Boy, that must have taken a lot of time to write, and it's complete shit. And since I have very little time, I want to say one thing. I live in Southern California. The Southwest has historically been a key area for agricultural production, military production, and, today, an information economy. It was once Mexico. Conquest of Mexico=imperialism, Anglo colonization of Southwest. Criminalization of Mexican immigration allowed agricultural businesses that acquired former Mexican territory to exploit Mexicans and Mexican-American with low-wage labor. I should avoid heated remarks, to be civil, but I don't know what you think colonization was. I suggest you read some of the books I mentioned in my first pose, and then reply to my comments, dispute them. I'll be interested. Until then, as long as you fail to see the connections or persuasively argue that colonization didn't provide resources like agricultural goods and labor to produce commodities for the colonizer's profits through market economies (capitalism), then you're wasting your time.
Marxism is a westerncentric philosophy, sure, but a critical Marxism has been employed throughout the world in antiimperialist and anti-capitalist struggle. As long as capitalism exists globally, a critical Marxism will be useful and necessary to understand and change it.
What? Have you ever heard of the Spanish empire? You know, colonized great portions of the Americas and, through war and the dissemination of disease, killed millions of indigenous people. Colonized the Phillipines, Cuba, the southern Iberian peninsula. Or how about the British empire? India, Africa (along with the French, Dutch, and kinda Italy and Germany), Hong Kong, North America, etc. The colonial expansion occurred at the same time capitalist integration; imperialism was the realization of capitalist expansion. And you mention Germany, whose colonial intentions with the Soviet Union and several Western European states were late in the game: well, duh! What game do you think that was? Risk? Germany and Japan were the first nations in the modern era that attempted to colonize previously industrialized or industrializing areas, which is why the ensuing war was massive.
As far as your argument that it was counter-productive for Britain to colonize India, or Canada, well, I can hardly consider that an argument. Agricultural and industrial goods were produced in India through Indian labor and then SOLD in markets in USA and Europe. Of course those nations were their markets. That's not the point of a colony until the twentieth century; up to a certain point, colonies provided labor and manufactured goods for other markets. Your remark concerning the East India Company: which ruling class are you speaking of? Are you discussing the shareholders? You know, India was a colony for ninety years following the abolition of the company (1857). You think they held on to it out of goodwill, and not profits? What are you, an apologist for imperialism? And your remark about military being a drain on production: remember, the military is big business and military-related production is VERY popular with private devleopers of arms.
Regarding the US, you need a reeducation, buddy. The acquisition of Mexican lands in 1846-8, the US-Phillipines war in 1898, US's entire twentieth century policy with Latin America--Panama Canal, multiple interventions with Nicaragua, 1954 overthrowal of Guatemalan government, and so on, US involvement with the first and second world wars, etc. The US truly did not emerge as a major player globally until WWII (it certainly wasn't the largest economy, as you say--that's ridiculous; until then, the British Empire was sovereign, even after the Berlin Conference). The US was able to do this through the Marshall Plan and its postwar antagonism with the Soviet Union. That means, the US had a formal and informal colonial relationship with regions covering the hemispheres, and we're not including its markets in the colonial holdings of the European states.
My argument stands; colonialism was a key component of capitalist development. To argue otherwise, regardless of political persuasion, is inaccurate. You say I lack a basic understanding of economic history--refute my facts. I'm specifically interested how you pulled that US thing out of your ass.
When has there been a period of US history without crony capitalism? The only time which I can think of, and is an arguable point, is the FDR administration before World War II began. And since the second World War the arms industry and telecommunications sector has relied upon strong and fast relations with US government. Perhaps it is a matter of defining "crony capitalism"?
De Soto's book is the kind of hack work developed when an author begins learning a subject with preconceived notions that will not be disturbed by facts; the very idea that capitalism has failed in the "non-West" is, to all current historical accounts, unreconstructed Westerncentrism. If one is going to read a history of the development of capitalism at a global level, read something that hasn't been completely discredited academically. Try, for starters, Andre Gunder-Frank's Re-Orient, which is a sort of synthesis of recent revisions of world-systems analysis..
De Soto's book reeks of modernization/neoliberal theory, which provides a program of development for countries along lines often articulated and enforced by the IMF and World Trade Organization. Liberalize your economies (sacrifice national properties to the free market), reduce public expenditures (end welfare programs for the poor, reduce or eliminate low-cost educational access, don't have any redistributive tax economies), and welcome foreign direct investment even at the expense of people's welfare (sweatshops) or environmental restrictions. Many corporations, for example, are able to meet US environmental standards by paying poor nations to take their waste.
Modernization theory and neoliberalism has been criticized for ignoring some fundamental facts, one of them being that the "ideal" of capitalist development, the West, was realized through colonialism and neocolonialism. Until the sizties, most of the nations considered ideal capitalist nations profited while colonies paid the costs, through slavery and low-wage labor. That's why De Soto's argument sounds like crap to me without even reading the book. Discussing the success of Western capitalism in some sort of historical vacuum, without considering histories of colonialism and neocolonialism (the prevalent model the WTO endorses), is racist, factually undermined, and extremely myopic.
It's inexcusable, then, to discuss the failure of capitalism in the non-West as if it's a matter of national or cultural values. Additionally, it is wrong because there IS successful capitalism in the east. Capitalism relies upon massive inequalities to work: there can not be wealth without poverty. Someone has to pay a disproportionate share of the costs if others have a disproportionate share of the wealth, of capital.
I have a few suggestions of more accurate story-telling of capitalism for anyone who cares. First of all, read Marx's Capital. You don't have to be a Marxist to appreciate its insights. Weber is interesting, although he falls into the trap of believing that some sort of unique cultural value led to capitalism, an extremely Eurocentric and historically inaccurate perspective. Wallerstein's book Historical Capitalism is an interesting (although flawed) analysis. Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism explains the concept of "late capitalism", something supposedly different from the first species. But I do suggest Frank's Re-Orient as a starter, because it lays down strong empirical evidence that European hegemony on the capitalist world is a short period in the history of world markets, and that Asian nations are emerging as central to global capitalism again.
Well, didn't Allchin state that he meant exclusively the GPL license? That seems to indicate that he recognized the differences between open source and free software, but not the terms. Stallman is correct in clarifying the vocabulary. Allchin's misuse of the word "open source" and the ensuing reaction is what elicited the restatement. It's entirely appropriate to assert the difference between the terms.
Tomorrow seems to use clip art as a framework for political mini-rants and sarcasm. If he posted his ideas in an open forum like usenet, they'd be torn to shreds because they are full of factual and logical errors. But from his privileged position as 'artist' he can write without fear of rebuttal.
I think your real problem with these comics are the cartoonists' left perspectives. So just say it. Because, on the contrary, these guys (especially Tomorrow) are funny and effective satirists. Being paid to submit cartoons critical of the popular media and politicians (Democrats and Repubs both) doesn't mean Tomorrow is evading rebuttal. Maybe you think Usenet is an effective means of disseminating your opinion and criticism, but not everybody has time or the interest in chatroom politics (Obviously I'm not one of these people, because I'm responding to an asinine post on Slashdot, but oh well).
Factual/logical errors? And what exactly are they? Or is this just an unsubstantiated mini-rant?
Re:Good, The New Workers need to unionise.
on
The Jungle
·
· Score: 1
Slashdotters may think unions are bad, but that's likely the result of the massive spending of corporations and lobbying efforts to spread anti-union propaganda. It's been a fairly good investment, because so many people actually believe it: they think that organizing themselves and protecting their rights and interests are examples of bad behavior. The idea of a union is fairly simple, but media organizations and politicians have been successful at linking the word to images of grossly undemocratic and corrupt organizations. Of course, there have been and are corrupt unions, but that shouldn't implicate the idea itself. There is much more everday evidence implicating the structure of the modern corporation to a grossly undemocratic organization that encourage labor inequalities. But, like I said, the investment in anti-union propaganda has had a great return: now many people actually argue that the communities they spend most of their day in (corporations) shouldn't be democratic.
