It was just days ago that the Governor of the Bank of Canada declared the recession over. He claimed that GDP would grow at an annualized rate of 1.3% in the 3rd quarter and 3% in the 4th. This is a rosy outlook indeed. But numbers coming out today reveal the precise opposite. May’s GDP numbers released this morning show that the economy contracted more than the predicted 0.3% in May. In fact, the GDP fell by 0.5% or at a 6% annualized rate. This shows that the recession is actually accelerating, not slowing. Canada’s GDP has been contracting for 10 consecutive months now.
A simple reminder is in order. The capitalists tend to view the world through rose coloured lenses. During the great depression, the talking heads predicted the end of the recession every couple of months and it of course dragged on for a decade. Here in Canada, a steady stream of stats have been released over the last year showing the situation is worse “than expected”. But how do they calculate these expectations? It turns out there is no science to it at all. They simply conduct a survey of “senior economists” and take the average of the numbers given.
Let’s not forget, that these are the same people who led us into this mess. They didn’t see the recession coming and they have been consistently wrong in their predictions about where it is heading. Prime Minister Stephen Harper (who has been known to brag about his economic credentials) famously said during the last election campaign that if there was going to be a recession it would have happened already. Of course, only weeks later he was forced to eat his own words.
I challenge people to compare the forecasting records of these “captains of industry”, to the articles published by the good people at www.marxist.com and www.marxist.ca. It seems the Marxists understand capitalism much better than the Capitalists! Contained in those websites you will find archives of shockingly accurate economic predictions. People like Michael Roberts and Mick Brooks not only predicted this recession in advance, but gave details about exactly how and why it would take place. There are many things that can be said about Karl Marx, but one thing is certain: he developed the best critique of the capitalist system ever written. Marx explained the basic processes at work in a capitalist economy. Those laws that he outlined in the 19th century are still at work today and if anyone wants to understand the recession taking place now, they best familiarize themselves with them.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Support the Paramedics – Time to step it up!
British Columbia’s Paramedics have been on strike for 121 days. They’re seriously restricted in their job action by essential service legislation. It seems the only noticeable sign of a paramedic strike is the large sticker reading “On Strike” that you will find plastered on every ambulance. Essential service legislation is commonly abused by the government (I can remember when Gordon Campbell considered the UBC Teaching Assistants essential), but in the case of our ambulance attendants lives actually hang in the balance. This poses a moral dilemma. Should paramedics defy essential service legislation knowing that lives will be lost? The argument isn’t so clear. The truth is, the paramedics have been standing against the deterioration of our ambulance service and if the government isn’t willing to pony up the cash to run the service properly, lives will be lost. But there are many other actions the paramedics can take without putting peoples’ lives in jeopardy.
The actual issues of the strike are shocking. Most people do not know that many paramedics get paid a lousy $2/hr while waiting for a call. This fact alone justifies all of the action they have taken so far. This is the information that needs to get into the public consciousness. The people of British Columbia would be outraged if they knew how these heroes were being treated – and that public outrage is what will win this strike.
If our ambulance attendants are going to win this fight for us, they need our support. It is time to take this campaign to a new level. CUPE should work with the BC Federation of Labour to organize public demonstrations and mobilize the broader labour movement. The paramedics should consider more militant actions to put this strike in the spotlight. A rolling parade of ambulances with their sirens blaring would get some attention. Perhaps a couple dozen paramedics, in uniform, could occupy Gordon Campbell’s constituency office. Sympathy strikes in the public and private sectors would go a long way too. It’s time to think outside of the box. Creative actions and civil disobedience are the way forward.
Don’t forget to visit their website - http://www.saveourparamedics.org/
The actual issues of the strike are shocking. Most people do not know that many paramedics get paid a lousy $2/hr while waiting for a call. This fact alone justifies all of the action they have taken so far. This is the information that needs to get into the public consciousness. The people of British Columbia would be outraged if they knew how these heroes were being treated – and that public outrage is what will win this strike.
If our ambulance attendants are going to win this fight for us, they need our support. It is time to take this campaign to a new level. CUPE should work with the BC Federation of Labour to organize public demonstrations and mobilize the broader labour movement. The paramedics should consider more militant actions to put this strike in the spotlight. A rolling parade of ambulances with their sirens blaring would get some attention. Perhaps a couple dozen paramedics, in uniform, could occupy Gordon Campbell’s constituency office. Sympathy strikes in the public and private sectors would go a long way too. It’s time to think outside of the box. Creative actions and civil disobedience are the way forward.
Don’t forget to visit their website - http://www.saveourparamedics.org/
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Support our Troops – Bring them Home!
Every time a police car drives by me in Vancouver I can’t help but notice the sticker on the back in the shape of a yellow ribbon. “Support Our Troops” it declares. When the Vancouver Police Department decided to put these stickers on all of their vehicles many eyebrows were raised. Why would our police department choose to publicly support a war that the majority of the populations in both Canada and Afghanistan have consistently opposed from the start? This raises some important questions about what supporting the troops really means. One thing is clear however, these stickers are not simply a declaration of support for the troops, they are a declaration of support for the war.
I recently met with a veteran named Chris. We were staying in the same hostel and had a very interesting conversation over a few beers. He was proud of his military service. He served two tours in Bosnia, one in Kosovo, one in Somalia, one in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. But his last tour in Afghanistan soured him. He was so upset, that when he got back from that tour, he walked away from the military and said he would never look back. He did not elaborate on the legal terms of his departure, but left me with the impression that he was AWOL.
