Socialist Sonnet No. 176

Exploitation

 

Oldham, Rotherham and Telford, all stained

With children’s tears, as if just these places

Are marked, are being marked, by anguished faces

Distressed through exploitation unrestrained;

Only to be exploited once again

As it suits politicians to sound

Like they are standing on moral high ground.

Apologies will be issued and then

Comes obfuscation by legislation.

Law can’t mitigate what’s tacitly assumed,

That consumers determine what’s consumed;

Economics regulate relations.

Rolling headlines, interviews by the score,

Until victims are invisible once more.

 

D. A.

Can’t stand the heat


The UN has reported that the ten hottest years on record have been in the last decade, including 2024.

Many temperature records were broken last year, and many countries saw a prolonged heatwave. And it’s not just temperatures: while some areas had a reduction in rainfall, in the Philippines there were six typhoons in a thirty-day period.

In the words of a researcher at Imperial College London: ‘Extreme weather is clearly causing incredible suffering in all corners of the world.’

Global heating and other forms of climate change are having devastating impacts on humanity and the planet we inhabit. Capitalism with its profit motive and imperative for growth are behind it.



https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/



Goal is liberation from capitalism

 

How should we react to the news that Elon Musk is unhappy with the present executive committee running British capitalism? Musk is apparently also unhappy with Reform Party leader Nigel Farage and wants to see him replaced.

We’re reminded of the saw that life is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think. Unfortunately, capitalism is, for the majority, no joke.

A Doge was the term used to refer, during the Renaissance to an elected head of Italian city states. Elon Musk is tasked by Donald Trump to run a non-federal executive Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE. The two things are probably unrelated but under capitalism extreme wealth equals extreme power and Musk certainly appears to be intent on having his fingers in many pies.

‘Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has continued to spar online with the top British leadership, suggesting Washington should become involved and “liberate” the Brits from their supposedly “tyrannical government.”

The billionaire conducted a poll on the idea on Monday on his social media platform X, asking users whether “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.” The proposal got a positive reception, with nearly 59% of respondents backing it. More than 1.4 million people voted on the issue in less than 12 hours.

The apparent regime-change suggestion comes amid a continuing attack launched last week by the US-based billionaire against the top British leadership. Musk has targeted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, accusing him of failing to tackle the grooming-gangs issue and to properly investigate numerous assaults on underage girls at the time the incumbent PM headed the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, from 2008 to 2013.’





Considerably richer than yow!


Quelle surprise Rodney, the rich are getting richer. Who would have Eve’d it?

Bees and honey might not guarantee happiness but at the levels noted below it underpins a lot of power. How long until someone shills for them by saying they deserve it because they work hard, not everyone could do it, blah, blah, blah.

Wealth the minority accrues comes from the exploitation of the majority. Does the majority want a truly equal society or not? The answer is in the positive. There’s a lot of expensive advertising (propaganda) issuing every day to persuade everyone that no other type of society is better than the one they have.

Last year witnessed an unprecedented surge in the wealth of the world’s richest individuals. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the combined net worth of the world’s 500 top earners reached $10 trillion for the first time on record in 2024.

The total value of the fortunes tracked by the index stood at $9.8 trillion on Monday, December 30, down slightly from a December 11 peak of $10.1 trillion. This figure is similar in size to the combined GDPs of Germany, Japan, and Australia, according to data from the World Bank.

According to the index, the most significant gains came from tech titans, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jensen Huang. The ten top earners list also includes Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell, and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The eight jointly gained more than $600 billion this year, 43% of the $1.5 trillion increase among the 500 richest people tracked by the index.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk was the biggest gainer in 2024. He saw his fortune more than double from the beginning of the year, reaching $442.1 billion. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta Platforms, also saw substantial gains. His net worth rose to $219 billion, positioning him among the top three wealthiest individuals globally. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose stock nearly tripled in 2024, saw his wealth rise $76 billion, which placed him among the top gainers of the year.

Most of the world’s top earners benefited from the US stock market rally, Bloomberg noted. The S&P 500 Index gained 24% through the end of the year, and the ‘Magnificent 7’, which includes Apple, Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, Microsoft, and Nvidia, accounted for more than half of the benchmark’s performance. Trump’s election victory also had a positive effect on those on Bloomberg’s index, boosting both stocks and digital assets. Combined, the 500 listed billionaires gained $505 billion in the five weeks following the election, or a third of their total for the year.