What I'd like to know is what tech workers think of the role unions could play in eliminating certain kind of contracts employers require before hiring new workers. I'm not too familiar with the non-competing and non-disclosure agreements, but they sound like they could have a very negative impact on tech workers after being laid-off; how do these agreements affect the job opportunities of people looking for new jobs? People who work in particular industries gain experience they can use on a resume for a future job; the labor they produce helps them acquire new knowledge and new experience. But with these agreements, it appears that tech workers are forbidden to use some of these skills and knowledges in the future. Often an explanation is given that they produced technologies in time paid for by company capital, but I believe that explanation always overlooks the role of the individual workers. Unions can be a way to protect workers' rights, especially tech workers. Remember, a union is made up, organized, and governed by the workers who form it. Tech workers arguing that unions shouldn't exist in the tech industry are basically arguing they couldn't form a positive organization protecting their interests--you know, a community. I am part of a union of student workers in the UC system, and it has a great administration, a very good contract, and it's a wonderful way to protect our rights. It's funny because the only departments we can't really draw student workers from for the union is the CS department. The reasons they cite for not joining are generaly contradictory and vague; "I just don't like unions", "Why should I join since you guys already won a good contract", "I just don't want to", etc. Sometimes I ask them if they're familiar at all with these agreements tech companies require to be signed before employment, and no one yet has said they've heard of them. I explain what I do know, and how getting involved with our union (which they are already, since they have to pay Fair Share according to state law) would not only give them a voice in what we do, but give them experience they could use for later, when they enter the work force. Perhaps they're not interested because most of them come from well-off, privileged families, so they never experienced any forms of labor abuse before; their parents may be management types who are strongly anti-union. Who knows? Usually they decline because of a watered-down second-hand libertarian ethic, the kind of politics companies can really profit from by promoting. I'm interested in hearing more about hands-on experience in organizing tech workers and the ups and downs about that, rather than tech workers are in principle against organizing for their interests and don't know much about it.
Like you mentioned, there are other systemic problems in the electoral process. But I would take issue with the comment concerning info distribution, since you cite an example that most people in the world, and certainly many people in the US, don't have access to. Television, radio, and print are for the most part the means on information distribution for most of the population, and in the US there is hardly any public management or popular production; the few public radio and television channels are quite elitist.
The example concerning Disney was actually in the news, but I'd ask a few questions: 1. Did this affect just the profits off the movie and its theater and video revenues, or the secondary production of dolls, fast food tie ins, other merchandise that accounts for the greater amount of the profit? 2. Does this one example of copyright justice mean anything in the larger picture? So another group got the profits.
You bring up some thoughtful points.
Actually, I was involved in a homeless assistance group for several years, and they provided food. It was a very good way for poor students to help out and meet people who generally are completely marginalized. There are many different kinds of groups, and most of them help with their particular agendas.
I can't really comment too much on your other remarks, as I am running short on time, but also because you appear to severely misunderstand my arguments, and the reality of maldistribution of resources. Why do I care about rich CEOs? Well, they have lots of money, which means they can affect electoral processes, they have a lot of control over information distribution, and many corporate officers are responsible for socially and environmentally destructive uses of resources. As far as your remarks about trading, I think you should perhaps do some critical reading of the stock market and other various markets. I suggest Doug Henwood's Wall Street.
Remember, as long as you have a system in which private capital can accumulate most of the available resources (such as land) and means of production, then you have a profoundly undemocratic set-up for most other people.
That's a terrible analogy. A brick? But I do think that a community that helps each other out, ensuring basic necessities of life for everyone, is a better community than one that treats those who are unable to attain these necessities as shiftless, lazy pariahs. Are you actually arguing that income is merely based on effort? The average CEO works 500 times as hard as entry-level 9-hour a day workers? That's a laugh.
It should be about people willing to get out and do something.
What?! You need to clarify this; are you saying poor people are poor because they're lazy? Get out in the real world, check it out. The only people with leisure time are the wealthy, who certainly don't invest it into helping any community besides their own class (a very few do). And who is discussing patent law? What patent abuse are you discussing? I love to hear what other people think, but I can't respond well to vague comments.
I've read the responses to your post, and it's funny how they engage in abstract rebuttals of your argument, but ignore the empirical reality of your argument. We already have a divided society, with the US top ten percent of people owning 80 percent of all private wealth. That's the problem with Libertarians, they find these ideas appealing because of notions of individual autonomy that a private corporation, not at all a democratic organization, has no concern for. I think you're totally right; if the free market has the same effect on privacy as it has on the distribution of wealth and the ownership of other resources, a marginal group will have their privacy and the rest will not.
I would be wary of anything a high school economics teacher says, particularly in favor of free market economics. I'd like to know exactly what problems the free market solved, and efficiently. What's called neoliberal economic philosophy, that arguing for free markets, tends to be textbook rationalizations for economic inequality. Abstract ideas which justify mass exploitation. It's funny, because they cite Adam Smith but probably never made it through his work, which clearly argues social equality is a necessary prerequisite for a free market. In fact, that makes me want to ask my former econ teacher, who seriously misrepresented some of these philosophers, "Did you ever read anything besides the synopsis?"
While we obviously disagree about some fundamental things, I completely and unreservedly support your last comment: we should be open to plausible reorganization of society. I think that a big step towards doing that is looking more at the effects of policies than that rationale/reasoning politicians give for them. Not to engage the Dubya thing, but US citizens will be hearing a lot of explanations for social policies that many people consider very dubious.
Slashdot is an interesting example. It serves a commercial interest, as you point to, but it often has quite a wide range of perspectives and a well-developed moderation system. Much of the advertising concerns open-source / Linux commerce, which is much more positive and inclusive than other businesses. Even with the anger and spitting of some of the arguments on the site, it's a really fascinating business model. I'm a consumer like everyone else, and I get some of the best advice from the people on here--my chosen gatekeepers, so to speak. It is something qualitatively better than, say, the advice of a record exec or movie producer. In one way I agree with you--with the sheer amount of cultural material that is generated, we look to certain people as critics we trust. And what I really want to advocate is to be critical ourselves, to consider the interests and judgement of these others. Nice to have this discussion.
No. It's not like recognizing George Bush is the President. It's like saying he and others like him will ALWAYS be the president, like it is some sort of universal truth. Quite a difference. Read closely before you respond. Your argument ends up becoming a handy apology for these people, rather than real analysis. It's a slave mentality.
Much of their "costs" in the United States is paid by federal and state tax dollars, through patented R&D at public universities. These businesses are engaged with something very very far from a free market; U.S. corporate subsidizing is very protective for these guys, as is the WTO. These companies wouldn't know a free market if it helped them.
One more thing: Adam Smith made it clear in the Wealth of Nations that a free market wasn't possible without a free and equal society FIRST. Most people tend to read the short excerpts that the Chicago economists glorify, but boy, it's like they never opened the book.
Most corporate R&D goes into more marketable medical tech, not preventive and not the most important. The Bay-Dole act has made it possible for closer corporate control of university resources, equivalent of outsourcing. The production of medical knowledge by the public universities should be for everyone, not for a few with the money to pay for it.
I never said I was a Communist. I'm a Marxist. There's a profound difference. And you should know, even Marx said he wasn't a Marxist. Look at my prescriptions and their impacts, not your perception of my political ideology.
Blame the people, too? The great poverty of the African nations, the corruption of the small African elites in charge of many of the national governments, the extremely large prostitution industry that has been a catalyst for the spread of HIV: these are all products of the colonial and neocolonial relationships the British empire, the French empire, the Dutch, and Germans enforced in the region. Since poverty has been the direct result of the colonial use of African labor and resources by Western imperial nations, excepting the few elites favored by the West to create an organized bureaucracy to underlie trade, then your conclusion for the latest manifestation of problems they have: fuck'em. Blame them. Hey, let the WTO screw them and make the majority of cheaply manufactured drugs too expensive for anyone but the richest Africans.
That is the wonder of Western historical amnesia. Their actions have disasterous consequences for many people, they wait a couple years and soon they can blame the victim.