I gained a whole new respect for “our troops” that day. His words confirmed my suspicions, that the vast majority of the troops in Afghanistan honestly believe they are there to fight the good fight. They see how desperate the situation has become for ordinary Afghan people and they want more than anything to help. He told me that half way through his tour, he realized he was fighting in a war in which there was no right side. He told me, with tears welling up in his eyes, that he had lost no fewer than 31 friends over the course of his military career - many of them in Afghanistan – and for what? That question seemed to haunt him more than anything. It was easy to rationalize the death of a friend who was fighting for freedom… But his recent realization about what was right and what was wrong in this conflict smashed those illusions.
He began to tell me a story about some of the work the troops tried to do to help the people in the Kandahar region. He explained that they realized that Afghanistan will always be a desperately poor country, run by drug cartels and warlords unless they could build some kind of economy. They talked about it regularly. It was in one of these conversations that someone came up with the idea of asking a drug company to set up a factory for medicinal opiates in the region. There is a huge international market for medicinal opiates; this could serve as the basis of an economy. The more they talked about it, the more excited they got. After all, a factory like this would be a real step forward for the development of the country. It would simultaneously provide jobs for people in the cities and a legal market for farmers that grow poppies. Those poppies are currently used to produce the vast majority of the world’s heroin.
They immediately set to work. Someone estimated that the cost to set up this factory would be a couple hundred million dollars – pocket change to a big pharmaceutical company. They started writing letters to CEOs of drug companies pitching the plan. They talked about it in the villages through their interpreters. He smiled when he talked about the excitement on the faces of these people. It gave them hope – something they haven’t had for a long time.
But soon these efforts were frustrated. They never heard back from a single drug company. More importantly, one of the local war lords heard about the plot. He was furious. Setting up a legal market for poppies would remove the economic basis for his power – the drug trade. To make matters worse, this particular war lord was one of the ones on “our side”. He supported the occupation of Afghanistan, and the military relied on him as a counter-weight to the Taliban.
“We got in a lot of trouble”, Chris told me. He didn’t elaborate on what exactly that trouble was, but they were told by their superiors in no uncertain terms that they were to immediately stop these efforts. “That’s when we started to realize there was something wrong here”, he said. That episode started a process of realization among the troops. Chris told me that they were starting to see through the façade. He continued to talk about how rotten the whole mission had become and the growing disillusionment within the ranks. “The day I learned that Hamid Karzai’s brother is the biggest drug lord in Afghanistan is the day I knew I was getting out.”
I’ve thought a lot about that conversation. And every time I see one of those yellow stickers on the back of a vehicle I’m reminded of it. Our politicians are happy to declare that they support the troops, but Chris’ story stands in stark contradiction to that. I can tell you what is NOT supportive of our troops: sending them into an unwinnable war that the majority of the population opposes, asking them to go out on patrol and get picked off one-by-one by IEDs without doing anything to stabilize the situation, using them to prop up a government of drug lords and telling them it is all in the name of freedom and democracy. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one real way to support our troops: end this farce of a mission and bring them back home to their families where they belong.
I recently met with a veteran named Chris. We were staying in the same hostel and had a very interesting conversation over a few beers. He was proud of his military service. He served two tours in Bosnia, one in Kosovo, one in Somalia, one in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. But his last tour in Afghanistan soured him. He was so upset, that when he got back from that tour, he walked away from the military and said he would never look back. He did not elaborate on the legal terms of his departure, but left me with the impression that he was AWOL.
I gained a whole new respect for “our troops” that day. His words confirmed my suspicions, that the vast majority of the troops in Afghanistan honestly believe they are there to fight the good fight. They see how desperate the situation has become for ordinary Afghan people and they want more than anything to help. He told me that half way through his tour, he realized he was fighting in a war in which there was no right side. He told me, with tears welling up in his eyes, that he had lost no fewer than 31 friends over the course of his military career - many of them in Afghanistan – and for what? That question seemed to haunt him more than anything. It was easy to rationalize the death of a friend who was fighting for freedom… But his recent realization about what was right and what was wrong in this conflict smashed those illusions.
He began to tell me a story about some of the work the troops tried to do to help the people in the Kandahar region. He explained that they realized that Afghanistan will always be a desperately poor country, run by drug cartels and warlords unless they could build some kind of economy. They talked about it regularly. It was in one of these conversations that someone came up with the idea of asking a drug company to set up a factory for medicinal opiates in the region. There is a huge international market for medicinal opiates; this could serve as the basis of an economy. The more they talked about it, the more excited they got. After all, a factory like this would be a real step forward for the development of the country. It would simultaneously provide jobs for people in the cities and a legal market for farmers that grow poppies. Those poppies are currently used to produce the vast majority of the world’s heroin.
They immediately set to work. Someone estimated that the cost to set up this factory would be a couple hundred million dollars – pocket change to a big pharmaceutical company. They started writing letters to CEOs of drug companies pitching the plan. They talked about it in the villages through their interpreters. He smiled when he talked about the excitement on the faces of these people. It gave them hope – something they haven’t had for a long time.
But soon these efforts were frustrated. They never heard back from a single drug company. More importantly, one of the local war lords heard about the plot. He was furious. Setting up a legal market for poppies would remove the economic basis for his power – the drug trade. To make matters worse, this particular war lord was one of the ones on “our side”. He supported the occupation of Afghanistan, and the military relied on him as a counter-weight to the Taliban.
“We got in a lot of trouble”, Chris told me. He didn’t elaborate on what exactly that trouble was, but they were told by their superiors in no uncertain terms that they were to immediately stop these efforts. “That’s when we started to realize there was something wrong here”, he said. That episode started a process of realization among the troops. Chris told me that they were starting to see through the façade. He continued to talk about how rotten the whole mission had become and the growing disillusionment within the ranks. “The day I learned that Hamid Karzai’s brother is the biggest drug lord in Afghanistan is the day I knew I was getting out.”
