the consumers might – krupnik

           

People of America, it is time to rise up and decide who is in control in our society. Our capitalist system rests on the belief that the consumer is the ultimate CEO, the one who decides what and how much of a particular product gets produced. Adam Smith, the writer of “The Wealth of Nations” and one of the forefathers of capitalism, believed that the consumer should be the invisible hand. A hand that guides the economy based on our desires and only lets those companies survive that give us what we, the consumer, want. But who has felt in control lately? There is not a man, women or even child out there who doesn’t feel abused by the major corporations of our times. If you try and contact these massive, multibillion dollar corporations about errors in your account, you can wait ten, twenty even thirty minutes just to talk to a human being who probably can’t even resolve the issue. Everyone out there has let a company slide because they just didn’t have the strength to fight them, well its time that stopped. Its time for everyone to work together to regain control of what is ours.

            Some might say that the consumer is still in charge but do not believe this. We no longer decide what it is that we want. That position of power now belongs to the corporations who spend billions making sure we know what it is we so desperately need. Yes there are some people out there more resistant to the coercive powers of the empire, buying what they really need and abstaining from the other trash but they can’t hold out forever. In our society there are basic “needs” that can only be provided by the corporations. A single person can live without these “needs” but the family man is almost commanded to buy them. T he advertising business itself is a multibillion dollar industry with a grasp on everyone in society. Everywhere you go there are ads. The subways, public restrooms and the streets are just littered with them. Ads that have been devised by psychologists to catch your attention, or smells that make you want to purchase more food. With the corporations using our senses against us for their profit, how are we supposed to resist?

            One of the tenants of capitalism is the market economy. In a market system, resources are owned by private parties. These groups then negotiate with each other for the use of their individual resources. Labor is one of the major resources. It is purchased from people in exchange for something, usually money, and put to use making products which are then sold back to the consumer. The key here is private property. Everybody has something the others require to produce. The people need the land and capital, while the corporations need the actual people. Without one or the other nothing can be produced.

            The idea of private property started around the medieval ages where feudalism was the main mode of production. The land was made available to the masses by the nobles, who controlled it, for their own production. In exchange they would have to give a percentage of their crops to the noble. Eventually the nobles realized the value of their lands and started using it for what it was, capital. This land which was necessary to produce food became a tool to enrich the nobles of the world and a commodity to be sold or traded. The working class who had originally farmed for themselves started to produce for the nobles who would provide them with wages. These wages could then be exchanged for the food and other things they needed. A few hundred years later the system is still pretty much the same.

           

Present day capitalism relies on a few other things besides the ownership and exchange of capital and private property. Self-interest, competition and the markets are other important factors. In capitalism, self interest is the motivating force. It is the desire by every part of the system, from the workers to the owners, to achieve their maximum value. Economists say that self interest gives direction to the economy, without it there would be chaos. Competition is very important to capitalism and one of the most troublesome areas to an effective economy. By having multiple buyers and sellers in the market no one entity can dictate prices allowing them to rise and fall as needed. The market is the final major component of the capitalist economy. It is the system that allows the buyers and sellers to communicate and set prices. If all these systems work working properly, capitalism would be a very good economic system but unfortunately the system is broken.

Adam smith believed that in order for a capitalist economy to function monopolies could not be allowed to exist. The American government takes on the police role in this situation and is supposed to prevent any one company from instituting a monopoly. The law gives the government the tools necessary to accomplish this mission but either they are ignoring the situation or unwilling to use their powers to help. Looking around a person might believe that they have choices in the products and services they use, this is an illusion. From the gas to heat your home to the sweeteners in your drinks there are many monopolies operating in this country. Microsoft, in many countries has been sued for being a monopolistic entity and it is one of the biggest and most successful companies in the United States.

 

It is not just the monopolies that are ruining capitalism, “regular’ businesses are part of the problem too. Companies are intertwined. They might have different names and owners but they employ the same people to lobby for them regarding rules and regulations. The airlines and cellphone companies work together to set market prices. Nobody wants to use any of these companies but no new better companies show up and it’s not because there isn’t a desire from the consumer. These major conglomerates join together to make it impossible for a new player to enter the market. Even if a company could get a slice of the cellphone spectrum, they would be bought up as soon as they posed a threat to the bigger companies. The major companies are already too big for anyone to challenge their dominance and they are only getting bigger.

Capitalism is supposed to encourage innovation. The businesses that don’t create are supposed to die out and be replaced. By allowing the major companies to work together, the government is stifling the evolution of the market. The consumer suffers because of this, mostly in his lack of options and innovative new products. The expansion of the conglomerates has led to the death of small businesses and choice in America. The lousy customer service and ridiculous bureaucracy are things we will just have to deal with unless the people do something to change it.

Removing the corporations that control our lives will not be easy. People will have to learn to live without certain things. Not just the creature comforts we cherish but the necessities for our lives. It will be a cycle. Since both the producers and consumers are dependent on each other they both must suffer to destroy the other. This will require people to stop supporting the corporations. Not all of them but certain ones that are in dire need of change like the airlines. The economy will suffer and people will be left without jobs but for the rebirth of the country some will have to make the sacrifice. We are not asking people to starve themselves; the change won’t necessarily take long. Once they see that the consumers are serious the corporations will have to make the changes we demand. The government will also join in at this point. They cannot sit by while the country falls apart. This is actually the major intent of the revolution. The corporations are not evil in themselves but they have been allowed to run unchecked by the forces setup to stop them, in some instances even helped by them.

For something this extreme to happen a major portion of the population will have to help.  This will not be impossible. There are many people fed up with the way things are going in this country, they want to regain control. The consumer just has to stand up and declare that they are not sheep anymore. They are not forced to support companies that they don’t like or even work for them. The consumer will once again become the hand that controls the market.

Take your cell phone back, by Yaakov Schwartz

Hi, America. Yaakov Schwartz here. If you’re reading this it may already be too late. You have probably been taken advantage of by conglomerated industry in more ways than you can count. Guess what? You’re not alone. Statistics say that 100% of Americans are getting ripped off by companies that buddy up with their very limited competition to fix prices at a level that is satisfactory to them. I’m speaking about cell phone companies, power companies, cable companies as well as retail stores. The heads of these companies went to business school to learn how to maximize their profits by any means necessary. What that means to us is that CEO’s and company officials everywhere are teaming up and strategizing how to milk every last penny out of a quickly polarizing population. And who feels this the most? Certainly not the wealthy. They can take care of themselves. As the rich get richer, the poor are getting poorer, and lower-middle class Americans are spending more and more money on services that they are convinced are necessities.

There are several problems here:

 

1. Companies are banding together to set prices.
2. These same companies have established a culture of desire through continuous and aggressive advertising campaigns.
3. Because companies are so large, the customer has little to no leverage anymore. Customer service has taken a plunge.

 

Although monopoly is technically against the law, we shop at monopolized retail stores every day. Let’s say that Walmart and Target are the only stores of their kind in your area (which is highly likely). That means that a Walmart customer doesn’t have to be pleased to his own standards, he just has to understand that the customer service will be no better at Target. The companies understand this, and perform appropriately.

At the expense of sounding like an old man, I must say that there was a time before these problems existed. At that time, a store was owned by its proprietor, and he or she would pour their blood, sweat and tears into it. The customer was always right, because store owners understood that without the customer’s business, their stores would fold. As the franchise phenomenon began to snowball, more and more businesses were forced to sell out to them, and the chains began buying up mom and pop businesses in quantities. This effectively meant the end of customer service, the end of fair pricing, and the end of quality product. Before the chain store, a customer had the opportunity to leave and take his business across the street. Now, the store across the street has the same name as the one he just left.

This is not at all limited to retail stores, which operate relatively independently. What is absolutely astounding is that this phenomenon is sanctioned by the government. At last count, there were four major mobile phone companies servicing 300,000,000 Americans (legal citizens, anyway. Probably a lot more if you don’t rely on the census) with good chances of another major acquisition in the near future that would bring it down to three. The government, for its part, has lowered regulations barring any company owning as much stake in any region as they want.

In tandem with high rate plans and monstrous overage charges, cell phone companies are marketing new phones with features that a normal human being could not possibly need for any reason. However, through some sort of marketing genius, they have the masses convinced that all kinds of extravagant technological curiosities are essential for their happiness. Advertisements of dancing silhouettes and beautiful women bombard people from every available medium. You can’t walk by a bus without being hit by some sort of ad. People are spending good money on cell-phone mp3 players with video cameras, internet and e-mail. A higher-end device of that caliber runs for about $700. That’s a lot of cheese.