You're taking one comment, one parenthetical comment, from my post and obsessing over it. If what you want to do is encourage the free distribution of software and the recognizing of contributors, then you should like the Berkeley license; it explicitly requires users of the code to give credit to contributors. It's much more sharing-oriented than the GPL. The GPL is a political tool to that perpetuates Richard M. Stallman's delusional, destructive, utopian vision of the world.
Hmmm...no. The GPL is just as "sharing-oriented", the stakes are different. That's what you mean. You call it delusional, destructive because it goes against your received ideas about property rights. It is not utopian, because it is a very effective and realistic conception of how to enact change. And it's working--Linux has emerged as an alternative OS for servers and the desktop. You should be more specific about your gripes with it, because its demonstrable success needs to be accounted for. Your comment about about it being a parenthetical remark is irrelevant, since the remark is clear evidence of your stance on IP.
Your remarks about medical tech and R&D are ill-founded, because there is real world evidence that suggests the opposite. Not only have public universities before the Bay-Dole Act generated many of the non-patented innovation in medicine in the past century, but centrally-planned economies like Cuba have been developing very important medical knowledge that is being used throughout the global medical establishment. Do your research before accepting the validity of your received ideas.
The issue of artist compensation is completely unrelated to labels efforts to undermine fair use rights. And I fail to see how destroying the recording industry is going to make anyone's life better. I can't express my frustration with your brand of idealistic delusion. But let me try to explain why you're a complete idiot:
What does a label do? Yes, it manufactures and distributes music. Whatever. What it really does is tell people what music is important and what music they should listen to. Mass media students would call them gatekeepers. Labels shape public opinion. That's why artist sign up with labels.
Yeah I'm a complete idiot. You suggest this idea of labels as cultural gatekeepers, telling people what music is important. If I accept even that ridiculous idea--they're in the business of selling music they perceive as marketable, not good--the industry has an indisputably bad record of being the gatekeepers. Listen to the radio stations which are heavily affiliated with these companies, their advertising organs. The music is shit. I don't know about your musical tastes...
A few other comments: Using phrases like "you're a complete idiot" only diminishes your argument. This sort of ad hominem attack is pointless. Make your fucking point without being insulting. Secondly, I'm not a utopian, I didn't say I was, and the fact you think I am suggests you don't understand the argument I'm making. A revision of property right laws like the GPL has had a real world effect and success, and I say thank god. This makes software and other forms of information available for less-prosperous individuals and communities, including nation-states who need it to improve their services such as medical care, news, education. If you want to learn about it before dismissing it, check out sites like this.
Regarding your last remarks, perhaps you're enthralled with these sites and radio stations as purveyors of your newest musical and other tastes, but I haven't found them as interesting. Most people with broadband access to the Internet are getting their music off Napster, and many are checking more eclectic sounds. Good luck to them. If you still find yourself looking to the industry after substantial changes in music distribution and ownership, I suppose it's a testament to how unready you are to challenge your assumptions.
You think the GPL is evil? Jesus, why? It allows the producers of information to distribute their creations freely and still receive credit for them. That's wonderful. It also imposes the same rules to next year's creators, as well. It is the best thing ever for the progress of information distribution. Copyrights, according to the constitution of the U.S., are meant to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (Article I, Section 8, #8). Intellectual property law as it stands now in the US and how it is enforced by the WTO internationally is hsving a much different impact, though, in a multitude of ways; skyhigh prices on the production of medical technology, poor distribution of necessary medicine, the hoarding of computer tech and info that would improve social services everywhere. When we talk about intellectual property rights, we should remember that our efforts should help our communities. Instead, patent law and copyright law is used to stop the transfer of information.
Additionally, in terms of "intangible" intellectual properties like music, the artists do NOT own their music, the record industry does, because of the capital required to produce and distribute music. That is, until now, as we see distribution become very cheap and digital studio software become very accessible and recording costs decrease for home musicians. That's a great development, it fosters creative activity. What people should worry about is finding a way to reward these creative people directly, abolishing the record industry which has generally held the property rights to their endeavours (not the artists). What's bad about that? If you are a writer or a programmer, it should matter to you that your work might help others, and you should be interested in how to distribute it to others while securing the means of existence.
It does not work. All it does is create new "priviledged" group. Communism was based on "equal" redistribution of wealth and everyone knows what it degenerated into.
Did I ever say "Communism"? Nope. You shouldn't immediately equate redistribution of wealth with communism. And, as far as your reference to Communist nation-states, like the U.S.S.R., those were examples of state socialism, where the state owned all property. Communism is a system in which the workers are the owners of the means of productions. It's also a matter of strong local control, rather than the heavily centralized state of the U.S.S.R. Additionally, even given the PROFOUND differences between the USSR and a Communist state, you should remember that the experiment was not conducted in a vacuum; from 1917 on, a Cold War was waged between the US and USSR, ever since the US sent troops and supplies to aid the Whites in the Russian Civil War. For the last 50 years, the US has spend a massively disproportionate share of government revenue on developing a military-industrial state--despite Republican cliams to the contrary, we're still a very large military state that spends over half of the budget on the military industry. My point being, no matter how much a socialist Russua tried, the U.S. was going to ensure the government failed, by pressuring industrial states not to trade with Russia (a few stalwarts, such as India, did not bend to such pressure, resulting in US aid to the Pakistani government). Not to idealize the USSR, to be sure their policies curbed human rights just as much as the US. But you need to take in account the international context.
"I am lucky enough to have privilege, to be enfranchised, etc., so I don't really give a damn about others. As long as I protect my investment, screw everyone else.""
Of course I am. The fact that I have something to protect is a direct result of my actions. Everyone is free to follow the suit.
Wrong. They are free to try, but most people in the US and in the world do not get returns on their efforts. A very wealthy class requires an impoverished class, a basic tenet of capitalism. No matter how hard uneducated agricultural workers labor, they will not be rewarded in this economy. You seem to believe people without wealth are just sitting on their butts, doing nothing. Actually, only the middle and upper classes have the leisure time to do that.
Welfare does not work. It creates perpetual poverty. It really does.
Are you familiar with the term "welfare generations" where child ends up being welfare recipient just like his/her mother was ?
Yes, I've heard the term "welfare generations", a phrase which Republicans love and picked up from the work of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is essentially an inaccurate and useless term, because it suggests two things--first, the welfare generation class is qualitatively different than the generation that proceeded them. Wrong. Generations of black and white poor have existed for the last two centuries, and these are their children. The previous generations weren't harder working, or less poor, nothing has been changed. That leads to the second problem with the term--it suggests that something like a real welfare state ever existed for minorities. The redistributive policies of the thirties (the ones the Supreme Court didn't overturn) were incredibly effective in assisting white poor people, but blacks and other minorities were heavily discriminated against. The Federal Housing projects showed undeniable discrimination against minorities in housing loans. The few and paltry reforms that followed in subsequent decades did nothing to alleviate minority poverty, because welfare consistently favored whites. Since BOTH Carter and Reagan entered office, any type of real welfare policy has been dismantled, to the point in which the income gap between the rich and the poor is wider than ever before in U.S. history. The avery corporate CEO earns about 485 times as much as the lowest paid employee--is that because he (sometimes she, but US business is still quite a sexist world) works 485 times as hard? No. You know, the people on welfare today are overwhelmingly single mothers, who have a double shift of no-wage labor (mom) and low-wage labor. Raising children, despite political rhetoric, is not a worthy activity in the eyes of political conservatives.
First of all, the U.S. could ratify the UN conventions for human rights rather than ignore them, and actually abide to them after ratification. "
Nice idea, however of all countries in the world US would be at the end of list here.
US, while not perfect, is an example of free country as compared with the rest of the world.
What? First of all, you're dead wrong. I'll give you an example: the UN treaty that protects the rights of children, a pivotal human rights treaty, CRC, was ratified by all countries in the world except for two--the US and Somalia. That means the US does not support even a formal statement of the rights of children. Maybe some countries have a bad track record for honoring these agreements, but at least they make the effort to look like they do. And, if the US is a paragon of virtues as some patriot would have it, I'd think the US would feel honor-bound to set a good example. But, alas, only the American public believe in that bullshit. Go to almost any other country, and they are much more familiar with the abysmal US human rights record.