I’ve thought a lot about that conversation. And every time I see one of those yellow stickers on the back of a vehicle I’m reminded of it. Our politicians are happy to declare that they support the troops, but Chris’ story stands in stark contradiction to that. I can tell you what is NOT supportive of our troops: sending them into an unwinnable war that the majority of the population opposes, asking them to go out on patrol and get picked off one-by-one by IEDs without doing anything to stabilize the situation, using them to prop up a government of drug lords and telling them it is all in the name of freedom and democracy. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one real way to support our troops: end this farce of a mission and bring them back home to their families where they belong.
Campbell’s plan to “harmonize” PST with GST another attack on BC’s working class
Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberal government has just announced that they will be breaking another election promise. They’ve announced plans to “harmonize” the GST and PST. After specifically saying during the election campaign that such a move would be a major concern and that they had no plans to do it, the Liberals have gone back on their word. They have decided to increase taxes by seven percent on a whole range of things, from Hydro bills to most food items. This tax will again, disproportionately hurt poor and working people and will actually be a drag on the economy.
Many basic goods and services are exempt from provincial sales tax. This was designed to prevent unfair burden being placed on working class people whose budgets are tight already. But Campbell’s latest move will see the sales tax applied to restaurant meals, home phone bills, BC Hydro bills, heating bills, most food items, school supplies and a host of other basic items. It is said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes; this expression takes on new meaning as Campbell’s new tax will even be applied to funerals!
The tax will also be applied to new homes that cost over $400,000. The Campbell government’s short sightedness is staggering. The average price of a home in British Columbia is expected to fall to $416,000 in 2009. This new tax will effectively add about $30,000 to the cost of the average house. It will also put downward pressure on the value of homes as new buyers will bid down prices in an attempt to get them under the $400,000 mark. In the short term, it may lead to a scramble to sell properties before the tax is implemented, but in the long term it will only put negative pressure on the market. In the middle of a real estate crash, and the collapse of the construction industry, Campbell’s ill-conceived plan could wreak havoc.
This is clearly an attempt to squeeze even more money from the working class of British Columbia. With the government running a massive deficit, the Liberals are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class. We predicted a new wave of attacks from the BC Liberal government after the election. This is the first indication of it. Over the coming months and years, the economy will force the hand of business and their government. Campbell’s third term will look a lot more like his first. Once the 2010 Winter Olympics have come and gone, there will be a relentless attack on the living standards of the people of British Columbia.
Many basic goods and services are exempt from provincial sales tax. This was designed to prevent unfair burden being placed on working class people whose budgets are tight already. But Campbell’s latest move will see the sales tax applied to restaurant meals, home phone bills, BC Hydro bills, heating bills, most food items, school supplies and a host of other basic items. It is said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes; this expression takes on new meaning as Campbell’s new tax will even be applied to funerals!
The tax will also be applied to new homes that cost over $400,000. The Campbell government’s short sightedness is staggering. The average price of a home in British Columbia is expected to fall to $416,000 in 2009. This new tax will effectively add about $30,000 to the cost of the average house. It will also put downward pressure on the value of homes as new buyers will bid down prices in an attempt to get them under the $400,000 mark. In the short term, it may lead to a scramble to sell properties before the tax is implemented, but in the long term it will only put negative pressure on the market. In the middle of a real estate crash, and the collapse of the construction industry, Campbell’s ill-conceived plan could wreak havoc.
This is clearly an attempt to squeeze even more money from the working class of British Columbia. With the government running a massive deficit, the Liberals are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class. We predicted a new wave of attacks from the BC Liberal government after the election. This is the first indication of it. Over the coming months and years, the economy will force the hand of business and their government. Campbell’s third term will look a lot more like his first. Once the 2010 Winter Olympics have come and gone, there will be a relentless attack on the living standards of the people of British Columbia.
Vision Vancouver plots to split the NDP
There have been many rumblings inside the BC NDP lately. The members are clearly unhappy about the direction their party has been headed and the failure to win an election. The Take Back the Party initiative which is quickly gaining momentum hopes to push the party to the left. But not all the criticism is coming from the left. Now, it appears that several prominent supporters of Vision Vancouver (many of them members of the NDP) are considering the launch of a new party altogether. The Vision Vancouver folks seem to think that the NDP is too left wing as it is. They believe they can repeat their civic success at the provincial level; they are mistaken.
It is difficult to imagine anyone believing that the NDP isn’t already in the middle of the road. The last provincial election saw both major parties pushing their rhetoric to the center in an attempt to pick up undecided voters. This strategy did not work for either of them, and we witnessed the lowest voter turnout in BC’s history. But somehow, key members of Vision Vancouver have determined that there is wide opening for a provincial political party in the center of the political spectrum.
The Vision Vancouver group has made it clear that they plan to attend the NDP’s convention in November to “inject some of that Vision energy” into the party. But if they don’t get their way, a new provincial party could be in the cards. This is not surprising given the history of this bunch. After finding themselves in a minority in Vancouver’s Coalition of Progressive Electors, they left en masse and set up their new civic party. They also left COPE with the election debt that many of them had run up to get elected. It is alleged that they then (illegally) used NDP and COPE membership lists to sign people up to their new project. They bullied the Coalition of Progressive Electors into running just two candidates in the following election. Knowing that members of COPE had put their homes up as collateral for the election loans, they used the debt as a bargaining chip in this charade.
With this in mind, it is clear that Vision Vancouver’s electoral success was not due to their politics, but to their back room maneuvers. The previous right-wing city council had done everything possible to pave the way for a victory of the left. In the last days of the NPA’s rule, even the right wing turned on Mayor Sam Sullivan and he was unable to secure his nomination. But one thing is clear, if COPE had run a full slate of candidates, there would not be a Vision Vancouver city council today.
