Questioning our Axioms: Questions to Consider

In order to make this website more engaging and relevant to today, I have posted some open ended questions worth asking. Obviously there is a bias in this website. Whenever history is explicitly put into a political discourse relevant to today, it argues for or against something. Therefore this website is  propaganda. Propaganda, however, is simply a medium to present a point regardless of the its validity. This section is also more informal than the more historical sections of this website; wikipedia is cited for generally known statistics and laws only and I present my opinion on certain topics. This section falls somewhat outside the narrative of this project but is meant to encourage the viewer to pursue these questions, which if followed could lead to a whole different (but related) research project altogether.

Why is does such a wealth gap continue to exist continue Western nations between the middle class and the corporate business elite?

In the United States, the top 1% of the population (corporate elites) owns 34.6% percent of the wealth (defined as total networth). The other top 19% of the population (small business owners, managerial, and professional class) owns 50.55%. Therefore 20% of the population own 85% percent of the wealth. Wage and salary workers comprise of 80% of the population but are left with just 15% of the wealth. When defining wealth without housing assets, the top percent comprise of an even greater number, with a whopping 42.7 %.1 It is important to note that these are 2007 figures, and the wealth gap has only increased since then.

Do we really have Democracy?

Why is it when I am walking down the escalator at Concordia, I am confronted by a student campaigner self righteously asking me if I have voted in the student elections, yet who has no idea if I have even read up or informed myself on the candidate’s positions on campaign issues (which never materialize besides the parties they throw, which are their primary function anyway)? Indeed, a great faith in North American democracy is a cultural axiom that permeates in Canada and the United States despite its limitations because of:

1. lack of access to honest education regarding campaign issues – Politicians are notoriously known as liars and it is something many citizens take for granted, but actually following that thought process has become taboo in modern media. What is usually considered “political education” on campaign issues comprises of watching campaign adds on T.V or reading the city’s newspaper, which is a form of propaganda delivered by the status quo to maintain itself. Schools are also a system of indoctrination (in addition to education (as argued by Noam Chomsky). The John Molson School of Business  for example teaches students how to become efficient businessmen and accountants, but does not contextualize that money making worldview, by openly discussing its negative consequence in our world. This very topic has been taboo in my experience in History at Concordia University.

2. connections required to run for office – Running for office requires sponsoring, which is largely provided by corporations. Corporations and labour unions can pay to run candidate’s advertisements in national elections by using funds from their general treasuries. A corporation is a person after all;  laws preventing corporations and labour unions from campaign sponsorships are not allowed because they prohibit first amendment rights, according to the Supreme Court.2 Obviously, the dependency on corporate endorsement for national exposure needed by any political candidate limits the possibility of radical candidates emerging, who openly question previous flaws mentioned in our system. In this respect, there is some difference in the political, economic, and social ideals of different parties within a country (Republican vs Democrat and Liberal vs Conservative), but larger questions such as the negative effects of neoliberal globalization, enormous domestic wealth gaps, foreign policy agenda, and corporate-government corruption are largely left unresolved.

What is the role of the in media masking corporate neglect?

Many are aware of corporate neglect regarding environmental issues, whether it be our dependence on oil, the neglect of B.P Oil in the Gulf crisis this last summer, or drilling of the tar sands in Alberta. Actions motivated solely by the intention of making profits has also come at a cost in the Third World (as previously discussed). Corporations are investors the World Bank, regional banks can buy parts of corporations, and corporations can sponsor political campaigns. Regarding corporations in the Third World, Bruce Scott wrote:

“…the unrestricted opening of capital markets in developing countries gives larger firms from rich countries the opportunity for takeovers that are reminiscent of colonialism. It is not accidental that rich countries insist on open markets where they have an advantage and barriers in agriculture and immigration, where they would be at a disadvantage.”3

In addition to this example, many are aware of the classic Nike phenomenon. This is the outsourcing of jobs for cheaper labour, usually to Third World countries, where workers are paid abysmal wages. The establishment of this new corporate infrastructure does little to stimulate long term economic growth in these regions. Why are these matters not openly addressed in the media? Why must we watch the Glenn Becks of the world instead (who is among the highest watched of the American pundits), who gives horribly skewed and inaccurate history lessons on his program every week?

What is human nature? Are these problems irreconcilable within capitalism or not? Does the emphasis on creating profits undermine the cost of these profits in humanitarian terms?

References:

1. Dunhoff, William, “Power in America,” last modified September 2010, http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html.

2. “Campaign Finance in the United States”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States.

3.  Scott, 164.