Now, by this time, you are probably saying to yourself “What does this mean for me?” Well calm down. We can’t organize a revolution if you’re wringing your hands and hopping from foot to foot. What we have to do is get organized. Fight this thing at the source. I’ve got a list of ideas. Now, you feel free to add any ideas you think are relevant or to critique my ideas; this is a democracy here. OK? Good.

The way I see it, this is a multi-faceted problem and it requires a multi-faceted solution. We are not dealing with one company here, we are dealing with a business model that is shared by roughly all of the major businesses in this country. In some cases we’re dealing with a way of life that’s ingrained into consumers. They may not come quietly. Well, I’d tell you to write your congressman, but he’s probably in on it. How do you think he was elected if not through aggressive advertising. In any case, we are to attack this problem on several fronts. The first is the simplest and may sound like a lot of fun to you. However, I caution you: do not get caught. You will spend time in the big house. What I recommend is that you go to your local Walgreens, Target, or whatever retail chain they are developing on that empty lot around the corner from you, and head right for the camping department. Get yourself a checkered hunting cap with ear flaps on the way, if possible. Now take some of that pre-packaged firewood and douse it with lighter fluid. I want you to make a small, contained campfire inside Walgreens. The goal of this procedure is not to harm anybody, or even to cause any damage to corporate property. It is simply a morale-building operation that will release your aggressions and help prepare you for the big fight. Hearing about Walgreens campfires occurring throughout the heartland of America will raise our spirits and unite us in our fight against corporate monopoly.

The second thing I recommend we do is a bit harder because it requires a long-term commitment. I say that we drastically reduce consumption. Throw your cell phone in the toilet, or at least lower your rate plan and use the phone only for necessities and not to talk to your girlfriend about what you are going to name your kids. If you are considering buying an iPhone, DON’T. What we are trying to avoid here is excess. If you have an $80 monthly plan with your mobile phone company, reducing it to $40 has just cut their profits in half. Get everyone on your block to do that and suddenly we have a voice.

Get rid of your premium channels. Get rid of your television completely, for that matter. But if you can’t bear to let your boob-tube go, at least cancel your fancy cable channels. They are the root of the problem. Not only is your cable company likely a monopoly and raping you on your monthly service rate, but the television advertisements aired during your favorite show are a primary cause of your need to buy.

Instead of driving your Navigator, walk to work. Ride a bike. Take the bus. The revolution needs healthy folks and ones that are conscious of what’s going on around them. That includes the environment. Oil companies have banded together to raise prices. Don’t give them your money willingly.

Turn off the lights when you leave the room. Don’t leave your computer running all day. Find ways to conserve power, because the electric companies are one of the highest levels of monopoly in this country today. You may not think that you’re paying so much on your power bill, but it’s likely a lot more than you should be.

If you follow these tips, two things might happen. One is that you might become a smarter and more conscientious person. You might find yourself reading a book at night instead of watching House. The other thing that might happen is that corporations may find their profit margins sinking, and just might start paying attention to their customers again. Right now they have all the leverage, but we can take it back. It will definitely require patience and sacrifice on our part, but bringing billion dollar corporations to their knees will make it worthwhile.

Unionism: Its rapid decline and affect on workers in the workforce – Peterson Lochard

“This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in” as Theodore Roosevelt once famously said. In the past few years, we have witnessed a gradual change in the labor movement in America. Such change or lack thereof is due to a lack of union membership in the workforce as suggested by many economists and various scholars. However, the brutal conditions many workers are experiencing in the workforce unionism alone cannot change them. So upon further analysis and critical thinking, it has to be deeper than that. What must have happened for workers to suddenly abandon or reluctant to join labor unions? Are modern day workers prone to accept what is given to them by their employers? Or could it be that labor unions aren’t given a chance in modern day society. The emphasis of this manifesto is to answer as a result such critical questions, show the widening gap of income inequality between employee and employers and call on all workers to unite as they usually said in unity there is strength.

Most movements unlike the labor movement have impetuous beginnings. The roots of the American labor movement can be traced as far as to the French Revolution, marking a clear conscious conflict between those who control the means of production and those who don’t. With that being said strategically the labor movement begun when it did because there was nothing being done by public officials to relieve the sufferings of the unemployed. Government officials basically ignore the general welfare of the common people, which were the workers, and in contrast, they only served the interests of their business friends. In short, labor laws were geared towards to benefit businesses as oppose to workers. The Taft-Hartley Act also known as the Labor Management Relations Act, for instance, restricts the activities and power of labor unions. The Act, which amended the National Labor Relations Act, prohibited workers from striking, boycotting and picketing. Clearly as a result that certainly gives management the upper hand in negotiating with union leaders. However that didn’t restrain workers from going striking and demand higher wages.

Union leaders in return tried their best to cooperate with management. In fact leaders from the three major unions, the American Federation of Labor, the Socialist Party of America, the Industrial Workers of the World, at the time were competing to lead the American labor movement. Each of these unions had different programs to win better working conditions and social justice for workers. The AFL itself “advocated an approach known as “business” or “pure and simple” unionism, which emphasized collective bargaining to reach its goals. Demands were centered around improvements to the immediate work environment, like better wages, hours and working conditions” (wikipedia union membership). Union membership begun to grew significantly. In fact during World War II, unions’ membership quadrupled. So fast forwarding to today, a time in which where we are currently fighting a war in Iraq, again why aren’t we seeing an increase in union membership as oppose to the decline in unionism?

The globalization of the world economy, outsourcing, the removal of tariffs and other barriers to international trade are among the leading factors for the decline in unionism in America. Manufacturing jobs, which were best unionized, have been exported to places like China and other foreign shores where labor is relatively cheap. In fact, “the United States has lost one-sixth of its factory jobs over the last six years and the hemorrhaging of manufacturing is hurting America down to the local level” (Greenhouse p.1). What we are seeing now is a very segmented U.S economy, which means that those with certain high tech and entrepreneurial skills do very well in the job market while those with fewer skills work in low paying service jobs, which have not been unionized much at all. Higher education will be more important as it has ever been only for those who can afford it. As Alan S. Binder, Princeton University Economist and perennial adviser to Democratic presidential candidates, best said “the U.S. education system must be revamped so it prepares workers for jobs that can’t easily go overseas” (Wessel, David p.2). In addition, the usage of the Internet and computer technology has dramatically changed the workforce. Computers and machines have pretty much replaced a lot of workers.

The United States undoubtedly is the richest country in the world. Without the labor of millions of people, the U.S could not have built its dynamic economy. That great economic prosperity also comes with a price by producing poverty and inequality of wealth among people. “The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation’s income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent” (Herbert p.1). Most workers, if not all, aren’t getting an equal share of the wealth they are creating for their employers. The inequality of wealth between the CEO’s and the blue-collar workers hasn’t stop increasing. The salary of a CEO is nearly four hundred seventy times that of the average worker. Even head fund managers are cashing in by making as much as 5.3 million to 1.7 billion dollars in salary yearly. Our President George W. Bush is now recognizing such inequality as he said in one of his speeches “I know some of our citizens worry about the fact that our dynamic economy is leaving working people behind…Income inequality is real” (Ip, McKinnon p.1). Similar to many other people I, myself, don’t know what took him so long to recognize such crisis maybe after all changes is near.

Going back to the original question, modern day workers need to unite better so we can solve these “never ending” problems. Believe it or not every worker now should be concerned and has a stake in the treatment of other workers elsewhere. Join unions at all cost as we used to do in the past. The unions are funded with working people’s money as oppose to government’s or even billionaires like Bill Gates as the case may be. Working people has nothing to lose since they already lost the best of people, young people and working people to a current war. With a strong labor movement, working people can fight for equality one corporation at a time and gain their respective jobs and identity back.

Greenhouse Steven A Unified Voice Argues the Case for U.S. Manufacturing

New York Times, April 26,2007

Herbert Bob The Millions Left Out

New York Times May 12 2007 OP-ED Collumnist

Ip Greg, McKinnon John Bush Reorients Rhetoric, Acknoledges Income Gap

The Wall Street Jounal – Online March 26,2007

Wessel David, Davis Bob Pain From Free Trade Spurs Second Thoughts

The Wall Street Jounal pg A1 March 28, 2007

Wikipedia Union Membership www.wikipedia.org/wiki/union_membership

Environmental Imperialism – Matthew Angelo

In the past 500 years, countries of the West have exploited the peoples and the places of the rest of the world to an unprecedented degree. The overwhelming majority of resources used by the wealthiest nations today originate outside of those nation’s borders.  This misappropriation puts a strain on the regular interactions between people and the environment in these areas. Not only has a small portion of the world’s population benefited at the expense of the majority, but it also has spread its environmentally debasing ideals to the mindset of those subjugated to its elitist notions of progress. Although direct rule over nations by Western powers has largely come to an end, the exporting of its views has obscured the reality that regions that have been abused adopt an exploitative culture’s outlook. The exportation of values conveyed translates into acts that use one’s environment as a means instead of as an extension of one’s self and one’s place of residence. Environmental degradation within developing nations benefits the West while being unwittingly supported by the residents of these nations.