Now with Vision Vancouver in office, it is clear that there is really no such thing as a “center” party. When the capitalist system is failing on a global scale, anyone who defends it is pushed to the right, willingly or not. We now see that Gregor Robertson’s promises of ending homelessness in Vancouver were as empty as a Pigeon Park Savings account. This supposedly progressive city council has spent hundreds of millions of dollars bailing out Olympic projects. Their latest initiative to clamp down on free speech during the 2010 Olympics includes a ban on leaflets, posters, protest signs or megaphones in key parts of the city. Under capitalism in the 21st century, there is no such thing as a third way!
The creation of a new provincial party that tries to put on a left face, while defending the interests of big business could prove to be a disaster for working people in British Columbia. Such a party would only serve the purpose of securing a fourth victory for the BC Liberals. But there may be a silver lining to this cloud. A move like this may also pull some of the worst elements of the NDP along with it. The right wing of the party would likely line up behind Vision’s new initiative. This would force the party to take a harder left stand to differentiate itself from its new rival. That could lead to an opening for socialist ideas within the party and this ultimately is what will inspire working class people to get active. All those that would consider forming this new party were never really with us to begin with. And to them, I say “So long and good riddance!”
It is difficult to imagine anyone believing that the NDP isn’t already in the middle of the road. The last provincial election saw both major parties pushing their rhetoric to the center in an attempt to pick up undecided voters. This strategy did not work for either of them, and we witnessed the lowest voter turnout in BC’s history. But somehow, key members of Vision Vancouver have determined that there is wide opening for a provincial political party in the center of the political spectrum.
The Vision Vancouver group has made it clear that they plan to attend the NDP’s convention in November to “inject some of that Vision energy” into the party. But if they don’t get their way, a new provincial party could be in the cards. This is not surprising given the history of this bunch. After finding themselves in a minority in Vancouver’s Coalition of Progressive Electors, they left en masse and set up their new civic party. They also left COPE with the election debt that many of them had run up to get elected. It is alleged that they then (illegally) used NDP and COPE membership lists to sign people up to their new project. They bullied the Coalition of Progressive Electors into running just two candidates in the following election. Knowing that members of COPE had put their homes up as collateral for the election loans, they used the debt as a bargaining chip in this charade.
With this in mind, it is clear that Vision Vancouver’s electoral success was not due to their politics, but to their back room maneuvers. The previous right-wing city council had done everything possible to pave the way for a victory of the left. In the last days of the NPA’s rule, even the right wing turned on Mayor Sam Sullivan and he was unable to secure his nomination. But one thing is clear, if COPE had run a full slate of candidates, there would not be a Vision Vancouver city council today.
Now with Vision Vancouver in office, it is clear that there is really no such thing as a “center” party. When the capitalist system is failing on a global scale, anyone who defends it is pushed to the right, willingly or not. We now see that Gregor Robertson’s promises of ending homelessness in Vancouver were as empty as a Pigeon Park Savings account. This supposedly progressive city council has spent hundreds of millions of dollars bailing out Olympic projects. Their latest initiative to clamp down on free speech during the 2010 Olympics includes a ban on leaflets, posters, protest signs or megaphones in key parts of the city. Under capitalism in the 21st century, there is no such thing as a third way!
The creation of a new provincial party that tries to put on a left face, while defending the interests of big business could prove to be a disaster for working people in British Columbia. Such a party would only serve the purpose of securing a fourth victory for the BC Liberals. But there may be a silver lining to this cloud. A move like this may also pull some of the worst elements of the NDP along with it. The right wing of the party would likely line up behind Vision’s new initiative. This would force the party to take a harder left stand to differentiate itself from its new rival. That could lead to an opening for socialist ideas within the party and this ultimately is what will inspire working class people to get active. All those that would consider forming this new party were never really with us to begin with. And to them, I say “So long and good riddance!”
Capitalism Versus Science
We are constantly bombarded with the myth that capitalism drives innovation, technology and scientific advancement. We are told that competition combined with the profit motive pushes science to new frontiers and gives big corporations incentive to invent new medicines, drugs and treatments. The free market, we are told, is the greatest motivator for human advance. But in fact, the precise opposite is true. Patents, profits and private ownership of the means of production are actually the greatest fetter science has known in recent history. Capitalism is holding back every aspect of human development and science and technology is no exception.
The most recent and blatant example of private ownership serving as a barrier to advancement can be found in the Ida fossil. Darwinius masillae is a 47 million year old lemur that was recently “discovered”. Anyone and everyone interested in evolution cheered at the unveiling of a transitional species, linking upper primates and lower mammals. Ida has forward-facing eyes, short limbs and even opposable thumbs. What is even more remarkable is the stunning condition she was preserved in. This fossil is 95% complete. The outline of her fur is clearly visible and scientists have even been able to examine the contents of her stomach, determining that her last meal consisted of fruits, seeds and leaves. Enthusiasts are flocking to New York’s Museum of Natural History to get a glimpse of the landmark fossil.
So what does Ida have to do with capitalism? Well, she was actually unearthed in 1983 and has been held by a private collector ever since. The collector didn’t realize the significance of the fossil (not surprising since he is not a paleontologist) and so it just collected dust for 25 years.
There is a large international market for fossils. Capitalism has reduced these treasures, which rightly belong to all of humanity, to mere commodities. Privately held fossils are regularly leased to museums so that they may be studied or displayed. Private fossil collections tour the world, where they can make money for their owners, instead of undergoing serious study. And countless rare specimens sit in the warehouses of investment companies, or the living rooms of collectors serving as nothing more than a conversation piece. It is impossible to know how many important fossils are sitting, waiting to be discovered in some millionaire’s office.