What is a corporation ? It is group of people working together to accomplish given goals.
How is it different from "community" ?
Actually, you bring up a good point, because I should have been specific; I meant a democratic community. I don't believe in according full rights to a community that emulates a facist regime--centralized leadership, strong censorship, no privacy, no worker's rights. Think about the kind of violations of basic worker's rights that occur with confidentiality agreements, non-competition agreements, anti-union contracts. In a majority of the other industrialized nations, these kind of violations are illegal or extremely unpopular. So I of course believe that communities like corps. that work against the collective interests of the greater community and against democratic interests should be significantly curtailed. There was a good reason corporations were illegal in the U.S. for so long after its founding.
Who is that wealthy class ?
Obviously you think they should not exist.
Tell me , if I start small convinience story which , in time, grows into Walmart , do I deserve to be punished ? Is there anything wrong with that ?
Where do you set the limit how much is enough ?
Who is to decide that ?
It's funny how you ignore my previous statements in your example. Obviously, if capital growth and property were more effectively distributed, and the rights of corporations were restricted, you wouldn't have this case, where a huge chain that practices labor violations, sells goods made by underpaid women in horrible conditions overseas, and whose family have a disproportionate share of wealth (the whole damn clan is in the Forbes 10 most wealthy people) NOT because they all worked hard but because they are RELATED. A modern aristocacy.
I appreciate your debates, and your stated humble origins, but that doesn't matter. Most poor people that enter the US do not make it, and many just to participate in the domestic economy are criminalized by racist immigration laws. I would hope that people that do make it help their fellow citizens, but many simply become members of the church of Mammon, their idol profit. What's even sadder than their ability to adopt mindsets that marginalize the poor--in fact demonizing them--is the fact that they have no sense of democratic community, no sympathy with the children of the poor who grow up without the necessary resources to have better lives. Maybe you should consider how this could be changed through active involvement rather than offering excuses and blaming the victim...
I'll start with your last question: No, redistribution of wealth is a key component of my favored solution. I favor additional policies, but not "besides" or instead of redistribution.
Second, if you believe wealth is distributed according to ability, as you suggest, you are very naive. First of all, how do you define "ability"? If you mean ability to acquire capital, then you're right. But if you mean intellectual ability, physical abilities, or compassion, or community productivity, then you're wrong. It isn't. It is based on access to positions of power for acquiring wealth, like getting a good education, good nutrition, being in a favored social arrangement like a wealthy family, being white (in the U.S.). Don't act like being born to certain kinds of people in certain classes doesn't determine how hard you have to work for something or whether you have an opportunity at all.
Concerning your comment "life isn't fair", remember something: life isn't fair or unfair, people make lives fair and unfair. You take out the subject there, like it's some sort of natural law. But it's not. You're really saying, "I am lucky enough to have privilege, to be enfranchised, etc., so I don't really give a damn about others. As long as I protect my investment, screw everyone else."
As far as your comment--"What was so different about early US and other new world colonies that made US so successful?"--the U.S. has had a long history of colonialism, buying land from the French (no matter who lived there), waging war for more land against Mexico in the late 1840s, colonizing the Phillipines in 1898 right after they escaped Spain's rule, and on and on in Latin America. So what's your point? Nothing is really different between US colonial policy and the monetary policy of the IMF, in the sense of the impact it has on millions of people. So the "fault" lies in many hands, if that's your question. But even if there are a lot of actors that have played along with selfish social policies, that doesn't give anyone the right to just tell most of the world to "fuck off, I've used your resources so I have cheap goods, I've overthrown your governments to make your area easier to exploit (Chile, Guatemala, for example) and now I'm done milking you dry (well, not quite)."
To return to your last question, there are a number of good policies to correct the harm. First of all, the U.S. could ratify the UN conventions for human rights rather than ignore them, and actually abide to them after ratification. Second of all, the U.S. and other nations need to legally redefine the rights of corporations, limit their rights. Individuals and democratic communities are much more important the corporations, whose structure of power and practices strongly correlate to the power structures of fascist governments. Third, rather than spend so much money on military and commercial development that rewards a very few, the U.S. needs to enact active welfare policies rather than paying mostly lip service to them, or attacking the many unfortunates without the core amenities of life. These are a few of the national and local changes, ones that would be a good start to enacting better international policy. One more thing: I'd like us to start looking at the impact and effects of our policies, rather than the reasons our politicians give for them. Libertarians, especially, are an especially laughable group that preachs the sovereign rights of individuals and the reduced role of government, but ends up offering just an elaborate apologia for the wealthy class.
From the tone of your response, though, I don't expect you to really listen to my suggestions. It appears that you have no problem with severe inequalities, that discussing them is just "bitching". Oh well, that's nothing less than expected from the privileged class.
Please don't argue this with me unless you are sure you know what you're talking about, I've researched extensively without listening to anyone's propoganda.
Yeah, right.CNN is the Left's lapdog. What a brilliant observation! And here I thought that since CNN was part of the AOL-Time Warner media and entertainment monopoly, it was part of the conservative establishment. Ah, I was wrong. Apparently, it has really been heavily promoting radical politics, Leftist policies, and anti-corporate points of view all this time! Boy, where did you do your research? The Rush Limbaugh Institute of Arrogant Research into Rationalizations of Savage Inequalities? I'm pretty impressed!
Well, obviously you're full of shit. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary you use, and you employ massive structural contradictions. If the left is much lighter on forms of social controls, then why the hell do you think that the freedom to program is going to be taken away by the left? As far as I know, one of the biggest things halting the freedom to program is that MOST people don't have access to personal computers NOR programming education. What you really meant is that right will ensure that poverty remains at its present levels and only a few will have this wonderful freedom. What kind of freedom is that? And your statement that the right favors smaller central governments is a fucking hoot! Look at the expenditures of the Reagan-Bush years--the only difference between the Clinton administration is a higher concentration of spending by Reagan into the military. Are you arguing the US military isn't a government bureaucracy? Or are you simply implicitly stating your preference that government money is given in military and corporate subsidies rather than to individuals, you know: corporate welfare vs. public welfare. You're probably right, because vastly greater expenditures on coporate welfare has obviously helped the distribution of wealth--now 90% of capital is owned by 10% of the population. Yeah, that's real fair. Or maybe you agree it isn't, but you're inclined to agree with pseudo-scholar of the neo-liberal Chicago school, Milton Friedman, that, well, "Life isn't fair". That's nice and easy to say, isn't it, when you're one of the few well-off.
I have some advice for you--before you make more posts, traffiking in self-centered claims to better knowledge than the other SLashdot readers--who, on the contrary, aren't as left as you think (maybe you should actually figure out what things are in the term)--go out and see some of the real world, where class differences are very wide, where the majority of the world's working women are severely underpaid and overworked, where industrial and public waste by richer nations is relocated globally, you know that world that you live on where a majority of the population is under-nourished despite the fact that developed countries have more than twice the food production necessary to feed everyone. What I can't stand about people like you is that you act like you don't know that you're side is winning! Corporate monopolies hold most of the world's wealth, which lies in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and hardly anywhere else. If you doubt me, why don't you do some real research--go look at the 2000 UNDP report with actual empirical research here
If anyone disagrees let me know, because my impression of the article is that is falsely represents the real crisis of Internet freedom as a matter of government regulation, rather than a more complex picture of combined gov't regulation, multinational corporate concentration of access and copyrighted content, and the no small matter than a majority of the world population has no access to this "Internet freedom".
For example, two of the biggest stories of information regulation and control were the Napster and DeCSS lawsuits, filed by some of the same huge media corporations. Many felt that those were the most important challenges to the free transferrance of information.