            The Industrial Revolution, the precursor of the intensified use of the world’s natural resources, advanced Western culture in many beneficial ways, (such as developing vaccines for diseases, making clothing and shelter more readily available etc…) at the cost of higher need for labor and for material from the environment. The development of these societies of European origin followed the patterns of progression taken by those common to their predecessors; the acquisition of wealth through and because of their ever-present neighbors. Historically, Western societies have had to compete to survive to a greater degree than most other societies, whether through petty wars over territory, or the capacity to obtain resources, or the ability to colonize other parts of the world. This elevation of competition, while useful in contributing to the advancement of some of the aspects of life mentioned above, tends to make people think in terms of what is beneficial to the individual rather than what is beneficial to the whole. Holistic ideals are often counter to those of Western thinking because of this disregard for that which does not affect one’s immediate concern. Intensive competition is also most often unstable (as the relatively quick fall of many Western empires; British, Spanish, Germanic, will attest to) because it creates a cycle where those who have lost need to compete once again in order to reestablish themselves.

 

            At present there are many societies which attain their goals and needs through the exploitation of other societies. While governments themselves generally no longer run programs to take advantage of undeveloped nations, multinational corporations, which are often more powerful than these nations, use them to create wealth for themselves and for people of developed areas. This exploitation frequently takes the form of using a culture’s land to generate goods while degrading that society’s environment. Places such as
Brazil where a large part of the
United States’ beef comes from, or the creation of factories in
Southeast Asia, destroy biologically diverse regions with the intent of using the areas to produce whatever is profitable for these companies. The imperialistic actions of those who use developing nations to their advantage is frequently rationalized by corporations through an ethic that claims they are beneficial to the local people because they’ve created jobs whereas otherwise they would have no money and be destitute. However, it is only because of these corporations that the peoples of these areas need jobs in the first place, as they’ve taken their lands through bargaining with local governments and with it the locals’ abilities to maintain their traditional life. The fact that large multinational corporations are able to gain sympathy through their exploitative actions is appalling.

            The eco-exploitation of the regions of the world where land and labor are cheap is not only morally atrocious, it is generally a highly unsustainable practice. Sustainability, a current goal of ecology, is affected by a delicate balance of a number of factors such as the economy, the environment, and people, and how nations maintain societal harmony while considering the interaction of these factors. There are few societies that maintain sustainable lifestyles, such as
Cuba, Amish communities, and a few others, but the vast majority of today’s industrial world is grossly unsustainable. It would take something like an additional three Earths to achieve the living standard for the entire world that the
United States,
Japan, and other Western nations have set for themselves. This is often mentioned in ecological studies, but perhaps what they don’t mention is that these three additional planets would be populated by our slaves and our environmentally destructive technology. Such a statement would be useful in making people consider changing attitudes instead of just policies.

            The interactions between people, the environment, and the economy, when calculated together, can indicate how sustainable our practices are. The utilization of food, water, nonrenewable energy sources, and land area per person gives an idea of the imbalance created by the way we live. Water needs, as an example, is expected to cause devastating shortages with the growing population in the next century. If fresh water was distributed equally, there would be much less cause for concern, however the distribution of water is so unequal that many countries will suffer from its debilitating scarcity within the next twenty years. The necessity of water to life, and its current inequity, highlights the relationship between eco-imperialist countries and those they abuse. The unsound premises on which our civilization is built may affect us in the future, but it is affecting those outside of it as we speak. It is of little wonder why there are different positions on how to deal with present environmental crises.

            While many people in industrialized nations today acknowledge the need for changes in how we deal with our environment, the conscious attitudes in still developing countries are often considerably different. It is not hard to see why such societies would view the environment dissimilarly; they have not gained anything from the massive utilization of the environment in centuries past, and in fact have been witness to those that have. The industrialized world has in large part come to modernization because of it use of the environment not only in its own regions but also in undeveloped regions; it would be ludicrous to believe that the people of these regions would not want the same benefits. The willingness of people of a given society to sacrifice for the good of the natural world generally goes up in accordance to how much they are gaining from the natural world. The West is now being put to the standards of its own capitalistic ethic; for the use and degradation of the environment it has paid nothing; reimbursement to those who it has taken from should be implemented.

           

The fact that only a small part of the world has benefited from the deterioration of our planet, however, has made reimbursement in the way of equal opportunity for its exploitation impossible. The Western view of the environment as something separate from people is now shared by many across the globe. This is perhaps more dangerous than its policies in putting into practice those values in the first place. The dichotomous aspects present in Western Judeo-Christian religions has not helped the influence of these values. In such aspects, man is separate from the environment; he is made from clay but in God’s image, and all of creation is made for him. Although much of the industrialized world has moved on from devotedly practicing religious values, these values in ages past have done nothing to preserve respect for one’s environment, and in fact advocated the use of it. In the modern world, a reassessment of values and attitudes towards reverence for the natural world is a major part of what is needed.

            One step towards lessening the pressure of creating environmentally friendly policies in the developing world could be through debt forgiveness. An imposing obstacle that keeps many “third world” nations from rising their standards of living, and therefore their environmental attitudes, is the massive amount of debt they accumulate owed to “first world” nations. The first world, which essentially imports their sustainability from the third world, not only directly but indirectly is causing environmental damage by increasing the speed at which the third world uses these degrading practices to keep up with the rising debt and interest it accumulates. This not to say that current policies which alleviate debt with the intention that it can be traded for the ability to maintain environmentally polluting practices, rather the forgiveness of debt on a broad scale should be an end in itself. Debt forgiveness should be justified through the fact that poor nations owing anything in the first place to rich nations is a bit ridiculous, as rich industrialized nations would owe insurmountable sums if its use of common environmental resources in the past were taken into account. It would perhaps be the start of a change in outlook in regarding one’s environment.

            The existing idea about environmental consciousness is that one has to give things up in order to satisfy a larger goal from which they get nothing in return. However, if people examine their lives and find what is actually raising their quality of life, simplifying their lives probably wouldn’t seem like much of a sacrifice, but instead as its enrichment. Poverty, which is involuntary, as it is in much of the third world, creates a sense of passivity, while voluntary simplicity is empowering. This is certainly supported by many economical studies of welfare, as the poor not receiving aid tend to remain impoverished, while those receiving welfare more often go back to work. Living simply does not necessarily imply rural living, and has a sublime sense of harmony with the environment in adopting sources of renewable energy and combining function with beauty. These goals are achievable by taking the tools we already have, such as mass media, education, and new technologies, and applying them to a responsible ecology.

            Those who resist the changing of environmental policy are normally only those who have something to lose from it. If it could be realized in actuality that only those who have something to lose from it are people like those in our current presidential administration, where any ecological progress seems to have hit an eight-year road block, there would generally be more effort expended towards the matter. This does require all individuals to take action in their lives however, as our inaction reverberates in our leadership, and not using it to our advantage as a species as a whole allows them to use it for theirs. Let it be known that harming the environment is harming ourselves, not just first world nations, not just developing nations, not just the middle class, not just the poor; if you are present in the natural world, you are a part of it.

A Global Affair of Global Warming by Kristina Sarceno

A Global Affair of Global Warming

Today, global warming is a very important issue.  Scientists are trying to find ways in which to stop the progression of global warming, and its harmful effects.  Even though scientists have known about global warming since the late 1850’s to early 1860’s, not much was done until the effects were visible and obviously detrimental.  In 1959, a scientist named Tyndall discovered that “some gases block infrared radiation.  He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases (in the atmosphere) could bring climate change” (Weart).  In the years after this discovery, the world didn’t do much to stop this process from happening. Arrhenius, a scientist, did some research on carbon dioxide.  In 1896, he came to the conclusion that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming.

After meteorologists recorded the global temperature for many years, a trend of warming was observed from the late nineteenth century to 1930.  Some scientists were interested in how the temperature rise would affect the global climate, while others were not aware and/or did not care.  In 1938, Callendar argued, “that carbon dioxide greenhouse global warming is underway,” and reminded the scientific community of these predictions.  Taking all of this scientific research and ideas into account, Plass calculated that the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would “have a significant effect on the radiation balance. (Weart)”

The scientific community was still not convinced that global warming was really occurring, even after Revelle discovered that the oceans would not absorb the carbon dioxide that humans produce readily.  The levels of carbon dioxide have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, and this annual rise was recorded by Keeling in 1960.  After all of these discoveries and speculations, some people organized an environmental movement with the intent of spreading “concern about global degradation.” The result of this movement was the first Earth Day in 1970.  Along with this collaboration of the people, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was started.  This organization funded the most climate research in the world (Weart).