Medical Research
The Pharmaceutical Industry is well known for price gouging and refusing to distribute medicines to those who can’t afford it. The lack of drugs to combat the AIDS pandemic, particularly in Africa, is enough to prove capitalism’s inability to distribute medicine to those in need. But what role does the profit motive play in developing new drugs? The big pharmaceuticals have an equally damning record in the research and development side of their industry.
AIDS patients can pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for the medication they need to keep them alive. In 2003 when a new drug called Fuzeon was introduced, there was an outcry over the cost, which would hit patients with a bill of over $20,000 per year. Roche's chairman and chief executive, Franz Humer tried to justify the price tag, “We need to make a decent rate of return on our innovations. This is a major breakthrough therapy… I can't imagine a society that doesn't want that innovation to continue.”
But the innovation that Mr. Humer speaks of is only half-hearted. Drug companies are not motivated by compassion; they are motivated by cash. To a drug company, a person with AIDS is not a patient, but a customer. The pharmaceutical industry has a financial incentive to make sure that these people are repeat-customers, consequently there is very little research being done to find a cure. Most research done by the private sector is centered on finding new anti-retroviral drugs - drugs that patients will have to continue taking for a life-time.
There has been a push to fund research for an AIDS vaccine and more recently an effective microbicide. But the vast majority of this funding comes from government and non-profit groups. The pharmaceutical industry simply isn’t funding the research to tackle this pandemic. And why would they? No company on earth would fund research that is specifically designed to put them out of business.
Similar problems arise in other areas of medical research. In the cancer field an extremely promising drug was discovered in early 2007. Researchers at the University of Alberta discovered that a simple molecule DCA can reactivate mitochondria in cancer cells, allowing them to die like normal cells. DCA was found to be extremely effective against many forms of cancer in the laboratory and shows promise for being an actual cure for cancer. DCA has been used for decades to treat people with mitochondria disorders. Its effects on the human body are therefore well known, making the development process much simpler.
But clinical trials of DCA have been slowed by funding issues. DCA is not patented or patentable. Drug companies will not have the ability to make massive profits off the production of this drug, so they are not interested. Researchers have been forced to raise money themselves to fund their important work. Initial trials, on a small scale are now under way and the preliminary results are very encouraging. But it has been two years since this breakthrough was made and serious study is only just getting underway. The U of A’s faculty of medicine has been forced to beg for money from government and non-profit organizations. To date, they have not received a single cent from a for-profit medical organization.
The lack of research into potential non-patentable cures does not stop at DCA. There is an entire industry built up around so-called alternative natural remedies. Many people, this author included, are skeptical about the claims made by those that support alternative medicines. Richard Dawkins is quick to point out that “If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine.” But this black and white view does not take into account the limitations placed on science by capitalism. The refusal to fund the testing needed to verify non-patentable alternative medicines has two damaging effects. First, we are kept in the dark about potentially effective medications. And second, the modern-day snake oil salesmen that peddle false cures are given credibility by the few alternative treatments that do work.
Technology and Industry
The manufacturing industry in particular is supposed to be where capitalist innovation is in its element. We are told that competition between companies will lead to better products, lower prices, new technology and new innovation. But again, upon closer inspection we see private interests serving as more of a barrier than an enabler. Patents and trade secrets prevent new technologies from being developed. The oil industry in particular has a long history of purchasing patents, simply to prevent the products from ever coming to market.
Competition can serve as a motivator for the development of new products. But as we have already seen above, it can also serve as a motivator to prevent new products from ever seeing the light of day. Companies will not only refuse to fund research for the development of a product that might hurt their industry, but in some cases they will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone else from doing the same research.
The 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car goes into great detail about the role of big oil companies, auto manufacturers, and the US Federal Government in preventing an alternative vehicle from hitting the road. The film maker claims that auto companies would loose out if an electric vehicle was ever produced because of the simplicity of their maintenance. The replacement parts side of the auto industry would be decimated. Oil companies would see a dramatic reduction in the demand for their products as the world switched to electric vehicles. It is claimed that hydrogen fuel cells, which have very little chance of being developed into a use full technology, are used as a distraction from real alternatives. The film maker blasts the American government for directing research away from electric vehicles and towards hydrogen fuel cells.
But the most damning accusations are against major oil companies and auto manufacturers. The film suggests that auto companies have sabotaged their own research into electric cars. What’s worse, is that oil companies have purchased the patents for NiMH batteries to prevent them from being used in electric vehicles. These are the same batteries that are used in laptop computers and large batteries of this type would make the electric vehicle possible. But Chevron, maintains veto power over any licensing or use of NiMH battery technology. They continue to refuse to sell these batteries for research purposes. Some hybrid vehicles are now using NiMH batteries, but hybrid vehicles, while improving mileage, still rely on fossil fuels.
While the purchasing of patents is an effective way of shelving new innovations, there are certainly other ways the capitalist system holds back research and development. The very nature of a system based on competition makes collaborative research impossible. Whether it be the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry or any other, capitalism divides the best engineers and scientists among competing corporations. Anyone involved in research or product development is forced to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. Not only are these people prevented from working together, they are not even allowed to compare their notes!
Peer review is supposed to be an important piece of the scientific method. Often, major advancements are made, not by an individual group researchers, but by many groups of researchers. One team develops one piece of the puzzle, someone else discovers another and still another team of scientists puts all of the pieces together. How can a system based on competition foster such collaborative efforts? Simply stated, it can’t.
The governments of the world clearly recognize this as a problem; every time they are met with a serious crisis, they throw their free-market ideals out the window and turn to the public sector. It has been argued many times that World War Two was won by nationalization and planning. Capitalism in Britain was essentially put on hold, so that the war effort could be effectively organized. In the United States, such large scale nationalization did not take place, but when it came to research and development, the private sector was not trusted to handle it on their own.