As to my other point, one should measure freedom ultimately by the proportion of people who have it. Right now, the proportion of those with access to the Internet, not to mention the capital to own or rent server space, to pay for the production of web content, blah blah, is very low. In my estimate, then, a large amount of freedom for a small part of the population is not much freedom at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Boy, that must have taken a lot of time to write, and it's complete shit. And since I have very little time, I want to say one thing. I live in Southern California. The Southwest has historically been a key area for agricultural production, military production, and, today, an information economy. It was once Mexico. Conquest of Mexico=imperialism, Anglo colonization of Southwest. Criminalization of Mexican immigration allowed agricultural businesses that acquired former Mexican territory to exploit Mexicans and Mexican-American with low-wage labor. I should avoid heated remarks, to be civil, but I don't know what you think colonization was. I suggest you read some of the books I mentioned in my first pose, and then reply to my comments, dispute them. I'll be interested. Until then, as long as you fail to see the connections or persuasively argue that colonization didn't provide resources like agricultural goods and labor to produce commodities for the colonizer's profits through market economies (capitalism), then you're wasting your time.
Marxism is a westerncentric philosophy, sure, but a critical Marxism has been employed throughout the world in antiimperialist and anti-capitalist struggle. As long as capitalism exists globally, a critical Marxism will be useful and necessary to understand and change it.
I stand by my other assertions.
While I'd like to avoid overly generalizing, historically yes.
What? Have you ever heard of the Spanish empire? You know, colonized great portions of the Americas and, through war and the dissemination of disease, killed millions of indigenous people. Colonized the Phillipines, Cuba, the southern Iberian peninsula. Or how about the British empire? India, Africa (along with the French, Dutch, and kinda Italy and Germany), Hong Kong, North America, etc. The colonial expansion occurred at the same time capitalist integration; imperialism was the realization of capitalist expansion. And you mention Germany, whose colonial intentions with the Soviet Union and several Western European states were late in the game: well, duh! What game do you think that was? Risk? Germany and Japan were the first nations in the modern era that attempted to colonize previously industrialized or industrializing areas, which is why the ensuing war was massive.
As far as your argument that it was counter-productive for Britain to colonize India, or Canada, well, I can hardly consider that an argument. Agricultural and industrial goods were produced in India through Indian labor and then SOLD in markets in USA and Europe. Of course those nations were their markets. That's not the point of a colony until the twentieth century; up to a certain point, colonies provided labor and manufactured goods for other markets. Your remark concerning the East India Company: which ruling class are you speaking of? Are you discussing the shareholders? You know, India was a colony for ninety years following the abolition of the company (1857). You think they held on to it out of goodwill, and not profits? What are you, an apologist for imperialism? And your remark about military being a drain on production: remember, the military is big business and military-related production is VERY popular with private devleopers of arms.
Regarding the US, you need a reeducation, buddy. The acquisition of Mexican lands in 1846-8, the US-Phillipines war in 1898, US's entire twentieth century policy with Latin America--Panama Canal, multiple interventions with Nicaragua, 1954 overthrowal of Guatemalan government, and so on, US involvement with the first and second world wars, etc. The US truly did not emerge as a major player globally until WWII (it certainly wasn't the largest economy, as you say--that's ridiculous; until then, the British Empire was sovereign, even after the Berlin Conference). The US was able to do this through the Marshall Plan and its postwar antagonism with the Soviet Union. That means, the US had a formal and informal colonial relationship with regions covering the hemispheres, and we're not including its markets in the colonial holdings of the European states.
My argument stands; colonialism was a key component of capitalist development. To argue otherwise, regardless of political persuasion, is inaccurate. You say I lack a basic understanding of economic history--refute my facts. I'm specifically interested how you pulled that US thing out of your ass.
When has there been a period of US history without crony capitalism? The only time which I can think of, and is an arguable point, is the FDR administration before World War II began. And since the second World War the arms industry and telecommunications sector has relied upon strong and fast relations with US government. Perhaps it is a matter of defining "crony capitalism"?
De Soto's book is the kind of hack work developed when an author begins learning a subject with preconceived notions that will not be disturbed by facts; the very idea that capitalism has failed in the "non-West" is, to all current historical accounts, unreconstructed Westerncentrism. If one is going to read a history of the development of capitalism at a global level, read something that hasn't been completely discredited academically. Try, for starters, Andre Gunder-Frank's Re-Orient, which is a sort of synthesis of recent revisions of world-systems analysis..
De Soto's book reeks of modernization/neoliberal theory, which provides a program of development for countries along lines often articulated and enforced by the IMF and World Trade Organization. Liberalize your economies (sacrifice national properties to the free market), reduce public expenditures (end welfare programs for the poor, reduce or eliminate low-cost educational access, don't have any redistributive tax economies), and welcome foreign direct investment even at the expense of people's welfare (sweatshops) or environmental restrictions. Many corporations, for example, are able to meet US environmental standards by paying poor nations to take their waste.
Modernization theory and neoliberalism has been criticized for ignoring some fundamental facts, one of them being that the "ideal" of capitalist development, the West, was realized through colonialism and neocolonialism. Until the sizties, most of the nations considered ideal capitalist nations profited while colonies paid the costs, through slavery and low-wage labor. That's why De Soto's argument sounds like crap to me without even reading the book. Discussing the success of Western capitalism in some sort of historical vacuum, without considering histories of colonialism and neocolonialism (the prevalent model the WTO endorses), is racist, factually undermined, and extremely myopic.
It's inexcusable, then, to discuss the failure of capitalism in the non-West as if it's a matter of national or cultural values. Additionally, it is wrong because there IS successful capitalism in the east. Capitalism relies upon massive inequalities to work: there can not be wealth without poverty. Someone has to pay a disproportionate share of the costs if others have a disproportionate share of the wealth, of capital.
I have a few suggestions of more accurate story-telling of capitalism for anyone who cares. First of all, read Marx's Capital. You don't have to be a Marxist to appreciate its insights. Weber is interesting, although he falls into the trap of believing that some sort of unique cultural value led to capitalism, an extremely Eurocentric and historically inaccurate perspective. Wallerstein's book Historical Capitalism is an interesting (although flawed) analysis. Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism explains the concept of "late capitalism", something supposedly different from the first species. But I do suggest Frank's Re-Orient as a starter, because it lays down strong empirical evidence that European hegemony on the capitalist world is a short period in the history of world markets, and that Asian nations are emerging as central to global capitalism again.
Well, didn't Allchin state that he meant exclusively the GPL license? That seems to indicate that he recognized the differences between open source and free software, but not the terms. Stallman is correct in clarifying the vocabulary. Allchin's misuse of the word "open source" and the ensuing reaction is what elicited the restatement. It's entirely appropriate to assert the difference between the terms.
Tomorrow seems to use clip art as a framework for political mini-rants and sarcasm. If he posted his ideas in an open forum like usenet, they'd be torn to shreds because they are full of factual and logical errors. But from his privileged position as 'artist' he can write without fear of rebuttal.
I think your real problem with these comics are the cartoonists' left perspectives. So just say it. Because, on the contrary, these guys (especially Tomorrow) are funny and effective satirists. Being paid to submit cartoons critical of the popular media and politicians (Democrats and Repubs both) doesn't mean Tomorrow is evading rebuttal. Maybe you think Usenet is an effective means of disseminating your opinion and criticism, but not everybody has time or the interest in chatroom politics (Obviously I'm not one of these people, because I'm responding to an asinine post on Slashdot, but oh well).
Factual/logical errors? And what exactly are they? Or is this just an unsubstantiated mini-rant?
Slashdotters may think unions are bad, but that's likely the result of the massive spending of corporations and lobbying efforts to spread anti-union propaganda. It's been a fairly good investment, because so many people actually believe it: they think that organizing themselves and protecting their rights and interests are examples of bad behavior. The idea of a union is fairly simple, but media organizations and politicians have been successful at linking the word to images of grossly undemocratic and corrupt organizations. Of course, there have been and are corrupt unions, but that shouldn't implicate the idea itself. There is much more everday evidence implicating the structure of the modern corporation to a grossly undemocratic organization that encourage labor inequalities. But, like I said, the investment in anti-union propaganda has had a great return: now many people actually argue that the communities they spend most of their day in (corporations) shouldn't be democratic.