The ten top earners list has only two representatives from industries other than tech: The founder of the LVMH luxury brand, Bernard Arnault, and Berkshire Hathaway investment guru Warren Buffett.’


Ending poverty doesn’t have to take twenty years

 

Many writers have, through the ages, posited their views of what the future might hold. Some are more successful than others, some miss the mark completely.

Wikipedia describes of Jeffrey David Sachs as ‘an American economist and public policy analyst, a professor at Columbia University, former director of The Earth Institute. He worked on the topics of sustainable development and economic development.’

In a book published in 2005, twenty years ago, Sachs wrote: ‘This book is about ending poverty in our time. I am not predicting what will happen, only explaining what can happen. Currently, more than eight million people around the world die each year because they are too poor to stay alive. Our generation can choose to end that extreme poverty by the year 2025.’

The book, The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen in Our Lifetime, was reviewed in the Socialist Standard, September 2005.

There are various things wrong with this book, the first being the title. Sachs (described on the back cover as ‘probably the most important economist in the world’) is not concerned with doing away with sink estates where children do not get one square meal a day, let alone three, or the culture of pawn shops and loan sharks (which would be classified as relative poverty). Instead he is writing about eliminating absolute or extreme poverty, where households cannot meet basic needs: people are chronically hungry, have no access to health care or safe water, and may lack rudimentary shelter. In 2001, around 1.1 billion of the earth’s population were in extreme poverty. Sachs neatly places things in perspective:

  “Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day – and have died every single day since September 11 – of AIDS, TB, and malaria.”

But even if his proposals were implemented and proved successful, there would still be plenty of poverty in the world.

Ending extreme poverty would of course be very worthwhile, but can capitalism achieve this? Sachs claims that the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 1.5 billion since 1981 (largely due to developments in China). Surely, however, we are entitled to be a little sceptical about such claims: they are based on World Bank estimates, and ignore the extent of poverty still found in China, especially in the countryside. He acknowledges, though, that the extreme poor in Africa have more than doubled in the twenty years to 2001, now being over 300 million, which is a rise even in percentage terms. Yet, he argues, extreme poverty can be got rid of by 2025: the key is ‘to enable the poorest of the poor to get their foot on the ladder of development.’ The way to kick-start things is by comparatively modest amounts of overseas aid, which will mean that households can save more and so increase the amount of seeds and agricultural equipment they have access to and will also allow governments to build roads, sanitation systems and so on; this will snowball and lead on to further development. The first few chapters of the book imply that Sachs has some kind of economic magic wand that he can wave over countries from Bolivia to India, delivering prosperity.

However, his proposals for ‘ending poverty’ are effectively put forward in a vacuum, unencumbered by the existence of a world dominated by one super-powerful nation, a small number of super-powerful companies, and a tiny minority of super-rich capitalists. Sachs accepts that exploitation of poor countries by the rich has happened in the past, but believes that it no longer applies. He also accepts, though without making it explicit of course, a division of the world into owners of the means of production and non-owners. Doing away with this would mean an immediate end to all kinds of poverty – extreme, moderate and relative – without having to wait another twenty years and rely on yet more empty promises.

Paul Bennett

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2020/09/stories-for-boys-2005.html


Growth or no growth?

 Labour are in trouble for not delivering ‘growth’. But given that the planet is being consumed and the climate turned upside down by ever-increasing growth, why doesn’t political success lie with ‘no-growth’ policies?

Because capitalism needs ‘growth’ to deliver profit for that small percentage who own most of the planet’s wealth. Yet scientific research shows we can already produce enough to provide a comfortable living standard for everyone on the planet without overburdening the world’s ecosystem. 

But this could only be implemented within a system of common ownership and democratic control of the world’s resources with production geared to meet needs not profit. As the futurologist William Gibson said: ‘The future is already here. It’s just not being evenly distributed.’



https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 175

New Old Year?

 

Backward facing Janus covers those eyes

That cannot look away from the grim sights

Blighting far, far too many days and nights,

The common realisation of lies,

Told about the military murder

Of expendable civilians

For what will prove to be mere pyrrhic gains.

Then those wild firestorms and floods that occur

As climate changes but policies don’t.

And, so it was, yet another year went,

With capitalism seeming content

And secure in its pursuit of profit.

From the threshold of the old and the new,

Does Janus hold a more positive view?

 

D. A.

January 2025 Socialist Standard Now Available On Line FREE