Fearing that the Nazis were developing the atomic bomb, the US government initiated a massive public program to ensure they were the first to wield a weapon of mass destruction. The Manhattan project succeeded where private industry could not. At one point, over 130,000 people were working on the project. The world’s best and brightest were brought together into a massive collaborative undertaking. They discovered more about nuclear fission in the span of a few years, than they had in the decades since the first atom was split in 1919. Regardless of what one thinks of the atom bomb, this was doubtlessly one of the greatest scientific advancements of the 20th century.
Science, technology and economic planning
The ultimate proof of capitalism’s hindrance of science and technology comes not from capitalism, but from the alternative. While the Soviet Union under Stalin was far from the ideal socialist society (something which we have explained extensively elsewhere), its history gives us valuable insight into the potential of a nationalized planned economy. In 1917 the Bolsheviks took control of a backwards, semi-feudal, third world country that had been ruined by the First World War. In a matter of decades, it was transformed into a leading super-power. The USSR would go on to be the first to put a satellite into orbit, the first to put a man in space, and the first to build a permanently manned outpost in space. Soviet scientists pushed the frontiers of knowledge, particularly in the areas of Mathematics, Astronomy, Nuclear Physics, Space Exploration and Chemistry. Many Soviet era scientists have been awarded Nobel prizes in various fields. These successes are particularly stunning, when one considers the state the country was in when capitalism was overthrown.
How were such advancements possible? How did the Soviet Union go from having a population that was 90% illiterate, to having more scientists, doctors and engineers per capita than any other country on Earth in just a few decades? The superiority of the nationalized planned economy and the break from the madness of capitalism is the only explanation.
The first step in this process was simply the recognition that science was a priority. Under capitalism, the ability of private companies to develop science and technology is limited by a narrow view of what is profitable. Companies do not plan to advance technology, they plan to build a marketable product and will only do what is necessary to bring that product to market. The Soviets immediately recognized the importance of the overall development of science and technology and linked it to the development of the country as a whole. This broad view allowed them to put substantial resources into all areas of study.
Another vital component of their success was the massive expansion of education. By abolishing private schools and providing free education at all levels, individuals in the population were able to meet their potential. A citizen could continue their studies as long as they were capable. By contrast, even many advanced capitalist countries have been unable to eliminate illiteracy today, let alone open up university education to all who are able. Under capitalism, massive financial barriers are placed in front of students, which prevent large portions of the population from reaching their potential. When half of the world’s population is forced to live on less than two dollars a day, we can only conclude that massive reserves of human talent are being wasted.
The soviet government immediately tore down all the barriers on science that strangle innovation within the capitalist system. Patents, trade secrets, and private industry were eliminated. This allowed for more collaborative research across fields and a free flow of information between institutions. Religious prejudices that had long held back rational study were pushed aside. One only has to look at the ban on stem-cell research under the Bush regime to see the negative effects religious bigotry can have on science.
But it wasn’t all good news under Stalinism. Just as the bureaucracy hindered the development of the economy, it also hindered certain areas of study. While the many barriers of capitalism were broken down, in some cases new ones were erected as the direction of scientific study was subjugated to the needs and desires of the bureaucracy. In the most extreme cases, certain fields of study were outlawed entirely and leading scientists were arrested and sent to labour camps in Siberia. One of the most outrageous cases was Stalin’s contempt for chromosomal genetics. The study of genetics was banned and several prominent geneticists, including Agol, Levit and Nadson were executed. Nikolai Vavilov, one of the Soviet Union’s great geneticists was sent to a labour camp, where he died in 1943. This ban wasn’t overturned until the mid 1960s. These crimes were not crimes of socialism, but of Stalinism. Under a democratically planned economy, there would be no reason for such atrocities.
Today, it is the task of those interested in science and socialism to learn the lessons of history. Science is being held back by private interests and industry. A lack of resources for education and research keep doors closed to young aspiring minds. Religious interference locks science in a cage and declares important fields of study off-limits. The chains of the free-market prevent meaningful research from being done. Private companies refuse to let new technologies out of their backrooms. Private collectors hold unique and important specimens for their own personal amusement. Potential cures for deadly diseases are tossed aside to clear the way for research into the latest drug to cure erectile dysfunction. This is madness. Capitalism does not drive innovation, but hinders it at every step.
Humanity today is being held back by an economic system designed to enslave the majority for the benefit of a minority. Every aspect of human development is hindered by the erroneously-named free-market. With the development of computers, the internet and new technologies, humanity stands at the doorstep of a bright future of scientific advancement and prosperity. We are learning more and more about every aspect of our existence. What was once impossible, is now tangible. What was once a mystery, is now understood. What was once veiled, is now in plain sight. The advancement of scientific knowledge will one day put even the farthest reaches of the universe at our fingertips. The only thing that stands in our way is capitalism.
The most recent and blatant example of private ownership serving as a barrier to advancement can be found in the Ida fossil. Darwinius masillae is a 47 million year old lemur that was recently “discovered”. Anyone and everyone interested in evolution cheered at the unveiling of a transitional species, linking upper primates and lower mammals. Ida has forward-facing eyes, short limbs and even opposable thumbs. What is even more remarkable is the stunning condition she was preserved in. This fossil is 95% complete. The outline of her fur is clearly visible and scientists have even been able to examine the contents of her stomach, determining that her last meal consisted of fruits, seeds and leaves. Enthusiasts are flocking to New York’s Museum of Natural History to get a glimpse of the landmark fossil.