In 1975, the danger to the Earth that the greenhouses gases were causing was first recorded.  Following this knowledge, “Manabe and collaborators produced complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled carbon dioxide.”  After all of these scientific discoveries that warned of global warming, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981 brought “backlash against environmental movement” (Weart). How can one person’s power cause everyone’s concern for the environment to disappear?

The first attempt at a global fight against global warming was in 1985.  The Villach conference called for every country’s government to agree to enforce a limit on emissions.  Following this attempt, the Montreal Protocol of 1987 of the Vienna Convention “imposes international restrictions on emission of ozone-destroying gases.”  Ozone destroying gases also contribute to the greenhouse effect.  To facilitate this global attempt at restricting emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 (Weart).

The United States has always been one of the countries that has not fully accepted blame or changed its habits to help out with the cause.  In 1992, the United States refused to work with many other countries at the conference in Rio de Janeiro, which produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Weart).  For a long time now, the U.S. has rejected to partake in plans set forth by other nations calling for serious action against global warming.

More recently, in the past decade, more efforts have been made to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.  Toyota first produced the Prius, the “first mass-market electric hybrid car,” in 1997.  Along with this new car technology, other alternative energy sources were being investigated.  Wind turbines started to become more popular as a source of renewable energy.  The Kyoto Protocol was conceived during this time.  This protocol joined together nations that signed a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Weart).

Despite new technology and knowledge of global warming, the Global Climate Coalition, formed in 1989, disintegrated and the U.S. pulled out again in 2002.  In 2000, the massive oil companies in the U.S. convinced the administration to deny that global warming was occurring (Weart).  The government was very convincing; forcing the general public to believe global warming was a hoax.  People don’t want to believe in and face the harsh reality.

In 2005, the Kyoto treaty was formed.  It pulled together all “major industrial nations except U.S., Japan, and Western Europe.”  In a regional aspect, U.S. entities pulled together in order to cut back on emissions (Weart).  Recently, scientists and environmentalists have realized just how much of an impact global warming is having on the planet.  The harmful effects are wide spread, harming plants, bodies of water, the ice caps, animals, and humans.  Many humans are in denial, believing that if they pollute or drive a gas-guzzling car, it doesn’t make a difference because they are only one person.  But multiply that by how many people who have that same belief, and it builds up exponentially.  If people altered their outlook and became more environmentally conscious, the world’s woes would improve drastically.

Every car should be taken off the streets and replaced with electric, hybrid, compressed air, or hydrogen powered cars.  Unfortunately, in the United States, people believe the bigger their car, the more important they are to the world.  Yeah, the more important you are in the killing of the environment!  I say to them “Stop thinking you are cool because you are driving around in the city in a huge Hummer; meanwhile you are not using it to go off-roading.”  The United States’ dependence on foreign oil is not only putting the government in a horrible situation with other countries, but it is also a primary cause of the emission of greenhouse gases.

People need to stop wasting gas by buying huge SUVs for which they have no use.  I was watching the vehicles that drove by my house and 8 out of 10 of them were either SUVs or minivans that get horrible gas mileage.  And people complain why gas is so expensive! They are using it up way quicker than it is being found, all to power their cars that have more horsepower than they know what to do with.  Why don’t people use their common sense and buy cars that don’t eat a hole through their wallets?  Why not buy an electric car, hydrogen powered car, or even a hybrid?  They are worth the money!  They save you so much money in the long run, and also so the environment from the burden of greenhouse gases that are emitted from the combustion of petroleum products.

Also, why the hell did electric cars disappear off the streets of California after they were becoming very popular?  The oil companies don’t want people to purchase and use cars that do not require gasoline because the demand for gas would drop, decreasing sales, and their livelihood.

The United States has the biggest per capita waste in the world.  People do not recycle because the government does not enforce it properly.  What ever happened to reusing plastic containers or bottles?  If you can’t use it anymore, don’t just throw it away, recycle it; it saves money, precious resources, and cuts back on emissions from the burning of plastics with the trash.  The petroleum that is used to produce plastics and to make oil and gasoline not only leads to global warming, but it also affects the environment in other detrimental ways (oil spills or leaks, depleting fossil fuels).

“There is a great reluctance on most societies to act hastily.  The attitude of many citizens and governments is to wait and see how bad the problem is before we commit any substantial resources to addressing it” (Kump 337).  If we wait until it gets really bad, there will be no way to go back.  If we start fighting global warming right now, there is a chance we can win.  Its just like if you are in a boxing match.  If you wait until the end to fight back, you will be fighting a battle you cannot win.  You will be so far beaten that any efforts you make to fight back will be useless.   “Many climatologists feel that it will be a matter of only a decade or two before the evidence of global warming becomes impossible to refute” (337).

Instead of using oil for energy, renewable energies should be the source of energy.  “Every kilowatt-hour of electricity or gallon of gasoline saved is one less that contributes to carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere” (337).  Wind, tidal, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric power are all renewable forms of energy that do not relese polluting emissions.  The only concern that has been voiced against any of these forms of energy are against the hydroelectric and wind energy systems.  In order to produce hydroelectric energy, a dam has to built so the water can then flow through turbines*.  So, this form of energy does not need to be used if we use the other forms to their full potential.  The concern with wind-powered energy is that the wind turbines are “ugly” and ruin the view from people’s property.  If you think wind turbines are ugly, then I guess you would rather be living in an environment that is polluted, steaming hot, and covered in water; that is most likely how the world is going to end up if changes are not enforced soon.

All of the countries around the world have to work together in order to make this plan effective.  If one country does it and another doesn’t, it is not going to work.  All of the countries and people within them have to join together and battle global warming as a group.  If everyone cuts back on emissions and their use of non-renewable resources, the environment will improve and global warming should be under control.  Since the U.S. uses the most fossil fuels, it is essential that our country becomes extremely proactive in providing solutions.

If global warming keeps going at the rate it is right now, many organisms will lose their habitats and probably become extinct.  Possibly some of the organism we need in order to survive will no longer be around.  In the end there will not be life as we know it thanks to people’s carelessness and disregard for the environment around them.

*The objections include how the dam could alter the natural ecosystem and could be a potential eyesore.

Manifesto of the Poor, Ashley Jobson

Manifesto of the Poor

   

Throughout the history of time, in every part of the world, there have been two classes of those who hold power, and those who do not.  The former has always been in control of governments and economies.  This class has been in control over the production of goods, and they have also been in control over the circulation of money.  The powerless class, those less economically stable, have been under the regime of the elites for all time in history.  Their access to resources depended on what the elites determined it to be.  The availability of jobs, wages and the production of goods in a society were all regulated by the people with the most power.  However, as with all class changes in history, there will come a time when one class will lose its power, and the other will rise, holding more power than ever before.  This manifesto is my call to the rise of the poor and economically oppressed workers of America; for they will take back their power and control as one class of people, regardless of race, religion or creed, and this new class will put an end to the dominant elites.

The political elites are the large business and corporation owners, the corporate managers and the social upper-class members.  They maintain control over democracies and live off of their investments.  Their power gives them access to influence societies, and with this power they can also take away the influence governments have on societies.  The influence of elites gives them power to make public decisions on how work and production should be regulated.  Businesses must always be productive, because in any society, a large, productive corporation holds the most power, therefore giving power to business owners and managers.  Business is kept productive at any and all costs, to make certain that more money will flow to the economically elite and away from everyone else in a society.  Upper class members do not have high taxes compared to the amount of income they receive.  In 1957, the long-term capital gains for the wealthy was taxed at 25 percent, and of recent, this rate has declined to 15 percent.[1]  The less taxes they pay, the more their money will accumulate, further increasing their wealth.

Still, low taxes and productive businesses were not enough. The wealthy needed a way to bring in more money at less costs, and this idea was developed in the North American Free Trade Agreement, which passed in 1994.  This was an agreement among the United States, Canada and Mexico to have free imports as well as exports between the three economies.  Its purpose was to create more jobs in each economy and eliminate immigration from Mexico.  It would also increase the productivity and exports of goods among the three economies.  NAFTA was created to help American workers move up the corporate ladder as more jobs became available, while Mexican workers replaced them at the bottom in service sector jobs.  This would mean greater efficiency among all workers.  NAFTA would be good for business, and what was good for business would also be good for workers.