What I'd like to know is what tech workers think of the role unions could play in eliminating certain kind of contracts employers require before hiring new workers. I'm not too familiar with the non-competing and non-disclosure agreements, but they sound like they could have a very negative impact on tech workers after being laid-off; how do these agreements affect the job opportunities of people looking for new jobs? People who work in particular industries gain experience they can use on a resume for a future job; the labor they produce helps them acquire new knowledge and new experience. But with these agreements, it appears that tech workers are forbidden to use some of these skills and knowledges in the future. Often an explanation is given that they produced technologies in time paid for by company capital, but I believe that explanation always overlooks the role of the individual workers. Unions can be a way to protect workers' rights, especially tech workers. Remember, a union is made up, organized, and governed by the workers who form it. Tech workers arguing that unions shouldn't exist in the tech industry are basically arguing they couldn't form a positive organization protecting their interests--you know, a community. I am part of a union of student workers in the UC system, and it has a great administration, a very good contract, and it's a wonderful way to protect our rights. It's funny because the only departments we can't really draw student workers from for the union is the CS department. The reasons they cite for not joining are generaly contradictory and vague; "I just don't like unions", "Why should I join since you guys already won a good contract", "I just don't want to", etc. Sometimes I ask them if they're familiar at all with these agreements tech companies require to be signed before employment, and no one yet has said they've heard of them. I explain what I do know, and how getting involved with our union (which they are already, since they have to pay Fair Share according to state law) would not only give them a voice in what we do, but give them experience they could use for later, when they enter the work force. Perhaps they're not interested because most of them come from well-off, privileged families, so they never experienced any forms of labor abuse before; their parents may be management types who are strongly anti-union. Who knows? Usually they decline because of a watered-down second-hand libertarian ethic, the kind of politics companies can really profit from by promoting. I'm interested in hearing more about hands-on experience in organizing tech workers and the ups and downs about that, rather than tech workers are in principle against organizing for their interests and don't know much about it.
Like you mentioned, there are other systemic problems in the electoral process. But I would take issue with the comment concerning info distribution, since you cite an example that most people in the world, and certainly many people in the US, don't have access to. Television, radio, and print are for the most part the means on information distribution for most of the population, and in the US there is hardly any public management or popular production; the few public radio and television channels are quite elitist.
The example concerning Disney was actually in the news, but I'd ask a few questions: 1. Did this affect just the profits off the movie and its theater and video revenues, or the secondary production of dolls, fast food tie ins, other merchandise that accounts for the greater amount of the profit? 2. Does this one example of copyright justice mean anything in the larger picture? So another group got the profits. You bring up some thoughtful points.
Actually, I was involved in a homeless assistance group for several years, and they provided food. It was a very good way for poor students to help out and meet people who generally are completely marginalized. There are many different kinds of groups, and most of them help with their particular agendas.
I can't really comment too much on your other remarks, as I am running short on time, but also because you appear to severely misunderstand my arguments, and the reality of maldistribution of resources. Why do I care about rich CEOs? Well, they have lots of money, which means they can affect electoral processes, they have a lot of control over information distribution, and many corporate officers are responsible for socially and environmentally destructive uses of resources. As far as your remarks about trading, I think you should perhaps do some critical reading of the stock market and other various markets. I suggest Doug Henwood's Wall Street.
Remember, as long as you have a system in which private capital can accumulate most of the available resources (such as land) and means of production, then you have a profoundly undemocratic set-up for most other people.
That's a terrible analogy. A brick? But I do think that a community that helps each other out, ensuring basic necessities of life for everyone, is a better community than one that treats those who are unable to attain these necessities as shiftless, lazy pariahs. Are you actually arguing that income is merely based on effort? The average CEO works 500 times as hard as entry-level 9-hour a day workers? That's a laugh.
It should be about people willing to get out and do something.
What?! You need to clarify this; are you saying poor people are poor because they're lazy? Get out in the real world, check it out. The only people with leisure time are the wealthy, who certainly don't invest it into helping any community besides their own class (a very few do). And who is discussing patent law? What patent abuse are you discussing? I love to hear what other people think, but I can't respond well to vague comments.
I've read the responses to your post, and it's funny how they engage in abstract rebuttals of your argument, but ignore the empirical reality of your argument. We already have a divided society, with the US top ten percent of people owning 80 percent of all private wealth. That's the problem with Libertarians, they find these ideas appealing because of notions of individual autonomy that a private corporation, not at all a democratic organization, has no concern for. I think you're totally right; if the free market has the same effect on privacy as it has on the distribution of wealth and the ownership of other resources, a marginal group will have their privacy and the rest will not.
I would be wary of anything a high school economics teacher says, particularly in favor of free market economics. I'd like to know exactly what problems the free market solved, and efficiently. What's called neoliberal economic philosophy, that arguing for free markets, tends to be textbook rationalizations for economic inequality. Abstract ideas which justify mass exploitation. It's funny, because they cite Adam Smith but probably never made it through his work, which clearly argues social equality is a necessary prerequisite for a free market. In fact, that makes me want to ask my former econ teacher, who seriously misrepresented some of these philosophers, "Did you ever read anything besides the synopsis?"
While we obviously disagree about some fundamental things, I completely and unreservedly support your last comment: we should be open to plausible reorganization of society. I think that a big step towards doing that is looking more at the effects of policies than that rationale/reasoning politicians give for them. Not to engage the Dubya thing, but US citizens will be hearing a lot of explanations for social policies that many people consider very dubious.
Slashdot is an interesting example. It serves a commercial interest, as you point to, but it often has quite a wide range of perspectives and a well-developed moderation system. Much of the advertising concerns open-source / Linux commerce, which is much more positive and inclusive than other businesses. Even with the anger and spitting of some of the arguments on the site, it's a really fascinating business model. I'm a consumer like everyone else, and I get some of the best advice from the people on here--my chosen gatekeepers, so to speak. It is something qualitatively better than, say, the advice of a record exec or movie producer. In one way I agree with you--with the sheer amount of cultural material that is generated, we look to certain people as critics we trust. And what I really want to advocate is to be critical ourselves, to consider the interests and judgement of these others.
Nice to have this discussion.
No. It's not like recognizing George Bush is the President. It's like saying he and others like him will ALWAYS be the president, like it is some sort of universal truth. Quite a difference. Read closely before you respond. Your argument ends up becoming a handy apology for these people, rather than real analysis. It's a slave mentality.
Much of their "costs" in the United States is paid by federal and state tax dollars, through patented R&D at public universities. These businesses are engaged with something very very far from a free market; U.S. corporate subsidizing is very protective for these guys, as is the WTO. These companies wouldn't know a free market if it helped them. One more thing: Adam Smith made it clear in the Wealth of Nations that a free market wasn't possible without a free and equal society FIRST. Most people tend to read the short excerpts that the Chicago economists glorify, but boy, it's like they never opened the book.
Most corporate R&D goes into more marketable medical tech, not preventive and not the most important. The Bay-Dole act has made it possible for closer corporate control of university resources, equivalent of outsourcing. The production of medical knowledge by the public universities should be for everyone, not for a few with the money to pay for it.
I never said I was a Communist. I'm a Marxist. There's a profound difference. And you should know, even Marx said he wasn't a Marxist. Look at my prescriptions and their impacts, not your perception of my political ideology.
Your remark about Cuba is wrong.
Blame the people, too? The great poverty of the African nations, the corruption of the small African elites in charge of many of the national governments, the extremely large prostitution industry that has been a catalyst for the spread of HIV: these are all products of the colonial and neocolonial relationships the British empire, the French empire, the Dutch, and Germans enforced in the region. Since poverty has been the direct result of the colonial use of African labor and resources by Western imperial nations, excepting the few elites favored by the West to create an organized bureaucracy to underlie trade, then your conclusion for the latest manifestation of problems they have: fuck'em. Blame them. Hey, let the WTO screw them and make the majority of cheaply manufactured drugs too expensive for anyone but the richest Africans.