So what does Ida have to do with capitalism? Well, she was actually unearthed in 1983 and has been held by a private collector ever since. The collector didn’t realize the significance of the fossil (not surprising since he is not a paleontologist) and so it just collected dust for 25 years.
There is a large international market for fossils. Capitalism has reduced these treasures, which rightly belong to all of humanity, to mere commodities. Privately held fossils are regularly leased to museums so that they may be studied or displayed. Private fossil collections tour the world, where they can make money for their owners, instead of undergoing serious study. And countless rare specimens sit in the warehouses of investment companies, or the living rooms of collectors serving as nothing more than a conversation piece. It is impossible to know how many important fossils are sitting, waiting to be discovered in some millionaire’s office.
Medical Research
The Pharmaceutical Industry is well known for price gouging and refusing to distribute medicines to those who can’t afford it. The lack of drugs to combat the AIDS pandemic, particularly in Africa, is enough to prove capitalism’s inability to distribute medicine to those in need. But what role does the profit motive play in developing new drugs? The big pharmaceuticals have an equally damning record in the research and development side of their industry.
AIDS patients can pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for the medication they need to keep them alive. In 2003 when a new drug called Fuzeon was introduced, there was an outcry over the cost, which would hit patients with a bill of over $20,000 per year. Roche's chairman and chief executive, Franz Humer tried to justify the price tag, “We need to make a decent rate of return on our innovations. This is a major breakthrough therapy… I can't imagine a society that doesn't want that innovation to continue.”
But the innovation that Mr. Humer speaks of is only half-hearted. Drug companies are not motivated by compassion; they are motivated by cash. To a drug company, a person with AIDS is not a patient, but a customer. The pharmaceutical industry has a financial incentive to make sure that these people are repeat-customers, consequently there is very little research being done to find a cure. Most research done by the private sector is centered on finding new anti-retroviral drugs - drugs that patients will have to continue taking for a life-time.
There has been a push to fund research for an AIDS vaccine and more recently an effective microbicide. But the vast majority of this funding comes from government and non-profit groups. The pharmaceutical industry simply isn’t funding the research to tackle this pandemic. And why would they? No company on earth would fund research that is specifically designed to put them out of business.
Similar problems arise in other areas of medical research. In the cancer field an extremely promising drug was discovered in early 2007. Researchers at the University of Alberta discovered that a simple molecule DCA can reactivate mitochondria in cancer cells, allowing them to die like normal cells. DCA was found to be extremely effective against many forms of cancer in the laboratory and shows promise for being an actual cure for cancer. DCA has been used for decades to treat people with mitochondria disorders. Its effects on the human body are therefore well known, making the development process much simpler.
But clinical trials of DCA have been slowed by funding issues. DCA is not patented or patentable. Drug companies will not have the ability to make massive profits off the production of this drug, so they are not interested. Researchers have been forced to raise money themselves to fund their important work. Initial trials, on a small scale are now under way and the preliminary results are very encouraging. But it has been two years since this breakthrough was made and serious study is only just getting underway. The U of A’s faculty of medicine has been forced to beg for money from government and non-profit organizations. To date, they have not received a single cent from a for-profit medical organization.
The lack of research into potential non-patentable cures does not stop at DCA. There is an entire industry built up around so-called alternative natural remedies. Many people, this author included, are skeptical about the claims made by those that support alternative medicines. Richard Dawkins is quick to point out that “If a healing technique is demonstrated to have curative properties in properly controlled double-blind trials, it ceases to be alternative. It simply...becomes medicine.” But this black and white view does not take into account the limitations placed on science by capitalism. The refusal to fund the testing needed to verify non-patentable alternative medicines has two damaging effects. First, we are kept in the dark about potentially effective medications. And second, the modern-day snake oil salesmen that peddle false cures are given credibility by the few alternative treatments that do work.
Technology and Industry
The manufacturing industry in particular is supposed to be where capitalist innovation is in its element. We are told that competition between companies will lead to better products, lower prices, new technology and new innovation. But again, upon closer inspection we see private interests serving as more of a barrier than an enabler. Patents and trade secrets prevent new technologies from being developed. The oil industry in particular has a long history of purchasing patents, simply to prevent the products from ever coming to market.
Competition can serve as a motivator for the development of new products. But as we have already seen above, it can also serve as a motivator to prevent new products from ever seeing the light of day. Companies will not only refuse to fund research for the development of a product that might hurt their industry, but in some cases they will go to extraordinary lengths to prevent anyone else from doing the same research.
The 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car goes into great detail about the role of big oil companies, auto manufacturers, and the US Federal Government in preventing an alternative vehicle from hitting the road. The film maker claims that auto companies would loose out if an electric vehicle was ever produced because of the simplicity of their maintenance. The replacement parts side of the auto industry would be decimated. Oil companies would see a dramatic reduction in the demand for their products as the world switched to electric vehicles. It is claimed that hydrogen fuel cells, which have very little chance of being developed into a use full technology, are used as a distraction from real alternatives. The film maker blasts the American government for directing research away from electric vehicles and towards hydrogen fuel cells.
But the most damning accusations are against major oil companies and auto manufacturers. The film suggests that auto companies have sabotaged their own research into electric cars. What’s worse, is that oil companies have purchased the patents for NiMH batteries to prevent them from being used in electric vehicles. These are the same batteries that are used in laptop computers and large batteries of this type would make the electric vehicle possible. But Chevron, maintains veto power over any licensing or use of NiMH battery technology. They continue to refuse to sell these batteries for research purposes. Some hybrid vehicles are now using NiMH batteries, but hybrid vehicles, while improving mileage, still rely on fossil fuels.