On the contrary, what was good for business turned out to be even better for business owners; it did not benefit working class members the ways in which it was supposed to.  NAFTA did not eliminate immigration from Mexico.  The jobs it created there did not provide any economic advancement for workers, and they continued to seek jobs in America.  NAFTA also broke the power of labor unions in America by eliminating more jobs through the outsourcing of work.  Business owners outsourced jobs because laborers in other countries would work more efficiently for much lower wages.  Developing countries also used child and slave laborers, which was better for business owners because they could pay these laborers at even lower wages while getting more products at faster rates. 

On the other hand, workers in America need higher wages, and will refuse to produce at efficient rates without such wages.  Business owners do not see that American workers demand higher wages because they need to support the standard of living here in America.  They instead view demanding workers as a threat, and to eliminate a threat, you take away its control.  This is exactly what business owners and corporate managers seek to accomplish; they eliminate more positions so that American workers can no longer threaten inefficient production if they are paid low wages.  Immigrant workers, they feel, are not too proud to work for cheap.  What the business elites fail to understand is that immigrant workers accept cheaper wages because they do not have to live within the American economic standards.

For the past four years, America has experienced an economic expansion.  This would be recognized nationally, if 12.6 percent of the population were not living in poverty in 2005, up from 11.6 percent in 2001.  This percentage continues to increase because the income gap between the rich and poor continues to grow as well.  Therefore, our economic expansion is only experienced by those who control the American and global markets, the economic elites.  Incomes of most American workers remain unchanged, while taxes on their income steadily rise, and while the costs of products and goods also rise.  The wealth of businesses is not redistributed to communities or in salaries.  A third of our population, almost 90 million Americans, struggle to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line.[2]  It is more difficult for workers to demand higher wages with the decline in labor union power.  Workers in America cannot compete with workers in developing countries who will provide cheap labor.  They cannot expect decent wages along with health and pension benefits since workers in developing countries do not require any of the latter two, thus saving more money for business owners.

Big businesses, such as Wal-Mart, sell almost every possible good and service, forcing smaller businesses to close.  Products are sold at cheap prices, but wages for workers are not increased much, if at all.  With big businesses taking over in communities, workers are left with very few choices of where to shop, and they end up putting their money back into these businesses, adding to the incomes of the business owners.  Although both income and wealth increase for business owners, they still refuse to provide more opportunities for their workers.  Instead of increasing wages, corporate managers rather lay-off experienced workers and train someone new at a lower wage.  Low wages paid to workers cause them to take second and third jobs to be able to live comfortably, but even with more than one job, living comfortably is still not attainable for some.

The income gap will continue to increase, keeping the economic elites richer and forcing the working class to remain economically unstable.  Competition for low wages in developing countries will continue to drive down wages for workers in America.  Now, business owners do not have increase the salaries of American workers, because they can pay for cheap labor in other countries.  More business owners will outsource positions, putting workers here out of a job, or causing them to have no choice but to accept lower wages.  NAFTA has not helped workers but it has helped business.  Its free trade agreement has become an unfair trade agreement for all workers alike.  It has created less job opportunities for workers, especially in the United States and in Mexico.  It has also driven down wages for workers, the opposite of what the economic elites said it would do.  NAFTA was created for the benefit of trading goods at no cost for elites to gain more money.

If trends in America continue in the same way, and if the income gap continues to widen, the American economy will be forced into an economic depression.  More of the population will fall under the poverty line because salaries will not increase, and products and goods will become more expensive.  If the wealth from businesses is not redistributed to the working class and to communities, all of America will suffer, and the economic expansion will soon become an economic decline.  We have already begun to enter into an economic depression; the number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years.[3]  When this number reaches staggering amounts, it will gain the attention of oppressed workers everywhere in America, and they will decide to take a stand. 

To stand up against the economic elites and business owners, big business workers throughout America will collectively decide not to go to work on the same day.  They will also decide to not buy any products from these businesses.  All those who work for a big business will be in communication with each other, and they will call a nationwide big business strike, whether they are in a union or not.  They will remain on strike until their demands are met.  In history, unions have used strikes to bargain for fair labor practices from employers.  This nationwide strike against big businesses will make the same attempt; they will not work for or buy from these businesses until better labor standards are met.  It will be workers’ demands for a fair trade system, instead of a free trade system, where they will be paid decent wages, and work under better conditions.  The fair trade system will also allow for more unions to organize workers, and it will abolish child and slave labor. 

The nationwide strike will be successful.  It will be difficult for business owners to find replacements for every worker in one day, and even more difficult to replace them indefinitely.  When consumers stop going to big businesses for goods and products, business owners will begin to lose money; they will have imports of goods and no one to purchase them.  Consumers will instead go to smaller businesses for any necessary goods, further empowering their demands on big businesses and big business owners.   It will not take long for economic elites to meet all demands, in fear of losing more money.  This will thereby increase the power of working class members.  Elites will remain in their class as business owners, however wealth will be distributed to the working class in their salaries, as well as in their communities, and labor standards will be established and maintained.  As a result, there will be a greater equality among the elite and working class members.

---

[1] Floyd Norris, “$350 Liquor? Just Spreading the Wealth”, NY Times, 5/11/07, p.1

