|
Testing
times
North Korea is trying to
blast its way into
becoming a de facto member of the “nuclear club”. The club’s
five
officially recognized members are up in arms, so to speak, by the
nuclear test this state-capitalist regime conducted. “A provocative
act!” says the head of the club’s senior member-nation, while
another leader, not to be outdone, denounces the nuclear test as “a
flagrant and brazen violation of international opinion”. Like
“old-money” members of an exclusive golf club, the nuclear powers
have hurled abuse on the tacky upstart who dares to seek membership,
overlooking how much the two sides have in common.
The “responsible”
nations, so appalled by
the
militarism of Kim Jong-il, have stockpiles of nuclear weapons that
the pot-bellied dictator can only dream of obtaining. Lest we think
these weapons are in safe hands, consider how US leaders have talked
openly in recent years of employing nuclear “bunker busters”. And
the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq and
Afghanistan means, in a sense, that the line between “conventional”
and nuclear war has already been crossed. Now the US and its
nuke-wielding brethren, posing as the “international community”,
have taken a break from their armed conflicts to warn us of a grave
threat to civilization. Are we supposed to laugh or cry?
But don’t imagine that
we should back the
nuclear
upstart. Just as we have no reason to prefer a first-generation
capitalist to a third-generation one, as both exploit us, backing
North Korea is simply a different path to the same disaster. Apparently
we are meant to choose between leaving nuclear weapons in
the hands of a few powerful nations, hoping they will not abuse this
privilege, or allowing more nations to have access to such weapons,
at the risk of letting a thousand mushroom clouds bloom.
This is madness but
there is method to it.
Under
capitalism, accumulating deadly weapons, and occasionally using them,
is perfectly rational behavior. Each nation-state, representing the
collective interests of its capitalists (who still keep on fighting
each other tooth and nail), is in a state of perpetual conflict, at
some level or another, with other nation-states, especially those on
its borders. These disagreements tend to revolve around access to
resources, trade routes, national boundaries, and the like. In such
disputes, obtaining an abundance of military hardware tends to
bolster a nation’s powers of persuasion, although draining its
wealth and resources.
Being aware of the logic
behind the arms
race is hardly
reassuring, however, Once armed to the teeth, there is always a
temptation to take the next step and use military force to “resolve”
an issue. Trigger fingers get itchy. In the words of Madeleine
Albright, “What’s the point of having this superb military if we
can’t use it?”. In addition to such hubristic curiosity, wars are
sparked for any number of reasons. A weak country might launch a war
out of desperation or a leader with a tenuous hold on power might
gamble on a military adventure. Or in many cases, each side will show
off its military hardware in the hope of intimidating the other, but
neither will back down. Boom!
Our fate is in the hands
of people who have
no real
concern for our lives. And the horrors resulting from their
calculations and miscalculations are magnified by megatons if nuclear
weapons are involved. We need to free ourselves from this death
spiral. The problem we face is not simply this or that “dangerous”
country, or an “irresponsible” leader, but a lethal capitalist
system that has long outlived its usefulness.
Thought
for food
The
food industry under capitalism is part of the problem of starvation
and malnutrition, not its solution.
Of
all the ways in which capitalism means extremes of poverty and
privilege, deprivation and excess, none is greater than in the
production, distribution and consumption of food. According to Oxfam,
800 million of the world's 6.5 billion population are malnourished,
while two billion have a diet which is lacking in essential vitamins
and minerals. At the same time obesity in the industrialised
countries is on the increase. Obesity is not usually the result of
eating too much good food - it is a working-class condition stemming
from cheap food that adds bulk but not nutrition.
Capitalism
seeks the nourishment of profits, not persons. There is more than
enough food in the world to feed all of its population. But food is
bought and sold, only exceptionally given and taken. Unless people
are the recipients of charity that only nibbles at the problem, those
who have to live on a dollar a day or less struggle to survive and
often die prematurely.
The
capitalist food industry has a number of features that make it part
of the problem of starvation and malnutrition, not its solution. The
market for food means that only enough is offered for sale that will
cover costs and yield an expected profit. Anything more will not be
brought to market because it will either remain unsold or push prices
down. Hence the butter mountains and wine lakes that were the subject
of so much adverse publicity in the 1980s. Small reductions were
made, but the excesses are still there. Something similar applies to
"set aside" — the logic (only to capitalism) of paying
farmers not to grow food that cannot be sold.
Agribusiness
is concerned with getting the best price it can for crops and cattle
with the least possible expense. Scientists are agreed that
artificial hormones injected into animals to fatten them up can be
harmful to humans. Laws have been passed to limit but not abolish
what amounts to poisoning food for profit. A reasonably healthy
workforce is in the interests of employers generally, so we have
consumer protection laws. The consumer who is mainly being protected
is the consumer of labour power - the employing class.
When
ill people are taken to hospital they expect the food they get there
will help them recover. Often not so. Hospitals are among the worst
sources of food poisoning. Hygiene standards are lowered by cuts in
staff costs. Children are also the victims of a business approach to
school meals. According to the Economist (20 May) plans to
improve school meals are causing havoc. Jamie Oliver's
well-intentioned campaign against junk food has made some contracts
between schools and the catering industry unsustainable. The schedule
of lowly-paid dinner ladies assumes they just open packets and heat
up the contents. They don't have time for the labour-intensive
preparation of fresh food.
|
Page
2