While the purchasing of patents is an effective way of shelving new innovations, there are certainly other ways the capitalist system holds back research and development. The very nature of a system based on competition makes collaborative research impossible. Whether it be the pharmaceutical industry, the auto industry or any other, capitalism divides the best engineers and scientists among competing corporations. Anyone involved in research or product development is forced to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. Not only are these people prevented from working together, they are not even allowed to compare their notes!
Peer review is supposed to be an important piece of the scientific method. Often, major advancements are made, not by an individual group researchers, but by many groups of researchers. One team develops one piece of the puzzle, someone else discovers another and still another team of scientists puts all of the pieces together. How can a system based on competition foster such collaborative efforts? Simply stated, it can’t.
The governments of the world clearly recognize this as a problem; every time they are met with a serious crisis, they throw their free-market ideals out the window and turn to the public sector. It has been argued many times that World War Two was won by nationalization and planning. Capitalism in Britain was essentially put on hold, so that the war effort could be effectively organized. In the United States, such large scale nationalization did not take place, but when it came to research and development, the private sector was not trusted to handle it on their own.
Fearing that the Nazis were developing the atomic bomb, the US government initiated a massive public program to ensure they were the first to wield a weapon of mass destruction. The Manhattan project succeeded where private industry could not. At one point, over 130,000 people were working on the project. The world’s best and brightest were brought together into a massive collaborative undertaking. They discovered more about nuclear fission in the span of a few years, than they had in the decades since the first atom was split in 1919. Regardless of what one thinks of the atom bomb, this was doubtlessly one of the greatest scientific advancements of the 20th century.
Science, technology and economic planning
The ultimate proof of capitalism’s hindrance of science and technology comes not from capitalism, but from the alternative. While the Soviet Union under Stalin was far from the ideal socialist society (something which we have explained extensively elsewhere), its history gives us valuable insight into the potential of a nationalized planned economy. In 1917 the Bolsheviks took control of a backwards, semi-feudal, third world country that had been ruined by the First World War. In a matter of decades, it was transformed into a leading super-power. The USSR would go on to be the first to put a satellite into orbit, the first to put a man in space, and the first to build a permanently manned outpost in space. Soviet scientists pushed the frontiers of knowledge, particularly in the areas of Mathematics, Astronomy, Nuclear Physics, Space Exploration and Chemistry. Many Soviet era scientists have been awarded Nobel prizes in various fields. These successes are particularly stunning, when one considers the state the country was in when capitalism was overthrown.
How were such advancements possible? How did the Soviet Union go from having a population that was 90% illiterate, to having more scientists, doctors and engineers per capita than any other country on Earth in just a few decades? The superiority of the nationalized planned economy and the break from the madness of capitalism is the only explanation.
The first step in this process was simply the recognition that science was a priority. Under capitalism, the ability of private companies to develop science and technology is limited by a narrow view of what is profitable. Companies do not plan to advance technology, they plan to build a marketable product and will only do what is necessary to bring that product to market. The Soviets immediately recognized the importance of the overall development of science and technology and linked it to the development of the country as a whole. This broad view allowed them to put substantial resources into all areas of study.
Another vital component of their success was the massive expansion of education. By abolishing private schools and providing free education at all levels, individuals in the population were able to meet their potential. A citizen could continue their studies as long as they were capable. By contrast, even many advanced capitalist countries have been unable to eliminate illiteracy today, let alone open up university education to all who are able. Under capitalism, massive financial barriers are placed in front of students, which prevent large portions of the population from reaching their potential. When half of the world’s population is forced to live on less than two dollars a day, we can only conclude that massive reserves of human talent are being wasted.
The soviet government immediately tore down all the barriers on science that strangle innovation within the capitalist system. Patents, trade secrets, and private industry were eliminated. This allowed for more collaborative research across fields and a free flow of information between institutions. Religious prejudices that had long held back rational study were pushed aside. One only has to look at the ban on stem-cell research under the Bush regime to see the negative effects religious bigotry can have on science.
But it wasn’t all good news under Stalinism. Just as the bureaucracy hindered the development of the economy, it also hindered certain areas of study. While the many barriers of capitalism were broken down, in some cases new ones were erected as the direction of scientific study was subjugated to the needs and desires of the bureaucracy. In the most extreme cases, certain fields of study were outlawed entirely and leading scientists were arrested and sent to labour camps in Siberia. One of the most outrageous cases was Stalin’s contempt for chromosomal genetics. The study of genetics was banned and several prominent geneticists, including Agol, Levit and Nadson were executed. Nikolai Vavilov, one of the Soviet Union’s great geneticists was sent to a labour camp, where he died in 1943. This ban wasn’t overturned until the mid 1960s. These crimes were not crimes of socialism, but of Stalinism. Under a democratically planned economy, there would be no reason for such atrocities.
Today, it is the task of those interested in science and socialism to learn the lessons of history. Science is being held back by private interests and industry. A lack of resources for education and research keep doors closed to young aspiring minds. Religious interference locks science in a cage and declares important fields of study off-limits. The chains of the free-market prevent meaningful research from being done. Private companies refuse to let new technologies out of their backrooms. Private collectors hold unique and important specimens for their own personal amusement. Potential cures for deadly diseases are tossed aside to clear the way for research into the latest drug to cure erectile dysfunction. This is madness. Capitalism does not drive innovation, but hinders it at every step.
Humanity today is being held back by an economic system designed to enslave the majority for the benefit of a minority. Every aspect of human development is hindered by the erroneously-named free-market. With the development of computers, the internet and new technologies, humanity stands at the doorstep of a bright future of scientific advancement and prosperity. We are learning more and more about every aspect of our existence. What was once impossible, is now tangible. What was once a mystery, is now understood. What was once veiled, is now in plain sight. The advancement of scientific knowledge will one day put even the farthest reaches of the universe at our fingertips. The only thing that stands in our way is capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