[2] Bob Herbert, “The Millions Left Out”, NY Times, 5/12/07, p.1

[3] Herbert, NY Times, 5/12/07, p.1

Anti Iraqi Liberation Manifesto- John Nikolis

John NikolisMay 10, 2007Final PaperAnti Iraqi Liberation Manifesto            Friends, Americans, taxpayers, lend me your ears. I am not here to pass judgment on how our country should be run, but rather to point out or improvise on an unattainable goal that our country is dreadfully attempting to achieve. I speak from experience and with loads of common sense. Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom need to be terminated immediately. The American military has lost thousands of soldiers whose count surpasses that of the 9/11 terrorist attack. If liberating a foreign country means more than destroying tens of thousands of families here at home, let me put an end to this proposal. If sending our troops to Iraq to spread or better yet force democracy on a country means more than focusing on our internal dilemmas, again let me terminate this manifesto. Americans, open up your eyes and see where this country is heading. See what this country is doing and witness America contradicting what it means to be American. We are making enemies. We are setting ourselves up for failure. In order for this country to save the world, they need to overhaul the internal crises which are taking place right before its eyes first. This nation needs to place its citizens as top priority, rather than deploying them to lands where their chances of making it home are as slim as that country becoming democratic.             Let’s take a minute and talk about Democracy. What does it mean for a country to be democratic, and can it be compelled upon a nation from a more dominant nation?  This is almost as ludicrous of an idea as believing in the unrealistic hope of miracles occurring. Democracy can’t be obliged, especially if it’s from an outside party. Would you like it if a taller, stronger, more powerful man came into your house and told you how to run it? Well, democracy entails individual freedom, liberty, rights for all, separation of the power of government, independent judiciary, freedom of the press, acceptance for differences in outlook, a free market, and most importantly disjointing of religion and the state.  The Baath Arab Socialist Party, which was founded in 1947, functioned as a pan-Arab party with subdivisions in a variety of Arab countries. However, it was strongest in Syria and Iraq. It became commanding in Iraq in 1966. It regulated Iraq with a nine member Revolutionary Command Council. This assembly ratified legislation by diktat. The president of the RCC was brought into office by a two-thirds preponderance of the RCC. An assembly of Ministers, who were really the cabinet, had managerial and some legislative duties.  At the time, the Vice- President of Iraq was Taha Yassin Ramadan. There was a 250 member National Assembly which consisted of 220 of whom were brought into authority through popular vote. They were to serve a four-year term. The remaining thirty were appointed by the president to stand for the three Northern Provinces. Iraq is divided into eighteen provinces; each is guided by a governor with wide-ranging directorial powers. The French had influenced the foundation of Iraq’s judicial system during Saddam’s rule. This system was introduced during Ottoman rule and contained three types of lower courts. The courts consisted of civil, religious, and special. The appellate court system along with the court of cassation, which was the court of last remedy, totals the judicial structure. The legal system in Iraq was illogical and atrocious while the Ba’athists ruled. Iraqis were subject to bereavement by hand grenades detonated in shirt pockets. Suspects were capable of having their limbs broken along with their fingers. Sometimes their tongues and ears would get cut off.  President Bush announced “All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.” People, compelling that democracy be imposed on a country is a failure in itself. Furthermore, it will create anti- Americanism in the process. Iraq is not ready for democracy. The Iraqi society is too disjointed for democracy to exist. Ok, let’s take a second to make believe Iraq held elections and even became democratic; wouldn’t an illiberal result be yielded such as totalitarianism by the Shi’a majority? The changeover to democracy in Iraq would be too death-defying and the resulting government would be too feeble and pathetic. Therefore, the institutionalization of democracy, mainly a federal form of it, would be unsuccessful. Besides, the United States is too unpredictable, and the Iraqis are too antagonistic to give democracy the time it would need to cultivate and prosper.             Returning to the topic of the manifesto, we need to bring our troops home. Besides the fact that this war and modernization of Iraq has cost us billions and billions of dollars, more and more of our kids are fading away on a daily basis. Not only is this war lost, our country is still partaking in it with very high expectations of an impractical goal. Government building, museums, banks, and military depositories were embezzled by Iraqi citizens. Vast weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Wait a second, didn’t that issue initiate the war? I don’t know about you people, but I feel like I’ve been lied to. Having spent 99 days of my life in Iraq, away from family and friends, with the threat of being blown away, because I was told there were weapons, doesn’t justify anything to me. Anyhow, Baghdad and other main cities are suffering regular physical attack from mortars, snipers, rocket-propelled grenades, suicide bombers, and roadside bombs. We are attempting to train an Iraqi and national police force to take care of their country. The problem is that only a few Iraqis are concerned about their country, all they seem to care about is their religious leader. All that this country is doing is providing weapons and training to men that going to turn right around and use those weapons and training on their enemies. The Sunis hate the Shia, the Shia hates the Suni, and both of them hate us. If the Shia can’t find any Suni to shoot at, they’ll start shooting at Americans. Now please take a second and follow your intuition and common sense. Want me to continue? Ok, by staying in Iraq all we’re doing is holding the cork in the bottle. Whether we pull out now, or three years from now, Iraq will become just like Somalia. It will be a country torn by war between tribes, gangs, and various religious groups. They will lack a central government, a no-man’s land of death and poverty, all financed by whatever radical group has control of the nation’s oil that month. What I am trying so hard to make you guys understand is that there is no saving Iraq. What we can save are our troop’s lives and our nation’s money. The troops can come home and be with their families. Then instead of sending our troops all over the world in endless wars, we can keep them in the country and use them to help secure our borders. With the troops back home we will be able to focus on problems that we have in our own country.            Bringing our troops home would put pressure on the Iraqi government to step up to the plate politically and take charge of their country. By having our troops there, there is no fear or need to rush and get it done as long as the Americans and their allies are protecting them. It is time they tackle the insurgence and the militias. Only Iraq can save Iraq. It should be an organized gradual pullout of our troops and focus more time, money, and concern on our own country.  Ok fine, the United State may be criticized if they were to pull out, but who cares? We will be viewed as weak, as a country which is only strong as a supplier of military weapons, not as a politically strong nation. One could even argue this will show United States style democracy as being weak. However, there is a big difference between invading a country and running it. If anything, what we should of done was reconvened the Iraqi Parliament to maintain law and order. Then, over the next year or so weeded out the people they didn’t actually want involved in running the country or who had committed serious misdeeds, changed the constitution, and made the necessary law changes. Instead, we allowed the Iraqi Government to collapse, then we watched the collapse of the police, military, and civil administration. Behind those failures came the collapse of law and order. We have made matters worse then what they were and are still there adding to the problem we created.             I have said what I had to say. Our country’s fate lies in whether it wants to make the right decision or not. Pulling out and focusing on domestic issues would be the precise thing to do. We have sacrificed enough in Iraq and there is no need to continue on with the mistakes. Proving aid to the troops who have experienced life altering situations and money towards the protection of our country’s borders makes better sense to me then sending troops to Iraq and adding to our national debt. Americans, open up your eyes and let your judgment gear you towards prosperity and triumph.

Union Violence – Daniel Gorman

Daniel Gorman

April 30^th, 2007

Manifesto:

 

    The United States of America is a country of Freedom. On her soil you are free to choose your own religion, lifestyle, and have the ability to move up in social class. To gain this freedom our fore fathers used revolution to change the world. It was through revolution that unions were created. The blood and lives lives lost in the battles for our freedom define our country. So it was only natural for the people of the United States of America to put the same amount of effort and sacrifice into the things they believe in. Through out her history the United States has fought Freedom, Civil right and Unity. One of the more important wars has been fought within the labor movement has been between unions and companies.

 

    This war over workers rights will never end. And the war has been fought with the same amount of sacrifice and desperation as our ancestors. But the current system have set up to protect our workers fails us. The politically correct court system way of handling the grievances and abuse of millions of workers denies and insults everything this country stands for. This is why my brothers ans sister we must reclaim of rights and workers and as humans through force.

 

    It is fact that the peaks of greatness for American Unions were during time periods were violence and intimidation were worth more than money, land and property. And we as American should have the right to do whatever we feel necessary to protect our selves, families, and futures because the companies force us to bow down to them using politics and the court. Remember! We created the system of politics that were are under today and we have the power to change it for the better so it benefits our needs as a majority.

 

A Brief History:

 

    The history of labor in The United States have always shown the struggle that was in the Revolutionary War. There are countless times where either the Union or Company has used violence to gain an upper hand in the struggle. Since the Industrial Revolution to present violence has been a tactic crucial to the war between Unions and companies.

 

    One of the more famous examples of violence used in the labor movement is the Homestead Strike. Andrew Carnegie tried to break the strike of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers in 1892. When the striking workers refused to turn over the factories to nonunion workers, Carnegie hired the Pinkerton’s to break the strikers with the use of violence. The AA protected themselves with violence of their own. The two sides fought, while the head members of the AA tried to avoid further bloodshed. After hours of fighting, the Pinkerton’s finally surrendered. This was a major victory for unions, and it showed that companies(no matter how strong) cannot destroy a union that believes in solidarity.

 

Many laws have been past to protect unions and its members from the companies and to protect the companies from the union and its members. The Norris-La Guardia Act, also known as the Anti-Injunction Bill (1932) stated that workers who did not join a union as a condition of employment unenforceable in the federal court. The National Labor Relations Act, or Wagner Act (1935) made it legal for workers to organize a union without the fear of job loss or abuse. The Taft-Hartley Act(1947) outlawed Striking, boycotting and Picketing to protect companies, it also gave companies the right to choose if they wanted to own a union shop. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959) tightened the laws against unions.

 

Our Current Dilemma:

 

    As of right now, the power of unions is at a free fall. Due to massive support from the government and some bad publicity, companies have been able halt the growth of power for unions. Also the outsource of American jobs to other nations has caused a decline in the jobs available on American soil.

 

Companies like Wal-Mart have prevented the organization of unions within their stores. This has led to them abusing workers and their rights. It states in our Declaration of Independence that all people are created equal! But money has allowed companies to force the government to look the other way, and prevent themselves from protecting their livelihood.

 

    It is still true that union workers are better off. They receive better benefits, better health care, and higher wages. They also receive job security. In nonunion shops workers can be let go at anytime. Nonunion workers receive little to no benefits or health care and severely diminished wages because they are unprotected.

 

    Current laws that protect the companies from the unions out side of the striking and secret ballot voting have also attacked the basis nature of being American.

 

    Did you know it is currently illegal for members of a rally to hold a wooden stick with a sign attached?

 

    They say it is because the stick can be used as a weapon against law officials or Scabs. We as people should be allowed to use what ever we can find to fight back against our deep pocketed foes. Hopefully due to the poor economic situation to the country, a change in government will be able to pass some laws that will help unions, like a popularity vote instead of a secret ballot.

 

A Solution:

 

    I feel that the use of violence for members to protect themselves against companies is inevitable. When you are dealing with a persons life or family, they should be allowed to do anything they can to protect them. Now I am not saying that we should kill all of management or have a killing spree of nonunion supporters. The playing field should be fair. As of right now it is not, and we as a workers you should be able even out the odds. If that leads to some of management falling down flights of stairs, or breaks some windows and merchandise, or even sets stores on fire should be an option available for people who are on strike, because if their strike breaks they are done for.

 

    As an American you should fight for what you believe in, and You! Should as I believe in protection and equal rights for workers.

Christina K. Severin- A Call for Unity: Ending the Pattern of Mental Slavery and Self-Hatred within the Black Community

Wor

A Call for Unity: Ending the Pattern of Mental Slavery and Self-Hatred within the Black Community

Christina K. Severin

HISTORY

 [2]

The history of the black person’s perpetual downfall-whether it is in the form of social interactions, politics, education or economics-has always come as the result of his or her self-hatred.

            While it is true that the white man has played a key role in this struggle towards “black unity and positive self-identity”, self-hatred can be traced as far back as the rise and height of the Ancient Egyptian Dynasty [and arguably Biblical times] [2].