That is the wonder of Western historical amnesia. Their actions have disasterous consequences for many people, they wait a couple years and soon they can blame the victim.
You're taking one comment, one parenthetical comment, from my post and obsessing over it. If what you want to do is encourage the free distribution of software and the recognizing of contributors, then you should like the Berkeley license; it explicitly requires users of the code to give credit to contributors. It's much more sharing-oriented than the GPL. The GPL is a political tool to that perpetuates Richard M. Stallman's delusional, destructive, utopian vision of the world.
Hmmm...no. The GPL is just as "sharing-oriented", the stakes are different. That's what you mean. You call it delusional, destructive because it goes against your received ideas about property rights. It is not utopian, because it is a very effective and realistic conception of how to enact change. And it's working--Linux has emerged as an alternative OS for servers and the desktop. You should be more specific about your gripes with it, because its demonstrable success needs to be accounted for. Your comment about about it being a parenthetical remark is irrelevant, since the remark is clear evidence of your stance on IP.
Your remarks about medical tech and R&D are ill-founded, because there is real world evidence that suggests the opposite. Not only have public universities before the Bay-Dole Act generated many of the non-patented innovation in medicine in the past century, but centrally-planned economies like Cuba have been developing very important medical knowledge that is being used throughout the global medical establishment. Do your research before accepting the validity of your received ideas.
The issue of artist compensation is completely unrelated to labels efforts to undermine fair use rights. And I fail to see how destroying the recording industry is going to make anyone's life better. I can't express my frustration with your brand of idealistic delusion. But let me try to explain why you're a complete idiot: What does a label do? Yes, it manufactures and distributes music. Whatever. What it really does is tell people what music is important and what music they should listen to. Mass media students would call them gatekeepers. Labels shape public opinion. That's why artist sign up with labels.
Yeah I'm a complete idiot. You suggest this idea of labels as cultural gatekeepers, telling people what music is important. If I accept even that ridiculous idea--they're in the business of selling music they perceive as marketable, not good--the industry has an indisputably bad record of being the gatekeepers. Listen to the radio stations which are heavily affiliated with these companies, their advertising organs. The music is shit. I don't know about your musical tastes...
A few other comments: Using phrases like "you're a complete idiot" only diminishes your argument. This sort of ad hominem attack is pointless. Make your fucking point without being insulting. Secondly, I'm not a utopian, I didn't say I was, and the fact you think I am suggests you don't understand the argument I'm making. A revision of property right laws like the GPL has had a real world effect and success, and I say thank god. This makes software and other forms of information available for less-prosperous individuals and communities, including nation-states who need it to improve their services such as medical care, news, education. If you want to learn about it before dismissing it, check out sites like this.
Regarding your last remarks, perhaps you're enthralled with these sites and radio stations as purveyors of your newest musical and other tastes, but I haven't found them as interesting. Most people with broadband access to the Internet are getting their music off Napster, and many are checking more eclectic sounds. Good luck to them. If you still find yourself looking to the industry after substantial changes in music distribution and ownership, I suppose it's a testament to how unready you are to challenge your assumptions.
You think the GPL is evil? Jesus, why? It allows the producers of information to distribute their creations freely and still receive credit for them. That's wonderful. It also imposes the same rules to next year's creators, as well. It is the best thing ever for the progress of information distribution. Copyrights, according to the constitution of the U.S., are meant to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" (Article I, Section 8, #8). Intellectual property law as it stands now in the US and how it is enforced by the WTO internationally is hsving a much different impact, though, in a multitude of ways; skyhigh prices on the production of medical technology, poor distribution of necessary medicine, the hoarding of computer tech and info that would improve social services everywhere. When we talk about intellectual property rights, we should remember that our efforts should help our communities. Instead, patent law and copyright law is used to stop the transfer of information.
Additionally, in terms of "intangible" intellectual properties like music, the artists do NOT own their music, the record industry does, because of the capital required to produce and distribute music. That is, until now, as we see distribution become very cheap and digital studio software become very accessible and recording costs decrease for home musicians. That's a great development, it fosters creative activity. What people should worry about is finding a way to reward these creative people directly, abolishing the record industry which has generally held the property rights to their endeavours (not the artists). What's bad about that? If you are a writer or a programmer, it should matter to you that your work might help others, and you should be interested in how to distribute it to others while securing the means of existence.
It does not work. All it does is create new "priviledged" group. Communism was based on "equal" redistribution of wealth and everyone knows what it degenerated into.
Did I ever say "Communism"? Nope. You shouldn't immediately equate redistribution of wealth with communism. And, as far as your reference to Communist nation-states, like the U.S.S.R., those were examples of state socialism, where the state owned all property. Communism is a system in which the workers are the owners of the means of productions. It's also a matter of strong local control, rather than the heavily centralized state of the U.S.S.R. Additionally, even given the PROFOUND differences between the USSR and a Communist state, you should remember that the experiment was not conducted in a vacuum; from 1917 on, a Cold War was waged between the US and USSR, ever since the US sent troops and supplies to aid the Whites in the Russian Civil War. For the last 50 years, the US has spend a massively disproportionate share of government revenue on developing a military-industrial state--despite Republican cliams to the contrary, we're still a very large military state that spends over half of the budget on the military industry. My point being, no matter how much a socialist Russua tried, the U.S. was going to ensure the government failed, by pressuring industrial states not to trade with Russia (a few stalwarts, such as India, did not bend to such pressure, resulting in US aid to the Pakistani government). Not to idealize the USSR, to be sure their policies curbed human rights just as much as the US. But you need to take in account the international context.
"I am lucky enough to have privilege, to be enfranchised, etc., so I don't really give a damn about others. As long as I protect my investment, screw everyone else."" Of course I am. The fact that I have something to protect is a direct result of my actions. Everyone is free to follow the suit.
Wrong. They are free to try, but most people in the US and in the world do not get returns on their efforts. A very wealthy class requires an impoverished class, a basic tenet of capitalism. No matter how hard uneducated agricultural workers labor, they will not be rewarded in this economy. You seem to believe people without wealth are just sitting on their butts, doing nothing. Actually, only the middle and upper classes have the leisure time to do that.
Welfare does not work. It creates perpetual poverty. It really does. Are you familiar with the term "welfare generations" where child ends up being welfare recipient just like his/her mother was ?
Yes, I've heard the term "welfare generations", a phrase which Republicans love and picked up from the work of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is essentially an inaccurate and useless term, because it suggests two things--first, the welfare generation class is qualitatively different than the generation that proceeded them. Wrong. Generations of black and white poor have existed for the last two centuries, and these are their children. The previous generations weren't harder working, or less poor, nothing has been changed. That leads to the second problem with the term--it suggests that something like a real welfare state ever existed for minorities. The redistributive policies of the thirties (the ones the Supreme Court didn't overturn) were incredibly effective in assisting white poor people, but blacks and other minorities were heavily discriminated against. The Federal Housing projects showed undeniable discrimination against minorities in housing loans. The few and paltry reforms that followed in subsequent decades did nothing to alleviate minority poverty, because welfare consistently favored whites. Since BOTH Carter and Reagan entered office, any type of real welfare policy has been dismantled, to the point in which the income gap between the rich and the poor is wider than ever before in U.S. history. The avery corporate CEO earns about 485 times as much as the lowest paid employee--is that because he (sometimes she, but US business is still quite a sexist world) works 485 times as hard? No. You know, the people on welfare today are overwhelmingly single mothers, who have a double shift of no-wage labor (mom) and low-wage labor. Raising children, despite political rhetoric, is not a worthy activity in the eyes of political conservatives.
First of all, the U.S. could ratify the UN conventions for human rights rather than ignore them, and actually abide to them after ratification. " Nice idea, however of all countries in the world US would be at the end of list here. US, while not perfect, is an example of free country as compared with the rest of the world.
