing the productive forces.

Under capitalism the industries operate for one purpose—to earn a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. But if people lack money then these factories shut down and the country stagnates, no matter how much people need these commodities. Capitalism emerged from feudalism in Europe. Merchants or others were using accumulated wealth as means to hire workers. The latter, often refugees from feudal manors, survived in a new way: selling their capacity to work. The wealthy got wealthier by selling the outputs in emerging markets and taking the profits. Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism took centuries and grew into today's capitalism. In all previous ages of human history, poverty for most of the people was inescapable. There was simply not enough to go around. But not so today. Industrial technology and scientific knowledge have so vastly increased our ability to produce what we need and want that there is no longer any excuse whatsoever for the poverty of a single member of society. Today we have the material possibility of abundance for everyone, and the promise of the leisure in which to enjoy it.

Limited resources are not the primary threat to humans; it is artificial scarcity – a social phenomenon – which threatens future survival by siphoning wealth to an infinitesimally small percentage of people thereby depriving the majority of people a sustainable living standard. Artificial scarcity is the engine of wealth concentration under capitalism. Socialists seek the end to artificial scarcity propose the common good. Socialism requires first and foremost a change in thinking from the idea that some people must always lose to the idea that everyone can win.  

Freed from the restrictions of profit-making, modern productive techniques could provide the abundance that would allow a socialist world community to introduce free access, according to need so that no man, woman or child anywhere on the planet need go without adequate food, clothing, shelter, healthcare or education. Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all. We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume. Such a great production is already possible, with the knowledge already possessed by mankind.

We conceive of socialism, not as an arbitrary scheme of society to be constructed from a preconceived plan, but as the next stage of social evolution. The architects and builders of the socialist society of the future will be the socialist generations themselves. We are quite sure of this and refrain from offering these future generations any instructions or blueprints. Tomorrow does not belong to us. We can only point out the general direction of development, and we should not try to do more. We can tracing some of the broad outlines of probable future development, if not the details.

The limitations on abundance are to be found in the social and political structures of nations and in the economic relations among them. Abundance already exists potentially today and it is clear that every new technological development makes the case for socialism even stronger. Socialism can only be built upon abundance -- which could only be achieved by pooling the combined industrial power and resources of all the world, not of just one country or region alone.

Who owns the North Pole part 78

There is a great deal at stake in the Arctic.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds 13 percent of the world’s oil reserves and 30 percent of its natural gas. There are also significant coal and iron ore deposits. As the ice retreats, new fishing zones are opening up, and—most importantly—so are shipping routes that trim thousands of miles off voyages, saving enormous amounts of time and money. Expanding trade will stimulate shipbuilding, the opening of new ports, and economic growth, especially in East Asia.

NATO’s top military commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis of the United States Navy, warned in 2010 of an “icy slope toward a zone of competition, or worse, a zone of conflict” if the world’s leaders failed to ensure Arctic peace. Tensions in the region arise from two sources: squabbles among the border states (Norway, Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) over who owns what, and efforts by non-polar countries (China, India, the European Union, and Japan) that want access.

The Russians lay claim to a vast section of the North Pole based on their interpretation of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows countries to claim ownership if an area is part of a country’s continental shelf. Moscow argues that the huge Lomonosov Ridge, which divides the Arctic Ocean into two basins and runs under the Pole, originates in Russia. Canada and Denmark also claim the ridge as well.

One hundred and sixty-eight years ago this past July, two British warships—HMS Erebus and HMS Terror—sailed north into Baffin Bay, bound on a mission to navigate the fabled Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. It would be the last that was seen of Sir John Franklin and his 128 crew members. Canada organized an expedition this past summer to find out what really happened to Franklin and his two ships. The search was a success—one of the ships was found in Victoria Straits—but the goal was political, not archaeological: Canada is using the find to lay claim to the Northwest Passage.

Denmark and Canada are meanwhile at loggerheads over Hans Island, located between Ellesmere Island and Danish-controlled Greenland. The occupation of the tiny rock by the Canadian military has generated a “Free Hans Island” campaign in Denmark.

Although it’s constrained by the fact that Washington has not signed the Law of the Seas Convention, the United States has locked horns with Canada over the Beaufort Sea.

The Pentagon released its first “Arctic Strategy” study last year. The U.S. maintains 27,000 military personnel in the region, not including regular patrols by nuclear submarines. The Russians and Canadians have ramped up their military presence in the region as well, and Norway has carried out yearly military exercises—“Arctic Cold Response”—involving up to 16,000 troops, many of them NATO units.

China may be a thousand miles from the nearest ice floe, but as the second largest economy in the world, it has no intention of being left out in the cold. This past summer the Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon made the Northern Sea Passage run, and Beijing has elbowed its way into being a Permanent Observer on the Arctic Council. Formed in 1996, the council consists of the border states, plus the indigenous people that populate the vast frozen area. Japan and South Korea are also observers.

The Arctic may be cold, but the politics surrounding it are pretty hot. Aqqaluk Lynge, chair of the indigenous Inuit Circumpolar Council says, “We do not want a return to the Cold War.”

From here