            Unlike other early African civilizations- ie: Ethiopians- Ancient Egyptians brought and sold African slaves-hemu. The key problem to this is that Egyptians viewed themselves as a separate group of people than other African nations around them. While it has been argued as to whether or not the hemu were treated in the same regards as the African slaves in the Caribbean and the
United States, Egyptians have documents of slavery. If the Egyptians defeated a nation, that nation would pay a tax often including slaves. The Nubian nation had fallen victim to this. Egyptians-known for their long, slender bodies, relatively light skin and straight noses-tended to have slaves of a darker complexion, wider noses and other distinctly different features from that of the Egyptians. Slaves had difficulty escaping their positions because of
Egypt’s vast desert and if a slave did try to escape their masters would attempt to recapture them and punish them often with beatings. [2]

            This perpetual lack of unity continued with international slavery. Many blacks helped whites in the capture and selling of their brethrens. Thus we see that slavery is not simply a matter of who has the larger and more sophisticated weapon. Slavery comes only come as a result of breaking an already weak bond.

            While in the Caribbean and the
United States, lighter skinned slaves were allowed to work in the house-often given education- while the darker slaves toiled in the field. This fools many people; lighter skinned slaves were certainly not in the house celebrating. They were cooking, cleaning, raising their master’s babies and enduring the same beatings as their darker skinned brethren. While they are both slaves, the “house slaves versus the field slaves” were pitted against each other through what is known today as colorism along with status. However, these differences of treatment are no different than that of the Egyptians only now it is ostensibly being the result of European brainwashing.

            In the 1960’s, at the hay day of the Civil Rights Movement here in the United Sates of America, Martin Luther King held a number of peaceful protests. One protest in particular showed the exact patterns of mental slavery, self-hatred and greed seen in the fact that blacks sold their brethrens into slavery. The white American government and police force paid blacks to start riots at these peace protests. Black youths-generally male youths-threw stones and broke windows all for small amount of change. The dollar we see here, being of more value than the fact that leagues of black people are putting their time and life on the line to fight for the freedom of all black oppressed people [1].

            There are number of examples in this feeble display of loyalty from the killing of Malcolm X by his own people to the weakened support of the Universal Negro Improvement Association lead by Marcus Garvey and the humiliation he endured after being deported back to
Jamaica.

CURRENT
STATE OF THE PROBLEM

The Black Panther Party’s rise came towards the end of the Civil Rights movement and they were able to gain their status because the Civil Rights movement failed to change any economic status or living conditions within the majority of black communities. Bobby Seale and Huey Newton formed the Panthers in 1966 with the intention to protect local black communities from racism and more specifically, police brutality. The Panthers were willing to put their life on the line for the local communities however community support was dismal. This is evident in that towards the party’s downfall, the local people did not react nearly as strongly as they did when Martin Luther King was murdered. There were no street riots taking place as the Panthers had anticipated [2]

            A major feature in their downfall came about when it was revealed that Huey Newton had been living in a $650 per month penthouse after serving jail time, funded by money raised by the party supposedly for defense campaigns. When asked about the house, party members alluded to the fact that
Newton deserves the best because of his treatment by police. Here we have an organization by all accounts working for the fair treatment and respect of their brethren and yet living in outrageously unequal ways for the people being represented. Certainly,
Newton did not make it his mission to buy a penthouse for the local people who also endured police brutality. In addition, one has to question why the works of the FBI’s director J. Edgar Hoover was so successfully in completely eradicating an entire militant organization [2]

            The history of
Rwanda during and after Belgian rule provides the most blatant form of divide and conquer since slavery itself. But again we see two key groups of people- already showing signs of hatred towards one another- manipulated by whites. 

            The Belgians up until 1962 ruled
Rwanda and in that time the Belgians were able to manipulate with very little effort the division of the Tutsi and the Hutu people. Because Tutsi’s had more “European features” and were taller and thinner than the Hutu, Belgians considered them two different races and employed the Tutsi as the superior race. But after WWII, educated Tutsis led the fight towards independence, which led Belgians to favor the Hutu’s. From 1959-1962 the Hutu killed 150,000 Tutsis. Many Tutsi escaped but those who stayed in
Rwanda found that their wealth and status were taken away from them. In 1990, Tutsis who had escaped to
Uganda came up with a peace treaty that was soon rejected by the Hutu and the holocaust soon came about in 1994. In the end approximately 750,000 Tutsi and 50,000 Hutus (who did not support the killings) were killed in a span of only three months [3]!

            How wonderfully these chains of events worked out for the Belgians. They played devils advocate between the two tribes and had absolutely no hand in the killing.
Rwanda is a classic example of how a lack of unity can lead to the complete destruction of a people. This could have all been avoided if the Tutsi and Hutu had not allowed the Belgians to play these outlandish mind games of a person being superior because he or she “looks white”. The Darfur example is for more complex, but the key importance in what is taking place today in
Sudan is that it in fact is another case of self-hatred. Do not be fooled by the media who lead you to believe that Janjaweed are Arab, not black. The term “Arab” is misleading and because of the history of mélange between the Arabs and Africans many Arabs with light skin consider themselves white and many others with dark skin refuse to view themselves as African or black, even if they have a parent and grandparents that are African [3].

FUTURE

Let us first make it clear that this essay is not a call to end poverty within the black community. It is not a call to fight out against the dispropionate number of black men in the prison system. It is not a call to have equal opportunities for blacks in the education and work force. These issues are slightly more complicated than quoting “Black is beautiful”. However important these issues may be, these all require a close examination of the capitalistic system and a push towards socialism. While they are absolutely necessary components to the equality of black people there are steps that first must be taken. These steps involve putting dignity and pride over money. Why is it that the black man or woman is so quick to sell his or her own brethren into slavery at the sight of pennies? Has our self-worth been reduced so low that we see ourselves as nothing more than money hungry savages waiting for the next opportunity to destroy the next person who looks like us so that we may be accepted into white
America? WAKE UP BLACK PEOPLE! We were brought and sold in this country to serve as nothing more than moneymaking machines for white men and woman. Are we going to continue to allow ourselves to be moneymaking machines for the same people who enslaved us? We still see this today in the form of hip-hop. We have a group of black men ready and willing to exploit their female counterpart for a quick dollar. But the joke is on them because at the end of the day, the white record company owners walk away with the majority of the money.

The next step involves discontinuing the perpetuity of looking outside one’s self for guidance. Many have questioned why when other groups come to this country there is an unwritten rule of strengthening the community [4].This is evident in watching how Jewish people operate. It is no different than what Marcus Garvey wanted. We need a system that allows us to circulate our wealth, power and knowledge. Instead what has happened is that we as a people give our money everywhere except within the community. In “black” neighborhoods there are several bodegas-many run by South Asians or Italians; fast food “restaurants” and grocery stores with very little fruit and vegetable variety. You see non-authentic Chinese Food Restaurants, laundry mats, dry cleaners and nail salons owned by Asians. All of our money is being poured directly out of our hands. What you fail to see are these same companies operating in the suburbs or other largely white neighborhoods. What you also fail to see is a black company dominating a non-black neighborhood.

While it is unclear what the primary cause of the weak unity is in the black community, white people have been watching us carefully for years. I would advise that all concerned black people looking for explanations and a solution, to read Willie Lych’s speech “The Making of a Slave”. This is a rather revolting account on how to break down the black community. For starters, it shows us as a people what exactly whites want from us. It allows us to see “our role” in American society. And just as the white man has studied us, we too can study the behavioral and thought patterns that have haunted us for years. What white people picked up during their studies is the uneasiness blacks face with one another and they knew that with just a little push, they could convince us to be completely disloyal towards one another.

            The precise nature of Willie Lynch’s speech is uncanny to what has taken place in history. He states that his method of approaching slavery “WILL CONTROL THE SLAVES FOR AT LEAST 300 HUNDREDS YEARS” [5]. He continues with the sad yet undeniably true account that “IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL” [5]. Lynch’s key methods were using the tactics of fear, distrust and envy. Lynch stresses that the ability to break down the black race is as simple as training a horse.  If we black want to be more than horses, we must eradicate our vulnerability to fear, distrust and envy.

            The funny part lies in the fact that the solution to this persistent form of inferiority and self-hatred is clearly stated in the speech. To ignore this is to stay in a state of mental slavery. Lynch stressed that this solution towards bringing a cease to slavery will not occur unless a “phenomena” occurs. REALIZE WHO YOU ARE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY! This phenomenon has yet to occur. Remember, this speech was given exactly 295 years ago. How great it would be if we as a people can overcome our ignorance within the next five years. Right now we must study our history, master the European language and observe the patterns that we allowed to brainwash us for so long. We must do this now and by 2012 we shall have a new sense of black power that can than cross into the economic, political, class and gender sectors. We must learn to view ourselves as ONE and learn to trust each other. We have been the enemy for so long; LEARN YOUR HISTORY and all negative patterns can come to an end. We must put our race ahead of the European dollar; understand that we look towards whites for purpose, importance and status, but this envy is based on the illusion that money, power and white physical features are right, good and what one should aspire for.