What? First of all, you're dead wrong. I'll give you an example: the UN treaty that protects the rights of children, a pivotal human rights treaty, CRC, was ratified by all countries in the world except for two--the US and Somalia. That means the US does not support even a formal statement of the rights of children. Maybe some countries have a bad track record for honoring these agreements, but at least they make the effort to look like they do. And, if the US is a paragon of virtues as some patriot would have it, I'd think the US would feel honor-bound to set a good example. But, alas, only the American public believe in that bullshit. Go to almost any other country, and they are much more familiar with the abysmal US human rights record.
What is a corporation ? It is group of people working together to accomplish given goals. How is it different from "community" ?
Actually, you bring up a good point, because I should have been specific; I meant a democratic community. I don't believe in according full rights to a community that emulates a facist regime--centralized leadership, strong censorship, no privacy, no worker's rights. Think about the kind of violations of basic worker's rights that occur with confidentiality agreements, non-competition agreements, anti-union contracts. In a majority of the other industrialized nations, these kind of violations are illegal or extremely unpopular. So I of course believe that communities like corps. that work against the collective interests of the greater community and against democratic interests should be significantly curtailed. There was a good reason corporations were illegal in the U.S. for so long after its founding.
Who is that wealthy class ? Obviously you think they should not exist. Tell me , if I start small convinience story which , in time, grows into Walmart , do I deserve to be punished ? Is there anything wrong with that ? Where do you set the limit how much is enough ? Who is to decide that ?
It's funny how you ignore my previous statements in your example. Obviously, if capital growth and property were more effectively distributed, and the rights of corporations were restricted, you wouldn't have this case, where a huge chain that practices labor violations, sells goods made by underpaid women in horrible conditions overseas, and whose family have a disproportionate share of wealth (the whole damn clan is in the Forbes 10 most wealthy people) NOT because they all worked hard but because they are RELATED. A modern aristocacy.
I appreciate your debates, and your stated humble origins, but that doesn't matter. Most poor people that enter the US do not make it, and many just to participate in the domestic economy are criminalized by racist immigration laws. I would hope that people that do make it help their fellow citizens, but many simply become members of the church of Mammon, their idol profit. What's even sadder than their ability to adopt mindsets that marginalize the poor--in fact demonizing them--is the fact that they have no sense of democratic community, no sympathy with the children of the poor who grow up without the necessary resources to have better lives. Maybe you should consider how this could be changed through active involvement rather than offering excuses and blaming the victim...
Second, if you believe wealth is distributed according to ability, as you suggest, you are very naive. First of all, how do you define "ability"? If you mean ability to acquire capital, then you're right. But if you mean intellectual ability, physical abilities, or compassion, or community productivity, then you're wrong. It isn't. It is based on access to positions of power for acquiring wealth, like getting a good education, good nutrition, being in a favored social arrangement like a wealthy family, being white (in the U.S.). Don't act like being born to certain kinds of people in certain classes doesn't determine how hard you have to work for something or whether you have an opportunity at all.
Concerning your comment "life isn't fair", remember something: life isn't fair or unfair, people make lives fair and unfair. You take out the subject there, like it's some sort of natural law. But it's not. You're really saying, "I am lucky enough to have privilege, to be enfranchised, etc., so I don't really give a damn about others. As long as I protect my investment, screw everyone else."
As far as your comment--"What was so different about early US and other new world colonies that made US so successful?"--the U.S. has had a long history of colonialism, buying land from the French (no matter who lived there), waging war for more land against Mexico in the late 1840s, colonizing the Phillipines in 1898 right after they escaped Spain's rule, and on and on in Latin America. So what's your point? Nothing is really different between US colonial policy and the monetary policy of the IMF, in the sense of the impact it has on millions of people. So the "fault" lies in many hands, if that's your question. But even if there are a lot of actors that have played along with selfish social policies, that doesn't give anyone the right to just tell most of the world to "fuck off, I've used your resources so I have cheap goods, I've overthrown your governments to make your area easier to exploit (Chile, Guatemala, for example) and now I'm done milking you dry (well, not quite)."
To return to your last question, there are a number of good policies to correct the harm. First of all, the U.S. could ratify the UN conventions for human rights rather than ignore them, and actually abide to them after ratification. Second of all, the U.S. and other nations need to legally redefine the rights of corporations, limit their rights. Individuals and democratic communities are much more important the corporations, whose structure of power and practices strongly correlate to the power structures of fascist governments. Third, rather than spend so much money on military and commercial development that rewards a very few, the U.S. needs to enact active welfare policies rather than paying mostly lip service to them, or attacking the many unfortunates without the core amenities of life. These are a few of the national and local changes, ones that would be a good start to enacting better international policy. One more thing: I'd like us to start looking at the impact and effects of our policies, rather than the reasons our politicians give for them. Libertarians, especially, are an especially laughable group that preachs the sovereign rights of individuals and the reduced role of government, but ends up offering just an elaborate apologia for the wealthy class.
From the tone of your response, though, I don't expect you to really listen to my suggestions. It appears that you have no problem with severe inequalities, that discussing them is just "bitching". Oh well, that's nothing less than expected from the privileged class.
Please don't argue this with me unless you are sure you know what you're talking about, I've researched extensively without listening to anyone's propoganda. Yeah, right.CNN is the Left's lapdog. What a brilliant observation! And here I thought that since CNN was part of the AOL-Time Warner media and entertainment monopoly, it was part of the conservative establishment. Ah, I was wrong. Apparently, it has really been heavily promoting radical politics, Leftist policies, and anti-corporate points of view all this time! Boy, where did you do your research? The Rush Limbaugh Institute of Arrogant Research into Rationalizations of Savage Inequalities? I'm pretty impressed!
Well, obviously you're full of shit. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary you use, and you employ massive structural contradictions. If the left is much lighter on forms of social controls, then why the hell do you think that the freedom to program is going to be taken away by the left? As far as I know, one of the biggest things halting the freedom to program is that MOST people don't have access to personal computers NOR programming education. What you really meant is that right will ensure that poverty remains at its present levels and only a few will have this wonderful freedom. What kind of freedom is that? And your statement that the right favors smaller central governments is a fucking hoot! Look at the expenditures of the Reagan-Bush years--the only difference between the Clinton administration is a higher concentration of spending by Reagan into the military. Are you arguing the US military isn't a government bureaucracy? Or are you simply implicitly stating your preference that government money is given in military and corporate subsidies rather than to individuals, you know: corporate welfare vs. public welfare. You're probably right, because vastly greater expenditures on coporate welfare has obviously helped the distribution of wealth--now 90% of capital is owned by 10% of the population. Yeah, that's real fair. Or maybe you agree it isn't, but you're inclined to agree with pseudo-scholar of the neo-liberal Chicago school, Milton Friedman, that, well, "Life isn't fair". That's nice and easy to say, isn't it, when you're one of the few well-off.
I have some advice for you--before you make more posts, traffiking in self-centered claims to better knowledge than the other SLashdot readers--who, on the contrary, aren't as left as you think (maybe you should actually figure out what things are in the term)--go out and see some of the real world, where class differences are very wide, where the majority of the world's working women are severely underpaid and overworked, where industrial and public waste by richer nations is relocated globally, you know that world that you live on where a majority of the population is under-nourished despite the fact that developed countries have more than twice the food production necessary to feed everyone. What I can't stand about people like you is that you act like you don't know that you're side is winning! Corporate monopolies hold most of the world's wealth, which lies in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and hardly anywhere else. If you doubt me, why don't you do some real research--go look at the 2000 UNDP report with actual empirical research here
If anyone disagrees let me know, because my impression of the article is that is falsely represents the real crisis of Internet freedom as a matter of government regulation, rather than a more complex picture of combined gov't regulation, multinational corporate concentration of access and copyrighted content, and the no small matter than a majority of the world population has no access to this "Internet freedom".
For example, two of the biggest stories of information regulation and control were the Napster and DeCSS lawsuits, filed by some of the same huge media corporations. Many felt that those were the most important challenges to the free transferrance of information.
As to my other point, one should measure freedom ultimately by the proportion of people who have it. Right now, the proportion of those with access to the Internet, not to mention the capital to own or rent server space, to pay for the production of web content, blah blah, is very low. In my estimate, then, a large amount of freedom for a small part of the population is not much freedom at all.