            Get an education; master the English language; circulate your wealth, power and knowledge; embrace your true culture. This is essential for all black people; however, black women in particular must do their homework.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited List

[1] (1972, January). Rise and Fall of the Panthers: End of the Black Power Era .

    Retrieved May 22, 2007, from Marxist Bulletin No 5 Revised Web site:

    http://www.bolshevik.org/history/MarxistBulletin/MB5_05.html

[2] (2000, June). Slavery. Retrieved May 22, 2007, Web site:

    http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

[3] (1999-2002). Case Study:Genocide in
Rwanda, 1994. Retrieved May 22, 2007, Web

    site: http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html

[4] Reid, Rohan R. (2006, November 16). Black on Black Crime. Retrieved May 22,

    2007, from The Jamaica Observer Web site:

    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/westernnews/html/20061115T210000-

    0500_115366_OBS_BLACK_ON_BLACK_CRIME.asp

[5] (1998-2003). The Making of a Slave. Retrieved May 22, 2007, from The Talking

    Drum Web site: http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/wil.htmldPress.com » Your Blogging Home

Wal-Mart: Always Low Prices… on Workers Lives By: Alex Anton

            Wal-Mart provides an up-front savings for shoppers, but the low prices are the product of human misery.  Wal-Mart is now the largest corporation in the world, its practice of disregarding human rights for the sake of a good sale is setting a threatening trend in an industry that is now trying to keep up with Wal-Mart by squeezing more labor for less and less compensation. Wal-Mart employees are the laborers who work day in and day out to try and earn a living.  These workers are the blood and arteries behind these large corporations they work in, but unfortunately they do not reap the rewards for their labor. The pursuit of more profits is the force behind the exploitation of workers and the decomposition of small towns across the
United States which crumbled once Wal-Mart marches into town.  Wal-Mart employees are the backbone and infrastructure of what makes Wal-Mart run, but they are treated like indentured servants of the Walton family who do not care about the treatment of their workers.

            When we think of shopping at Wal-Mart, we think we are saving our hard earned dollars by purchasing the same item for a cheaper price.  Cheaper prices mean even lower wages for the people working there.  Wal-Mart, like many large corporations try to reduce spending by finding the cheapest labor and cost of manufacturing.  They have moved production overseas to China where they can pay employees even less than they pay the employees else where.  This enables this large corporation to cut costs by producing goods in an area where labor laws do not exist. Wal-Mart takes advantage of poor children, women and men who have no other means of supporting themselves, so they become slaves, working countless hours to earn a miserably low pay.  
             America’s largest private employer is widely blamed for the sorry state of retail wages in
America. Wal-Mart does not encourage its employees to form unions, and hires men to spy on employees who are pro-union.  The company uses illegal surveillance cameras to spy and intimidation methods on those accused of any union activity.  If workers were actually able to unionize, then perhaps they would earn more than the average $13,861 a year (http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/#wages).  Rather than Wal-Mart being a pro-union company, they encourage their workers to seek public assistance to help balance the cost of living.  Many full time employees can not afford the cost of the health benefits provided by the company and are also forced to rely on Medicaid or other government assistance programs to make ends meet.  Wal-Mart costs taxpayers an average of $1.5 billion a year in efforts to support their employees (http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/#taxpayers).  Why is a company with the highest record of sales and earning of $285,222,000 not able to provide the resources and funding needed to help its employees? 

               By their very nature, large corporations like Wal-Mart seek to take advantage of their workers.  People in positions of power within corporations are required by corporate law to do everything in their power to maximize their profits, or else they could be sued by their shareholders for negligence and lost profits.  Because of this, companies see themselves as accountable solely to their shareholders and rarely ever to their workers, and as we have seen all too often, sometimes not even to the law.  It was only a few years ago in 2005 when Wal-Mart was able to pay an 11 million dollar fine, a record amount for a civil immigration case, in order to end a government probe into it’s illegal hiring practices (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150846,00.html).  Cases like this make all too apparent the disdain major corporations have for the U.S. government and its people, as well as how little the government seems to mind.  If democracy is government of, by and for the people, then the U.S. government should be working towards protecting the rights of and freedoms of those people, and not giving companies like Wal-Mart a free pass and turning their heads when they break the law.  What this country has is a corporatocracy: government of, by and for the major corporate entities, and to them the people of the world are little more than a pool of cheap labor.

              Ambrose Pierce once defined the word corporation as a diabolical invention for maximizing personal profit while minimizing personal responsibility.  If Pierce could see the United States now he would be rolling in his grave.  According to http://wakeupwalmart.com Wal-Mart is the number one retailer in the country as well as the largest employer in the U.S. yet the company fails to cover more than half of it’s workers, close to 800,000 of them, making up 57 percent of their workforce, and the company still refuses to let any of their employees form a union.  Just as unfortunately, the government of the United States has been determined since the Reagan years not to take any stand in favor of workers rights, and has allowed companies like Wal-Mart to run amok, abusing their workers in countless and usually undocumented ways.  According to the company’s own annual 2006 report in that year alone it faced more than 50 wage and hours lawsuits, many of which are settled out of court for millions of dollars, a tactic that the retail giant has likely done the math on, and found to be more economical than treating and paying workers fairly in the first place.

               The best solution to the problems companies like Wal-Mart pose, to a democratic society would seem to be government intervention on a massive scale.  However, were the government tries to take drastic measures such as forcing the company to allow its workers the ability to organize freely, or demanding that companies pay workers a fair living wage and not an arbitrary bare minimum, it would likely be met with accusations of being too socialist, because everyone in America knows that only Commies care about worker’s rights.  Unfortunately we are unlikely to see any government leaders from either side of the aisle proposing anything even half as helpful as the solutions above, because without the funding of major corporate backers like Wal-Mart it would be literally impossible for any political candidate to win an election at the national or even statewide level, although the arguments for campaign finance reform could fill a whole other paper.  But since the government has shown little desire to step in on the behalf of its citizens at the bargaining table, the only solution for workers, in America and anywhere else, is to force the unionization of the company.

             Whether it is the natural state of things or because we have been trained to be this way, as long as the world remains a basically capitalist place, a place were people are constantly seeking new means to increase their wealth, property, and what they perceive to be their overall value, defined as a number of dollars and cents, the people with more money to begin with will have an easier of time of further increasing their value and wealth by manipulating those with less money, and therefore less power, than themselves, and those without the money and the means will always be at a disadvantage.  The only way that such a disadvantage can be overcome is by consolidating the power of all those on the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder, by uniting and concentrating their power.  The poor and the disenfranchised can force the hand of even the most stubborn corporate giants, as has been seen time and time again.  Perhaps the problem with Wal-Mart however, is that American workers have forgotten how to fight, or perhaps they’ve simply forgotten why.  Either way, if the plight of the American Wal-Mart employee is to improve, they are going to need to have their memories jogged, and, ironically, maybe those Commie bastards the Chinese, our economic enemies since time immemorial, are just the ones to do it.

            As Wal-Mart expands its operations into China, it has been forced by the All China Federation of Trade Unions, an official arm of the communist Chinese government, to open up their stores to unionization.  What exactly this will mean for workers in the company remains to be seen, and ultimately it will probably mean very little in a country that has become notorious as haven for other corporations like Nike, seeking to hide from the more strict labor laws of most of the developed world, although it does remain an important gesture on the part of Wal-Mart which has always been strongly against unions.  Hopefully American employees of the retail giant will draw inspiration from the Chinese example and in coming years find the strength to demand their rights as workers be recognized.  Wal-Mart can always find another teenager or senior citizen to work for $5.50 an hour if someone quits or demands a raise or health care, but what they as the nation’s single largest employer certainly could not do is replace all their workers, if they all threatened to leave their positions unless they all received benefits, and therein lies the beauty of a union.  It is what gave the United States its strength and propelled it to prominence and greatness in the world, it was the spirit of unity that won the Second World War and fueled other workers movements and civil rights movements throughout history, and unity is all that has ever changed the world, and all that ever will.  It is only when Wal-Mart’s employees can see that their best interest lies not in their fate but the fate of all their peers and contemporaries together, that they are interconnected and that you can not fight alone, but united they are infinitely more powerful, or maybe just a few million times as powerful, but regardless, if Wal-Mart’s American employees could all stand together they would be undoubtedly strong enough to bring even the nations largest retailer to it’s knees, and if workers from China and the U.S. and all the nations of the world could see that same truth, then they really could change the world through their union.